Size of article[edit]

Now that this article contains an entire decade worth of awards, I wonder if we should think about starting a new one for the next decade? At some point it's going to become unwieldy. (Might be there already, to be honest :P ) --Quasar (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Maybe each yearly Cacowards could get a separate article, and this would be replaced by a full list having only a short paragraph blurb per yearly section, with a "main article: Cacowards YEAR" hatnote. Most of the content in the introduction, presenting the evolution of the award (people leaving, joining, awards retired or introduced, etc.) could be spread out in these short blurbs and taken out of the main section. --Gez (talk) 17:31, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I like Gez's idea, but I wonder if maybe yearly articles would be too short if it's just an introduction then a list. I vote try it and see how it looks. --Eris Falling (talk) 18:45, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I agree. If the resulting articles are too short, then I can work on adding additional info such as a description of the artwork used for the Cacowards pages, summaries of sidebar info that isn't included, etc. --Quasar (talk) 19:19, 15 December 2014 (UTC)


I don't really like that the short descriptions for each individual year were entirely removed and replaced by a "see the link bar over there". I also don't especially like that information about the evolution of the award (like "this category was added, this person joined the team", etc.) was removed in the individual pages. --Gez (talk) 10:07, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

It was neither my intent nor my desire for that to happen, I assume Ryan misinterpreted my request to have that information added to the individual articles to include having it removed from here; the short descriptions do need to be here. If some of them are too verbose, they might should be shortened. I have reverted to two revisions ago. --Quasar (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Obviously improvements are always welcome (especially on community topics, where I know little).  On the first point, intelligently summarizing in an overview is good, but copy-paste redundancy just makes the wiki less maintainable.  On the second, I tried that but it seemed too wordy.    Ryan W (talk) 16:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Point understood but in this case it's not that difficult to remain aware that there's a summarization present on the core topic article and adjust it if corrections are made to one of the individual event articles. We do this in many other places - almost always if I have a "Main article" link, I provide a brief summary of the topic—as free as possible of any contentious/time-sensitive/tenative information that would be subject to future corrections, therefore avoiding any maintenance problems—below it. There is very good logic behind this - a reader should be able to get the gist of a subtopic without navigating away from the main article it is part of, which they may simply not desire to do. This is typical practice for real encyclopedias. The empty "Main article" section is something to be abhorred in my general opinion. --Quasar (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)
Semi-serious comment: do we need one of these?    Ryan W (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)