Talk:13th Magritte Awards

Awards Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Belgium: Cinema Low‑importance

	Belgium portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium 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.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the joint Belgian cinema task force.

Film: Awards / Belgian

	Film portal This article 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
	This article is supported by the Film awards task force.
	This article is supported by the Belgian cinema task force.

Re reverts

@Earthh: Please let's not edit war. I reverted your first edits because I do not believe Écran total is a better source (it's not even a good source) than Belgium's two major newspapers (La Libre, Le Soir) and a major magazine (Marie Claire). And yes, I am fully aware of citation clutter, but I don't believe three sources is overkill. This is what overkill looks like.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15] Given this list article is by definition scant and not going to grow, I don't see how these reliable sources are harmful versus the article having a mere 3 sources for readers to engage with. And the conclusion of the lead remains unreferenced.

And again, I already know WP:NCFILM. As I indicated in my edit summary, the title is The (Ex)perience of Love, it is not a stylisation. Much like Frontier(s) or Best F(r)iends. Οἶδα (talk) 19:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Three sources to reference just two names (host and president of the ceremony) are not really necessary. The article by Ecran total is entirely dedicated to Lanners' role as president, which is why it would make sense to keep that source. However, I have restored some of the sources you mentioned in other parts of the lead. As for the title The (Ex)perience of Love, it falls exactly within the marketing stylizations of WP:NCFILM (as in the case of Se7en).--Earthh (talk) 09:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Earthh: The three sources were for the entire first paragraph[1], not "to reference just two names". So that is just incorrect to say. And I guess we'll agree to disagree on Écran total. But unless you object, I wish to restore at least one source (Marie Claire) which supports that claim and isn't behind a paywall (how many readers on English Wikipedia have a subscription to a tiny French industry publication like Écran total?). I would also like to restore a Le Soir reference[2] because it actually lists all the nominations. The RTBF source does not. Thus rendering the article unverifiable. Further, the The Bulletin source does not even support the text it was appended to (the multiple nominations). The Le Soir reference that you replaced with The Bulletin[3] is entirely about the multiple nominations. Honestly, none of these sources are superior to what already existed. Your revision to the lead text was good, but I'm not sure why you thought these reference changes were an improvement. Οἶδα (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]