Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Timothée Chalamet

Formatting

Before making any major changes to the formatting, discuss it here please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

• Restore the single table format. The multiple sections is poorly formatted, bad to navigate and completely unnecessary. It's a throwback to the 1990s when people couldn't code tables nicely. As for claiming it's poor on mobiles, that's not the point at all, especially when there's a massive table at the end already in that format. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said in my edit description, this kind of formatting is not suitable for mobile readers. I would know since that's where I read wikipedia most. A lot of featured lists were formatted in this way, before they were changed. On the new format, it's also very difficult to edit. It's not like TV shows or Movies. People receive a lot more awards in the long run so keeping it in the previous way does not make sense. The rowspan on the previous format is also very difficult to read. We have to think about WP:ACCESS and what formats will be beneficial to most readers. --Ajack15 talk) 13:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Uh, yes actually, the point about mobile readers is very important. I've already explained why the end is like that. This format does not adhere to the policies suggested on WP:ACCESS. --Ajack15 talk) 13:40, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Please be specific on how this fails to meet ACCESS? And in any case, there are tables there which don't meet your preferred version. Mobile is interesting but if you claiming the current version meets ACCESS, you must be wrong. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:54, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I looked at it on my mobile (in landscape mode) and saw absolutely nothing wrong with it. What kind of phone are you using? Mine's just an old iPhone. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:57, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

P.S. "difficult to code" is not relevant. It's not difficult at all (I should know) and we're here for readers, not editors. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 13:58, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I have an old iPhone too. However, I was looking at it in portrait mode, which is what most readers would be looking at it in too. There is no table of contents in portrait mode, and even though there is a table of contents in landscape mode, tables are still not sortable. Say a reader were looking for a certain award for a certain film. Should they just scroll until they pass by it? Why not make it easier from the beginning. As for the "difficult to code", although you're right in the sense that we should be more concerned for readers, there's still no reason to make it difficult to edit.--Ajack15 talk) 14:05, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Well you have a solution, for all readers, the majority of whom will be using PCs. Head for landscape mode. Oh, and the better format can easily be made sortable, why is that being brought up? In fact, it's MUCH better sorting as a single table, like you might want to know "all the awards won in a single year", you can't do that with this old-fashioned flakey format. And I didn't see the specific ACCESS failure points, please be clear. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:11, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The "better solution" is not sortable ON MOBILE. That's kind of my main point here. The single-table format is not user-friendly on mobile. We can't say "most readers use P.C." because that's not something we know. And it doesn't even make sense. Any time anyone's curious about something and want to find it on wikipedia, do they whip out their computer? No. They probably use their phone. We also cannot expect every user to use landscape mode. We have to think of all angles. --Ajack15 talk) 14:17, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Piece of piss, file a bug report to get it to sort in landscape mode. That's no big deal. And take a look at today's featured list. It's split into subsections like you're suggesting here, e.g. television, theatre etc, yet it still can't be read on a mobile. Because the tables are too wide. But we can't code for mobiles which can only display 80 characters horizontally, that's patently absurd. Yet in landscape, it's dandy, like the new format we have for these kinds of tables! Marvellous. In any case, the old fashioned, billions of subsections you couldn't sort across those subsections (many of which had one (1!!!!) entry in any case) so you've kind of lost nothing at this stage, but they can just fix the bug. Job done! The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

The ACCESS failure points are with the rowspan, which I haven't even begun to speak on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Funny that, we've had literal W3C consultants help us with that. Be specific, go ahead, speak on it. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:22, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I for one have vision problems, so to try and navigate the rowspan is difficult already on computer, where it is sortable. On mobile, it's even more difficult. Again, we have to look at all angles. Maybe my experiences are not shared, but we still have to consider that they are. We can make a compromise if you wish (like keeping the separate sections but using table format, such as what's used on the List of awards and nominations received by Meryl Streep page) because this conversation has gone on long enough and we need to make a decision.--Ajack15 talk) 14:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

(ec)Not all, we are in no rush at all. I don't see any benefit in separating "major awards" (what is "major"?? Who decides??) and "critics awards" - if you (as you said in your edit summary) think some of them to be "non-notable" then they shouldn't even be there in the first place. As I've mentioned, we've worked to include ACCESS in our requirements where possible. What portion of our readership has visual impairment which makes "navigating the rowspan" so hard when a decent screen reader (e.g. JAWS) will do that all for them? Meanwhile we have a terrible multi-dozen sectioned article which is of practically no use to the remainder of our readership. We've added row and col scopes, we've added table captions, we've added symbols with colours to denote specific things. ACCESS isn't something we take lightly. But I think you're moving goalposts a bit here, again. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Meryl Streep's list is separated in two since she has over 400 awards. The first table is still 230 awards so should be fine for actors with way less awards like Timothée Chalamet to have just one table. - Brojam (talk) 14:33, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm trying to suggest a solution that would incorporate elements of both formats, whilst still solving the initial issue I had; mobile friendliness. But you only seem to be interested in keeping one format. I'm not suggesting we "code for mobile" I'm suggesting you do the bare minimum of considering it before making large changes such as this. --Ajack15 (talk) 14:39, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I removed that last bit. I wrote it before reading your previous post.--Ajack15 (talk) 14:41, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say that at all. Sorry if you interpreted that way. If we solve the sorting then it's job done, the new format wins on every front. As I directed you, today's featured list (on the main page) uses a similar approach to the old one you prefer, subsections for various types of award, that doesn't display correctly on mobile in portrait. So there's more to it than just trying to suggest the new format here is somehow inaccessible. You're not really telling me what part of ACCESS it fails in any case. "following rowspans"? I don't see that in the guideline. And I have considered what we'd need for the new format to be better on mobile, file a Fabricator bug to get sorting working. Cheers. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:42, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I think we can both agree this conversation has gone on far enough. If you'd like to make the changes, make them and I won't object.--Ajack15 (talk) 14:45, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

In fact, it would serve the readers better to start with that list. Look, for instance, at the Television section. No rowspans, no colspans, and yet even then it doesn't display properly on mobile in portrait mode, nor does it sort. Get WMF to fix those issues on truly simple tables, and who knows, it might just work for the types of table we're discussing here. And as I said, I'm in no rush. I'd prefer this to be solved, but as I noted just here, it appears to not be a factor of the complexity of the table or the coding, more just dodgy implementation of the visualisation of WML tables on mobile in portrait mode. That could (should) be taken up by you with the relevant authorities. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 14:47, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not trying to end the discussion prematurely, I just don't want this to become more hostile than it needs to be, especially since we clearly both have the same objectives here: finding the best format for most readers. --Ajack15 (talk) 15:21, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

As I said, if it's impacting the simplest of tables (such as the one featured from the main page right now), it's a much bigger discussion than just the one taking part at this place. The Rambling Man (Hands! Face! Space!!!!) 15:23, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

I've restored it to the one table format since I plan to nominate it for FLC and that is the format accepted there. - Brojam (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2020 (UTC)