Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of awards and honors received by Judy Garland/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 19:49, 8 August 2009.

List of awards and honors received by Judy Garland

 * Notified: User:Otto4711, WP:FILM

Featured list criteria 3b. I'm sure she has more awards, but the list is a fork list, and should be merged into the main article. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I really don't see how this fails 3b. It does note "could not reasonably be included as part of a related article" and the Judy Garland article, currently an FA, is already quite large. Trying to include this list back in would not be useful nor appropriate. This is not a fork, but an appropriate spinout, as defined in Content forking. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try to merge them two in my sandbox, for how it will visually look like, after dinner. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  01:27, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep (nominator and primary author) - list includes 18 awards and nominations along with around 20 additional miscellaneous honors. A list of ~38 is more than sufficient to meet WP:SAL. Judy Garland as noted is a large article and this isn't any more of a content fork than much of the rest of Category:Lists of awards by award winner. Otto4711 (talk) 02:03, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment - This is how it would look like if the article was merged into the main article. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  02:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm on the fence about this one. Going by the award tables alone, yes, we could probably merge. However, the "other awards" section makes me wary. I can be swayed either way. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the award summary table looks awful without a lead image and that the combined awards table doesn't look very good. The size of the lead article with the information added is daunting. Otto4711 (talk) 08:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What I made in my sandbox is only a representation of what the main article could probably look like. Only one sentence is needed in the lead, which would be kind of like "Garland has won five awards, and eighteen nominations." --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're talking about adding a 15K list to an article that's already at 55K. That's 70K. It is suggested at WP:SPLIT that articles larger than 60K should probably be divided. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In terms of prose size, though, the merged article is only 35 kb, well within the limits. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge with Judy Garland. I don't think this article is long enough to stand on its own. Also, there are errors in it. Garland was not "nominated" for the Academy Juvenile Award she was given in 1939, and saying so makes it sound like it was a competitive category. And the Grammy Hall of Fame awards that went to the Meet Me In St. Louis and The Wizard of Oz soundtracks were not Garland's personal awards. LargoLarry (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that this is not a merge/deletion discussion. This FLRC simply determines whether the list meets FL criteria. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case, Delete. LargoLarry (talk) 14:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You mean "Remove". Laugh out loud. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  14:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, REMOVE! LargoLarry (talk) 14:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * "There is no minimum length requirement for Featured Lists; the requirement is that they are comprehensive and that they meet the standards for standalone lists. The article does not state that she was nominated for the Juvenile Oscar. It states she had two nominations, which she did, for A Star is Born and Judgment at Nuremberg, and that she "won" the Juvenile Oscar. If you prefer "Awarded" to "won" then that's an easily-fixed content issue. If you disagree with the inclusion of particular HoF awards, despite Garland's clear and unequivocal contributions to the soundtracks, that is something to take up on the list's talk page. It is not an "error", nor is it a reason for de-listing. Otto4711 (talk) 14:44, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep - I see no valid rationale for why this would be delisted, there has been little change in content from its having been listed a year ago until now that would jeopardize that standing. There's a huge difference between arguing for a merge into the main article and arguing for delisting from a featured list status. Reasons for delisting it are the only ones that should be discussed in a delisting nomination and I see none of those. The main argument here seems to be that the content should be part of the main article, and per Collectonian, the content fork was valid and the main article, which is a featured article, is large enough. The coverage appears as comprehensive as possible. I would note that at least on my browser, the image in the box at the heading makes the rest of the box impinge on the table for the Academy Awards. That may just be a factor of my browser. However, without valid rationale for how this list does not meet FL criteria, the nomination should be closed. Wildhartlivie (talk) 18:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The rationale for putting this up for FLRC was valid – that the article could be considered a content fork and therefore could fail FL criterion 3b. However, editors dispute that the article fails 3b, and that is also valid. AFAICT, nothing has gone wrong here, except that there seems to be a disagreement over whether this article meets 3b or not. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delist/Issues
 * Why is the infobox in non-standard size? It should not have any fixed size.
 * Since the infobox will need to be custom-built, I'm not going to devote the time to it until the outcome of this discussion. There's no point in creating a custom infobox if the list is just going to end up merged (to which I continue to object).


 * I believe in each section before the table, you need to have a sentence that explains the award. Example
 * Done.


 * The Grammy Hall of Fame Recordings section needs to be a part of the other honors section because it's not an award.
 * The Grammy Hall of Fame Award is most certainly an award.


 * Where's the table for Tony awards?
 * I see no need for a table of one item.


 * The other honors section needs to be merged into the main article ASAP because it's a different topic. It doesn't relate to the title of this page.
 * Addressed by title change.


