List of accolades received by Carol (film) is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 5, 2016 Featured list candidate Not promoted June 6, 2016 Featured list candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Awards / British / American List‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the Film awards task force. This article is supported by the British cinema task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Lists List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles List This article has been rated as List-class on the project's quality scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Awards List‑class Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. LGBT studies List‑class This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBT studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBT studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBT studiesLGBT articles List This article has been rated as List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Cowlibob, I meant that they are cited to secondary sources, as article content generally should be; Hollywood Music in Media Awards: The Hollywood Reporter, Indiana Film Journalists Association: Journal & Courier, North Carolina Film Critics Association: The News & Observer. I haven't search for more coverage on the Hollywood Music in Media Awards, but the Indiana Film Journalists Association and Southeastern Film Critics Association do have more: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]; ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. Red linking isn't necessary; articles won't necessarily be created or necessarily should created. They might not meet certain notability criteria for warranting an article. Lapadite (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that we have had multiple discussions related to this on WP:FILM and that the consensus was that we would only include awards from notable organisations hence the redlinking, if articles won't necessarily be created for these organisations in the future then we have to question their inclusion in the list. Cowlibob (talk) 16:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know there's been multiple, messy discussion about indiscriminate lists of awards, I created the last one. I'm referring to the "discriminate" inclusion of awards that have received secondary coverage (cited to secondary sources). There are tons of "non-notable" awards that aren't included here, that I removed myself because they don't have media coverage. Lapadite (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that several cited sources have been changed after an award has been announced. This kind of after-the-fact revising is affecting the reference record and primary source values of the article. A source that lists all the nominations should not be substituted with one that only announces the winner in one or more categories. How are future readers going to know the complete facts of nominations? Instead of erasing original citations and substituting them with "updated" citations, why not leave them in place? It poses no harm to the article to do so, but altering cited sources does do harm to the information available in the future after the updating of accolades has run its course. BTW, I also found at least one URL that had expired and the webpage is no longer available. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I made sure the noms and wins remained appropriately cited. For the Austin Film Critics Association and Houston Film Critics Society, there are two citations - for the nominations and the winners - because reports on the winners don't mention the nominations. Lapadite (talk) 06:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying you were the one doing it, but here's an example:

