Jump to content

Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former FLCList of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
July 12, 2010Featured list candidateNot promoted

Merge proposal

[edit]

This failed at FLC a few weeks ago with a very clear consensus that this should not exist as a standalone list. Bieber has a very small amount of award nominations to his name. It is way too early for him to have this subarticle. At present, the Justin Bieber article is only 35KB long, so I'm not sure why this was even split in the first place. –Chase (talk) 03:02, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - He has enough stand alone work. Merge is unnecessary as he is going to get more nominations as time progresses and it would be pointless to merge, and then create again. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all the user in question who nominated the article previously didn't really have a sense of true GA's and FA's on Wikipedia, but is learning more now. With that said, Oppose, he has enough awards for them to standalone. Candyo32 03:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He only has nine awards. Everything that's here can be reduced to one or two quick paragraphs in the Justin Bieber article. As for your comment that it will have to be recreated again, User:L-l-CLK-l-l, you might want to take a look at WP:EFFORT. –Chase (talk) 03:20, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Neither one of us has invested effort into the article. Candyo32 03:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The point that I am trying to make is that while this may be suitable for a standalone article in coming months, we should not keep this just because the effort would be lost. –Chase (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He has enough for a stand alone article. And how does WP:EFFORT apply to me? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As the comments at the FLC showed, he does not. I'm not saying WP:EFFORT applies to anybody - I didn't check the history to see who was working on the article. It applies to the article: Bieber only has a small amount of achievements and they can easily be listed in the main article. My reply for you to read WP:EFFORT was a response to your comment that we should keep this because we'll (possibly) have to re-split it. –Chase (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reading WP:STAND i failed to find anything indicating this article cannot exist. I could easily be wrong so you you please direct me to the appropriate heading stating a specific length the article must be. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:55, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) WP:STAND, or at least what I took from skimming it, does not seem to mention lists of awards. Something interesting I found in that guideline though, was this quote: "The potential for creating lists is infinite. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination. To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists." Is there really a need to separate nine awards from an article that is not particularly large? –Chase (talk) 04:09, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay so i was correct. So the failed nomination was incorrect as there is no guideline on length of a list. That aside, he has 9 event nominations, 19 individual nominations and 9 wins. Do you really think that can be summed up in 2ish paragraphs? No, it cant. He should have his own page, its only going to continue to grow. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It failed at FLC because it fails 3b of WP:FL?: "it meets all of the requirements for stand-alone lists; it is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article." And sure you can transfer what is in this very short list into prose - see below. –Chase (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, his list of honors may continue to grow, but until it grows to a size where it cannot easily be translated into prose, this does not need to have an article. We don't have to have these "list of awards" subarticles for everyone. –Chase (talk) 05:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I compared your "Suggestion for list-to-prose transfer" to the actual list itself. After comparing the two, I decided to oppose merging this page for the following reasons: One, merging it into this type of prose would probably make it impossible to explain all of Bieber's awards in detail and what type of awards show it is. Two, awards lists should not be written in a prose; they should have awards tables. It would make the Justin Bieber article too big to have all of the awards tables. Therefore, I oppose merging this article. Rp0211 (talk) 06:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For Bieber's nine awards, I highly doubt a table is necessary. And who said the awards had to be in a list? –Chase (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for list-to-prose transfer

[edit]

Since debuting in 2009, Bieber has been nominated for and won several awards. He was nominated for Best New Artist at the 2010 BET Awards, but failed to win. At the Juno Awards of 2010, his EP My World garnered nods for Album and Pop Album of the Year while he was nominated for New Artist of the Year; he did not win any of the awards. At the 2010 MuchMusic Video Awards, he earned two nominations in the International Video of the Year by a Canadian category (winning one for his "Baby" music video, which also won the Ur Fave Video category) and he himself won in the Ur Fave New Artist field. His "One Time" music video was nominated for Favorite International Video at the Myx Music Awards 2010 but did not win.

Bieber won for Best International Arist at the 2010 Italian TRL Awards and Newcomer of the Year at the 2010 Young Hollywood Awards. He was nominated at the World Music Awards in the Best Pop Act and Best New Artist categories but did not win. While the 2010 Teen Choice Awards have not yet taken place, it has been announced that Bieber won four of his five nominations: Album - Pop for My World 2.0, and Male Arist, Breakout Artist - Male, and Music Star - Male for himself (his Fanatic Fans nomination has yet to be announced). His nomination for Best New Artist at the 2010 MTV Video Music Awards is currently pending.

