Talk:List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men

Recommendations

This list doesn't meet the FL quality anymore. Please address the following issues or the list will be listed on Featured list removal candidates.

1. Compare your list with List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
2. You need an infobox to list the various numbers of awards and the totals like on List of awards and nominations received by WALL-E.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
3. The list should contain a Date of Ceremony column.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
4. The color codes of the header aren't needed.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
5. Expand the lead 2X.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
6. Green and red color codes would help in differentiating between wins and losses.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 23:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the changes made to the WP:FL? page since this passed in January 2009. I do not see anything on that list of criteria that mandates anything you've noted in regard to standards. So where is the specific discussion and place in criteria mandating the use of the color background "win" or "nomination", that specifies that there is a specific word count for leads (this one has a 3 paragraph lead of about 3K), or Date of Ceremony column required. I do not see a template to use for an infobox and would question why one is required if there isn't a standard template available for use without building a complex table. I can't see that the criteria changed that much to make this list now in jeopardy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The list of criteria didn't change however the standards to satisfy the criteria changed. This list was the first of its kind to be nominated to FL and higher standards are now available. I came to this list through User:Scorpion0422/FL_audit#Media which gives a list of list that may not meet the criteria anymore. 2. The lead isn't that bad but could use a bit of expansion. 3.The list is comprehensive, however the ceremonies date isn't given which is related to the list. 4.The structure is fine too. 5a. Here lies the higher standards. The visual appeal isn't there anymore. A visual distinction between wins and losses would make it easier to compare the results. The infobox with the various awards is also something that is now standard between all list. The colour code of the header is now frowned upon whenever in an FLC.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Some of these points are good recommendations, though they should not be used to push through an FLRC. Infoboxes are not required for articles. The advice to expand the lead is vague; what information should be added? Dabomb87 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Changed to recommendations. You could expand the lead by explaining the overall success and reception of the film. How many Best pictures did it receive and maybe a bit of info regarding top ten lists of critics.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I would like to see the written standards that detail these things. I'm not a fan of ultimatums, which is how your post reads, and then you use as a model a list you created. That's kind of like "do it like me or lose your FL rating". Especially true when the list you are referencing, User:Scorpion0422/FL audit#Media, only says "poorly formatted table" with no other comments and says nothing about visual appeal requiring red and green spaces, nor anything else you've noted. For instance, what does extensive box office information and critical reception have to do with awards ceremonies? Critical response is much better reflected by the awards won, not an aggregate rating from Rotten Tomatoes. And again, there should not be a requirement for an infobox when there is no standardized infobox template to be used. Basically, that's a highly coded table and not an infobox per se. The bottom line for me is that you've not offered a detailed criteria list that outlines these standards. Without that, there's not what I'd consider a fair process for determining the status. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I do think it would be a good idea to institute color to more easily differentiate "Won" from "Nominated" in the table. It's a fairly easy find-and-replace job that I can do, if need be. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Not for persons who have red/green colorblindness, which is a huge consideration in the use of color, although that is probably the least of my concerns in what is being said about sudden problems that will result in delisting. I just basically want to understand how standards are considered changed with no place to reference where that is delineated, and how this went from a userpage referencing table formatting to extend to all the rest. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But adding the color in this case has no affect on colorblind readers, since there is already corresponding text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really concerned about that being done and if you want to do that, I'm fine with it. However, I can't see the difference. I've never been able to find a suitable free-use image for the lead and outside of that and the not an infobox table for the awards count, I don't see that there is a visual difference between this list and the WALL E list. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Generally the standards of a Featured List is defined by the most recent nomination. For example, it used to be that Building lists didn't have to have coordinates in them. This changed with one of the reviewers raising the point at one of the nominations. The criteria is general. You can't work on it without comparing the newest featured lists.

Did the color. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Dabomb87. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Then it's biased, arbitrary and non-standardized criteria that changes on a whim with every new nomination. How can you create a standard of quality with no written place of reference for someone interested in following the standard? If this is the process, it is horribly flawed. If that is the case, then every new list review puts all the ones that preceeded it in jeopardy and makes it impossible to anticipate each new whim. I've been on Wikipedia well over 3 years and I have no clue where to find the most recently passed featured list. Meanwhile, you've not responded to other questions I've asked. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

