Wikipedia

Talk:Academy Awards/Archive 3

< Talk:Academy Awards
Latest comment: 1 year ago by Crboyer in topic Oscar Statuette Depiction
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

First time awards

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

In the second paragraph of the article, it is mentioned that "The awards were first given in 1929 at a ceremony created for the awards, at the Hotel Roosevelt in Hollywood.", also, in the History section this can be read "The first awards were presented on May 16, 1929, at a private brunch at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel with an audience of about 270 people". However, The following data can be found in the Current Categories list: "Best Actor in a Leading Role: since 1928". So, it is kind of confusing when awards were first given, in 1929 or 1928. [1] 200.94.97.182 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

In 1927, the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) was created; in 1928 the categories were created, and in 1929 the first ceremony took place. Tbhotch.™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:05, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is confusing. Nowadays, the award ceremony is held one year after the year that is being honored. In other words, the 85th annual Academy Awards ceremony (the current one) is being held in 2013, but it will award the Best Picture (Best Actor, Best Director, etc.) of 2012. So, the ceremony itself is always "off" by a year, compared to the award being given. So, as an example, the Best Actor of 2012 receives his award in 2013. So, it is all semantics as to what year is being referred to. In the examples you cite above, the Best Actor of 1928 would receive his award at the 1929 ceremony. Hope this clarifies. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Parodies

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

This thread doesn't read correctly. I'm sure thre is some sense to be made of it but I don't know where to begin. I'll be back when I have more time. ```Buster Seven Talk 17:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Rebranding/rename article?

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

According to this article, the ceremony is now simply named "The Oscars". Should the article follow suit? Crazy Eddy (talk) 22:12, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Then why has not the official AMPAS web site not followed suit? [1] A lot of phrases still say "85th Academy Awards" and "History of the Academy Awards".[2] As of now, the AMPAS has not changed a thing, only the producers of this year's ceremony. I would like to not only the official site, but all reliable sources as well change to solely "Oscars", per WP:COMMONAME.Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
And of course, any name change will probably get into other article title issues beside WP:COMMONAME, like WP:THE, WP:PLURAL, and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, among others, so without a definite significant change in is its use among most reliable sources, it is probably best to leave it be until next year. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Are You Sure?

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is it true that the design of the "Academy Award" statute is a mimic after the general form of an (English, German[?]knight)? I have read the old periodicals of yore (like the "Life","Look","Time", and "The New Yorker") magazines of that period. Y'know; the periodicals of the WASP elite that gushed over, and publically endorsed Adolph Hitler's "achievements"? Well, at the same time (circa 1920s A.D.) that these deziens of Doomsday were self-congradulating themselves for consolidating their hold over three-quarters of the Earth, while making a cinder out of perhaps five percent (which also means the extermination of human lives, what I noticed is that certain of their intelligentsia wing were trying to come up with certain rather ritualistic motifs that celebrated and reflected their peculiar, mortal grace. When King Tut's tomb was discovered, mot only did it create the appropriate mass adulation and popular fads mimicry in mostly women dress, and popular design. I do contend that the "Oscar" was fashioned more in the form of an Egyptian figure than a European one. Remember, only the classic, ancient Mediterrenean nations built statues and figurines as near nude, and with not anywhere near in stolid postures, but rather more pathetic and heroic dynamism. One only has to use one's two eyes to see. Also, you had the wily, but otherwise very erudite social engineer, old Eric Trist (among others)gushing over the stream-lining and commercialization of the motion picture image technology, stating again and again that-as a tool for modern mind control and mesmerization, he colloquially described and pronounced it as the "New Hieroglyphics": By which the mass population can be manipulated into thinking, or acting on anything the "men-behind-the-mirror" dictate. And therefore "interpret" reality to their enthralled chattel. With all the Egypt-mania going on back then, it isn't a stretch to think that the "Oscar" statue was designed with an Egyptian motif in mind. And who was the Egyptian God of language and interpretation? --108.14.123.194 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Veryverser

Cedric Gibbons was the designer and George Stanley (sculptor) was the sculptor. They are both dead but nephew Billy Gibbons is still alive and could be contacted through his website. The Gibbons family may have more detail and resources to find out what was involved in the design.--Canoe1967 (talk) 23:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Oscar Speech