Of course, refs still need to be added and this could maybe be edited a little to be less repetitive, but once that's taken care of, everything's all set. –Chase (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately im still going to oppose as WP:STAND does not give any reason why this perfectly well written article cannot exist. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:23, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur. Candyo32 01:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
STAND may not say anything about it, but to me it makes no sense to make a subarticle for someone's awards when they're not even double-digited yet. I'll leave a message at the awards wikiproject and ask them to take a look at this discussion, since they likely are more knowledgeable about this topic than any of us. –Chase (talk) 03:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. This is an unnecessary WP:CFORK (that's your reason why this "perfectly well written article cannot exist"). It could easily be merged into the article. In future, it may get spun out again if he gains a substnatial many more noms/awards. However, we are not a WP:CRYSTALBALL and to assume he will get more awards is complete original research. So "he is going to get more nominations as time progresses" is not a valid argument. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. I read this whole discussion in horror, until I came to the final comment and someone finally mentioned WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. There are some sane people here after all! --Half Price (talk) 20:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OR and Chrystal..... blah blah blah, i am perfectly aware of these two rules. WP:CFORK is the "creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". Is there another page about his awards? hmmmm, nope. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 21:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rambo's Revenge was clearly referring to Justin Bieber. –Chase (talk) 21:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But it states "creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject". By that technically they do not treat the same subject. It is about Bieber but its not another biography page, this is about his awards. Technically its not the same subject. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As they are about the same person, most users would agree that this is a content fork. And as this person only has nine awards to his name, it is one that happened far too early. Is there any other reason this should be kept as a standalone list, other than that it is a "perfectly well written article" and the OR/CRYSTAL claim that "its only going to continue to grow"? –Chase (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to state the opening again... "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." ...... Unless you give me a direct quote explaining why this cannot exist because of its length then your argument is not valid. Simply stating WP:CFORK is not a valid argument either because as you can see in the text above, its encouraged. As there is no guideline to how big the article must be, i fail to see a reasonable explanation for merging. So as it stands, i still oppose - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 03:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as it says, it is a way of "making articles clearer and easier to manage". But for an article that has only approximately 28KB of readable prose, there's not much to manage right now. And while it is only a rule of thumb, WP:SIZERULE suggests that articles less than 40KB should not be split solely because of length. Which leads me to ask, is there anything else that would need this to be split, other than that it is "perfectly well written"? –Chase (talk) 05:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, you kind of just killed your argument there lol. Justin Bieber article is 36KB. Merging the awards would bring it to about 39-41ish. WP:SIZERULE says "> 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size)". What im about to state is not WP:CHRYSTAL... If you merge, it will have to be split in a week or two, if he died tomorrow the article length would way increase on coverage of his death. If he doesnt die the article size would still go up as new information becomes available. Such as his feature film, his auto-biography thing, maybe more on his tour, ect, ect.... So it is an absolute pointless merge when it will just have to be re-split.- (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 06:01, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Justin Bieber article currently has approx. 28KB of readable prose. Adding in the two paragraphs converting everything in this article to prose would only make it 31. Your last statement is indeed a WP:CRYSTAL violation. How are we to know that if he died, it would gain substantial coverage? How are we to know that his film, autobiography, and tour would gain substantial coverage? How are we to know that his article would quickly grow to a length where we would have to split it? And as WP:LENGTH#No need for haste says, "Do not take precipitous action the very instant an article exceeds 32 KB overall. There is no need for haste, and the readable prose size should be considered separately from references and other overhead." Even if the article hits 40KB of readable prose, it still may not be time to split just then. When we can split this off again is a different discussion entirely, but right now, this list is too short to have as a standalone, his article is not large enough that merging would be an issue, and we have no way of knowing if it will ever be necessary to re-split this (your "we will have to re-split this" argument is totally invalid). –Chase (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ill admit as soon as im proven wrong, but as it stands you have yet to prove this. Your links as guided as they made be are only, as you stated, suggestions, there not delete right this second, set in stone rules. Until a rule, not guideline is provided there is no sufficient evidence for a merge. Simply stating "this list is too short to have as a standalone" is not a valid argument. As i can easily state that it is. And we can argue, yes, no, yes, no ect.... Other people can state merge (too short) and keep (long enough) all they want, but wiki is not a majority and there has yet to be a valid argument for a merge. