Template talk:Golden Globe Award Best Motion Picture Musical or Comedy

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Awards / American This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Film awards task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Awards This template 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 Comedy This template is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy 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.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles Lists This template 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

I agree with Robsinden that there is no reason to split the lists by decade. this (a) bloats the template by reducing the space available for the list, (b) splits the list contra to WP:LISTGAP, and (c) is a completely arbitrary division. please be mindful of edit warring before reverting, and discuss here instead. Frietjes (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don´t agree. The list by decades is more easy to read and looks by far less confused. Vanthorn ^{msg ←} 20:22, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Robsinden and Frietjes, we should not have the decade divisions, and by the way, we should also try to avoid edit warring. I count at least 4 reverts. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]