Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Novels

Survey: Preferred template(s)

• Oppose using the {{nom}} template. See MOS:COLOR. A red template may be difficult to distinguish from the green {{won}} for people with red-green color blindness. Weak preference for {{sho}} as opposed to {{CFinalist}} template. The reason for this is that {{CFinalist}} and {{pending}} are too similar; this allows readers to quickly see a difference between a finalized award and a pending award. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

  Alternative: I just thought of one possible alternative solution. We could continue to use the {{won}} template for winners, and just use plain text for everything else. There’s not actually a reason to have colors in every cell of the “results” column. This would ensure a minimum of clashing colors while also making “winning” works easily identifiable from a quick glance.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

• Support using the standard templates such as Template:Notified, etc. There's nothing in MOS:COLOR that says we should have a preference for accommodating a single type of color blindness over other visual impairments (ex: a sea of a single color could be just as inaccessible for a different user). One of the ways color blindness & visual impairment is addressed on Wikipedia is by not using it "as the sole visual means of conveying information". In this case, it is already addressed as each award result is spelled out. Also, the use of one color creates a false equivalence that everything below winning is the same. Mostly, I think Michelangelo1992's argument for Template:Shortlisted over Template:CFinalist boils down to a personal preference in color. If an award is a finalist or a shortlisted, we should just use the appropriate existing template. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• comment Honestly, I'm too tired with wikipedia to care too much anymore. It seems like nothing can ever be standardized because everyone has their own opinions that get removed or thrashed when it comes to the entire literary space of wikipedia, what with everyone's hate of use Book marks and everyone's agitation over how I make award tables or format biblios. I will likely largely be leaving the editing world of wikipedia.

my opinion on the colors is that each entry in the col should have some template and color and that blindness doesn't matter if there is clearly marked word indicating result. my opinion is that shortlist and finalist are roughly the same and they should have always been the same color (to the exact hex value) from the very beginning, since the templates are used everywhere, it's hard to just go in and alter one to be the same as the other without resistance. my opinion is that longlisted should never have been purple in the first place, just make it red like a normal person. red -> yellow -> green. that's how it's like with traffic lights, it's how it's done in squid games, it's how it's done w/ GIS and dozens of other things. you longlist, you get red, you shortlist, you yellow, you win, it becomes green. there's logical progression and simplicity rather than confusion of adding more colors like purple and multiple yellows in there. again, I can't just go and alter the color to be red because dozens of people who rely on it will immediately be confounded why i switch it to red from purple.

another issue is with reporting. reporting of whether something is "nominated" or "finalist" or "shortlisted" is weird because different website or journal will say things that contradict the conferring body; even beyond that, the conferrer reserves the right to alter the verbiage that they use on their website at ANY TIME, meaning for us to be sure of what they used in the first time before website edits or alteration or new website, we have to look at old archived versions that we may or may not have links or captures, involving a bunch of annoying digital excavation. also, they can call something "shortlisted" even if there wasn't a longlist process; they can say "nominated" even though under all practical considerations what they're say is essentially finalists picked from some kind of nomination process (from publisher submissions or general public nominations, voting, judge panel recommendations, or from librarians); also they can have longlist process one year and then suddenly switch it up next and have just "finalists". don't even get me started on goodreads or locus awards because they gets even worse when it comes to what should be called "finalist" and which are just "nominated, 32nd place". get it? there's no consistency stipulation for the conferrers nor requirement on reporting 3rd parties to be "accurate" about how they characterize "nominees", "shortlist", "longlist", "finalists", and after the fact the award's website can modify the words whenever they want with no ramific. totally mutable. we're trying to standardize something that's not even standardized in the literary award lexicon or codex. whenever User:Sariel says "ver possible, we should simply use the description the award uses", it's already a losing proposition because what the award uses doesn't always capture the appropriate spirit of how close a work got to winning in context to all the other awards. something "nominated" for Dragon Awrd is essentially the same closeness to winning as something "finalist" for Hugo and the same closeness as something "shortlist" for many other awards like the Women's Prize or Dublin – they beat everything else except about 4–5 other competing works or sometimes 10–12... beyond that some awards have multiple winners and no shortlist/finalist/longlist marketed like the American Book Award. what a fucking mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Create a template (talk • contribs) 24 August 2025