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 08:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's one way to think of it: Do any of Bieber's peers have their own separate awards article? That is, can you justify a stand-alone article--either by length or by Bieber's significance--that will make sense alongside those already present in Category:Lists of awards by musician? Aristophanes68 (talk) 06:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow this singer, so I don't know who he is closely affiliated with. I'll take a wild chance and go with some of his teen pop contemporaries, the Jonas Brothers and Miley Cyrus, who I do not see in the category. Actually, after a little bit of searching, both of them actually have award subpages that aren't categorized properly. However, Cyrus has 49 awards from 80 nominations, and the Jonas Brothers have won 38 awards from 49 nominations. Bieber has won nine awards from only 13 awards, which may have to do with the fact that he's only been around for a year. Cyrus and the Jonases have been around for quite some time now and their articles are considerably larger than Bieber's, so it would make sense for them to have subpages. Perhaps when Bieber has been around for 5 years like the Brothers or even 9 years like Cyrus, it would be a better time to revisit this discussion the idea of a split. –Chase (talk) 07:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(@Aristophanes68) While appreciate the idea, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument.
(@L-l-CLK-l-l) Please note that Wikipedia:CRYSTAL and original reasearch are policies. Also, by saying we don't have to abide by guidelines (WP:SIZERULE is also a guideline!) only rules (policy) you are Wikipedia:Gaming the system and I would challenge you to find any editor in good standing that agrees with your stance. You are yet to give an argument against merging that isn't some WP:CRYSTAL assumption about Bieber's future or if he died tomorrow. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hush up about Chrystal and OR already, maybe i didn't word it correctly but what i meant by his movie deal and other stuff is i could easily expand on the article itself because there is already so much information available.(200+ news hits) But thats not the main issue, now drop it please. Unfortunately im not "gaming the system" as im not trying to do it in bad faith as the article suggests, thanks though, unfair deletion of an article would be bad faith, im simply trying to keep this article. As i pointed out above, there is no plausible reason for merging. And as to your question on find someone to side with me, if yuou read above i believe Candyo32 has made their opinion on this clear already. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC) Also, i did not make the merge nomination, its Chase's responsibility to give a plausible explanation for the merge, so far this has not been done. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What measure are you using? The readable prose size is only 14 kb. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"You can find the size of a page including the markup in kilobytes [kb] from the page history, and its size in words from search (button) results including the references. " :) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 17:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes and WP:SIZERULE lists the sizes under the heading "Readable prose size" which is measure with a tool such as Wikipedia:PROSESIZE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
L-l-CLK-l-l, several people including myself have provided very valid arguments for why this article should be merged; you on the other hand are the one who has yet to provide a valid argument for why this should not be. Whether or not you're acting in good faith or bad faith, your arguments are still violating WP:OR and WP:CRYSTAL and they are still invalid until you provide better arguments which are in agreeance with wiki policy. –Chase (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lets try this again. Your first argument was WP:STAND = Invalid. I stated "does not give any reason article cannot exist", you replied "STAND may not say anything about it, but to me it makes no sense to make a subarticle for someone's awards when they're not even double-digited yet." Not a valid argument. Then you moved onto WP:CFORK i stated "A content fork is the creation of multiple separate articles all treating the same subject. Content forks that are created unintentionally result in redundant or conflicting articles and are to be avoided. As an article grows, editors often create Summary style spin-offs or new, linked article for related material. This is acceptable, and often encouraged, as a way of making articles clearer and easier to manage." ...... Unless you give me a direct quote explaining why this cannot exist because of its length then your argument is not valid. Simply stating WP:CFORK is not a valid argument either because as you can see in the text above, its encouraged". You then moved onto state "WP:SIZERULE suggests that articles less than 40KB should not be split solely because of length." That is a somewhat valid argument but its only a suggestion, not enough plausible evidence. So as of right now, you have yet to prove a valid argument, sorry, please try again. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You also argue that i have yet to prove why it should stay, well im sorry but arguing your points (which is your job as the nominator is to prove why it shouldnt stay) is why it should stay because you have no valid reason for a merge. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(←) L-l-CLK-l-l, there are numerous reasons why this list should be merged, which I have previously explained. (1) Per WP:SALAT, "To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists." There are only nine awards, and they can be transferred to prose in the main article (which only has 14KB of readable prose) in just two paragraphs. (2) WP:SIZERULE suggests that pages should not be split when less than 40KB of readable prose - Justin Bieber has less than half that amount. (3) While WP:CFORK encourages content forks, that is only when it makes the main article "clearer and easier to manage". At 14KB of readable prose, there is not much to manage right now.