Latest comment: 10 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Hi. I'm planning to start writing a Wikipedia article on the Oscar speech (or perhaps more broadly, the award ceremony speech/acceptance speech), explaining things like their meme-ability, their cultural significance, their ability to make or break an actor, impromptu vs prewritten, their ability to spark conversation on issues, undelivered speeches (by both losers, and people like Marlon Brandon who refused the award due to support for American Indians). I really think there is a great article there, and would live done love some advice/ help from you guys. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

"live done" = "like some"? -- Jack of Oz [pleasant conversation] 11:49, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thankyou. To be fair, I had typed that from my phone... :P--Coin945 (talk) 12:47, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone will probably tag it AfD as soon as it is written like many deletionists do here. You may wish to start small and well sourced. That way you won't waste too much time if it is deleted. Don't forget that bald kid and the Pope picture as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
What "bald kid" and "Pope picture"?--Coin945 (talk) 18:42, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
I think it was a parody of Sinéad_O'Connor#Saturday_Night_Live_performance. Someone did something similar at an awards ceremony the following year. It may have been the 1993 Grammy Awards but I seem to remember it as Billy Crystal at the 65th Academy Awards. The ref desk may help with details.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Coin945/Oscar speech‎ - It's not much. but hey, it's a start. I'm still sussing out how such an article is meant to be structured. Regardless, this rough attempt consists of some hits from the first page of Google. Please don't hesitate to rally some Academy Award editors to give it some punch. :) Canoe1967 --Coin945 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Coin945, I wholeheartedly endorse an Oscar speech article. There should be more than enough sources. In addition, this has a chapter called "I would like to thank ... : the acceptance speeches". If it can be a whole book chapter, it certainly can be its own encyclopedic article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

The draft looks good so far. Sacheen Littlefeather is spelt wrong. Would three sections help? The good, the bad, and the ugly? I probably remembered the Pope picture thing wrong as I couldn't find any sources for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Image place holder?

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Should we ignore our own policies and guidelines to keep a placeholder in the info box or should it be removed. There is no free image of the Academy Award as only commons allows source country Freedom of Panorama, but Wikipedia does not and requires non free rationales for 3 dimensional artwork that is still the copyright of the artist or copyright holder.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems like an attempt to push the envelope and "make a point" to attempt to place images that are non free without a non free rationale on Wikipedia. The simplest answer is to upload a Non Free image with the proper ten point non free rationale.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a free image with File:ACMI 14.jpg but you keep removing it. If you read: Lex loci protectionis it states "...the law of the country where the intellectual property was created or registered is not applied." Lex loci protectionis has never been tested with Freedom of panorama in the USA where it will probably be decided that we can host images of Oscar from FOP countries. If you are so concerned then email WMF legal for their opinion. I already contacted them and the result was http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikilegal/FOP_statues WMF owns the servers for commons as well as en:wp. Until they decide that they do not wish to seek funding to test Lex loci protectionis against the Academy in court then the image has not broken statute laws nor case law. We can't use a fair use image when this free one exists as well as more possible from List of Academy Award trophies on public display.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That was not legal advice nor was that in reference to Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons. The issue is not whether that file from commons is usable here (our polices on non free content seem to be clear, this a copyright violation on Wikipedia). We have a server location policy that only allows US applicable law for Wikipedia and this is about country of origin FOP. The issue is simply to ask contributors if they wish to keep that un-encyclopedic image place holder.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That was the legal opinion that I received after asking about this image specifically for hosting in commons and use in en:wp. The country of origin for the photograph is Australia. Lex loci protectionis states that the law in country of origin overrides the country where the infringement is claimed which would be the the USA if the Academy wishes to file for DCMA with the WMF. Commons and en:wp follow the same laws as host country to all servers. Other language Wikipedias may have different laws but there is no difference between commons the English one. Consensus may vary with images between commons and en:wp but the USA copyright laws do not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the legal details about this, but adding a placeholder in such a way is highly unusual and most certainly requires a strong consensus before it is implemented. --Conti|✉ 19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't know anything about the details but you decide to revert an edit without consensus? Could you please link the policy that states "highly unusual" edits should be reverted a 4th time without discussion, let alone consensus?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Sure: WP:BRD. --Conti|✉ 21:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I have read that but you reverted a 4th time while we were discussing it here.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. You should not have reverted that. I restored the status quo. I'd love to discuss this, but I have not yet seen a single argument for having an image placeholder in the article in the first place. --Conti|✉ 09:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Oscar list vandalized

