Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille/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 Matthewedwards 07:12, 11 April 2009.

List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille

 * Nominator(s): Diaa abdelmoneim (talk)

I am nominating this for featured list because it has fulfilled all FL criterias and is in my opinion FL quality. It has the required FL prose length and is well referenced from reliable sources. Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment from --  SRE.K.A.L. 24 [c]
 * No categories? --  SRE.K.A.L. | L.A.K.ERS ]] 06:09, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: Is this single-section article really necessary? Why not just grab the table and insert it into Ratatouille (film)?   – thedemonhog   talk  •  edits  07:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Split:The list has been split to List of awards and nominations received by Ratatouille. Having a list of awards in an article is usually not that good. It takes more space than the article itself and should therefore be split to a list by itself. An article should generaly have more prose than lists and a list should have more list content than prose I think. I therefore went on and split the list to a standalone list.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what CB meant was that each award should be in its own section, like the current FLC of List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E, which I also question.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   21:28, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Should it be like List of No Country for Old Men awards and nominations ? Please give an example--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 12:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I did give you an example, the WALL-E list.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   21:53, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
 * I don't see why it can't be at Ratatouille (film). This list is not particularly long.
 * This list is also redundant to the section in List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films). I see no reason why it cannot be there.
 * The page history shows that you just recently created this list, and it is copied verbatim from List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films). It almost seems as if you were splitting and creating a new article just for the purpose of easily getting it featured. Why not work on simply doing that for the large main list?
 * The list should be standardized to be similar to List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E, or else it should be merged back to the main article. Reywas92 Talk  21:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Explanations
 * I split List of Pixar awards and nominations to List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) because of its exhaustive length. After improving List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) it seemed that the split wasn't right after all (this comes after solving an Afd). I should have just made seperate lists for each movie with it's awards. I therefore created List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E and split the contents of the section to it. After I cited everything and put in reliable sources I posted it for FLC. Truco reviewed it and most problems were solved easily. I rearranged the list to be after Awards and hope this solves the problem that is facing this FLC.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

'Question
 * If I edit it to be after the model of List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E would it be enough reason for it to be standalone? The contents of WALL-E on List of Pixar awards and nominations (feature films) will be compressed and contain only prose. I think after I create lists for each film I will post it for deletion as it would be like you said redundant. The idea is that each film of pixar won enough awards to have its Standalone list like List of awards and nominations received by No Country for Old Men which is a featured list. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, Ratatouille didn't have the success as WALL-E, and I tend to agree in a way that this could fit better in the article's section.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   22:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ratatouille was a huge success, maybe not as much as WALL-E, but certainly enough to have an awards page. The list is still incomplete. I will address it tomorrow because it's now 1:00 am. Please look into List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E so I can know what it takes for a list to become featured. I need to know what the problems are so I would fix them in the future without repeated reviews. Thank you, --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically the table format and the type of info in the lead section. Its incomplete? You shouldn't nominate an article for FLC if its incomplete.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   20:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The list is now complete. I thought it was complete when I nominated it, but when I saw all the awards that a film can receive, I found some that Ratatouille received. What do you mean with the table format? Should I make sections for the most important awards and list the rest on an "Other awards" section? And I will expand the prose, but please explain what's wrong with it.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well the table had a column year, but was unexpectedly removed, so hold off on that. So for now, just the lead comment should be addressed before I can fully review.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   23:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can the lead still not be expanded? Or is that all that can be summarized in the lead?--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   15:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Will expand the lead and add the year column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diaa abdelmoneim (talk • contribs)
 * Please also add the year as to when the awards were given to Ratatouille as seen in the WALL-E list.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   02:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Review by  -- I don't know the issues on the table formatting, but from my view its fine. Meets WP:WIAFL standards.--Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   01:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Lead
 * Ratatouille was released to both critical acclaim and box office success, opening in 3,940 theaters domestically and debuting at #1 with $47 million,[1] grossing further $206,445,654 in North America and a total of $624,445,654 worldwide -- add to before $206,445,654
 * It was nominated for five Academy Awards, including Original Score, Achievement in Sound Editing, Achievement in Sound Mixing, Original Screenplay and Animated Feature Film, winning the last one. -- last one should be latter
 * References
 * Ref 10| What is IMDB verifying? Per WP:RS, its not a reliable source. --Best,  ₮ RU  C Ө   01:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * finished all. Done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment Same question I asked in the WALL-E FLC, is there a reason why the table has invisible borders? I tried it as a wikitable and I think it looks more organized and easier to read. By the way, there is an image of Brad Bird with his Oscar, why isn't it used here? -- Scorpion 0422  15:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey nice catch. It's now in the list. Thanks.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I don't think Year is an accurate header. Can you call it something else, such as "Ceremony"? Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Changed to "Date of ceremony". Think this fits better.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 11:49, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I fixed the formatting of the page which was screwed up by the image (I uploaded a cropped version, made it smaller, and added -). Is there a reason why I am being ignored every time I ask about the table format? -- Scorpion 0422  15:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought you fixed the border thing. Anyway, I don't know what you mean by invisible borders. Could you give me an example of uninvisible borders. The new formatting poses a problem because when you expand the infobox it moves the whole list down. --Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Current format with invisible borders:


 * Normal wikitable format:

There you go. And I fixed the table as well. -- Scorpion 0422  16:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is it called invisible borders? It's not invisible in my browser, on the contrary it has thick borders. I changed it anyway. Thank you for this nice explanation--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I think I see what's going on here. I use IE and sometimes it doesn't let me see special border formats. So I could not see any borders between the rows and columns of the table. -- Scorpion 0422  16:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahaa, I just checked it out on IE8. It does look awfull with the invisible borders, but it looks much better than wikitable on Firefox.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:46, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * So the wikitable format doesn't look good on firefox? -- Scorpion 0422  18:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks ok. I just thought having thicker borders would look better.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 18:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite the changes to the FL criteria, I still believe this article warrants being a stand-alone list. Therefore, my support stands. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't oppose a merge, but I support this article. Reywas92 Talk 13:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Despite the new FL criteria, this list is still up to those standards. Still support-- T ru  c o   14:54, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.