All of my arguments for why this page should be merged are based in several wiki policies. Yours, however, are based in original research, crystal-ball assumptions that this singer will gain more awards, and ignoring guidelines that stand in the way of this list existing as a standalone - all of which are strongly discouraged by wiki policy. I highly suggest you provide guidelines that show why this should remain, because at this point, consensus is leaning strongly in favor of the merge. –Chase (talk) 21:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, fucking drop the Chrystal and OR as i stated them once and then dropped it. Ive told you to leave it alone, it was simply a statement now fucking get over it. My arguments are valid because all of your links either do not state what you say (taken out of context) or are simple guidelines. You newest quote ""To keep the system of lists useful, we must limit the number of lists." is the list not useful? is it stating he has feet, a nose, and eyes? No. So far the consensus is 2 - 2. "While WP:CFORK encourages content forks, that is only when it makes the main article "clearer and easier to manage"." Hmmmm does it not do that? By having its own article does it hurt and threaten the article? Hmmmm, nope. Ive statebefore you can state its too small all you friggen want, i say its long enough, so thats not a friggen valid argument as thats POV. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, you need to be a little more civil before you end up getting reported. Second of all, we use consensus, not voting - they are completely different. And finally, you can say that the Justin Bieber article is long enough to require the split, however WP:SIZERULE says otherwise and Wikipedia is based upon community and discussion, not what one person wants. At this point, you are not even arguing the point of why this should stay anymore; you are being incivil, dismissing guidelines as invalid, and frankly disrupting the process. If you don't want to discuss this without being respectful to other editors, it would be best if you leave so that those of us who wish to calmly discuss the manner can do so.
Now, I don't know where you come off saying that you're not entitled to provide proper arguments, but everyone else who is for the merge is doing so, and if you would not like a merge to happen, I suggest you do the same. So far, all of the arguments for keeping this as a standalone have been "he has enough awards" (WP:SIZERULE suggests that an article may need to be divided at 40KB of readable prose - the Justin Bieber article doesn't even have half that amount yet), "he will get more awards and his article will get bigger" (WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL and "this should be a list, not prose" (I fail to see a policy stating such). This discussion has dragged on and repeated itself long enough. If editors against the merge have no further valid arguments, I think it may be about time to bring this to a close. However, if you all are still willing to continue discussion (without repeating old points or resorting to incivility), I am as well. –Chase (talk) 23:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, yes because "Merge. I read this whole discussion in horror, until I came to the final comment and someone finally mentioned WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. There are some sane people here after all!" and "Merge. This is an unnecessary WP:CFORK" are extremely reasonable arguments. The first one provided no evidence just opinion, and the second is flawed as this is not a CFORK. Another note im not being uncivil as WP:NOTCENSORED im allowed to swear. And unfortunately you have not provided reasonable evidence either as ive been able to argue them. What i do not understand is why are you so for a merge when this article is not a CFORK, its reasonably well written, and theres no reason for it to be in paragraph form. You cannot simply close the discussion because as its sits its 2-2, that would be jumping the gun. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 00:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, please stop counting who is for the merge and who isn't. We use consensus on Wikipedia, not voting.
User:Half price0 was, and appropriately so, noting that your arguments were flawed as they were based in WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. And as both this and the main Justin Bieber article are both about Justin Bieber, yes, this is a content fork. This is a list of his achievements and the other is his biography. I don't know what more you want. Everyone else but the people opposing the merge is basing their arguments in Wikipedia policy. You and others are not; you are refuting Wikipedia's guidelines and calling everyone's arguments - which are supported by said guidelines - invalid when they are not so. Since consensus is based on the use of policies and guidelines in arguments, consensus is in favor of the merge as those opposing it are not arguing based in policy.
Yes, this is reasonably well-written, but there is no such policy saying we have to keep it because it is well-written. The main article only has 14KB of readable prose - it is far too early for splitting this up. The two paragraphs I proposed at the beginning of this subsection work just fine and cover everything that is currently in this list. I could ask you the same - why are you so against a merge of two articles that are not very large? –Chase (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And furthermore, you are free to use profanity as you like. However, with or without the expletives, your message was still incivil. –Chase (talk) 00:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that this discussion is absolutely going nowhere. I will request for comment. –Chase (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Just dont see a good argument to merger... this is the way most are done and done so that undue weight of achievements in not overbearing the main articles.Moxy (talk) 03:25, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose agreed in that its no need to overbear the main article when the awards page is sufficient and fine. Candyo32 04:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moxy, I generally would agree with your point, but this is a different case than most. This singer only has nine awards, there's nothing overbearing at this point. And Candyo32, I think you've made your stance on opposition clear above. To avoid confusion of users who may not have taken part in this discussion for its entirety, please do not !vote twice. –Chase (talk) 05:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI there is realy no need to respond to ever edit and opinion. You have asked for comments let them have there own weight.Moxy (talk) 06:08, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have the right to respond to points I don't agree with. However, I will try to slow down with the extreme amount of comments. –Chase (talk) 06:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After reading WP:SIZERULE, it says articles less than 40KB, but more than 1KB do not justify the decision just by length. Rp0211 (talk2me) 06:40, 11 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then may I ask what other reasons there are for keeping this? –Chase (talk) 16:40, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Putting the article in a prose would probably be impossible to do without some type of repetition, which may hurt the quality of the article. Having its own article makes it possible to explain the name of the awards show, what type of awards show it is, and show an organized table of all of the awards and nominations Bieber has received. Rp0211 (talk2me) 23:04, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge The article seems stretched to seem valid in keeping it standalone. Baltro [ talk ] 23:30, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be merged. If you're someone like Michael Jackson, who has won over 380 awards, then it would not be a good idea to have it merged but Justin Bieber only has like 8 awards. So it should be merged.218.186.8.225 (talk) 11:46, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC: Should a list of nine awards be merged?