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Please, someone remove the "sexy sheik" entry at the bottom of the awards ceremony list. 174.75.106.30 (talk) 21:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

The running times for many of the movies are wrong

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Look how many of the movies of the last 30 years claim to run more than 4 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.15.129.78 (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are the lengths of the ceremonies, not the BP winners. Crboyer (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

repetition?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  1. "For most categories, members from each of the branches vote to determine the nominees only in their respective categories (i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). There are some exceptions in the case of certain categories, like Foreign Film, Documentary and Animated Feature Film, in which movies are selected by special screening committees made up of members from all branches. In the special case of Best Picture, all voting members are eligible to select the nominees for that category."
  2. "The members of the various branches nominate those in their respective fields, while all members may submit nominees for Best Picture. The winners are then determined by a second round of voting in which all members are then allowed to vote in most categories, including Best Picture."

Isn't the first sentence of the second paragraph saying exactly what the first paragraph has already stated? CapnZapp (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Singular and plural Award(s)

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

On the Awards project talk page I have raised the general matter of naming articles about periodic sets of awards that share a name, as the Academy Awards do. But the articles do not feature annual events or seasons associated with the awards per se; some are mere lists of winners with short prefaces. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes‎#Singular and plural Award(s)

--P64 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Split

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The rename discussion includes some remarks that pertain to splitting the article. One possibility is to cover the trophy or statuette in a separate article (Oscar?) that would be {{main}} article for a shorter section 2.

Interjection. Another possibility is to cover the award(s) in one article and the seasonal event(s) in another.

Award (Academy Award?)

  • sections 2-3 and 7-8; much of 9-10; most of 12
  • origin including predecessors, false starts, early competitors
  • past and present (and proposed?) Award categories including links to all the lists of winners or nominees
  • consequences for the candidates (reputation, compen$ation, longevity) including winners and any who are known as losers
  • criticism of the all that stuff, including general criticism of who gets nominated and who wins
Interjection. Some of this material on the Award(s) per se is unclear in scope. For example, does section 3 Nominations pertain to all of the awards or all those covered in section 9 Merit categories or all those that confer the Oscar statuette. --P64 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Event(s) (The Oscars?) -- presumably main article for Category:Academy Awards ceremonies

If not split then some reorganization is appropriate, probably including combination of secs 4-6 and 11 as one Ceremony or Presentation(s) section with subsections.

--P64 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we should wait until the suggested move is closed before discussing splitting the article. I do not support renaming the ceremony article "The Oscars," so I disagree with this at the moment. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Suggested move