A Date of ceremony column is missing. This allows comparing who exactly won the award and who competed for the certain award.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 20:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, please address my questions. I raised several key problems with what is being pushed here, and I expect those questions to be given a response. You can't offer a written list regarding changes to criteria that is accessible and clear for anyone to consult and compare and leaving me with only "this is missing". I want to see the written criteria that makes these points explicitly. And please explain how a date of ceremony would allow comparison of who won and who was nominated. There are links that go directly to the individual awards page in almost every instance, and none of those are sorted by date of ceremony. The date of ceremony is absolutely moot for that purpose, and in any small case where it might not be clear, the only date necessary might be the year the award was given, which is obvious from the year of the film. Month and day are meaningless in the context of this. People do not know, nor do I suspect care, about what specific date an awards ceremony occurred. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're asking for criteria. Do u want a guideline saying what exactly a featured list about movies should look like? The criteria for FL encompasses all kinds of lists. The individual lists are compared with the most recent promoted candidates and the various Wikiproject guidelines. This is what I did. I compared the most recent promoted list, incidentally mine, with yours and found the stated differences. The specific ceremonies are more helpful for finding the nominees and winners on Wikipedia. This is imo an improvement. The infobox is helpful for seeing how many awards for each ceremony the film won and how many total nominations and wins the film garnered.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The then recently promoted list List of awards and nominations received by Dexter was why I saw the infobox as a criteria in the FL. That's also a reason why I created the infobox. It's a good overview of the various awards.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I want the link to the page that mandates these specifics that you are saying must be done to this list or you'll list it for removal. Dabomb87 stated quite clearly above that infoboxes are not required. Since he is a very involved FL reviewer, I take him at his word. I also have noted more than once that there is no infobox template for this and what is being used is a highly complex table. If an infobox is required, there should be a standardized template for that. There is no standardized template. Since there is not, and a major FL reviewer has said there is no requirement, I question why that would result in this list being considered deficient.

There is nothing useful that I can find anywhere that would assist anyone in finding the correct awards ceremony by listing the full date of the event. As I stated, every award is directly linked to the Wikipedia page for the specific actual article covering that year's awards ceremony, except for the handful (4 maybe?) that do not have such an article. The awards ceremony page is self-evident and only contain the awards given for that year. Knowing the date of a ceremony doesn't help that at all. A direct link from the name of the awards ceremony is given, month and day are irrelevant and useless, while the year, besides being listed for the film itself already (2007), is already on the awards ceremony page. Further, each separate award is directly linked to the page for that award, again allowing the reader to find the nominees for that year on that Wikipedia article. Again, there are no specific dates for the ceremonies given, only the year, which again, is self-evident. This, to me, is unnecessary information given that context. The Dexter list you noted does not given the specific date of the ceremony.

I have not yet seen a reason to list box office gross or critical reception for an awards list. That is content for the main article on the film and does not have much to do with a list of awards won. By the awards themselves speak more to critic response than a Rotten Tomato aggregate, which isn't specifically critical response. Nor have a seen a word count requirement. The Dexter list you noted above has two paragraphs. This one has three. The word count is similar.

If there is no standardized guideline to follow for FL, I will reiterate that the process is flawed and requires that a person be totally involved in the daily trends and whims of reviewers to know what is required. With no written guidelines for interpretation, the process is arbitrary and each new FL listed effectively jeopardizes all the preceeding lists. This would not then be a valid process that anyone can consult and put into effect. Since you're the one who is suggesting that I either do this or you'll submit the list for removal, you really need to clearly address these concerns with why beyond "that list did it". Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I won't list the list for FL removal. I changed the title already to Recommendations and since the color codes have been applied and the specific ceremonies are already under the Awards titles the list meets FL criteria. When I was nominating my list it was requested from me to have a column about ceremony dates. That's why I requested it here... I had it in your format first but then changed it to the Year column format. Problem is we don't have a guideline for film or Season award lists. This is something that should exist. If you want to collaborate on creating a proposed guideline then users would follow that. Like Discograhies follow MOS:DISCOG ...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 09:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081012134524/http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bfilmb-inoisei-named-best-australian-movie-of-2007/2008/01/22/1200764258404.html to http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/bfilmb-inoisei-named-best-australian-movie-of-2007/2008/01/22/1200764258404.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:04, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081210032930/http://www.daviddidonatello.it/schedaannoultimo.php to http://www.daviddidonatello.it/schedaannoultimo.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of accolades received by No Country for Old Men. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/6OLd0bPT9?url=http://fcca.com.au/award-archive/ to http://fcca.com.au/award-archive/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:31, 1 January 2018 (UTC)