[edit]

The Justin Bieber article, at present, only has 14KB of readable prose, yet some editors are still adamant that this should remain as a standalone list. Could a neutral party please take a look at this discussion and leave a comment on what should be done? –Chase (talk) 00:40, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Having reviewed everyone's points I think the information could be summarized into two or three paragraphs of prose and merged to Justin Bieber. However I do recognise that the number of awards by for the young artist are likely to grown in time but currently there is not sufficient enough information to warrant a stand alone page. When the section at his page becomes too big (e.g. 15+ awards) then discussion could be reopened about splitting into seperate articles. On the plus side and IMO it is quite well written. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so i guess this will not be merged as per Wikipedia:Article size and all that oppose ... i guess a better understanding of Article size guidelines would have saved us all this time...13:19, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't see any sort of consensus either for or against a merge at this point. And could you explain why this shouldn't be merged per WP:Article size? That seems to say the opposite. –Chase (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
dogma!!! that's not what i see ..correct me if i am wrong but .... not one argument put forth has convinced anyone (even though you have written an assay).. WP:Article size clearly states > 40 KB May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size) no were does it say a minumin size for creating an article. We all clearly believe the main article will increase in size. With both articles together it would be around 39 to 41 kilobytes long (just at the limit that you seem to think is set in stone), unless you plan to delete valid contributions by others in merging this. Pls APPLY common sense here and don't dogmatically follow guidelines - This article is well written references well and has a high traffic count, thus justifying its existence. Also take note that "articles on Wikipedia that are longer then 32 KB will occasional cause problems for users that are using older browsers (so we have done the right thing here by making sure ALL can read the pages in question). When you read guidelines you must read the whole page and use common sense when applying them. I am realy not sure y you are fighting so hard to merge this? The majority of people have opposed and you have commented on every ones points and still you have not changed anyone's mind. You must not take this things personally and simply except the view of others. Wikipedia:Be bold was applied to this article in its creation and i see no need to revers that move as it was done properly and in good faith. And Pls next time you write your "An editor has requested comment" you should not post your views when asking for comments but rather explain the situation neutrally. Moxy (talk) 22:29, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "> 40 KB May need to be divided". That refers to readable prose, and there is only 14KB of readable prose. With the conversion of this list into two paragraphs that is seen above, it wouldn't make the article that much larger.
  • "We all clearly believe the main article will increase in size." see WP:OR/WP:CRYSTAL.
  • "The majority of people have opposed" My count is 4 opposes, 4 supports. Though I'm not sure how this is a valid point, regardless.
  • "i see no need to revers that move as it was done properly and in good faith." It was also premature. –Chase (talk) 23:15, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
O well my whole point went way over your head i guess... thanks for showing me links that have already been talk about in this debate. Moxy (talk) 05:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing has gone over my head. I just do not agree with your point at all. Converting this unnecessary page into two paragraphs and merging the information into an article with 14KB of prose size is compliant with guidelines such as WP:SIZERULE and lets us include the information of two articles into one. –Chase (talk) 05:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stating he is a kid is not a valid reason for a merge. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 04:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but the statement that we should wait to see how many awards he has in a few years is. –Chase (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to this, generally, notable tours, albums, and singles get their own pages on Wikipedia. I'm not so sure if his discography page is needed since he only has a handful of singles, an album, and an EP (that's besides the point, though), but an awards page is definitely not necessary right now. –Chase (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging: prose vs. table