Latest comment: 10 years ago15 comments14 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per consensus. bd2412 T 20:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Academy Award → Academy Awards – Why does the title prefer the award itself (singular), rather than the name of the ceremony (plural)? While the article includes information about the statuette given at the ceremony, it is generally about the ceremony itself -- the 'award' is just one facet of what the article discusses. I apologize if this has already been hashed over, but I have searched through the talk history and cannot find any justification for this naming. Perhaps there is just something I'm not seeing here. I am open to hearing feedback on the matter, but I feel it should be renamed. CrunchySkies (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:SINGULAR, which states to pursue the singular form over the plural form. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I did not look at this closely. I was thinking that the article discussed the award itself, but it seems like "Academy Awards" is akin to "scissors" in the WP:SINGULAR exception. Obviously, the individual categories' article titles are singular. I think I would support this move, but I am wondering if it was not possible to have a stand-alone article about the award, apart from the ceremony itself. Would like to hear others' thoughts first. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the article should be renamed "The Oscars" because as of last year I believe, the award ceremony was officially renamed that.--Coin945 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to Academy Awards, as long as the articles about the individual awards still us the singular "Academy Award for". Fortdj33 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to Academy Awards. In practice, it is short for "Academy Awards ceremony." -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move. But the name is not so much short for the ceremony, or "Academy Awards Presentations" as they say, but the entire annual phenomenon, at least the public competitive season that begins with announcement of the nominees.
Upon skimming Oscar (disambiguation), I think not only "Oscar statuette" (the current section heading) is practically available to title an article that focuses on the trophy, but also "The Oscar" with hatnote link to The Oscar (film). --P64 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about we create List of Academy Award categories (based on what this article has) and redirect Academy Award there? It seems like searching for "Academy Award" (the award itself) could be distinct from "Academy Awards" (the ceremony). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support since the article is seemingly mostly about the ceremony and the concept, less so about the award itself. We might split the article? Red Slash 22:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternate use "Oscar" in some manner, as it's more common -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Not given to a single person, need to be moved. It's stated official web site www.oscars.org Maurice07 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: With the recent announcement of this season's nominations, it seems that many reliable news sources are starting to use "Oscar"[3] more than "Academy Award".[4] Even the official web site uses "Oscar" more than "Academy Award". IMO, "Academy Award" has never been a precise title since there are other academies, such the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences with their own "academy awards". Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we should give further consideration to "The oscars". Say "Academy Award" to someone on the street and chances are they won't know what you are talking about. Everyone knows what the "oscars" are though, and if that is now the official name it seems a no brainer to me. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – as per Red Slash. -- Shudde talk 10:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move. There seems to be a need for a separate article on the figurine, the Oscar, and its history. I would guess that the history of this article is ambiguous on what it is about, and that needs to be resolved/clarified through a split.Haberstr (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Selection procedure

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The selection procedure is covered primarily in section 3 Nominations, which should be renamed. It needs update at least because subsec 3.1 Voting ends thus: "In May 2011, the Academy sent a letter advising its 6,000 or so voting members that an online system for Oscar voting will be implemented in 2013.[29]" Perhaps also because subsec 3.2 Rules includes this: "In late December ballots and copies of the Reminder List of Eligible Releases are mailed to around 6000 active members." Section 3 also needs attention to #Format of dates. --P64 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Statistics

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

An interesting age analysis of oscar winners and nominees at [5]. Could be useful for the article so I will the link here in case anyone wants to incorporate some of the data into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Producers of Academy Award winners

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm clearing out the 'Academy Award winners' category, moving people to relevant subcategories, or removing them altogether if their names are not included on the official Academy Awards database. I have a query about the status of film producers, who do not appear to be served by any of the relevant subcategories. Should they be created? How would they be named? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The correct number of awards given out is 2,853. The former number is before this years Oscars. Gabraden99 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 00:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The page List of films with all four Academy Award acting nominations should be added to the lists section on the Academy Awards page. 190.194.10.99 (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

  Done Stickee (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Model for statuette?

Latest comment: 9 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

This article claims Emilio Fernández was the model for the Oscar statue, but the article on Emilio Fernández says there is no historical evidence for that. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The official AMPAS page on the Oscar here specifically mentions that no model was used for designing the statuette, and no citation is already provided for Emilio Fernández having been a model. Therefore I'm considering making this change with the mentioned reference. I'm also removing this reference as it's not related to and doesn't provide information regarding the content.

Sir Ali (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Membership count

Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The AMPAS About page mentions 7000+ as the number of its members as of 2015-03-16. Should Academy_of_Motion_Picture_Arts_and_Sciences and Academy_Awards articles be updated to reflect this update? Mr. Ali (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2015

Latest comment: 9 years ago15 comments13 people in discussion

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.

