Talk:90th Academy Awards/Archive 1

Archive 1

Films with Multiple Nominations needs some changes

Darkest Hour got 5 nominations and Mudbound got 4.

Articles/Wikidata items needed

nominees without a Wikidata item

nm0146687 nm0254978 nm0177397 nm0310266 nm0957576 nm0316833 nm0733255 nm0274399 nm0275382 nm0995902 nm0576870 nm0924221 nm0611855 nm5921476 nm1733918 nm4713373 nm3353592 nm1722815 nm5994206 nm0780527 nm5323949 nm0942870 nm1103802 nm6463326 nm0204934 nm0374133 nm8719525 nm0169000 nm0055656 nm1597847 nm0619820 nm1479800 nm0042306 nm0896580 nm0578518

Original post (61 items needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:32, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Update (58 items needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Update (48 items needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Update (36 items needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Update (35 items needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:58, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

nominees with a Wikidata item but no article

Watu Wote – All of us (Q39856591) Émilie Georges (Q47498314) Marco Morabito (Q47498335) Sean McKittrick (Q47498336) Edward H. Hamm Jr. (Q47498337) Eli Bush (Q47498340) Evelyn O'Neill (Q47015680) J. Miles Dale (Q40663946) Peter Czernin (Q40664045) Jon Gregory (Q20807864) Ben Morris (Q17292966) Benj Pasek (Q27660156) Victor Caire (Q33543051) Gabriel Grapperon (Q33543452) Jakob Schuh (Q11977909) Chris Overton (Q18341834) Katja Benrath (Q39855155) Tobias Rosen (Q2437976) Elaine McMillion Sheldon (Q47493288) Mark Mitten (Q47496551) Søren Steen Jespersen (Q39162717) Feras Fayyad (Q28811045) Rosalie Varda (Q3442224) Dorota Kobiela (Q41825009) Alessandra Querzola (Q47519642).

Original post (22 articles needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Update (23 articles needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:22, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Update (25 articles needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Update (25 articles needed). --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Black List

The Post was not recognized by the Black List survey? But it's listed here Black List (survey)#2016 Black List --2A02:8388:2403:FE00:F5EC:46BC:34F8:F4DC (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Best Actor Oscar Nominees Born in the 1990's

Daniel Kaluuya was born on February 24, 1989, not 1990.

Youngest Female Director Oscar Nominee

Sofia Coppola is the youngest female Best Director Oscar nominee at the age of 32 for Lost In Translation, Greta Gerwig is 34 years old when nominated for Lady Bird.

Screenplay Nominations

Paul Thomas Anderson did not get a screenplay nomination either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Other notable events section.

I think someone needs to say this: The other notable events section is completely out of control. It basically reads as farce at this point. No, actually, if you read it thinking as a casual, average reader, this section reads like a bad Wikipedia page. And people will read this page in about a week, I think it should either be cleaned up or left as a joke. Some examples: Meryl Streep's first Best Picture nom since 2003. Some Costume Design record that hasn't happened since, drum roll please, 2016! If it hasn't changed by the 3rd I'm totally figuring out some record for the most Sound Editing nominees with the letter G in their last name, or something like that. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion only the following should be kept (if and only if the entire section must be kept):

• At the age of 89, director Agnès Varda became the oldest person to be nominated for a competitive award in Academy Award history (Best Documentary Feature for Faces Places). James Ivory, who is just about one week younger than Varda, became the oldest man to be nominated for a competitive award in Academy Award history (Best Adapted Screenplay for Call Me by Your Name). Varda and her daughter Rosalie, a producer on Faces Places, are the first mother-daughter pair to share a nomination.
• At the age of 88, Christopher Plummer became the oldest actor to be nominated for a competitive award in Academy Award history (Best Supporting Actor for All the Money in the World), surpassing Gloria Stuart who was nominated for her performance in Titanic at the age of 87. In addition, he is both the oldest acting winner (Best Supporting Actor for Beginners in 2012) and oldest acting nominee of all time.
• Meryl Streep, with her twenty-first nomination, broke her own record and is still the most nominated performer of all time.
• John Williams, with his fifty-first nomination, broke his own record and is still most nominated living individual.
• Rachel Morrison became the first woman in Academy Award history to be nominated for Best Cinematography.
• With the four nominations for Mudbound, Netflix broke through the top categories at the Academy Awards for the first time. It had previously earned nominations for Best Documentary Feature, including two for this ninetieth awards ceremony, but has never yet won.
• With his nomination for Roman J. Israel, Esq., Denzel Washington is now the most honored African-American actor and the fifth-most honored actor in Academy Award history with eight nominations for acting.
• Mary J. Blige became the first person to be nominated for acting and songwriting in the same year.
• Kobe Bryant is the first NBA player to receive an Academy Award nomination.
• Yance Ford is the first openly transgender director to be nominated for an Academy Award.