[edit]

I think it's safe to say consensus is strongly in favor of the merge. That now brings us to the discussion of how the content should be merged into Justin Bieber: in the form of prose, or in the form of a table. Here, I provided a suggestion for how the content of this list could be transferred into prose, but that didn't resonate well with some editors. The information could, of course, also be transferred into a table:

Year Nominated work Award Result
2010 "One Time" Myx Music Award for Favorite International Video Nominated
My World Juno Award for Album of the Year Nominated
Juno Award for Pop Album of the Year Nominated
Self Juno Award for New Artist of the Year Nominated
TRL Award for Best International Act Won
World Music Award for Best Pop Act Nominated
World Music Award for Best New Artist Nominated
Young Hollywood Award for Newcomer of the Year Won
MuchMusic Video Award for UR Fave: New Artist Won
"Baby" MuchMusic Video Award for UR Fave: Canadian Video Won
MuchMusic Video Award for International Video of the Year by a Canadian Won
"One Time" Nominated
Self BET Award for Best New Artist Nominated
Teen Choice Award for Choice Music: Male Artist Won
Teen Choice Award for Choice Music: Breakout Artist Male Won
Teen Choice Award for Choice Summer Music Star: Male Won
Teen Choice Award for Choice Fanatic Fans Nominated
My World 2.0 Teen Choice Award for Choice Music: Pop Album Won
"Baby" MTV Video Music Award for Best New Artist Pending

Let's discuss which would be a better method of merging. I personally think the list table works better, as it is the traditional way we convey awards and nominations on most wiki articles. And the prose suggestion I made is rather repetitive. –Chase (talk) 21:48, 28 August 2010 (UTC) –Chase (talk) 19:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • When commenting for RfC I made the comment that the awards should be in prose. I stand by that comment. Using the table format unnecesssarily adds excess size to the article. However (and here's the important bit of what I'm going to say), if consensus goes against my opinion and you decide to keep the table I would seriously recommend using collapsible formatting. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 22:03, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Im leaning more towards table format. With that said i can see positives and negatives in both. With prose would you really want to read paragraphs when you could easily just look at the table to see the information? With the table its more attractive, shorter, easier to manage, but i also agree with lil-unique1's comment that it is large in size, so i would support it being collapsible. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • After originally opposing an article merge, I can see how it could work in the Justin Bieber article, and I know agree with the merge. Therefore, I would agree with having a table format, because it is an easier way to sort out the award information. However, after looking at the example above, I'd personally prefer to see the table arranged by award name rather than nominated work. Rp0211 (talk2me) 01:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just drew one up for Kesha Awards. Its located at "Talk:List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Kesha#Table". Would that be better suited? - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 01:09, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table 2.0

[edit]

Okay, it seems that most people would rather table format. I will draw on up below. (Be aware it still needs references added and may require tweaking if ive made a mistake) - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 19:19, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Year Nominated work Event Award Result
2010 Himself BET Awards Best New Artist Nominated
My World 2.0 Juno Awards Album of the Year Nominated
Pop Album of the Year Nominated
Himself New Artist of the Year Nominated
"Baby" MTV Video Music Awards Best New Artist Pending
"One Time" MuchMusic Video Awards International Video of the Year, by a Canadian Nominated
"Baby" Won
Ur Fave Video Won
Himself Ur Fave New Artist Won
"One Time" Myx Music Awards Favorite International Video Nominated
My World 2.0 Teen Choice Awards Pop Album Won
Himself Male Artist Won
Breakout Artist - Male Won
Music Star - Male Won
Fanatic Fans Nominated
TRL Awards (Italy) Best International Act Won
World Music Awards Best Pop Act Nominated
Best New Artist Nominated
Young Hollywood Awards Newcomer of the Year Won
  • This is fine, but they're not in chronological order like they should be. I'm not sure if the first table I made was fully in order, but if it's not, they are pretty close to what they should be. –Chase (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They should be in order of event. A-Z. That is what i have. - (CK)Lakeshade - talk2me - 22:11, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On awards subpages (like this) awards are grouped alphabetically for easier navigation. Since we're merging it into the main article, we don't have the room to group awards into sections by name like it is currently on this page. Therefore, the awards need to be in chronological order from first received to last received. –Chase (talk) 23:57, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Chronological order seems logical. Like i said earlier if the page then takes long to load use collapsable formatting. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 (talk2me) 00:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments

[edit]

Consensus looks to be in favor of merging this and adding a table (in chronological order) to Justin Bieber. I will try to this sometime within the week, though if anyone else would like to go ahead and do it, that's fine. Adding the merging tags. –Chase (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

think we should wait 3 weeks he has 17 more nominations to go over let alone the others for the end of the year.. {but thats not the Consensus) As i mentioned before a little for-site should have been applied to this merger...From what i can see he has 27 more nominations to go just over the next 6 months...so i guess we will unmerge then. Moxy (talk) 20:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you assuming that he'll get more awards? That's original research... –Chase (talk) 22:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Original research is when you add info that has not yet happen or you think will happen... Pls understand none is adding anything....BUT for-site/ being prepared - is have the intuition to know when things will go a certain way (hes already scheduled to appear and has been nominated for more awards at the MTV in the EU let alone the 7 other EU country awards he going to over the next few months)..What we need is people to think with there heads and not blindly quote rules and guidelines. Original research is not at all what you believe it is {its new knowledge)..like the kids did at America's Got Talent (season 5) ..they made the whole charts even though they will not be filed until the end ..this is not Original research but a smart move in being prepared for the future no mater what the outcome....Like i said above the merge is a waste of time and will have to be reverted in few months as the unduw weight of a huge list of awards and nominations will not be allowed to stay on the main page. Moxy (talk) 00:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is original research to assume he will gain nominations. As you said, it's what "you think will happen". On Wikipedia, we go by facts. In a few months, maybe we can revisit this discussion, but there should be no assuming right now. –Chase (talk) 00:22, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you just dont get it...we are simply waiting to see what happens at the upcoming award shows ...That would be like the MTV ......I am simply tiring to avoid loss of info in the merge that will last only a few months because of what is ALREADY announced. SIDENOTE..ps Chasewc91 i think your one of the best editors in music we have and this debate has no bearing on what i think of you and your great work here on wiki.... Moxy (talk) 00:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So after all this, are we going ahead with the merge? Thanks. —Half Price 19:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I guess if we want to loss info and add undue weight to the main article yes pls do so..as stated before, this is not a smart move and wish some thinking was put forth before this was suggested. I see hes nominated for 7 more things this month alone.Moxy (talk) 23:37, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Pending" awards

[edit]

Could someone please explain what "pending" awards means? Someone has plastered that word in a bunch of awards tables. I've seen awards designated as "nominated" or "won". But how can an award be pending? Has the person won it but just hasn't been formally presented it? Or is this just an editor's wishful thinking that the person might win it? Cresix (talk) 21:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It means that the award has not taken place yet, once the award is over, and the result is issued, by then, you can change it into "Won" or "Nominated". XD SyFuelIgniteBurned 03:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Bieber awards and nominations

[edit]

Justin has 202 awards and 340 nominations Please edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.183.133.80 (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to add Halo Hall of Fame Award to the list?[1] Hurrygane (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Someone also needs to fix the template for Guinness World Records. Hurrygane (talk) 12:15, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ dailymail.co.uk
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber. 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:

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) 12:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on List of awards and nominations received by Justin Bieber. 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:

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) 19:14, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article is so old

[edit]

Hello, the list of this article needs a refresh. There are lot of mistakes and information that not write her. And of course a lot of information that belongs and don’t write it her. Please write or else where open this article for everybody who want to change or rewrite — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.64.212.229 (talk) 16:08, 5 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Refresh

[edit]

The article is very old and don’t change yet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.161.13.85 (talk) 22:02, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_Justin_Bieber&oldid=1188459488"