The result was not moved, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. The event is most commonly described as the Oscars, not the Academy Awards, both officially and unofficially. See here for article hits and coverage from the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Telegraph. Other reliable sources act likewise. The event was officially renamed as The Oscars in 2013 (source, source). The trophy has been described by the Academy as an Oscar since 1939 (source). 31.54.158.36 (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Using the common (and now official) name is helpful for readers and reflects reliable sources. 31.54.158.36 (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline - The show is known as the Academy Awards. That is the formal name, while the Oscars is the informal name. Your claim the show was "re-named" doesn't hold strong if it is still referred to as the Academy Awards every year. HesioneHushabye (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It was officially (and formally) renamed: The rest of the world may have been calling the Academy Awards 'The Oscars' for years, but now organisers have made the nickname official. source As well as now formally being called the Oscars, it has, for many years, been referred to as the Oscars much more commonly than the Academy Awards. Have a look at WP:COMMONNAME. 31.54.158.36 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No need for such a massive change, per WP:TITLECHANGES. I do not think that the proposed titled is in the encyclopaedic register, something that is required by WP:AT. RGloucester — ☎ 14:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Something like "2001 oscars" is ambiguous; does that mean the oscars for 2001 (awarded in 2002) or the oscars that are held in 2001 (for 2000). These page moves would mess up the disambiguation that has been established to resolve such ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the source cited by the proposer above notes that this was a marketing exercise for this year's advertising campaign, which is not the same as a formal name change. and that it may not continue next year. Not a good enough reason for such a huge change. Melcous (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per those who have already commented. Even if AMPAS made such a name change it wouldn't be retroactive. All previous presentations would still be under the "Academy Awards" banner. MarnetteD|Talk 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The designation "Oscars" is still informal. The actual rules for the most recent, 87th Awards don't mention anything about Oscars, only about Academy Awards. See 87TH ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS OF MERIT FOR ACHIEVEMENTS DURING 2014. I'd be surprised if the rules for the 88th look much different. Easchiff (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Britannica presents content such as: [www.britannica.com/search?query=Academy%20Award%20%20%20Motion%20picture Academy Award (motion-picture award)] and [www.britannica.com/search?query=2014%20Academy%20Awards 2014 Academy Awards (awards ceremony 2015]). GregKaye 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above users--Odythal (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Blindly replacing "Academy Award(s)" with "Oscar(s)" on all these articles results in more ambiguous page titles. "Academy Award" is more precise for these detailed articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: "The Oscars" was used only for marketing and television purposes as instignated by Neil Meron and Craig Zadan (who produced the 2013-15 telecasts). AMPAS still uses "Academy Awards" here and even here. The organization uses the phrases interchangeably. For the sake of encyclopedic purposes and to avoid further disambiguation pages, the name "Academy Awards" is deemed more appropriate. "Oscars" and "The Oscars" sound too generic and is inconsistent with other film award names on this site such as Golden Globe Awards, César Award, British Academy Film Awards, Genie Awards (now Canadian Screen Awards , etc.). Also, the ceremony numbering would be confusing since AMPAS counts by year of film release (which is more imperative since 1930 had two ceremonies). Oscar Awards would also sound weird.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
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.

Biopic

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

You have Life of Emile Zola as the first biopic; but The Great Ziegfeld is a biopic and won the year prior. On the Milestone page for Best Pics. 50.187.211.34 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Academy Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Changes

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created the change on the main page under the history section. I discussed the addition of the Animated feature category because it is important in the history of the awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick5792 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Claimed drama bias

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I removed this sentence:

From 1927 to 2001 around 49% of Best Picture nominated films had been categorized as a drama and out of the 432 films to be analyzed within that time 47% of the winning films were in fact dramas.[2]

Since it is obviously original research and nonsense: Almost half of all produced movies are dramas, so it is ridicolous to speak of a bias if also almost half of the nominated movies are dramas. --84.62.83.13 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Academy Award; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  2. ^ "Academy Awards - The Oscars". Retrieved 23 August 2015.

::It comes from a WP:RS. You need to read WP:OR to understand the difference between an editor making up figures and an outside WP:SECONDARY source quoting them. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For example your claim that half of all movies are dramas is WP:OR. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It does not actually come from a reliable source - there is nothing on the webpage cited giving those numbers or percentages, and no mention of which movies are classified as dramas and which are not. That is original research - which includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Melcous (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The figures are original research. But even if they weren't: Using these figures to accuse the Academy Awards of a bias at Wikipeda would be original research anyway. --178.9.87.0 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing things up and removing the item [[User:|Melcous]] and thanks to the IP for removing the item the first time as well. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 controversy

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Is someone writing something about the 2016 Oscar controversy re racial bias ? Juicebaby (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Created the 88th Academy Awards as a redirect for now

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

88th Academy Awards-which someone can create into a page when the time comes. Wgolf (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see why we can't have pages to land on for the next two dozens of academy awards going forward. Torquemama007 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academy Awards. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Format of dates

