Talk:Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Musical Theatre

Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical is part of WikiProject Musical Theatre, organized to improve and complete musical theatre articles and coverage on Wikipedia. You can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Musical TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject Musical TheatreTemplate:WikiProject Musical TheatreMusical Theatre articles

Awards Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Lists Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, Tony Awards, due to size or style considerations.

Untitled[edit]

I added this page with just a bare-bones list of winners, sticking to the format used on, for example, Tony Award for Best Musical. If you want to edit it, please don't change the bold, but add the nominees in non-bold as is done on that page. Don't change the bold just to change it, please.Kevin M Marshall 21:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Formatting of list[edit]

There isn't a standardisation on these types of lists, but I have a couple of alternatives.

University of Canterbury Drama Society

This is a page I worked on quite a bit. As you can see, each year is a level 3 heading (===). This would allow the nominees and the winner to separate lists:

2000[edit]

Winner: Lord of the Ring-dings, by someone
Nominees
- Lord of the Ring-a-dings, by a pirate
- Lord of the Ring-a-dings 2, by a pirate 2
- ...

Alternatively, we could use the same format, but just bold the winner (as before):

2000[edit]

Lord of the Ring-dings, by someone
Lord of the Ring-a-dings, by a pirate
Lord of the Ring-a-dings 2, by a pirate 2
...

But I'm fine with the current layout.

The only issue with not putting the winner into the list with the nominees that I have is that it's a bit like saying:

1999 I ate a pie

I didn't eat a pie

From what I can see, there isn't any real emphasis or reason to 'promote' the film any higher than it should. It's because it's already bolded; perhaps it has enough emphasis already.

But then again, I know absolutely nothing about this topic, so if anyone thinks that the current layout is fine, that's fine with me. -x42bn6 Talk 06:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the format slightly by putting level 3 headings for each decade. The problem with doing them for each year (like the University of Canterbury Drama Society article) is that you get a very long and somewhat ugly table of contents. I totally understand your point about eating a pie and separating the winners like that, but while that makes logical sense I just don't think it makes the winner pop out enough.Kevin M Marshall 15:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more sightly alternative is to make the list a separate article (List of Tony Award winners or something). But either way, I don't really know... I sometimes wish there was a standard for these issues. -x42bn6 Talk 10:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]