The following is an archived discussion of a featured list 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 promoted by Giants2008 via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 14 September 2020 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame[edit]

List of accolades received by Avengers: Endgame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Surge_Elec (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created this list on 5 September 2019.

Originally the description was this. [2]

However, other users said that the current description is better.

Since the beginning, the awards were ordered by date of ceremony. That has not changed.

Please give your comments / inputs.

Surge_Elec (talk) 16:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason it's still ordered by date of ceremony is that the last one is still ((pending)). After August 1, when the Hugo Award ceremony takes place, we can order it alphabetically. However, we could still do it now. El Millo (talk) 18:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it required to make this FL? If it yes, I'd do it right now. Surge_Elec (talk) 18:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think it has to be ordered alphabetically for achieving FL? Surge_Elec (talk) 19:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've started the process of ordering the awards alphabetically. Surge_Elec (talk) 19:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DONE. I have ordered it alphabetically. Surge_Elec (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
;Comment
  • The sorting in the recipient(s) columns needs a lot of fixing. Anything starting with a " needs to sort on the first actual word. People's names need to sort based on surname, not forename. Also, the sort order in the result column is Won > Runner-up > Pending > Nominated. I would suggest that "Pending" should sort at the bottom.
  • That's all I found - good work overall! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly clarify

"People's names need to sort based on surname, not forename." So, Dan DeLeeuw, Matt Aitken, Russell Earl, and Dan Sudick would be changed to Matt Aitken, Dan DeLeeuw, Russell Earl, and Dan Sudick.

At one place right now, Mark Ruffalo is first, then Josh Brolin. So, Josh Brolin would come first.

No, you don't need to change the order of the names in the cell, but any cell that contains the name of one or more people needs to sort based on the person (or first person)'s surname. So if the cell contains the name Mark Ruffalo (or contains multiple names but lists his first), that cell needs to sort under R, not under M as it does currently. To achieve this you will need to use a sorting template (see WP:SORT#Specifying a sort key for a cell)

Anything starting with a " needs to sort on the first actual word: I didn't get it. Can you show what you mean? So what would this change to: "Payoff One-Sheet" (LA/Lindeman Associates)

A cell that contains that text would need to sort under P. Currently all cells that start with a punctuation mark sort together at the top, which is wrong
Do you mean that these also need to be sorted alphabetically?

Surge_Elec (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope my responses above clarify the situation -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing I just noticed - the St. Louis Film Critics Association row has the recipient in the category column and the category in the recipient column -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from User:SNUGGUMS
  • File:Kevin Feige (48462887397) (cropped).jpg is appropriately licensed
  • Something about using "(won)" when winning a sole nomination doesn't seem grammatically correct, and either way reads awkwardly. Perhaps "(which it won)" would be better.