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

In this article, there are many dates that are formatted incorrectly (e.g., using 1 February 2014 instead of February 1, 2014). Clearly, the Academy Awards is based in the USA; the USA date formats should be used in the article. I went through and changed a few, and then I noticed that there were many, many more that need changing. Is there some reason they are listed in the alternate format? Am I missing something here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're missing anything. It seems straightforward that the U.S. style of date formatting should apply here. My guess is that editors sometimes instinctively use date format they are used to without realize it's inconsistent with the format for that article. I've done it myself without realizing it. I've seen editors do it before with both date formatting and national varieties of English. --JamesAM (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The top of the article has the template {{use dmy dates}} instructing bots and people to use "1 January 2016" instead of "January 1, 2016". Is there a reason? -- GreenC 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be easy to switch to mdy dates. Any objections? Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Added Archives

Latest comment: 7 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Here is a list of archives/accessdates that I added to this article.

Reference edited Actions taken
The Oscars – Feb 24th 2013 +archive_url, date (archived on 23 December 2014)
Oscar Statuette +archive_url, date (archived on 26 October 2015)
History of the Academy Awards +access_date (first seen 27 September 2009)
[http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Entertainment/meet-emilio-fernandez-face-oscars/story?id=18550020 Meet the Mexican Model Behind the Oscar Statue

]

+archive_url, date (archived on 5 March 2016)
Oscar Statuette +archive_url, date (archived on 15 January 2016)
Oscar 3453 is 'born' in Chicago factory +access_date (first seen 23 August 2015);+archive_url, date (archived on 10 March 2014)
THE ACADEMY AND POLICH TALLIX FINE ART FOUNDRY REVIVE THE ART OF OSCAR STATUETTES +archive_url, date (archived on 27 February 2016)
Oscar Statuette Gets a Face-Lift – This year's statuettes will be produced by Polich Tallix Fine Art Foundry and will be hand-cast in bronze before receiving their 24-karat gold finish. +archive_url, date (archived on 18 February 2016)
OSCAR STATUETTES, longtime creation of Chicago-based company, will now be made in New York +archive_url, date (archived on 8 March 2016)
Cinema: Oscars +access_date (first seen 16 May 2008)
[http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscar-statues-include-engraved-names-20476 Oscar statues to include engraved names

]

+access_date (first seen 1 March 2015);+archive_url, date (archived on 12 April 2015)
[http://parade.com/266251/stevedaly/governors-ball-secrets-welcome-to-the-engraving-station-where-oscar-statuettes-get-personalized/ Governors Ball Secrets: Welcome to the 'Engraving Station,' Where Oscar Statuettes Get Personalized

]

+access_date (first seen 1 March 2015);+archive_url, date (archived on 27 February 2015)
Electronic Voting Comes to The Oscars (Finally) +access_date (first seen 25 February 2012)
Oscars Submission FAQ +archive_url, date (archived on 1 April 2015)
[http://www.youbioit.com/en/article/shared-information/949/academy-and-its-oscar-awards The Academy and its Oscar Awards – Reminder List of Eligible Releases

]