• Support using the standard templates with no exceptions for novels/books, and in accordance with local consensus. Per my discussion below and the above by Sariel Xilo. Οἶδα (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Support I do not find a significant problem with the already created template worthy of making a guideline change. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 00:09, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Survey: Piped links

• Support using piped templates, for the reasons endorsed below. Primarily, this simplifies tables and allows readers to quickly identify works that have a similar level of achievement. (e.g. Hugo finalist, Arthur C. Clarke shortlisted works, etc.) Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:21, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose using piped templates, for the reasons I stated above on supporting the appropriate existing templates. Repeating a bit, but I don't think we should create a false equivalence that everything below winning is the same when we already have templates that distinguish. Also, I don't think there's a good reason for novels alone to have a different awards format than everything else. It creates a MOS clash on which style to use when you have a subject who wins in more than one category (I'll include examples in the dicussion below). There's no "substantial reason for the change" per MOS:STYLEVAR; the proposed style of simply using pipped Template:Shortlisted for everything seems to just be Michelangelo1992 wanting their personal color preference in use across novel articles (ie. WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT about other colors/templates) and not grounded in policy. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:04, 23 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose using piped templates per Sariel Xilo. I need not prattle on when the points I planned to raise have already been made. Οἶδα (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see how this would make substantial difference in how the tables are created now. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 00:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

For context, this RfC exists in part due to my desire to have guidelines in place for the standardization of awards tables. In particular, there is an unresolved question about which templates to use for awards in which the work did not win. Related discussion can be found on the Talk:Hugo Award page. Consensus seems to agree that we should use whatever terminology is used by the award itself. For example, a Hugo Award finalist vs a Dragon Awards nominee vs an Arthur C. Clarke Award shortlisted work.

The question appears to be whether it is better to include multiple different colored templates in the awards table for an author, or whether it is better to use a single color to indicates works that did not win.

An example of a single color being used for awards templates can be found here: Rebecca Roanhorse. An example of multiple colors being used for awards templates can be found here: G. Willow Wilson. I believe that we should use a single color to represent the runners-up in an award table. This includes a single color for Hugo Award finalists, Dragon Award nominees, Arthur C. Clarke shortlisted works, etc. A single color should represent all these works, as being a finalist/nominee/shortlisted work for the above awards represents a very similar level of achievement. (As a caveat, a longlisted work should have a different color, as it is a different level of achievement from being a direct runner-up).

Reasons for my position are as follows:

• Differentiating between “shortlisted,” “finalist,” and “nominee” with multiple colors creates complexity without conveying a meaningful distinction.
  • Occasionally, even reliable sources will interchange the terminology for awards. (This indicates that even reliable sources consider the terms to be synonymous). For example, see this Locus article which correctly describes the Ignyte Awards as having finalists, while this article from Tor.com describes it as a shortlist.
• Per MOS:STYLEVAR, "it is generally considered inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." I do believe there is a substantial reason for changing the colors in existing tables. The substantial reason is for accessibility (avoiding use of the nom template for red-green colorblind readers) and aesthetics. While this is admittedly a subjective opinion, I find that the above example table on the page for Rebecca Roanhorse is much easier to read than the table for G. Willow Wilson. It is very easy for the reader to quickly identify the awards that have won (green) and those that did not (yellow). For those who cannot see colors, all of the information is preserved via the text, in accordance with WP:COLOR.
• The existence of multiple different templates does not require editors to use all of them.

In conclusion, I believe that using piped links, such as {{sho|Finalist}} or {{sho|Nominated}} solves all of these issues and provides for a cleaner reading experience.Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility, Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Notified: User talk:American2, User talk:Create a template, User talk:Sariel Xilo, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

