Talk:Tony Award for Best Book of a Musical

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I added this page with just a bare-bones list of winners, sticking to the format used on, for example, Tony Award for Best Musical. If you want to edit it, please don't change the bold, but add the nominees in non-bold as is done on that page. Don't change the bold just to change it, please.Kevin M Marshall 21:21, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Formatting of list[edit]

There isn't a standardisation on these types of lists, but I have a couple of alternatives.

This is a page I worked on quite a bit. As you can see, each year is a level 3 heading (===). This would allow the nominees and the winner to separate lists:


Alternatively, we could use the same format, but just bold the winner (as before):


But I'm fine with the current layout.

The only issue with not putting the winner into the list with the nominees that I have is that it's a bit like saying:

1999 I ate a pie

  • I didn't eat a pie

From what I can see, there isn't any real emphasis or reason to 'promote' the film any higher than it should. It's because it's already bolded; perhaps it has enough emphasis already.

But then again, I know absolutely nothing about this topic, so if anyone thinks that the current layout is fine, that's fine with me. -x42bn6 Talk 06:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the format slightly by putting level 3 headings for each decade. The problem with doing them for each year (like the University of Canterbury Drama Society article) is that you get a very long and somewhat ugly table of contents. I totally understand your point about eating a pie and separating the winners like that, but while that makes logical sense I just don't think it makes the winner pop out enough.Kevin M Marshall 15:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A slightly more sightly alternative is to make the list a separate article (List of Tony Award winners or something). But either way, I don't really know... I sometimes wish there was a standard for these issues. -x42bn6 Talk 10:39, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]