Talk:72nd Primetime Emmy Awards

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

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

• The 72nd Annual Primetime Emmy Awards poster.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Organization of nominations

There has been a lot of changing of the way the nominations are organized. Whether it should be by genre, or by category. I believe organizing it by category is redundant and less comprehensive. Organizing it by genre is far less redundant, and much more easy to read. For consistency though, I understand wanting to change it to the traditional format of organization by category, because that's how it is on most other award articles. What is the general consensus on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 18:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Just checked the past couple of Emmy pages, and they are all organized by genre. So that's how it's going to be organized here. Now it works for consistency and comprehension. If anyone dislikes this please discuss it here rather than continuously editing it, because that is not productive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Um, hold up. First of all, no this is not how these articles are organized. They were changed by @TVBuff90: with no consensus recently, and should all be reverted back (which I will be doing now). This organization by genre is nonsensical and visually unappealing. We are streching the program categories far and wide in these boxes, leaving orphan categories (variety program and reality program), establishing a hierarchy of genres, and are combining nominations for writing/directing which makes no sense. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Okay so I just checked and yeah, they are being changed by someone, but the change makes sense to me. The way I see it, this way it makes it far less redundant. What's visually unappealing is taking breaks every couple of lines to add a new sub header (lead performances, supporting performances, writing, directing.) Having it all grouped together makes it much more cohesive. It's also organized alphabetically, which works better visually, rather than organizing them in a random order. THAT establishes a hierarchy of category. If you want to compromise, we can organize by genre in the performance and writing/directing section, rather than organizing by lead and supporting performance. Also, can you please refrain from editing every page organized by genre until we come to a decision. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I will not "refrain from editing every page organized by genre until we come to a decision" because this editor's disruptive edits are not the status quo, organizing by category is. So every page should be set back to the status quo before we reach a decision on if we changing it. I do not want to violate the three revert rule, so I am asking you to please undo your edit on this article to return it to the status quo as well. Pinging @Therequiembellishere: who also expressed opinions on this major change. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I just thought the nominees should be organized the same way as on the Emmys website. Forgive my impulsiveness. TVBuff90 (talk) 18:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's fine. I think your reason of organizing them makes total sense. Just want to come to a conclusion first before making any huge changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Jjj1238 I changed it back on this page although 1. The way you like it isn't the status quo and 2. This kind of editing is disruptive and pointless. We could've easily sorted it out here before making such large edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 18:52, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the way I like it is the status quo, because it's the way everything has been organized for years until it was changed this month with no discussion. That is what the status quo is. The edits that changed it in the first place were disruptive, fixing disruption is not in itself disruptive. That's a ludicruous way of thinking. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 18:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

When I called the editing disruptive, I was referring to the constant back and forth. You could have easily opened a discussion on the talk page once you first noticed the issue, rather than impulsively changing it back to the way it was before. I offered a compromise, and you ignored it. Your reasoning for keeping it in that way ("it establishes a hierarchy of categories") doesn't even make sense, as the way you want it has that same issue. And now, on this talk page, you are outnumbered two to one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajack15 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

This is literally BRD in action and it's more of a digression to continue to belabor the process rather than getting to the actual subject at hand. I found the wholesale shift on every single Emmys page without discussion to be pretty jarring and differs from other similar award pages. The "top" awards of the night in terms of what news media report and what the main page will include are the two main programmatic awards (Comedy/Drama) and it feels wrong to bury them. For the most part, I'd say people group awards the way we've had it with program/actors/directors/writers and not genre. I see that the Emmys have decided to arrange them in this way, but don't really know if its something we need to follow, especially since they have changed the definition on what is considered a comedy/drama/miniseries so often. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

I would suggest putting an "Other Programs" Section for Variety, Reality and Competition programs, but that would only further the problem you mentioned I guess. So, consensus is we should keep it as it was before?

Latinx?

Wikipedia says the opinion of the word "Latinx" is mostly negative in the Hispanic and Latino community (Latinx). Given this it does not seem consistent to use it in an article not discussing the word itself but as if it was part of the editorial tone of Wikipedia. "Latinx" is also not acknowledged by RAE in Spanish or by the standard English-language references. Eundas (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eundas: It's purely for correctness, the section uses "Latin" and "Latino" where appropriate, but there are some instances where it needs to be gender neutral. The singular nominee this year was a woman, Alexis Bledel, and so it would be inaccurate to use "Latino" to describe her; however, using "Latina" would be omitting the detail that there were no Latin men nominated. The controversy also largely relates to the fact that Mj Rodriguez, a transgender and Afro-Latinx artist was not nominated; it is inaccurate to reduce this identity, too, especially since Afro-Latinos are also mentioned. I don't like the word, either, but when handling gender neutrality and queer and mixed identities, it's a necessity. Kingsif (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Espngeek: Care to explain yourself? Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

"Wikipedia says the opinion of the word "Latinx" is mostly negative in the Hispanic and Latino community (Latinx)." Espngeek (talk) 21:55, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, never heard the word in my life Espngeek (talk) 21:56, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

@Espngeek: So you quote from one argument but not the other side, and then admit you have zero knowledge on the matter? Thanks for telling me your view is useless in this debate. Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Never mind Espngeek (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Then "person of Latin origin" or "person of Latin ethnicity" works better. If Wikipedia itself reports that the reception of the word is mostly negative by the Hispanic and Latino community then it does not seem a good idea to use that work when alternatives exist. The article could be reworded in this way: "there was only one individual nomination for a person of Latin ethnicity. Groups representing Hispanic and Latin interests said". The next sentence using the word, "trans Afro-Latinx actor Mj Rodriguez" has other issues because it says "actor" when Wikipedia says she is an latina actress (trans woman). Eundas (talk) 20:18, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

@Eundas: Yes, since you brought it to talk I trust that you'll make a good judgement on what to use - perhaps Hispanic would be better than the clunky "Latin origin" if it's really an issue to you, even though sources are using Latino and Latinx? And please correct to "actress" in the Rodriguez sentence. Kingsif (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Superlative

There is an incorrect superlative on the 72nd Primetime Emmys Page which I tried to edit but was thwarted. There is a claim that Schitt’s Creek is the first to win Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress in a comedy, but in 1957, at the 8th Primetime Emmys, Caesar’s Hour took this honor. The superlative stating that Schitt’s Creek is the first show to achieve this should be removed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mkenefick320

Did you not read the edit reason? First, Caesar's Hour was a sketch comedy show and the Emmys format was different back then. But the main reasons are that no sources are mentioning it and all are calling Schitt's Creek the first (read Wikipedia:Verifiability), and neither the Caesar's Hour or 8th Primetime Emmy Awards Wikipedia articles support your claim. There is nothing to suggest that your assertion is correct, and everything to suggest it isn't. Kingsif (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Excuse me, I meant the 9th Primetime Emmys. I don't know why no one else is reporting it. I don't think it matters if it was a sketch show or not (which I was aware of). I think it should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenefick320 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Because variety is not a series, and the categories were also different at those ceremonies. And it really does matter that nobody is reporting it. See the Verifiability criteria I linked above. Kingsif (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

SNL is a variety show and it has won Supporting Actress Emmys multiple times. How is this any different? I feel like everybody is just glossing over this because they want the show to have the superlative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkenefick320 (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 September 2020 (UTC)