From where I'm sitting, the whole section is a steaming pile of synthesis. If any of the events are notable, they would be easy to find in independent reliable sources. Those that cannot be verified (without synthesis) should go. - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:26, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

All or most of the section is contained is sourced here: http://awardswatch.com/2018/01/23/2018-oscars-the-snubs-the-surprises-the-facts-and-the-stats/ JDDJS (talk) 15:41, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@JDDJS I'm honestly not sure, is that really a reliable source? It looks more like a glorified blog to me.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a particular reason for the "glorified" qualifier. There is every indication this is simply a blog. - SummerPhD^v2.0 12:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I have removed some of the more trivial things on the list and have added additional sources for several items. JDDJS (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@JDDJS, there's clearly a dispute about the sections notability. It has been pointed out several times that such sections have been deleted in the past. If this goes to a vote I will vote to delete UNLESS and only unless very clear guidelines are established for such sections so that it does not become a free for all of silliness, which is exactly what it was before this dispute began. For now I am adding a new template, for reasons that are self evident.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 03:53, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Proposal to remove "Historical Precedents" section

A minor debate has arise as to whether or not the section "Historical Precedents" (previously "Records and firsts in history", previously "Notable events") should be kept or deleted. Those in favor of keeping it believe that the information is noteworthy, interesting and important. Those opposed to keeping it believe that it has issues with Wikipedia:Notability, Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:SYN, and have pointed out that such sections in previous Academy Awards pages have been deleted. Please vote KEEP or DELETE.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• DELETE, for the sake of humanity and rational thought.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• That's not a valid explanations of your reasoning. JDDJS (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes it is: Wikipedia:Humor. But if you insist, because it is unprecedented in previous Academy Award pages, has a history of leading to silliness, is trivial, and the most notable examples could easily be merged into another section of the article's prose.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 01:48, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep but limit in it's current state, it's well sourced, so Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:SYN do not apply at all. The media has been widely reporting on the variety of nominees, so it is notable. We can't include every random trivia factoid, but I have limited to just the notable ones. JDDJS (talk) 01:43, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• KEEP, per JDDJS, and restore similar sections in previous articles. Boggles the mind how anyone could think these facts aren't noteworthy. — Film Fan 11:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep but limited and only major: I agree with @JDDJS, that all of the facts are heavily reported by media outlets. But for a particular page it may be not necessary. What we can do, we can create a new article (may be tilted: List of Academy Awards Milestones and Achievements by Ceremony) for this, where all the firsts and notable record can be listed or in an already existed article of Academy Awards records. Nauriya (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate my second reason for deletion: because just having a section like this on an Academy Award pages will certainly lead to an avalanche of trivial, unremarkable records, which in my opinion trivializes the notability of the worthy examples. It boggles my mind that anyone who considers the first female DP nomination important would also be ok with it being lumped together with the first Meryl Streep film with a Best Pic nom since 2003. I think most of the current examples have a place in the article, but its a bad idea to have a list-styled section in the article because just look what happens when you do.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

One last thing, things could change tomorrow when traffic on this page gets heavy (not even going to glance at the Edit history that day, someone else can deal with the insufferable gibberish that will be added), BUT if the consensus is to keep I would insist that very clear guidelines of the above mentioned limitations be established here and now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I second you as each fact is not ok to be mentioned here. And I absolutely have an idea what it will look like! Nauriya (talk) 21:17, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