In reply to the comment from Sariel Xilo above, and to keep things in the discussion section, I would respond as follows. Sariel Xilo noted that “Repeating a bit, but I don't think we should create a false equivalence that everything below winning is the same when we already have templates that distinguish.” As a response to this, I’ll provide some example of reliable sources which treat all these awards as very similar. Locus Magazine: Locus Awards, Nebula Awards, and British Fantasy Awards are all formatted exactly the same, despite ostensibly different terminology. The same is true for the reliable source of Reactor Magazine: 2024 Locus Winners, 2024 Nebula Winners, and British Fantasy Awards. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I oppose Michelangelo1992's proposals to change awards tables in novel releated articles since they have not given a "substantial reason for the change" per MOS:STYLEVAR & the current style already meets the MOS:COLOR requirements. As they say above, their argument is mostly their personal preference on color aesthetics which isn't a reason to not use the standard templates/format. It's especially not a very good reason for novel awards tables to have a different awards format than everything else especially when it would create a MOS clash on which style to use when you have a subject who wins in more than one category. For example, G. Willow Wilson has won awards for both comics & novels so do you only use the proposed style on her novel wins or should the entire table be in this proposed format? Kieron Gillen has won awards for both comics & TTRPGS, so if he wins an award for a novel in the future does the entire table need to be redone to reflect the novel style or do you simply retain the original style? The argument for changing the style for novels doesn't explain if and/or why it should be followed for creators who have wins/noms in more than novels. Additionally, I think it is OR to assume that there's no distinction between "shortlisted", "finalist", and "nominee". For example, Michelangelo1992 just assumed that 3rd place & finalist were the same for the John W. Campbell Memorial Award for Best Science Fiction Novel award that G. Willow Wilson won. However, sources (, ) differentiate between 1st, 2nd, 3rd, & finalist. Assuming that "nominee" & "finalist" are the same is like assuming "longlist" & "shortlist" are the same. It creates a false equivalence mostly based on OR. Whenever possible, we should simply use the description the award uses and we should use the appropriate existing template. Sariel Xilo (talk) 19:25, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Comment: I already entered into this inane debate over colors and semantics with the above Create a template user at Talk:Shuggie_Bain#Awards_with_shortlists_don't_need_to_have_longlists_first.. While I appreciate the probing of the topic, I cringe at the suggestions underlying this RfC. The issue is as follows: Every single awards section in every book article is not required to conform to a uniform layout or style, which some editors seem to have been attempting to force. If a user is hellbent on colors, I simply disengage. None of this is important. None of this will be standardized because to do so is to force a personal preference for one specific stylistic variation, which transgresses the very principles upon which the MoS is built. This is not unique to "the entire literary space of wikipedia". I am also puzzled as to how the incredible lack of real world significance of a website as a source for aggregation is somehow comparable to stylistic article variation. And that such consensus amounted to "everyone's hate". Okay. A similarly mindless crusade and personal waste of time as in Themashup 2.0, for sure. There are plenty of ways to contribute to Wikipedia. But viewing it as a project that is improved by the uncritical mass inclusion of any one thing or the mass refactoring of articles to any one style will always lead to disillusionment from the realization that your project cannot be sustained on your passion alone. You must build consensus where it it is appropriate. This RfC so far has unconvincingly made the case to eliminate all variation in presenting these awards and to somehow transform these templates to be book-specific and consolidate all non-winners in a uniform color scheme. All of this remains a subjective preference without substantial reason, per MOS:VAR. The color proposals are not grounded in policy and the semantic blithering over "nominees", "shortlist", "longlist", "finalists" etc is just endless hairsplitting to drive anyone mad. Do we contradict ourselves? Very well then we contradict ourselves. What a beautiful mess. Οἶδα (talk) 06:12, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

I would like to respond to a few of your points.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'd like to restate my position to ensure it is clear. (1) I think it's important to use the correct terminology, be it "nominee" or "finalist." (2) The terms nominee, finalist, shortlist, etc are all very similar, as evidenced by my links above in which Locus and Reactor magazines fail to distinguish between them in any meaningful way. Therefore, (3), they should be displayed similarly in the tables.

I think (3) is where we are not in agreement. I made this proposal because, in my personal opinion, the multiple different colors are actively detracting from the reading experience and make it difficult for people who have difficulty distinguishing colors. I do not understand the reason to have six colors in a single table, when two or three will do just fine to confer the same level of information. (Or even no colors, as in my alternative suggestion above!)

