Talk:Carnegie Medal (literary award)

message: I replaced the shortlist below with the winner only.
Current shortlist (books published in 2003)
*David Almond, The Fire Eaters
*Jennifer Donnelly, A Gathering Light
*Mark Haddon, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time
*Elizabeth Laird, The Garbage King
*Michael Morpurgo, Private Peaceful
*Linda Newbery, Sisterland
--mervyn 13:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Runners up including shortlists are now part of the program for articles on book awards. That section does need some help here, see below. --P64 (talk) 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: Since there is more than one Carnegie Medal award, I'm changing this to "Carnegie Medal in Literature" and initiating a disambiguation page.
--UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disambiguation 

message: This new section of the article includes , which I have already used in the preface. That is short for "Repeat winners", a section heading in some articles on awards. 
The list of six authors with two Medals is nearly reliable because the source is inspection of our table sorted by author.
Six books have won both Guardian and Carnegie --I have dared to say, although the only source is my inspection of the two Winners lists. That is errorprone, so needs another editor or two. Please confirm or correct. --P64 (talk) 15:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Winners of multiple awards

message: As i leave the article after major revision in the last few days, there are two allusions to the "school year" in relation to the current publication year September to August. According to a previous editor, students at many schools participate in some sense, between Nominations and Shortlist (4 Nov to 27 Mar this year). Those dates too suggest catering to the school year.
Whatever the rationale, I wonder how long the Sep to Aug publication year has been in effect. That is such a misfit for the calendar year (which i take to be the default reference of these expressions) that simple mention of the "preceding year" or the "year following publication" is dangerous. Why don't CILIP and this article routinely provide publication dates? Are there very few books published (officially released?) Sep to Dec? 
I will not add publication date to the table. Complete notice of the facts may not be worth the column space. But the article will benefit from some observations in the text or footnotes. --P64 (talk) 15:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Publication year 

message: :third of three new sections 2012-05-08, after second draft of major revision
At the top and at 2005 i have marked this section  and . We need a source for shortlists prior to 2009. (From a great distance, i suppose that there is a print source complete for 1936 to some recent year.) If 1993 was the first public shortlist, we should explain that --both in the lead and at 1993 in the list, I think.
Although winners are listed above, they may deserve some highlight in the shortlists.
The shortlists make one long footnote, in effect. It may be appropriate to provide more information. For example, any nonfiction books might be marked "— nonfiction". The Amber Spyglass might be marked "(His Dark Materials, Book 3)". --P64 (talk) 16:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shortlists 

message: CILIP calls this "the UK's oldest and most prestigious book award for children's writing". It would. I have added precisely that, as a quotation, to the lead par immediately following identification of CILIP as the conferring body. So we have a plain fact as stated and the context is appropriate. Should we say it?
Is it correct? Privately I wondered about that a month ago, working on Guardian Award, where our lead section concludes, "It may be compared with the American Newbery Medal." (my tag). It may be compared, of course. What happens if the Guardian and Carnegie are both compared with the Newbery which is clearly the oldest and most prestigious in the U.S.?
As the two articles stand, the Carnegie Medal must appear more important and the Guardian Award less important, because the former has a real article and the latter really is a WP:STANDALONE list of winners and finalists, and still  --although both are literally Start-grade articles as I write.
Is anyone able to state or cite a reliable judgment? --P64 (talk) 20:30, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Report: Current ratings for WP:Children's literature.
* Top - Carnegie Medal in Literature
* High - Blue Peter Book Award (!?)
* Mid - Kate Greenaway Medal, Tir na n-Og Award, Guardian Award, Smarties Prize
--P64 (talk) 20:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

text: "the UK's most prestigious award for children's literature, the Carnegie medal" --from The Guardian's own coverage of the 2012 Carnegie shortlist. ("Carnegie shortlist includes Andy Mulligan's controversial Trash: ...". Alison Flood. guardian.co.uk, Tuesday 27 March 2012.) --P64 (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest and most prestigious 

message: This article was recently changed from "Carnegie Medal in Literature" to "Carnegie Medal (literary award)".  Prior to that, I had made about 300 piping changes away from the disamb page "Carnegie Medal". Now these piping changes are going to the old article name, so I recommend moving the article back to "Carnegie Medal in Literature" to preserve the corrected piping. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Name change

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Carnegie Medal (literary award). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120504055800/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2007awards/carnegie_shortlist.php to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2007awards/carnegie_shortlist.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120524084711/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2008awards/carnegie_shortlist.php to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2008awards/carnegie_shortlist.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120222024723/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2009awards/carnegie_shortlist.php to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2009awards/carnegie_shortlist.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100426153235/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk:80/2010awards/carnegie_shortlist.php to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2010awards/carnegie_shortlist.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120529000242/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk:80/2011awards/carnegie_shortlist.php to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2011awards/carnegie_shortlist.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120427143952/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/home/ to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/home/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Carnegie Medal (literary award). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101012162753/http://www.sharoncreech.com/novels/06.asp to http://sharoncreech.com/novels/06.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140222051027/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2012awards/carnegie_shortlist.php to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2012awards/carnegie_shortlist.php
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140714174528/http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2013awards/carnegie_shortlist.php to http://www.carnegiegreenaway.org.uk/2013awards/carnegie_shortlist.php
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I propose that we remove the 'Latest rendition' section. It's superfluous in my opinion, since the majority of the information is already contained within the article, and only serves to bulk out an already rather bulky article. Other articles on literary awards (eg. Booker Prize, Man Booker International Prize, British Book Awards, Women's Prize for Fiction) don't have a comparable section. Supervegan (talk) 09:30, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove 'Latest rendition' section 

message: Planning to add a 'Controversies' section or something similar, as there have been several in recent years. Eg. The Bunker Diary, Trash, and some of the other novels which won or have been nominated have been criticised for graphic content, bleakness, swearing, etc.
Also #CarnegieSoWhite on Twitter after a lack of BAME authors longlisted, which prompted a diversity review (see: )
Supervegan (talk) 10:52, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add a 'Controversies' section?