This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Removed Categories?
editSo why did this get removed from the Children's Lit category, and is not in the Picture book category?
~ender 2008-11-18 5:10:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.12.80 (talk)
Merge
editI propose moving this material to the Caldecott Medal page, primarily to make this page more parallel with the Newbery page but also because I think that has become the general standard on most award pages. -ErinHowarth (talk) 07:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Agree --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:44, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Disagree. The Caldecott Honor page is a big mess of red links. The Caldecott Medal page is concise and useful. There is no harm in keeping them apart. They link to each other clearly. --Knulclunk (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)- The sortable table with the yellow colored cells for winners is inspired. I withdraw my disagreement.--Knulclunk (talk) 14:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- The Honor page is no longer "a big mess of red links." Do you still oppose the merger? --ErinHowarth (talk) 06:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
- Disagree. Just because the "norm" is to put them on one page, it is very helpful to have a page with JUST winners... otherwise you have to print out 9 or 10 pages just to get one page of information.
- It is possible to have it both ways. If the table is sortable, you could put all the winners at the top of the page and just print that page. --ErinHowarth (talk) 06:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Agree - to those who have disagreed, you have to see how ErinHowarth has done fantastic work on other pages with these sortable tables. I think once you see that, your objections will dissolve. Go see if you agree. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 12:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)