Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Appy Awards/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:06, 3 May 2011.

Appy Awards

 * Nominator(s): The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Haven't done this in a while and I was surprised to see that no such list existed. Built it in one go, and hopefully it's alright. Let me know what you think, and, as ever, thanks for your time and energy in this process. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support As I see no issues. Some third-party sources would be great, but I still support.-- ♫Greatorangepumpkin♫ T 09:42, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oppose – I do not think this is a proper list but instead a regular article on the awards itself. –MuZemike 00:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would agree, but we have many precedents on this, e.g. Orange Prize for Fiction, Templeton Prize, Bodley's Librarian etc etc, and where no main article exists this is the way ahead. Besides, it's hopefully the first in a series of the Appys so, like the Academy Awards, we will hopefully have 1st Appy Awards and 2nd Appy Awards.  Can you describe precisely how it fails to meet the criteria?  Cheers...  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Your examples are different than the Appy Awards. They all have one category each year, while this one has several categories each year. If/When there is a 2nd ceremony, you're going to be forced to move this page to 1st Appy Awards and create a page for 2nd Appy Awards while the Appy Awards page with a FL star is going to be a redirect. I am indifferent right now-- Cheetah  (talk)  02:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * 1st Appy Awards already exists as a redirect to this list. I'm not sure I see the problem here.  The original oppose was that this is "a regular article on the awards itself".  Yes, agreed.  Which is mainly a list, so it's at FLC.  Cheetah, you're now saying something different from that which seems to focus on the fact that once the second set of awards has taken place, I'll need to move this one.  So what?  What part of WP:WIAFL does this fail right now?  Don't forget that there may never be a second set of awards... we've got 12 months to wait to find out... And of course, if this was moved, the FL star would move with it.  Having a redirect with an FL star is absurd. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I never said it failed our criteria. I just can't support a list that has a strong potential of getting moved/demoted in the future.-- Cheetah  (talk)  18:48, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with it being moved in the future. That'll be in a year, if ever.  But thanks for making it clear that the list doesn't fail any of the criteria.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:53, 24 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Two things: As Crzycheetah said above, what if you don't need to have separate articles (I mean, "lists") for each Appy Awards? Moreover, roughly half the page content consists of readable prose, while the other half is the list itself. To me, it does not look like a list but more of a regular article with an embedded list, especially for being the main topic. –MuZemike 20:11, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To reiterate, there is one article and there will be only one article until there's a subsequent award ceremony. (There may not even be another one, who can predict the future?) That means the article is the list or the other way round, however you fancy it.  We have many lists which the "main topic" is just the list.  This is not a precedent.  For another time of asking, where does this fail to meet WP:WIAFL please? The Rambling Man (talk) 20:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * To clarify my comment above, my oppose is not necessarily based on whether or not this fails the criteria, but whether or not this is a list page (which in my opinion is not). Also, I think what Crzycheetah is getting at is that if this is likely going to be moved in the future, this may not meet #6. –MuZemike 20:07, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm shocked that "this may get moved in the future" is a problem here. That (if it happens) will be in 12 months time, and we can deal with the issue then.  Reminder to MuZemike, #6 says :"It is not the subject of ongoing edit wars and its content does not change significantly from day to day" i.e. not subject to edit wars (check) and the content doesn't change from day to day (check), so where's the issue?  The list is inherently stable until proven otherwise.  But I'm beginning to get the feeling I'm fighting an invisible agenda.  It meets all the criteria, and yet two experienced editors see it their own way.  How odd.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Quick comment – Reference 11 (from PC World) needs to have the publisher italicized.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 02:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Publishers are normally not italicised while works generally are. At least that what the template does.  PC World are the publishers of this information in this case so that's why I haven't italicised it. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:43, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but PC World is a printed magazine and we usually italicize print publications, whether through the work parameter or not (usually with it).  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 19:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, so true. PC World actually is also high street store in the UK, but I guess this one is the mag. Mea culpa.  The Rambling Man (talk) 16:12, 23 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Support following TRM's fine initial work as subsequently polished in response to my comments above. As for the discussion above, my thoughts FWIW: (1) It is eligible for FLC and ineligible for GAN and FAC because at heart it is a list with some introductory prose, not an article with a list incidentally attached, per multiple precedents.  (2) It meets the criteria re stability and content. That's all it has to do now. If there's another award, then the list can be updated, either by adding the 2nd awards to this page or otherwise. (Incidentally, as someone who has renamed a FL when altering its scope, the star goes to the renamed page and doesn't remain on the redirect - I'm surprised anyone would think otherwise.) The issue of content can be revisited, if necessary, then. If the reworked page is thought not to deserve FL status, it can be taken to FLRC.  Speculation now that this list may fail the criteria at some unknown point in the future (if, indeed, that point ever arrives) is not appropriate commentary for judging this list against the FL criteria as it and they currently stand. BencherliteTalk 20:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Support It meets the FL criteria, so there is no reason to oppose imo.— Chris! c / t 21:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 *  Comment Support MOS:ITALICS says, in its list of things to be italicised: "Computer and video games (but not other software)". I do not think that mobile device applications should be italicised. Firstly, the are not computer or video games, and many of them aren't games at all. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:21, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, but many of these are games. So would you prefer to see a mixture of italicised and non-italicised titles?  I mean, Angry Birds is clearly a game, clearly italicised in our own good article and is clearly a "computer" or "video" game.  The others, perhaps not quite so.  So, would you prefer me to selectively italicise games only?  It would seem odd to me. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No, I would say keep them all a uniform style. I will support this now, but I strongly advise that you archive the nomination category refs using WebCite because they will probably rot sometime soon. Adabow (talk · contribs) 04:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, good advice. I've seen that starting to happen quite a bit but I hadn't considered doing it myself, so I'll get onto it later today.  Thanks for your comments and support. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.