• Keep but limit per above. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 15:18, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep but limit as per above. We don't need every single precedent, but some of the notable ones should be kept.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 23:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep but limit per above, to precedents cited in multiple reliable sources. Ca2james (talk) 03:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete but start separate article with link mentioned to see separate article.Eschoryii (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• Keep but limit(invited by the bot) Limit to about the current 14 entries. It's interesting, informative, relevant, and has sufficient weight. North8000 (talk) 13:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• I changed the title to Notable nominations and winners, since things like being the 5th female director are not really historical precedents but are notable and interesting. --Tone 14:00, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
• If no one objects, I think enough time has gone by to call this Consensus to Keep. I'd like to hear some examples or ideas of what the guidelines for such sections should be, probably in a new section on this talk page. Unless anyone thinks more time should be given, of course.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 02:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete for being what it is - wildly racist and sexist.174.0.48.147 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete. The section is referenced but it's a pure trivia section, and there's no notability standard being cited as to what should be included. Why are some racial and gender statistics more notable than the ones that were removed? Would rather just show the nominations and winners on this page. -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Including this section would be setting a major precedent and open up a huge can of worms for all future Academy Awards articles. It's not included in any previous Academy Awards articles and there are absolutely no established standards for which accomplishments would qualify for inclusion. Content about truly noteworthy and reliably-sourced firsts and record-breakers is great, but when you start lowering the bar to fifth nominations for something (or even thirds or fourths), you're really going off the rails and do some damage to the article's credibility. Those types of accomplishments are great, but they belong in the individual actors' articles, not in the Academy Awards article. I'm open to changing my mind about having this section, but, to prevent chaos, there would first have to be consensus on clear rules for what can be included. Because this type of list has always been rejected in previous years, this discussion needs to be advertised to a wider audience for input, such as WikiProject Awards, WikiProject Film, WikiProject Lists, and WikiProject Film/American cinema task force. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8A5:1D13:1F09:1BA0 (talk) 07:45, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - While this matter is being discussed, I strongly suggest that the section heading at least be changed from "Notable nominations and winners", which is odd and wordy, to simply "Notable accomplishments". Also, there is already extremely similar wording in another section heading, "Winners and Nominees", which would make the trivia section title even more odd and confusing to readers browsing the various sections in the Contents box at the top of the article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8A5:1D13:1F09:1BA0 (talk) 07:58, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
• Delete - Same goes for this section under any other heading, such as "Notable nominations and winners". Too trivial. Greggens (talk) 04:45, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Greta Gerwig and Jordan Peele listings

Someone being the fifth to accomplish something is clearly not encylopedic. And it's even less encylopedic when it's only a nomination, not a win. Yet, JDDJS has repeatedly restored the deleted listings in the "Historical precedents" section for Greta Gerwig (fifth woman filmmaker to be nominated for Best Director) and Jordan Peele (fifth black filmmaker to be nominated for Best Director). While they are nice accomplishments and interesting enough to be published in newspapers and magazines, they clearly do not belong in an encylopedia, which has a much higher standard for noteworthiness. Just because something is reliably sourced or even widely published does not at all mean that it's important enough to be included in an encylopedia. I'm not even sure the "Historical precedents" section should exist at all, but if it does, the only listings that should be included are firsts and record-breakers. Therefore, the "fifths" for Gerwig and Peele should be removed (again). By the way, I'm the editor who cleaned up the section's layout yesterday by placing the names first in each listing and putting them in alphabetical order to make it much more reader-friendly. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8A5:1D13:1F09:1BA0 (talk) 06:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

My two cents: in principle I tend to agree with you, BUT 5 is still a low number. Look at it this way: is anyone remarking on how Denzel Washington received the 75th nomination by a black performer? And it is progress that that is not notable. BUT it needs to be kept concise and short here on Wikipedia, no need for excessive details for no reason.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

No, 5 is not a low number when we're talking about including it in an enylopedia article about the broader topic (the Academy Awards article vs. the actor's article). Fifths, fourths, thirds, etc. certainly belong in the actor's article, but not in the main article. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:E8A5:1D13:1F09:1BA0 (talk) 08:02, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It needs to go, period. It's racist and sexist to point out these trivialities, since the implication is that black people or women aren't capable of doing these things.174.0.48.147 (talk) 05:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Historial Presedence for black actors

Why are we doing this? We don't do it for white, asian, indian actors etc. I'm surprised that we are still engaging in segregation when we are striving for equality.  — Calvin999 10:32, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. It's idiotic.174.0.48.147 (talk) 05:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources are noting historical precedents, then Wikipedia notes them too. Ca2james (talk) 17:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Ceremony Information about #Metoo, Time's Up, harvey weinstein scandal, weinstein effect