 Done Surge_Elec (talk) 03:53, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not convinced you need to link receipients (i.e. cast members and movie title) multiple times in the tables
    Comment: I've seen it as a common practice in accolades tables.
    Comment: I've also seen this as a common practice in accolades lists. Surge_Elec (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • MOS:FONTSIZE discourages making text look smaller than it naturally would appear. Doing so needlessly makes it harder on readers' eyes.
     Not done smaller fonts utilized in the same fashion in featured lists like List of accolades received by The Lord of the Rings film series and List of accolades received by Mad Max: Fury Road. They're used sparingly, a total of three times in the whole list.
  • The following terms shouldn't have italics:
  • Walt Disney Studios  Done
  • Marvel  Done
  • Box Office Mojo  Done
  • Rotten Tomatoes  Done
  • CNN  Done
  • Florida Film Critics Circle  Done
  • Comicbook.com  Not done Comicbook.com is a website and belongs in the |website= parameter, which italicizes its content automatically
  • AwardsCircuit  Not done Same that Comicbook.com
  • What makes "Comics Beat" a trustworthy publication?  Done
  • Us Weekly is a subpar source that should be avoided  Done
Comment: You can discuss and decide and we can do accordingly. Surge_Elec (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get through these, and we should be set. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Dones,  Not dones and Comments by El Millo (talk) 02:13, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While I do appreciate how the article has improved, I'm not sure it's appropriate for you of all people to do so when you've already expressed support for the nomination. Either way, using codes to make fonts smaller is frowned upon for good reason, and that also shouldn't be used in other lists. It's easier to read the text without coding that decreases the size. The nominator should get a chance to address my comments. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 02:29, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the use of the ((small)) here template qualifies as sparingly, and it isn't being used in prose but within a table, which, if I understand correctly, at the very least isn't as frowned upon as using it in prose. List of accolades received by American Hustle and List of accolades received by 12 Years a Slave (film), two other featured list that use the ((small)) template in the same fashion; it seems to me this counts as common practice, as I've seen no featured list with parentheticals of this kind not wrapped within the ((small)) template. El Millo (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This I didn't understand. Kindly clarify. Surge_Elec (talk) 04:07, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is all in reference to the (also for Captain Marvel) and (also for Spider-Man: Far From Home) clarifications in the table. El Millo (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Ok. Regarding this, I thought it was fine as it is. If it isn't by Wikipedia standards, you can discuss and decide and we can do accordingly. Surge_Elec (talk) 04:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would remove the "small" code from parentheticals in the table. Also, I forgot to mention that being a website doesn't give something a free pass to be italicized. One can cancel those out by putting italic code in the "website"/"work" parameter, or simply use "publisher" in place of it. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:00, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done  Done As you told. Surge_Elec (talk) 16:05, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: The decision to italicize website in templates such as ((Cite web)) comes from consensus at Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 63#Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment. You can't ask for wide community consensus to be overridden in order for this list to be "improved". Box Office Mojo, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are exceptions to this, also agreed upon at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 20#We should not be italicizing RT, MC and BOM. Also, I would remove the "small" code from parentheticals in the table, you didn't even acknowledge what I showed you, that every featured list I've come across that has these kind of parentheticals has them it a smaller font. The content of these reviews and the requests for improvement must come from policies, guidelines, and common practice found at other good-quality articles of the same kind. El Millo (talk) 16:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Even in List of awards and nominations received by Leonardo DiCaprio, whose nomination you participated in, all the (Shared with ...) parentheticals are wrapped within a ((small)) template, and they were already there in the original featured version. El Millo (talk) 17:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure how I missed that bit in the DiCaprio list, and I probably didn't know of the MOS:FONTSIZE guideline back then, but I regardless did cite that guideline above for removing smaller font coding here and also previously mentioned that other lists shouldn't use that either in their tables. In other words, I did acknowledge it by saying they also shouldn't have implemented it. Just because other lists make a mistake in using something doesn't mean we should repeat that in this page. There is no convincing rationale to make things harder on readers' eyes by decreasing sizes from what they naturally would be. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 17:44, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Guidelines should reflect already existing common practices, and this is clearly a common practice. And it's not like this violates the guideline altogether, since the guideline isn't an outright prohibition of the use of a smaller font. This matter should probably be discussed somewhere else –perhaps in the WP:MOSFILMS–, but it shouldn't, as things stand right now, be an impediment to give this list the featured status, as it clearly hasn't been for all the examples that were listed here before. El Millo (talk) 19:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not exactly a major impediment, but it still detracts from overall quality and it's beyond me why anybody seems to think smaller text is beneficial at all. On another note, when looking through the table, nominations for recipients such as Robert Downey Jr. and Josh Brolin are probably worth mentioning in prose when they got a bunch of those (including multiple wins) for their work in the film. Starting three consecutive sentences with "it" also gets repetitive after reading it again. I would prefer for Surge elec to work on this list in the future when neither of us nominated it for FL. The reviewers shouldn't do too much editing for things they're assessing. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:48, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On that last note: I thought the Supports weren't reviewers, just people that agreed with the proposal in order to get it reviewed. I'll continue with the edits and I'll withdraw my Support from up there. El Millo (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass[edit]

Went through the sources, couldn't find any missing dates, authors or publishers – good job with linking the publishers btw. The only thing I did find was that Dragoncon can probably be linked to Dragon Con? Either way, Pass for source review. Aza24 (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. El Millo (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from Birdienest81 (talk) 01:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
====Comments by Birdienest81====
  • It would by beneficial to mention the Rotten Tomatoes score at the end of the second paragraph.
 Done El Millo (talk) 07:51, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Done El Millo (talk) 08:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is a list of the nominations for the 2019 Seattle Film Critics Society which also includes the actual people that were nominated for Best Visual Effects. I think it is better citation than the one listed for ref 49 since it mentions the actual people nominated.
 Done El Millo (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You could use this article to mention the nominations it received from the St. Louis Film Critics Association.
 Partially done: That one doesn't contain the winners, this one does. El Millo (talk) 08:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Otherwise, I think it is a good list

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:44, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:15, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More