Talk:List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Cirt (talk | contribs) at 20:28, 16 January 2011 (→RfC: Removal of sourced info: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 20:28, 16 January 2011 by Cirt (talk | contribs) (→RfC: Removal of sourced info: new section)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Film: Awards / American

	Film portal 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
	This article is supported by the Film awards task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Awards Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Misplaced Pages. 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the Did you know column on 7 November 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know
- ... that in 1988, Bill Cosby became the first recipient to accept a Golden Raspberry Award, for his work on the film Leonard Part 6?
A record of the entry may be seen at Misplaced Pages:Recent additions/2009/November.

Misplaced Pages

Background info

The Background info should stay. It was reviewed in a peer review, and then reviewed again for WP:FL featured list status, for the page 29th Golden Raspberry Awards. It helps to provide background and context about the event. The article should be able to function as a stand-alone page about the subject. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought that featured lists usually had shorter intros (agree about some kind of intro, of course). I do think the extensive word-for-word duplication of many paragraphs between Golden Raspberry Award and this list is a problem, as many people will read both. I have looked at Misplaced Pages:Featured list candidates/29th Golden Raspberry Awards/archive1 and and what I see there is a shorter introduction (which is more focused on the 29th awards rather than the awards in general). I also don't see a WP:FL review for this list; can you supply a link if there has been one? Kingdon (talk) 13:11, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This list has not yet been through that process. I was waiting until the awards ceremony from this year. As long as the intro stays able to function as a stand-alone summary of the entire article's contents, per WP:LEAD, I would not be averse to working out some sort of trimming of it, perhaps slightly. :) Cirt (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Section blanking of sourced info by user Yaksar

followed by = disruptive and not constructive. Please stop. This is sourced info and relevant background info, that should remain in this article. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That section is taken verbatim from the main article, it should not be here as well. Yaksar (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Third opinion requested regarding removals

Yaksar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Three times now, this user has removed a significant amount of sourced material from this article's page - indeed, the user blanked out an entire sourced subsection. This is inappropriate. The info should be restored. It is relevant, noteworthy, and sourced to multiple WP:RS secondary sources. It is a relatively small amount of Background info, which helps to ground the reader in the subject matter. Take for example, the Featured List page on the same subject, 29th Golden Raspberry Awards, which also provides background info. Will request third opinion for first step in dispute resolution here. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

This article already has a substantial informative introduction. The section I deleted simply repeats much of the same material and is taken verbatim from the main article on the awards, which (I think?) is content forking (although I could easily be wrong about that one). There's no need for the entire history of the awards on this page, any more than the page for Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor should include an entire history of the oscars. Thank you. Yaksar (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I added the sourced main article itself, after I had added it to the Featured List article. It is not the "entire history", merely a few sentences of background info. Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor should include a brief background grounding for the reader and history, so that the article is able to function as a stand-alone-piece about what that subject matter is. -- Cirt (talk) 18:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

Taken verbatim from WP:LSC: "Lists should begin with a lead section that summarizes any necessary background information, provides encyclopedic context, links to other relevant articles, and makes direct statements about the criteria by which members of the list were selected." This section that is getting removed is summarizing the background information on the Golden Raspberry Award. This is also not improper content forking because this falls under the section on related articles. Golden Raspberry Award is on the Golden Raspberry Award itself, whereas this article is on the people who have accepted it. The content forking guideline states that related articles will have a lot of material in common.—Reaper Eternal (talk) 18:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Reaper Eternal, for providing this most informative and educational third opinion response. It is most appreciated. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 18:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

But the page already has the necessary background information in the intro. The contested section is basically redundant and gives more info than needed about the awards themselves, and says nothing about those who have personally accepted it. Yaksar (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

In a 4th edit, Yaksar (talk · contribs) has removed even more info two entire paragraphs from the lede , with edit summary of "already written below", seemingly failing to notice that is the very nature of WP:LEAD - to summarize the entire article's contents. -- Cirt (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What I removed was not a summary of the contents below, it was the exact same info but with a few less details. The article is now basically the same points rehashed a few times, and contains multiple redundancies. Yaksar (talk) 18:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. Per WP:LEAD, the lede/intro of the article should be able to function as a stand-alone separate summary of the entire article's contents. This article does that. -- Cirt (talk) 18:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

So let's work on trimming it down then? It shouldn't really say anything beyond a brief summary of what the awards are, and maybe a few sentences on people personally accepting it. As of now, it is far too bulky. Yaksar (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, WP:LEAD and WP:LSC note that leads should summarize the article and that a section of a standalone list should give background information. See Timeline of the Adriatic campaign, 1807–1814, a featured list, for another example of this type of duplication. Also, I do not know of any policy which states that background information should consist of a few sentences. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:24, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Can we at least agree that certain information is repeated and should be deleted? There's no reason that a description of the statuette should be there twice, for example (or at all really. You don't see a description of the oscar statue in the list of best director winners.) Yaksar (talk) 19:29, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is my most recent change ok at least? I assume it is not a controversial change, but if so I can change it back. Yaksar (let's chat) 22:02, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Would it be possible to move this article so it does not use "List of"? It does not appear to count as a list article, since a list is supposed to follow the lead section. Here, the list follows the lead section and nearly 2,000 additional words of prose. It would be worth re-defining the scope of this particular topic to accommodate the text. It reminds me more of a film article with a list of awards toward the end. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree with this suggestion - but what would be the proposed new title for the page? -- Cirt (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