I would push back gently against the notion that this RfC is a personal crusade, and remind readers to WP:AGF. I do honestly believe that the reduction in number of colors would make for a better reading experience, even if few other editors seem to agree with me. (And there's no way to know that without a discussion, either informally or through processes like RfC). However, if consensus is to allow the style in old articles to remain unchanged, I will of course respect that. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:47, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

as evidenced by my links above in which Locus and Reactor magazines

I would just push back that this "evidence" is not too convincing. Again, I feel that this is just needlessly complicating the issue. So one magazine/publication uses terminology differently and/or formats the awards in one specific way? Okay. Yes, you are correct to say that this fails to distinguish between them in any meaningful way. This is confusing, for sure. But is this not rather easily resolved by deferring to the primary source? Locus calls them finalists? Reactor calls it a shortlist? Okay, but Ignyte published their list as "Finalists". Or the Campbell Memorial Award issue above, see the primary source: https://web.archive.org/web/20130711043534/http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/campbell-finalists.htm and https://web.archive.org/web/20130714004829/http://www.sfcenter.ku.edu/news.htm#92. As Sariel Xilo stated above, it is OR to assume that there's no semantic difference these distinctions. Whatever that difference may be, I don't care and neither should you. Back in my home, books typically make a first, second, and third "selection" before a final vote determines the winner. Is that a shortlist, longlist and longlonglist? Who cares. Regardless, they are called selections and should be presented as such. I do not see the point in getting bogged down in semantics and confusing ourselves because a third party source terms and/or formats them differently than the primary source. As stated above, MOS:COLOR does not support this subjective change and the other concern is already resolved by the fact that each award is spelled out. Trying to uniformly present all these non-winners as equivalent is just desperate searching for a perfect all-conforming classification system where one will not exist. I must repeat myself: "Every single awards section in every book article is not required to conform to a uniform layout or style, which some editors seem to have been attempting to force." A table is not a requirement for awards sections in article. Nor are color templates. Just build consensus where it it is appropriate. If you can't, retain the established variation. I realise this is not a satisfying solution but, again, we would instead be forcing a personal preference for one specific stylistic variation, which transgresses MOS:VAR.

As for the personal "crusade", please forgive the remark, Michelangelo1992. I was indirectly referencing a certain user's comments and edit history, and a related matter for which they had scorned me. A user that refuses to to publish any edit summaries whatsoever, and with whom I have never found any room for consensus. Only mean spirits. So I choose to avoid that end and not directly message. I am unfamiliar with your editing history, Michelangelo1992, and would not assume anything about you. The truth is that I actually agree with you. I do not personally believe that the use of colors has made for a better reading experience. I much prefer an orderly awards section in prose format that presents these prizes in a way that balances their significance. Most of these sections do not even need their own section. They would more appropriately be integrated into "Reception". Orbital_(novel)#Awards, for example. The table format feels more appropriate for exhaustive list articles like List of accolades received by Everything Everywhere All at Once. The solution to this subjective issue should not be to force articles to have tables and colors. Then there's outrageous padding like On_Earth_We're_Briefly_Gorgeous#Listicles. I alluded to an aforementioned "matter" because it involved a user attempting to search for and replicate the aggregation of Rotten Tomatoes into book articles, which I honestly believe to be analogous to the issue here. All these tables appear to be users trying to replicate the tables found in film and tv articles. And because this system of tabulation and templates does not smoothly transfer for literary awards, confusion and disappointment results. This should suggest that tables and templates are not clear and effective for every article. Οἶδα (talk) 05:01, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah yes, the debate is "inane" — presumably because the complexities of reporting awards and managing 1st-party and 3rd-party reporting, inconsistency, or mutability is above your thresholds. The "tables and templates are not clear", "the tabulation doesn't smoothly transfer" you say – in every single way, the tables I've made, including that one, are clear, concise, and take less time for people to interpret compared to a long stupid text chain like "The novel was a nominee for the _____ Award in the ______ category. It also was shortlisted for the _______ Award for ______. Also, it won the 20xx _____ Prize for ______....." These things can last an entire paragraph and are brainnumbingly wasteful. So maybe it's perfect for you. Talk about inane? That shit right there is inane, inefficient, and eyerolling. The tables consolidate everything into one easy to decipher package, and if judges have something actually substantive to say about what criteria they used to select the winner, that can be added as supplementary prose all day everyday. The awards section can be merged with the reception, but why does it even matter that much as long as it's included there or directly after? Answer: it doesn't that much.