Is that possible that the #Metoo and Time's Up movements as well Harvey Weinstein scandal, Weinstein effect be added to the 90th Academy Award ceremony information? Colgsher (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Noteable Events and Precedents

I have read all of the comments and suggestions above and as per the best for the article, we must concern with the winners and their achievements in "Winner and nominees section" as per usual. However it is equally important to mention the landmarks that has pass-crossed the racial diversity or so called change in system. This section should be written in prose rather in bullet points. And as not every detail or historical achievement can be listed, but the ones that Host Jimmy Kimmel, personally mentioned during the ceremony and the ones that really matters and has been reported by media outlets extensively must be written under "ceremony info" section.

Regarding movements, and Harvey - if media has reported heavily of its absence or importance or have written reviews about why it wasn't extensively part of the ceremony, it must be verifiable and also be written under "ceremony info" section with separate paragraph.

Of all the objections and suggestion which are equally important and necessary I must say if we continue to do this, we will never reach on a consensus on what to included and what to excluded, and we all know whatever will be a decision it has to be neutral and balanced.

We are "ethnically ambiguous" Wikipedians with diverse backgrounds having similar interest, and there is nothing more than that. Everyone here is trying to make the best of this article, and as a regular editor of Academy award ceremonies, focus should be on the article not our personal likes or dislikes towards movements and historical precedents.

AND THERE IS NO NEED TO START A RACIAL WAR HERE.

- Nauriya (Nauriya) 15:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, but what are your ideas for the specific guidelines. You said that you had a good idea of what they should be.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

What I am saying was that, the winners should be mentioned and their achievements should be written in winners and nominees section, the rest of the notable or whatever we call them, should be written in ceremony information section. -- Nauriya (Nauriya) 14:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes but what do you propose to be the specific guideline for inclusion regardless of where the info is included in the article? The majority of people have voted to keep with limits, not to keep within the prose. What are the limits?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, I'm not seeing anything written here that could be considered a "racial war". If anything everyone has made anti racist comments, with some differing views on the subject. I think it is in poor taste to insinuate that accusation.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 18:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I didn't insinuated or accused anyone in that sense, just saying, as it always to lead such discussions. If anyone is offended, I must clear this, that it wasn't my intention at all. -- Nauriya (Nauriya) 14:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I think, that upon looking, it is very clear that this is the only page that has a section like this. Do we want to add a section like this for all of them or are we making this the exception? If not, maybe just a page listed by ceremony would suffice. I believe that the ones highly reported in the media deserve a place somewhere, I think the question is where.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

According to my knowledge and experience, the "Ceremony Information" section would be the place to put these events. We can create separate paragraph and write in a prose or whatever will be the decision, but it should not be written as a separate section, instead as a subsection. -- Nauriya (Nauriya) 14:45, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

That I can agree with if others are okay with it.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 15:59, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

RFC on including Greta Gerwig

The consensus is that the article should include the fact that Gerwig is the fifth woman nominated for Best Director because the fact received heavy coverage from the media.

Cunard (talk) 22:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the notable nominations include the fact that Gerwig is the fifth women nominated for Best Director? JDDJS (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

• Yes It's not up to us as editors to decide which numbers are notable or not. What matters is how the media reports on it. And the media heavily covered this. There are six sources for it, and each are from a different notable news source having a whole article about it. JDDJS (talk) 18:01, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Yes As the above said, no matter what you think about it, we have to set our opinions aside and acknowledge the fact it's been covered by dozens and dozens of news outlets.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Soft Yes, but notability based on the fact that any news outlet reported on it is not a good rationale. In my opinion, there is news, fake news, tabloid news, fluff and blogs. What passes as news today tends to be dictated by public demand, not notability. And what the public tends to want is often not notable. I'd say that out of the five categories that I listed fluff is the most prevalent. Wikipedia should have higher standards.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• Support after reviewing the sources provided. This is indeed noteworthy in such coverage about the awards, and Wikipedia should summarize this highlighting. For what it's worth, it could be further contextualized by stating that it is the fifth woman nominated in the Oscars' 90-year history or since 1929. I saw a couple of sources stating this. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:38, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
• YES: It is sourced pretty well. Jordan Peele and hers mention is almost in every article. - Nauriya

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.