 * As for the 3b criterion, this page definitely fails it. When the other honors section is eventually removed, it will be clearer that this page does not pass the 3b criterion.--Crzycheetah 02:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * With the exception of the concerns over the "other honors" section, all of these concerns are cosmetic fixes. Re "other honors", the list was originally promoted under the name "List of Judy Garland awards and honors" before it was moved in an effort to standardize the names of these lists. However, given that there are various naming formats for lists in Category:Lists of awards by award winner ("Commemorations", "List of recognitions" and at least one other "awards and honors"), if the list were moved back to its original name any concerns about whether something is an "award" or not would be addressed. I really don't understand why having this delisted is suddenly a burning concern after a year in which neither the list contents nor the wording of 3b has undergone any significant changes. Surely if this list were so problematic there would have been something said about 3b during the promotion discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 03:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)


 * At the time of the promotion discussion, there was no such criterion as the current 3b. This page was promoted in July 2008 while the 3b criterion was added in April 2009. It's pretty self-explanatory.--Crzycheetah 04:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still not seeing the problem. A few stylistic fixes address the majority of your issues and 38 separate and distinct awards, nominations and honors seem more than sufficient to justify a separate list. Otto4711 (talk) 06:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Renaming this page creates another problem. Until now, all similar FLs were "List of awards and nominations received by...", this page becomes inconsistent with the others just because you want to include those honors. Also, those stylistic issues need to be addressed regardless.--Crzycheetah 19:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. The idea that half of the contents must be jettisoned in favor of some arbitrary naming standard strikes me as more than a little bit ludicrous, as does the insistence that, say, the only Tony Award that Garland will ever receive needs to be put in a table of one. The infobox, BTW, is a non-standard size because it had to be custom-built; when the list was promoted there was no template that included all of the awards Garland received as parameters. If one exists now I will happily substitute it, otherwise if someone can instruct me on how to build such a template or re-size the existing table I can do that. Otherwise I don't think that a cosmetic issue that can't immediately be fixed should be held against the list. Otto4711 (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why this page should be unique and different than the other awards lists. As for the infobox, you can always look at the example I provided above. All issues can be easily fixed without any major problems.--Crzycheetah 21:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * And I don't see any reason why an article's name shouldn't accurately reflect its contents. As noted above, there is diversity in the naming format of awards list articles. Otto4711 (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The Academy Award and Tony Award nominations are neither awards nor honors that she won, so why are they still here? The title must reflect the content. If it is a list of awards and honors, remove the nominations. If it is a list of awards, honors and nominations, the title should say so. Matthewedwards : Chat  00:30, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that this was renamed from List of awards and nominations received by Judy Garland to List of awards and honors received by Judy Garland and checked the page to see what was being included, and that was before I read the above verbose.
 * Well, [list of awards, nominations, and honors received by Judy Garland]] is a long title. I agree with you Matthew, nominations need to be removed with the current title; at the same time, listing awards without nominations is silly. The best way to go is merge this info into the main article. As SREKAL showed, the main article looks great if merged.--Crzycheetah 00:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't agree that it's great, but reasonable. How about "List of nominations and honors received by Judy Garland"? I won't like it, since it doesn't have the main content in the title, which is of course the awards, but it could work... --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  05:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or, here's a thought, this list that's sat perfectly fine for well over a year could be left alone and editors could find something more constructive to do with their time like actually improving deficient content instead of ridiculously debating whether the current title allows for the inclusion of nominations or whether an honorary award is either an honor or an award. Are there really no other articles on Wikipedia that couldn't benefit from this attention that this perfectly good list has to suffer? Otto4711 (talk) 14:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * First off, this list isn't prefect at the moment, as I believe it is currently failing FL criteria 3b. Also, this nomination isn't ridiculous, as if a list doesn't satisfy all the FL criteria, then it shouldn't be a featured list, and therefore be demoted. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  17:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Otto, no article is WP:PERFECT, not even featured content, and it should still be worked on and improved when possible. As standards increase among featured content, stuff that was promoted a year ago may not have been brought up to those standards. It's the same for lists as it is for articles, pictures, sounds, and portals. This nomination is to discuss whether it meets current standards based on the criteria, and what can be done to improve it, even if it does still meet FL?. If it cannot be improved, then we remove it from WP:FL because it doesn't meet current standards. We aren't deciding here whether it should be merged or deleted, but only whether it can keep the gold star. And featured or not, an article's content should reflect the title. Matthewedwards : Chat  06:44, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Image needs alternative text. Dabomb87 (talk) 18:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Delist & merge Nergaal (talk) 04:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Bare comments mean very little. Otto4711 (talk) 15:59, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.