As for themashup thing and Book Marks, I read through that RFC and my assessment is that you were largely right on policy but completely insufferable in the process. You say I am the problem in finding common ground, and yet throughout that entire rfc you were exhaustingly hectoring and, (while "civilly justifiable" on the surface), emotionally repellant to every other user who may have disagreed with you to some degree in the discussion. All I was saying is that I find the thrash of Wikipedia tiresome and gave examples, nothing more nothing less. maybe I shouldn't have used words like "hate" because this is a waste of time, too.

You said that everything is unconvincing and yet you didn't engage at all with the idea of limiting to specifically two or three colors based on closeness to winning at all, calling all of this a waste of time. Your take is that it's "semantic blithering over "nominees", "shortlist", "longlist", "finalists"..."? The whole point of these words is to in some way capture how close a book got to winning an award; there is substantive meaning to these in helping readers understand the awards correctly and they could be (and should be) interpreted and standardized on an award basis determined by context. Meaning, based on my interpretation, the closeness to winning is the spirit of coloring things or listing the text, rather than the verbiage used. The verbiage matters but isn't always accurate when comparing the relative achievement in nomination process between two awards. The point people are making is that there are too many options for cell text and colors in trying to realize distinctions that it becomes jarring. With some limited refinement of how to standardize these things to a smaller set of color coding and text can adequately capture, in an efficient format, how decorated a novel is or how close it got to winning some awards. It isn't going to be perfect and it's not the only way to present accolades (such as list format... or prose if not written like a 2nd grader in the example I gave above), though it's efficient, lends itself to standardization and colored cells, and aligns year/award name/category/result perfectly every time for easier processing. In what reality are those things bad.

Though it seems some people are just fine with ignoring this clarity, calling it a mess, and just accept a myriad of contradictions, hiding from complexity behind some policy like VAR.

Also, the only reason I'm responding right now is because of the snarky jabs he's making at me, User:Michelangelo1992. I don't intend on responding again or even looking at the rfc until there's consensus. I've already provided my reasoning and I'm done with this. Create a template (talk) 21:12, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Why are we doing this? Is this not unenjoyable dialogue, brother? My "hectoring" in that RfC was due to the fact that I was asked to notify WP:RSN which only invited users who refused to meaningfully engage with the multiple policy facets of the argument I had made. If insisting that participants directly engage with what I have presented in a discussion-based consensus makes me insufferable then so be it. I'd rather die on policy than die on a fear of being pushy on said policy. The only users who disagreed were sharing the same argument and unwilling to square its contradictions with policy, or admitting they did not even understand the argument I was making. If my insufferableness stifled dissent then why admit I was correct on policy? I waited an entire month before even responding in the discussion at all. On the other hand, I could charactise you as having had very little patience for anyone that disagreed with you and a temper to match, projecting needless pressure and drama, and expletives, onto editors. Talk:Shuggie Bain comes to mind. As does Talk:Kaliane Bradley, where I avoided participating altogether. Or that ANI discussion about your refusal to publish any edit summaries whatsoever. But that is the past. Can we stop this already and move forward? And yes, I do find much of this inane and given your demeanor I believe you do as well.

And to be clear, my disagreement with you over this has never really been over tables. Forcing the information to be presented in tables against consensus or against an established style would indeed violate MOS:VAR, that's all I've really said here about tables. And correct me if I am wrong, I never reverted such additions by you. My concerns were and still are about the colors/semantics, which I have described above. I am not trying to "accept a myriad of contradictions" but we really must reflect whatever "Result" the primary source names because otherwise you are inviting all of the confusion seen on this talk page. My preference for prose, which is subjective, remains. And by prose, I moreso mean something that resembles Emilia_Pérez#Accolades rather than a massive bulleted list. And I agree with you, this prose can be combined with (positioned above) a table. But I also mean displaying relatively few awards in a table when I don't see much reason for doing so. Unless a work has been showered with a larger number of literary awards, it doesn't seem as effective as it does for lengthier articles. Some_Desperate_Glory_(novel), for example, compared to Sing,_Unburied,_Sing. I do not object to longer awards list being converted to a table. I have listened to you passionately defend certain tables and colors on more than one occasion and I still don't really see where we so considerably disagree. Again, the reason I have avoided you is because we slightly disagree, I attempt to clarify the disagreement, you reply, I reply for further clarification, you become exhausted in doing so, and overwhelm the discussion in the process. I then disengage because it feels as if the spirit of collaboration (Wikipedia) has left the room. I am rather burdened these days, so the last thing I need is one less person to call a friend. Please, friend, let's collaborate. I believe we can reach some kind consensus on color. Though, as LEvalyn suggested below, this RfC really needs to be restarted and refocused. Οἶδα (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Question: What is the end goal for this RFC? Is the plan to add a section to MOS:NOVELS? Or is the plan to gather a consensus here to use as reference in other talk pages? Is there a another plan?