+access_date (first seen 12 March 2010)
Oscars: The wacky way the Academy counts votes, and the results of our 'If You Were an Oscar Voter' poll +archive_url, date (archived on 6 May 2016)
The Oscars' messed-up voting process, explained +archive_url, date (archived on 11 March 2016)
Oscar's 'In Memoriam' segment is touching to watch, painful to make +archive_url, date (archived on 6 March 2010)
Cut … all change at Oscars as winners are given just 45 seconds to say thanks +access_date (first seen 17 February 2010)
Can the 'thank-you scroll' save Oscar speeches? +archive_url, date (archived on 28 February 2016)
ABC's Oscar Contract Renegotiations: Who'll Get Creative Control? +archive_url, date (archived on 2 March 2016)
Inside the Oscars Deal: What it Means for ABC and the Academy +archive_url, date (archived on 1 September 2016)
Academy's red carpet big stage for advertisers +access_date (first seen 5 March 2008)
Oscars lack blockbuster to lure TV viewers +archive_url, date (archived on 15 September 2006)
Low Ratings Crash Party +archive_url, date (archived on 11 June 2010)
Oscar ratings worst ever +access_date (first seen 28 February 2008)
It's Time to Create an Oscar For Stunt Coordinators +access_date (first seen 13 January 2013)
Jack Gill Interview +access_date (first seen 13 January 2013)
Academy Votes Against Creating Oscar Category for Stunt Coordinators +access_date (first seen 12 February 2012)
Can a Boycott Change the Oscars? +archive_url, date (archived on 4 February 2016)
Academy Promises 'Historic' Changes to Diversify Membership +archive_url, date (archived on 3 February 2016)
George C Scott: The man who refused an Oscar +access_date (first seen 27 March 2009)
Show Business: Meat Parade +access_date (first seen 27 March 2009)
Kantar Media Reports On The Advertising Vitality Of The Academy Awards – Historical Advertising Data Showcases Ad Pricing Trends and Top Marketers; Super Bowl Overlap Increases as Sales Rise +archive_url, date (archived on 20 April 2013)
Sunday Final Ratings: Oscars Adjusted Up +archive_url, date (archived on 22 October 2015)
The Oscars Beat The Super Bowl In Advertising Premium +archive_url, date (archived on 14 October 2015)

--Tim1357 talk|poke 04:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tim1357: thanks for adding archive links to citations, but I believe you are supposed to add |dead-url=no if the url isn't dead. See the respective cite template documentation for details. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 05:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Cool, TIL. --Tim1357 talk|poke 05:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tim1357: Do you plan to fix the cites? Readers shouldn't have to link to archives if the original links work fine. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman: I spotted this in the Anarchism article, but I see you've been busy.
I don't know what tool you are using, but the actions you are taking are quite different what the edit summary says should be done: add "deadurl=no" to Tim's additions.
Instead, I see accessdates being stripped, along with archiveurls, from far more refs than Tim had added archives to. Is this easy for you to correct?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Fine, but if you want to set deadurl=no where necessary, have at it. I won't touch it again. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: I see you have already made the corrections to Anarchism. Thanks. All I was doing was reverting apparent tool-based edits that didn't do a complete job. It's not any editor's job to do cleanup editing after tools that leave issues. Reverting is normal in such cases -- even if they revert seemingly valuable edits. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman:: but at Anarchism, your supposed reverts were not just targeting what Tim had done. It was not simply a revert of any edit that I could see, which is why it seemed to me that you might be using some automation. I don't have a problem with stripping accessdate from cite templates that don't support one - which is what some of your edits did (and I should check that I didn't mess that up) - but the other accessdates that were stripped were there before anyone, bot or not, added archivurls. And the InternetArchiveBot does have to be cleaned up after. It does a valuable service, but when it has problems, some URLs can be rescued by other means.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Dance Direction

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why was the Academy Award for dance direction abolished in 1937 after only two years? Valetude (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Valetude please ask this question at the Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. You will get a much quicker answer. MarnetteD|Talk 23:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Using Template:Infobox election to list "Most recent Academy Award winners" (and attempting to use non-free images there)

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I find using Template:Infobox election to list "Most recent Academy Award winners" an odd choice, like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. In any case, File:Spotlight (film) poster.jpg is a non-free image, and thus must comply with all rules of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, particularly # 10c (a separate, specific non-free use rationale for this particular article) and rule #8 (the contextual significance rule). Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:21, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Location of Vanity Fair Oscar party

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The sentence "The Vanity Fair after-party, historically at the former Morton's restaurant, since 2009 has been at the Sunset Tower" in the "Associated events" section may be out of date. According to the Vanity Fair website, for the past three years the party has been held at a location adjacent to Beverly Hills City Hall. Bunkyray5 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Date Formats - Revisited

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all! Looking at recent changes to the article on dates, back-and-forth in the history, and a section above, I figure it is worth getting a consensus on this: What format should the dates use, MDY or DMY? Some history: As near I can tell, the article used the US standard of MDY until this edit in 2013. Another user asked the editor about his change here, to which the editor replied that he'd look into it. The Use-date template, and the format of the dates in the article, have changed back and forth a few times since then, most recently today. So to prevent future dispute, shall we settle the issue once and for all? CrowCaw 17:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Two sentences in Disqualified Categories section making no sense