the inclusion of six nominations under Alliance of Women Film Journalists (Best Film, Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, Best Film Music or Score, Best Woman Screenwriter) is not supported by the citation. The citation now only links to the Winners sans nominees. The nominations appear in the original announcement only: http://awfj.org/eda-awards-2/2015-eda-award-nominees/ Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cited the nominations. Lapadite (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the list of accolades on this talk page, since Wikipedia guidelines, policies, etc. apply to talk pages as well as to article pages, and that list violated Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Accolades. Trying to place disallowed edits on the talk page because they aren't permitted in the article itself is a serious breach of Wikipedia policy. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:36, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stop inventing guidelines and policies. There is NOTHING in Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades that deals with the Talk page. There is nothing in WP:TALK#FACTS that supports your assertion that a list in the TALK PAGE violates any WP policy. The rules that govern editing articles are not the same rules that govern Talk pages. All you are is a bully who wants to rule over the contributions of other Wikipedia editors. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 03:58, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, which says: 1) "The purpose of an article's talk page ... is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page." Posting disallowed content is not discussion about improving the article. Secondly, "it is usually a misuse of a talk page to continue to argue any point that has not met policy requirements." Policy is that we follow consensus, in this case that of WP:FILM. I will also ask you refrain from personal attacks and name-calling, as those are violations of WP:CIVIL. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:44, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Posting disallowed content". Disallowed where? Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines does not address posting a list in the Talk page. WP:FILM does not include the posting of a list in a Talk page. If it's not specifically written in a policy or guideline, if it cannot be specifically found anywhere ... it's your interpretation only. Again you are inventing policies and guidelines THAT DO NOT EXIST in Wikipedia. You're lying. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:06, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, enough with the abusive language. Second, please read what I wrote. The guidelines are clear: Talk pages are solely for discussion of how to improve the article. Anything that is not discussion — such as copy-pasting a list containing things disallowed by WP:FILM — does not go on the page. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"such as copy-pasting a list containing things disallowed by WP:FILM". You're inventing policies/guidelines again. #1: There is nothing in WP:FILM that says a list cannot be created in the Talk page. #2: The list was not copy-pasted. The list was manually created to keep track of all the awards and nominations. Why? Because it's the only way to confirm the total of awards and nominations received by the film (otherwise, it cannot be corroborated and if it cannot be corroborated it is unreliable, and possibly false, information). And that is how you improve an article about a film that has received numerous awards and nominations. Because years from now when articles on the web cannot be accessed or found to confirm a particular award and/or nomination which is not Academy Awards, British Academy, Golden Globes, Screen Actors Guild, etc. -- what researchers, students, and the general public will get from Wikipedia are unsubstantiated allegations. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. You cannot take material that is disallowed in the article and say, "Oh! I'll just get around the rules by putting all that disallowed material on the talk page." Wikipedia does not work that way. If it did, than anyone could put anything they wanted to on a talk page that was removed from an article for violating policy/guidelines/MOS. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"You cannot take material that is disallowed in the article". Point to EXACTLY where it states in the article that a list cannot be posted in the Talk page and link to the EXACT section where this is found. Otherwise, you are inventing policy and guidelines. If you cannot provide evidence that Wikipedia SPECIFICALLY states that a list cannot be posted in the Talk page: this matter goes to the attention of Admins and THEY will make the final decision. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for neutral opinion has been posted in Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. User:Tenebrae has been notified. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I know some editors love this film, and we still cannot disregard Wikipedia MOS and WikiProject Film guidelines. We need to keep a neutral, encyclopedic tone and not use hyperbolic puffery. The film is good enough to stand on its own merits and accolades without us gilding the lily. In particular, WikIProject Film guidelines specifically disallow top-10 lists, and I have adjusted this article accordingly. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Accolades states:

• "Accolades include...presence on lists of critically acclaimed films."

Where it states "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears": this refers to the inclusion of top-ten lists in the accolades table. It does not mean you cannot include the information in the article's narrative of accolades.

I request input from other WP editors and if there is no response to this request, I request that the mass deletion of content be brought to dispute resolution @ Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests before User:Tenebrae makes another edit to this article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, you deliberately misread WP:FILM guidelines to suit your agenda. You're a huge fan of the film. We understand. But that doesn't mean you can flout guidelines. Accolades do not include top-ten lists. Continuing to insert that is disrupting Wikipedia and that will lead to admin intervention. If you want a top-ten list in the article, you have to reach consensus on the talk page, as the guideline clearly states. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want a top-ten list in the article, you have to reach consensus on the talk page, as the guideline clearly states." Consensus was reached when every editor until you accepted the mention of "top-ten" lists in the narrative about accolades. It is your interpretation that mention of such cannot be made nor alluded to. YOU are the one that needs to solicit consensus regarding this matter. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming, as your edit here suggests you may be doing. This would also be part of any dispute resolution or admin intervention. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"I would also warn against canvassing or tag-teaming". Your suspicions and assumptions are unfounded and if the third-party wants to comment about what I wrote, she is free to do so. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between the addition of top-ten lists to the table of accolades ... and the mention of "130 top-ten lists" in the narrative about accolades. A request for neutral opinion has been made. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've reinserted AFI top-ten

A later discussion at FILM MOS agreed to allow prose mention of the AFI top-ten list (not the nominees, and only in prose). I have reinserted that sentence. It remains that no mentions of other top-ten lists are allowed without format talk-page consensus. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is NO discussion in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film (Talk page for MOS:FILM) regarding AFI top-ten list. In the History of the Talk page -- going as far back as "16 February 2010‎‎" -- there is NO summary that even mentions AFI. If you're going to invent and lie, you need to be reminded that claims can be researched. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 00:50, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here: [12]. You know, I'm really getting tired of your abusivness and name calling. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:00, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]