As I am gathering my thoughts and forming an opinion I feel like the end use of this RFC would play a role in my thought process. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 17:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I challenged Michelangelo1992's implementation of their preferred format on a few articles without consensus to change (per MOS:STYLEVAR) and suggested an RfC above. My understanding was @Michelangelo1992 wanted to use this RfC to establish an awards formatting standard for MOS:NOVELS (so I would assume a section would need to be added to explain the format). Part of my concern is how that would clash on articles with awards listed for both novels & non-novel work (ex: aforementioned G. Willow Wilson who has awards for both comics & novels so which part of the MOS supersedes). Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, as @Sariel Xilo stated, my intention was to have a discussion about standardized formatting. I would like to add a section to MOS:NOVEL in order to standardize the formatting of tables in articles relating to books and authors. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 21:26, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

Forgive my longwindedness, but again why should we insert our own bias by consolidating the meaning of terms? How is the issue of inconsistency of terms/formatting in secondary sources not easily resolved by deferring to the primary source's terminology? The table column is for "Result", which should reflect the result conferred by the organization itself. If the issue is only colors, why not boldly remove the color templates yourself or build local consensus to do so? And the other issue Sariel Xilo is describing is prescient: Building consensus for MOS:NOVELS is too narrow for it to then apply to all literary award tables in book and author articles. Tables could then be inconsistently split between the standard for novels and general template use for other types of literary works. Οἶδα (talk) 22:56, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I would be very happy if we could come to a consensus to remove the colors - see my alternative solution above. (I would also be happy to keep the green {{won}} template for winners and plain text for all the finalists, nominees, shortlists, longlists, and whatever other term the awards bodies use.) However, if I did that boldly on my own, I wonder if other users would again cite MOS:STYLEVAR in order to keep them.

My purpose behind this RfC was to find an alternative way to stop using so many colors in a single table. The only reason that we are debating the meaning of "shortlist" and "nominee" is because the {{sho}} and {{nom}} templates are different colors; I think we are all in agreement that we should use the same terminology that the awards bodies use. (In fact, I was the user who suggested standardizing the term "finalist" instead of "nominee" on Talk:Hugo Awards.)

Apologies if I am also being repetitive, but I'd like to restate my point again for clarity. The use of up to six colors at a time, including both red and green, is distracting and hard to read. This is especially true for people who have difficulty distinguishing colors. My previous solution had been using piped templates, but I would be just as happy to remove all the secondary colors from tables and use plain text instead. However, if other users do not believe that so many colors in a single table is distracting and difficult to read, I will accept that I am just in the minority opinion and that we will not reach consensus regarding any change. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 23:14, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I’ve hesitated to weigh in because I have no real sense of the right solution (and because my offwiki life is currently demanding) but I do want to say that I also find the panoply of colours visually distracting and would support any solution that reduces them. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 23:25, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Perhaps a different RfC opened elsewhere should pointedly ask whether the combination of colors is visually useful in the context of literary awards. Because I was curious if the combination of "finalist" "shortlisted" "nominated" "longlisted" is used in other award types and I could find none. All articles that include these templates together are presenting literary awards. Perhaps it would go something like:

In literary award tables, do the standard colored templates for award outcomes ({{CFinalist}}, {{Shortlisted}}, {{Nominated}}, {{Longlisted}}) enhance readability and visual clarity? Should their current use be kept or reduced?

