Talk:List of accolades received by Inside Out (2015 film)

Movies for Grownups Awards

As part of the purge begun on December 31, 2015 of awards from non-notable organizations, the entry for Movies for Grownups Awards was removed. This award is given by the AARP. The AARP does have a Wikipedia article and that article has for quite some time mentioned this specific award. Should the award entry really have been purged? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.87.229 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 January 2016‎

That's a good question. Notability isn't inherited, so awards by a notable group with no particular expertise in film might or might not be notable. A notable dating website such as Match.com, for instance, might give a "Movies for Couples Award," but would that be notable? I wouldn't think so. This might be something worth bringing up to WikiProject:Film in general at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Would I just edit Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and make a short section asking for opinions and pointing back to this talk page?

One question is what makes an award notable and another is whether this award meets that criterion. For the first question, an edit comment on the content page specifies that the awarding organization have a Wikipedia article, but just above suggests expertise should (also) be required. As I understand it, the Peoples Choice Awards are voted on by the public, most of whom I doubt have a degree in the subject of cinema, but I think most people would consider them notable. On the other hand, a professional movie reviewer's award might not be notable if it is decided by just an individual.

I am seeing mixed information about how the AARP decides the award: one spot says winners are "chosen by the editors of AARP The Magazine" while there seemed to be a public voting mechanism elsewhere.

That said, I see that websites for People (magazine), USA Today, The Hollywood Reporter, and many others have reported on this year's Movies for Grownups Awards. Whether or not they are notable, they seem to be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.87.229 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 6 January 2016

That's exactly right: Go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and pose the question there. You bring up good points. One clear notability factor is whether the awards/organization have a Wikipedia article. Another is the issue of WP:INDISCRIMINATE, where editorial judgment is required so that lists are meaningful. The issue of these particular awards seems like it needs a good discussion. I applaud and encourage your efforts. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:32, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there a third party citation for the award? If an industry magazine, such as Variety, reports it, then it may be worth mentioning here. If nobody cares, then we shouldn't, either. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:51, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

100.36.87.229 brought up a good point about People's Choice Awards. They're voted on by the public, who generally have no expertise on what's voted on. Regardless of their worth or merit, what makes People's Choice Awards "notable" is that they have received significant coverage from the media over the years. Like NinjaRobotPirate said, if AARP's Movies for Grownups has received coverage from reliable sources (from a quick search it looks like they have: The Hollywood Reporter, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, Entertainment Weekly, Deadline, Variety) - then it can be included with a citation to a secondary, reliable source. Lapadite (talk) 10:22, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

I want to mention, lest there be confusion, that the winners for films in 2015 have already been announced, but (according to aarp.org) the ceremony is not until February 8, 2106. Old news website articles report on many winners in attendance at past ceremonies, which makes it seem that the recipients consider the awards notable. Given that the awards are announced in advance, attendance is less of a hurdle, but my quick skim of the articles seemed to show lots of additional famous attendees.

As an alternative to doing a search for websites that cover the awards, I first picked some websites that I am aware of and then checked whether they had coverage. Here are the results. The Los Angeles Times fairly regularly covers the awards: lots is just celebrity photos, but it also has articles. The Houston Chronicle has some coverage, but mostly photos. The Baltimore Sun has occasional coverage. The Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post have very little coverage.

I am not sure how we reach a decision, but if a decision is reached for including these awards, I would rather that someone else update the table of awards.100.36.87.229 (talk) 00:55, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

This is a broader issue than about just one movie, and I urge 100.36.87.229 to bring this up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where a full spectrum of Film Project editors can offer opinions and insights. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:04, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Top-10 lists

An editor appears to be violating WP:FILMMOS, which disallows top-10 lists except for the AFI's. Specifically the MOS says: "Do not add critics' top-ten lists on which a film appears, except on a case-by-case basis subject to consensus." I'm asking him to discuss the issue per WP:BRD. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

And what does MoS say about runner-up mentions? To remove them, too? – --FrB.TG (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I can't imagine that if FILMMOS doesn't want top-10 lists that they'd want the individual components of the top-10 list. Or am I misconstruing the question?--Tenebrae (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: [1] " It was runner-up for Best Animated Film at the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards and San Diego Film Critics Society Awards." --FrB.TG (talk) 15:18, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@FrB.TG: Probably this is a larger issue than just about one more. What do you think about taking this to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film and seeking input from other editors on whether to include 2nd place or 4th place (as I've seen some awards do it) or etc. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of accolades received by Inside Out (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20160303191756/http://www.cinemasight.com/ofta/20th-annual-film-awards-2015/ to http://www.cinemasight.com/ofta/20th-annual-film-awards-2015/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160424165415/http://youngartistawards.org/2016-nominations-2/ to http://youngartistawards.org/2016-nominations-2/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 21 September 2017 (UTC)