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As per the title above - Two sentences in the article's Criticism section don't make sense. Both were separately added on 5 Feb 2019. The first peculiar sentence is a bullet point in sub-section "Plagiarism controversy", stating as follows: "Up to now, there have been no movies because the plagiarism dispute was disqualified." It follows mention of TWO disputes (re Zootopia in 2017 and re The Shape Of Water in 2018) so which (if either) dispute is it meant to refer to? And what on earth is "there have been no movies" supposed to mean? The closest assumption I can figure is that the bullet point is meant to read "Up to now, there have been no movies disqualified for plagiarism as both disputes were dismissed." (The article doesn't mention this but I've checked - they were dismissed in 2017 and 2018 respectively). The second peculiar sentence is in sub-section "Disqualification", stating as follows: "However, no film was recovered after the award". What?? It was added at the same time as a preceding initial sentence "Eight films were disqualified before the official award because they violated the regulations." I therefore assume the peculiar sentence is supposed to read "''However, no film has been disqualified after receiving an award". I shall therefore change both sentences accordingly, in the hope that readers/checkers will agree with my reasoning and action. Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Academy Awards for deletion

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
 

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Academy Awards is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Academy Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 09:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Counting discrepancy in "Disqualifications" section

Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The "Disqualifications" section currently says that "nine films have been disqualified" but only lists seven. My best guess is that nine total nominations have been revoked among those seven films, but the wording should be changed one way or another. Oooooooseven (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hyperlink to Academy Awards shows rant, swearing

Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was looking at the Wikipedia page for Britannia Metal, which has a link to the Academy Awards in its article under formatting as "Oscar Statuettes." Placing the mouse over the hyperlink produces a preview which seems to be a copypasta rant about Avengers: Endgame and the Academy Awards. I don't know how to fix it or anything about Wikipedia editing in general, so I just thought I'd put something here. Sorry if I've messed up my formatting or if this is in the wrong place. 99.93.199.52 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

That was vandalism that had been reverted hours ago, but the page extract used by the preview feature didn't update for some reason. I made dummy edit and it seems fixed. If this is not a one-off glitch and is happening on other pages, please report the problem to Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Picture representing the article

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I am new to the editing side of Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I do not use the right vocabulary, etc. My issue with the article is that the picture we see when researching it is that of the latest Best Actor winner. I dislike the idea that the Best Actor is representing the whole Awards, mostly because it puts him at a «higher» rank than the Best Actress. I do not suggest replacing the picture with that of the Best Actress. I believe it would be more representative to use a picture from the Best Movie winner, or of the statuette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannellp (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I strongly agree and believe the image associated with this page should be the statuette and not any particular actor or actress. The section on images in Page Previews says that the image displayed should be the first image in the InfoBox, which is the statuette, so it's unclear why it is showing anything from the second InfoBox. Slvrstn (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The image in the first infobox, File:Academy Award trophy.png, is a non-free fair use image. The third point in the Images in the Page Previews guideline states that such non-free images can be skipped. This is consistent with the non-free content guidelines that emphasize that non-free images should be used as little as possible. There are other factors that may cause other images to be skipped like width and aspect ration, but to guarantee that the latest Best Actor winner stops showing up in the previews, you need to move the second infobox out of the lead section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Accusations of Plagiarism

Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I expected the plagiarism section of this article to be about accusations people have made that the Oscar shows steal jokes or sketch ideas, but instead it's about small selection of films that were accused of stealing their stories. Even if these films were nominated for Oscars, I don't think the accusations of plagiarism are related to the Oscars at all and am suggesting the sub-section be removed altogether. It's not even close to an exhaustive list of controversies related to films nominated for Oscars either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.81.188 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

  Done, you're right, thanks, it is tangential to the topic. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 March 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabyai.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

"OSCARS®" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect OSCARS® and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 15#OSCARS® until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. BD2412 T 04:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Oscar Statuette Depiction

Latest comment: 1 year ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Oscar statuette is actually a recreation of the Egyptian deity Ptah - the creator God & patron of craftsmen. Short Hand Style (talk) 16:50, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Care to provide a source?$chnauzer 17:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Academy_Awards/Archive_3&oldid=1210726620"