Personally, in such an RfC, I would probably vote No and say reduce to plain text for all non-winners, if using templates at all. "Probably", because I am still unsure if this too wouldn't transgress MOS:VAR and MOS:COLOR. Though it is evident that these templates have caused much confusion and invited users to improperly use templates just for color and insert their own bias by altering the semantic differences of the "Results" in the process. Οἶδα (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

You’ve managed to express all my concerns in a way that is succinct and correct. That’s what I was trying to do in this RfC to begin with, and I apologize if my lack of clarity caused unnecessary confusion. If you would like to add this to the top of the RfC for clarity and as an alternative wording, I would support it. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:56, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

My understanding from the above discussion is that this RFC is really about changing the use of colors in literary awards tables. @Michelangelo1992 would like to reduce the amount of colors used and and is proposing just using green when the award was won, and plain text for all other results correct?

@Sariel Xilo Concern is that changing the standard formatting for novels would create inconsistencies and clashes with articles that cover more than just novels.

@Οἶδα Concern is changing terminology and meaning from the sources.

From reading through the discussions above I am gathering two things: 1) there is a consensus that there are too many colors and they are distracting. Which I too agree, they are distracting and overwhelming in my option. and 2) There is concern that there is still not enough reason to make a standardized change across board under MOS:STYLEVAR.

If this summary is correct I feel like the discussion should move forward deciding if a change in the standard colors is worth becoming part of MOS:NOVELS or not.

Is this summarization accurate? pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 16:02, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I disagree that there are too many colors & that they're distracting. I actually find the monotone style Michelangelo1992 suggested harder to read & I don't think there's an argument per MOS:COLOR that suggests color usage should be reduced. But I also think we should just follow MOS:STYLEVAR & not create inconsistencies between articles that cover novels & articles that cover more than just novels (ex: what policy would be followed at List of awards and nominations received by Taylor Swift if Swift was nominated for an award for a future novel?). Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

"Distraction" is partly subjective so this may be an aesthetic question that can never have universal agreement, but Swift strikes me as an odd example here because practically all of her awards have only two colours. So if she was shortlisted and a finalist for a novel, using the current templates would be less consistent because it would introduce two new colours. If we want to be consistent with other tables, we should use light red for almost everything other than "Won" (which I would be OK with and find more readable than the current slew of colours). ~ L 🌸 (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

There are several awards on that list (ex: Bravo Otto, RTHK International Pop Poll Awards, Queerty) that use more than the green/red templates so per MOS:STYLEVAR, my inclination would be to just use the standard templates for something like shortlist & finalist on a theoretical novel award. Mostly, as you say, the color question seems rooted in aesthetic preferences and there's not so much a policy/guidance based argument for changing it. It might be worth having a discussion over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Accessibility about if these template colors should be changed & if there were accessibility reasons it was set up like this. Sariel Xilo (talk) 16:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree entirely with your summary of the issue. I would propose that we add a section into the MOS that limits the number of colors in awards tables. Some editors have discussed that this may be more appropriate to bring to the general MOS. I personally believe that it would be appropriate to keep this in MOS:NOVEL, because literary awards are generally the awards that have such different terminology. (The tables for film and music awards, for example, don’t seem to have this issue.) Michelangelo1992 (talk) 14:53, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for helping me to clarify the discussion and fully form an option on the root of this RFC. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 00:06, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

Comment: If the number of colors used in a literary awards table were the only question I would say the resources in WP:COLORTOOLS show that the colors used as backgrounds, in the table at the top of this RFC, are too close and won't be distinguishable for someone who is color impaired. In my personal opinion less is better when it comes to color coding tables. But I don't think either of those are worthy of a guideline change. Neither are of them significantly hinder the WP:PURPOSE of Wikipedia which is to provide a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. (emphasis added) The information is there and readable, the colors may be hard to see or be distracting to some, but the information is still clearly visible. pickalittletalkalittle^🐤🐤🐤talk a lot pick a little more 00:05, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

I could see an RfC on updating all of the colors in those templates to be more in-line with the suggestions at H:Colorblind but I don't know the best way to structure something like that or even where it should be proposed (Village Pump given how broad the impact could be?). Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:11, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

It does seem like this conversation points toward a much broader discussion about the templates' default colours as a next step. Village Pump doesn't seem like a bad place for it. It would probably be good to start the RFC with a concrete proposal of what colours to change to, to keep the conversation focused and constructive. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:37, 3 September 2025 (UTC)