What about "Acceptance of the Golden Raspberry Awards", "Recipients of the Golden Raspberry Award", or "Recipience of the Golden Raspberry Award"? Reaper Eternal (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment – Yaksar is right, this list needs to be pared right down. This article give lots of background and historical information which should really be included at Golden Raspberry Award, not on the list of recipients. In fact, large chunks of this article are copied verbatim from the main Golden Raspberry article so it is redundant to repeat it again. This list should ideally be written in such a way it could be a sub-section of the Golden Raspberry Award article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Having a closer look, I think the text of this article can be fully integrated into Golden Raspberry Award, which is quite a short article. The Background section in this article is pretty much copied verbatim from Golden Raspberry Award so that is covered. The whole of the "History" section in this article could be moved over to the Golden Raspberry Award as a whole new section ("Acceptance of the Razzie" or something along those lines). That would mean all of the textual description on this article could be ditched, and it could be retained as just a basic list. Without the text, there would be no need for such an extensive lede, so you could retain the first two sentences and ditch the rest. That leaves you with just the one textual article at Golden Raspberry Award outlining the origins and background of the event, along with acceptance of the award by the nominees, and a basic list article. I really don't think there is any need to have two separate "text" articles about the razzies since I think all aspects of the award can be adequately covered by just the one article plus a basic list article. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)z

That makes a lot of sense. The text in this covers much more than the list itself as of now. Yaksar (let's chat) 04:00, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No. Oppose merging this article into the Golden Raspberry Award article. Strongly oppose that. If you want to go work on Golden Raspberry Award, go do that. Do not go around making silly proposals to do away with entire articles without even having an actual "Merge" discussion or WP:AFD discussion. Wholesale doing away with articles that have lots of sourcing and took a significant amount of effort to create from scratch, is inappropriate and extremely discouraging. -- Cirt (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Done, moved page title to Acceptance of Golden Raspberry Awards, per above suggestions by Erik (talk · contribs) and Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). Many thanks, great suggestion. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Cleanup

To help improve this article, I'm going to add a cleanup tag to attract attention to it. Hopefully other editors can help to improve it. Yaksar (let's chat) 08:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

No explanation given for disruptive "cleanup" tag action. Removed it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

= "cleanup" tag disruptively added back by Yaksar (talk · contribs), again with zero explanation as to why. -- Cirt (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplicate Sentences

I'm going to start working on cleaning up duplicate sentences, since as of now the article has multiple repeats. Any help or input is appreciated. Yaksar (let's chat) 02:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, that is in the article as per WP:LEAD. Please, leave it. -- Cirt (talk) 19:17, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RfC: Removal of sourced info

Please consider joining the feedback request service.

An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following list:

Media, the arts, and architecture

When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Is the recent removal of sourced info from this article page appropriate? -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Previously involved editors

Comments by Cirt

Brief summary

Recent removal of sourced info from this article page by Yaksar (talk · contribs) is inappropriate.
The respondent from the Third Opinion process agreed with this assessment.
Yaksar has engaged in a pattern of disruption at this page, which resulted in a warning at WP:AN3: "User is warned that any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block."
Despite this warning, Yaksar has continued to remove sourced info from this page, before discussion is finished.

Chronology of disruption by Yaksar

05:23, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "") - No edit summary used. Constitutes vandalism = page blanking with zero edit summary. Yaksar removed entire sourced subsection from page, with zero explanation.
20:26, 12 January 2011 (edit summary: "this information is already in the main article, should not be here")
17:43, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "Undid revision 407862202 by Cirt (talk)")
18:19, 14 January 2011 - From Third Opinion process, respondent Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) weighs in that removals by Yaksar are inappropriate.
18:35, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "already written below")
18:49, 14 January 2011 (edit summary: "intro is far too long and is more than a summary (note: this is only my second reversion)")
19:24, 14 January 2011 - The Third Opinion process respondent, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs), again clarifies that the Background sourced info is appropriate to retain in the article.
20:05, 14 January 2011 - Yaksar receives warning at WP:AN3: "User is warned that any further removals before discussion is finished will result in a block."
21:59, 14 January 2011 - Yaksar violates warning from WP:AN3, removing sourced info from the article before discussion has finished on the talk page.
22:39, 14 January 2011 - Yaksar removes same info, again.
08:35, 15 January 2011 - Yaksar tags the article page with "cleanup" tag - with zero edit summary, and no explanation.
20:05, 16 January 2011 - Yaksar yet again removes info from the article, from the WP:LEAD section, and again adds back "cleanup" tag, with no explanation.

Sourced info should not be removed

The information on the page is appropriately sourced and the Background section grounds the reader within the topic before proceeding on to a more specific discussion of the history. Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs) correctly cited multiple policies which support retaining this material. Yaksar (talk · contribs) should cease removing sourced material from this page, abide by the warning he received at WP:AN3, and defer to talk page discussion and the opinion provided by the Third Opinion respondent, Reaper Eternal (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages