Talk:John Gielgud, roles and awards

Separate awards article

Hello wikipedians,

Hopefully we can all agree, that Sir Gielgud's body of work is far too extensive to be lumped into his already extensive awards content. I created, List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud which I think is a far superior, easy to read, article that gives full attention and room for the awards he has so richly received. Thoughts? I would recommend removing awards content from this article, "John Gielgud, roles, and awards", and renaming it something like "John Gielgud on screen and stage".The One I Left (talk) 12:44, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts are against this proposal. A simpler solution is the deletion of the superfluous List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud, which its creator so richly praises above. It is currently up for discussion at AfD. Comments there are invited.--Smerus (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Smerus. It would have saved a lot of unnecessary work if the proposer had made the suggestion before barging in and creating an otiose (and horribly messy) article subsequently proposed for deletion. Let us keep the info in the one place - much more convenient for users. Incidentally, One I Left, "Sir Gielgud" is a toe-curling solecism. You mean "Sir John" or "Gielgud". Tim riley talk 18:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

"Horribly messy"? Lol I truly don't understand how you consider "List of awards and nominations..." to be messy but not the small cramped awards section in the roles article. The small table as is, is extremely difficult for viewers to comprehend. Also lol at your toe-curling. The One I Left (talk) 12:11, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I propose that sections "roles and awards" be split into a separate page called "List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud". The article with extensive theatre credits could be called, "John Gielgud on screen and stage"? The content of the current page seems to be tackling too much and these sections are large enough to make their own page. The One I Left (talk) 12:55, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Like The One I Left's proposal above, this one is not made in accordance with the requirements of WP:PROSPLIT (as I have advised him here, twice). I therefore reserve any comments until those requirements are met. The proposer having now met the requirements, I comment below. --Smerus (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. The current page is listed as a Wikipedia featured list. The proposer has already created the article List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud, duplicating information from this page. That article is presently the subject of an ongoing deletion discussion, in which it is proposed to convert it to a redirect to this article. The proposer's rationale for splitting the article seems to be motivated by his wish to preserve his own duplication of some of its material. There are many featured lists and articles of this or a similar length; there seems no reason in principle to fragment the present article. On the contrary, there are positive advantages in keeping all this sort of material in a single article, for convenience of reference and context.--Smerus (talk) 16:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. Why make two list articles for the same person, and force readers to go to more than one place, when one list article can contain all of this information and has very clear headings and is easy to navigate? -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. As per the above, I am just not seeing the benefits of this for the reader. Also, I don’t share the rather dismissive views of the Proposer as to the existing article. Neither, presumably, did the community when they made it a Featured List. KJP1 (talk) 18:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Oppose. As KJP1 says, the community has identified the existing list as one of the best lists on EnWikipedia. I realise that the proposer thinks his recent creation is the bees' knees, but tanks on the lawn is not a good way to proceed. Let us go by consensus, and keep the information in one place rather than dispersing it. Tim riley talk 20:44, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Strongly agree I don't see how a small cramped awards section underneath extensive stage and screen credits is helpful to anyone. Gielgud has an breath of awards nominations why not have another article like so many other actors i.e. Laurence Olivier for example. This is the norm, no? It's not like he has one or two nominations. For me as a viewer wanting a quick glance at how many Tony Award of Grammy Award nominations and wins he has, as is now in "roles and awards", it's genuinely confusing rather than the "List of awards and nominations...". The loudest argument against the separate awards article seems to be, "well its there already let's leave it alone", am I correct? Is anyone saying it's actually useful and easy to comprehend at a glance? The page is just overstuffed. The One I Left (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Is is customary for proposers to add an extra "Strongly agree" addition to their own proposals? Seems greedy, and slightly dubious to me, and not in accordance with WP's usual standards. Tim riley talk 00:17, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Lol if it is, I'm sorry man, I can remove it. Just trying to clarify myself. Can you stop with the personal attacks though? The One I Left (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose. As all have outlined above, why make people visit so many pages for information about Gielgud? Keep it on the one page. - the editor formerly known as SchroCat, editing as 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:5CAD:D89E:6ACF:3A3F (talk) 08:08, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Update: in a separate discussion, the article "List of awards and nominations received by John Gielgud" (proposed above as a recipient in any split of this article), has been deleted and converted to a redirect to the present article. It may therefore be appropriate at this stage to seek an editor to assess and close this present discussion. Or of course the proposer may prefer simply to withdraw the proposal.--Smerus (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

• Further update and conclusion of discussion. I have consulted User:Sandstein, a WP administrator, who closed the AFD discussion referred to in my update above, on this PROSPLIT discussion. As can be seen, Sandstein's opinion is "the outcome is pretty clear; a closure is in my view not required." There is one editor in favour of the proposal, and there are 5 editors opposing it. I am therefore removing the PROSPLIT header on the article page and this should I think end the discussion.--Smerus (talk) 15:08, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.