Talk:List of accolades received by La La Land

Title

Is the (film) bit of the title necessary? Can't it be moved to List of accolades received by La La Land? Ollieinc (talk) 09:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

This list is technically a sub-article of the main article for the film, so I think it is fair to carry the disambiguation term over. It is fully possible that another topic named La La Land could have their own list of accolades. I don't think it's that big of a deal. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:35, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Moonlight Riff @ Academy Awards?

Seems like it should be mentioned since that was such an historic Oscars moment.. Chaimhailie (talk) 05:20, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

@Super Goku V: @Crboyer:

Agreed and mentioned. – FrB.TG (talk) 19:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of accolades received by La La Land (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://web.archive.org/web/20161220200944/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/component/content/article/148-cfca-nominees-2016 to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/component/content/article/148-cfca-nominees-2016

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

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 10:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 July 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move. Opposers have some compelling points, but at the end of the day, as several support !votes say, parentheses are only used when disambiguation from another subject of the same name is required, and there is no other article titled "List of accolades received by La La Land". It was stated that WP:SHORTFORM is an essay, and therefore carries less weight, but it is really an explanatory supplement of the WP:AT policy, and BD2412 is correct that it lists several examples of articles that do not include the parentheses even when parent articles do. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:18, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

---

List of accolades received by La La Land (film) → List of accolades received by La La Land – Doesn't seem as any of the other subjects called "La La Land" has a page like this. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:6811:9BCC:B583:E38A (talk) 14:38, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• As the main article is currently disambiguated, and is a featured list, this proposed move should seek consensus before being implemented. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:40, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Extended Reasoning – I can understand why this would become a formal move request. My main reason to get rid of "(film)" is because like I said, there is not another accolades article for any other subject called "La La Land". Obviously this would not be the case for the 2010 Showtime show of the same name either, as it only had 6 episodes. Plus, considering this film received six awards at the Oscars (and is even known for being the film that was involved in the biggest Oscars mistake), I think that should suffice for getting rid of "(film)" from this page. 2601:8C:4001:DCB9:6811:9BCC:B583:E38A (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per precedents at WP:SHORTFORM. bd2412 T 15:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

  WP:SHORTFORM is an essay. It's fine to bring up, but it does not have the weight of a policy or guideline. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

• Support nothing to disambiguate. Ribbet32 (talk) 18:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:PRECISION. The main article is at La La Land (film). La La Land is ambigious. If it was at List of accolades received by La La Land, does that refer to something else? The TV series, for example? Or any one of the albums/songs at the dab page. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:06, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per Lugnuts. This article is essentially a sub-article of La La Land (film), which itself is not a primary topic. There is no need to make the list sub-article title more ambiguous than the main article itself. This is precision under WP:CRITERIA to ensure no confusion with awards for other works called La La Land. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:13, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose per the Consistency criterion at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. If the main article has a disambiguated title then I think there is a compelling argument that the sub-articles should adopt the the same disambiguation. To be honest I think the nominator has a sound argument too so it will be interesting to see how this plays out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:26, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support. The current title suggests there is a film named "List of accolades received by La La Land". That is unacceptable. Even if there was another article listing the accolades of another La La Land sufficiently notable for this not to be the primary topic for this title and disambiguation would be required, we would have to find some other way to disambiguate it. But all that's moot because the likelihood of any other use of La La Land having enough accolades to warrant an article on the topic is very small. In the mean time, disambiguation here is totally unnecessary and unjustified. --В²C ☎ 17:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Born2cycle and nominator. I find the disambiguation unnecessary. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:56, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Creating a subheading because I wanted to bring up a related case from WikiProject TV and ask a question that's possibly out of scope here. Almost four months ago, a similar issue came up in WP:TV about naming convention for list articles, particularly using the example of The Flash (1990 TV series) and The Flash (2014 TV series) and if the episode list List of The Flash (2014 TV series) episodes should be moved to List of The Flash episodes because the 1990 series had no episode list. The decision was ultimately that if the main articles have disambiguators, but one of the mains doesn't have a corresponding subarticle list, it is not necessary to use the disambigutor in the subarticle. See also, List of Entourage episodes, which was moved from List of Entourage (U.S. TV series) episodes despite the existence of Entourage (South Korean TV series). Naming convention guideline for TV articles was updated accordingly—see the list article section. (Discussions relating to this are located at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 24#List of Entourage (U.S. TV series) episodes and WT:NCTV#Proposal: Harmonize the text of WP:NCTV with MOS:TV.) The two WikiProjects are different ones with their own conventions and MOSes, but my question is: should there be a larger centralized consensus across WikiProjects over how to handle subarticle lists of disambiguated main articles, or is that best left to more local consensus at the WikiProject, or smaller, level? ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:27, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I assume that is the thrust of WP:SHORTFORM. I don't disagree with it completely, but I feel like we're stuck with technical limitations. We have no way to indicate that a sub-article is indeed a sub-article, which would make it easier to structure content in general (e.g., something like a heading, "La La Land (film) >> List of accolades"). We run into trouble dealing with disambiguation terms that are not at the end -- Category:Western (genre) films is one weird example. So I feel like we're compelled to put the film title at the end. I find that this is workable, and I don't really buy into the push to "clean up" by dropping the disambiguation term here because of the very technical argument that there is no other article called "List of accolades received by La La Land". Such article titles are purely descriptive and not really readily detectable even if we make them more ambiguous. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:37, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Either way the technical issue is decided, I think it would be helpful to place a hatnote, or a more elaborate tag, that the article is a subarticle of La La Land (film)? If (film) stays in the title it is obvious why, and if it goes, upon entering it is made clear where it belongs. Hoverfish Talk 22:52, 20 July 2017 (UTC) - If the term "sub-article" is not acceptable, maybe a wording to this effect instead. Hoverfish Talk 22:56, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I have to confess, I'd never seen the link to WP:SHORTFORM until this discussion. Although it's a moot point, as it's an essay. Note that categories are setup in a way to match their parent article, for example Category:Films directed by David MacDonald (director), even though there is only one David MacDonald who is a film director. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:09, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

That said Music (Madonna (entertainer) album) looks pretty nasty and Music (Madonna album) is definitively unambiguous. I think SHORTFORM is valid in the case of double disambiguation because you should only ever need one disambiguator at most. I am not a fan of disambiguation terms slapped bang in the middle of the name either. List of accolades received by La La Land (film) doesn't look bad because the disambiguator comes at the end so it follows the regular formalism but Category:Western (genre) films looks wrong to me, and I wonder if Category:Western films (genre) would be better; it certainly looks more natural and has the same information value. Betty Logan (talk) 11:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The Western category is a complete can of worms. It's done it's fair share of work at CfD - one, two, three, four... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of accolades received by La La Land. 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://web.archive.org/web/20170129002228/http://www.villagevoice.com/filmpoll/cat/film/2016 to http://www.villagevoice.com/filmpoll/cat/film/2016
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.wafca.com/awards/

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) 00:40, 22 September 2017 (UTC)