Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture/archive1

Golden Globe Award for Best Director - Motion Picture
Thanks to all who commented.

This list has been redone, adding missing years and nominees. I plan to do the same to all Golden Globe Awards lists; Golden Globe Award for Best Motion Picture - Drama just got promoted to FL Status.

Checking against Featured list criteria:

1. It is useful, comprehensive, factually accurate, stable, uncontroversial and well-constructed.
 * (a) the table is "Useful".
 * (b) "Comprehensive": list all the available winners and nominees.
 * (c) "Factually accurate" The list is checked against the official list. Missing nominees are referenced; the meta:cite format is used.
 * (d) (e) (f) "Uncontroversial", "Stable", "Well-constructed": I hope so :-). The table will change once a year.

2. It complies with the standards:
 * (a) the lead summarizes the list scope; there is not much to add.
 * (b) besides the lead, I do not think anything else is necessary.
 * (c) The table of contents is split in decades.

3. Images: The only picture I added is of the award itself. Adding pictures of movies would have to be necessarily fair use, and would clutter the long list.

--Legionarius 17:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Support
 * 1) Cool --Miwanya 21:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oppose For this and the other above:
 * "The awards are presented" only one of each award is presented every year.
 * I'd like to see the leads individualized a bit more so they don,t feel like complete copy-paste jobs. Are there people who won these awards more than once? Are there any relevant description of the criteria that can be used?
 * Circeus 02:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Replace "got" with "received" and link the unlinked movies, and I'll support. Circeus 04:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Replace "got" with "received"✅ and link the unlinked movies✅ (although they are redlinks).--Legionarius 05:41, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Why did no one win the award in 1968? Explanations needed.-- Crzycheetah 08:09, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A fail in my db. Fixed, thanks for the tip!--Legionarius 14:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Why are the winners in gray? Is it a shame that they won the Golden Globe? Are they feeling sad after the win? They need to be in a brighter color like in golden color, for example, since it's a Golden Globe. It should be a standard for all Golden Globe pages, too.-- Crzycheetah 17:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't blame Legionarius. He merely reproduced the color scheme of an earlier FL: BAFTA Award for Best Film. I personally like it. Circeus 17:58, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It gives good contrast in most monitors (like mine, a poor contraption).--Legionarius 18:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, at least in the BAFTA list, there is a row of years that are in bright colors. I strongly feel that there has to be a bright color. We need some bright colors here. It looks dull without it. Currently, this list fails 1(f) because it is not easy to navigate.-- Crzycheetah 19:01, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The BAFTA list has nearly twice the material every year. I was the one to recommend not to add yearly separations for the golden globes because I found them more distracting then useful. Circeus 19:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to state that I do not particularly care about the color. About the comment it is not easy to navigate, for me it looks like the contrast is good enough to tell apart a winner from the nominees, and the years on the left side have enough blank space around to tell apart one year from the other. Now if it is not cheerful enough, this is a matter of personal preference, and as lonk the reviewers agree on a particular color, I will be glad to change it. Light yellow did not look too good in my tests, but may be because of my monitor.--Legionarius 20:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * An to be a little more ambitious, the overall goal would be having a global format that can be used not only for all the GGs, but movie award lists across Wikipedia. Since the BAFTA list was the only FL available, that's where I got the formatting from.--Legionarius 20:28, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Circeus, I agree with you that yearly separations are distracting in this case. I was pointing out that BAFTA has a bright color in its table while Golden Globe does not.-- Crzycheetah 21:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you try and color only the header row (Year, Film, Nominees) and see what the result is? It might give a little bit color to the list without being distracting. CG 18:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is it's hard to notice who the winner is. The winners have to stand out. Dark gray in light gray does not get one's attention as much as a bright color (i.e. Gold) would. It's not 1957, it's 2007; therefore, we may use some colors other than black and white (or gray).-- Crzycheetah 23:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Support now. Geraldk 14:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I created a test page. Please vote in your favorite color below this post. The winner colors all. Grey is a candidate too.:-)--Legionarius 04:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I still think the war on grey is silly, and will favor it over of these. The green is simply horrible. The blue is better than the gold. Circeus 04:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I was trying for a lighter green, but it morphed in this aberration. Not sure why. I changed it to NavajoWhite.--Legionarius 04:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for creating this little test. My overall ranking is gold (because it's golden globe awards), blue, NavajoWhite, and lastly grey. As I opened that test page I could immediately spot the winners, as opposed to when I first opened the original list (I had to read through in order to learn how to find who the winner was).-- Crzycheetah 06:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * 1st choice: Gold, 2nd Blue, 3rd Gray, 4th Navajo White. Geraldk 23:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I took the averages and they are all blue now.--Legionarius 04:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Support -- Crzycheetah 00:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)