Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of 81st Academy Awards In Memoriam tribute honorees/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was not promoted by Scorpion0422 21:50, 5 May 2009 [1].

List of 81st Academy Awards In Memoriam tribute honorees edit

Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM)
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I find it to be an intriguing list and think it is complete, thorough and high quality. TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Leaning towards a 3b oppose. Is a list of people shown during a tribute really all that notable? -- Scorpion0422 13:57, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the number of secondary sources that have commented on the various events related to the segment. It is an annual tradition and has sufficient encyclopedic content to merit a separate article. This is in far more depth than 81st_Academy_Awards#In_Memoriam has or warrants. Note that I have winnowed the sources down to mostly leading newspapers and magazines, but several additional mentions of the segment exist. Note that the footnotes include the The Washington Post, Chicago Sun-Times, The New York Times, USA Today, The New York Times (again), New York Post, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, San Francisco Chronicle, and Chicago Tribune. Even without the table the list would probably merit a WP:GA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the Oscars are notable and they do it every year but it's a list of people that were in a video package... The kind of trivia that should be in the Oscar website. Such a detailed list is not needed anyway. If a list really is needed, it could be compressed into a small bulletted list. This is an embodiment of why 3b was added, it's a fork of limited notability that really doesn't need an individual page. -- Scorpion0422 18:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scorp, take a close look at the value added of this list. Look at the detail about the accomplishments of those included and the lengthy enumeration of those who were excluded. Then look at the explanations of the various controversies. This is a solid encyclopedic contribution. It is probably at too high a level of detail to be rolled back into the article for several reasons.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:01, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a fork, it is not likely to be remerged back into the main article. There is a lot of detail that distinguishes it from the section in the main article. It is more than a common video package. The added detail is beneficial encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, the entire (and mostly unsourced) "Explanations" section could go, and the list could be limited to name, profession and possibly date of death (and/or age) and switched to a multi-column bulleted list (in fact, 81st Academy Awards already includes a list, although it is less-detailed, but it makes it fail 3b). I don't see how this possibly gets through 3b. It's not an accomplishment or achievement or really anything of note (I'd be willing to bet that the majority of the pages of the people listed do not say "and was included in the In Memorian tribute at the 81st Academy Awards". It's just a list of people who died in the past year, most awards shows do them and while there are reliable sources, it really doesn't need an individual page. -- Scorpion0422 02:50, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what makes the list interesting is the explanations section. Many names come from blogs and such so I can not cite them, but I could look up individual obits. However, in terms of whether other awards shows have such a section, I watch the Grammy Awards and the ESPY Awards and have never seen such a list on their shows. What shows are you talking about with in memoriam lists.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't watch a lot of awards shows, but the Emmys definitely do have such a list, and possibly Golden Globes. -- Scorpion0422 12:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This should be a featured list. It is informative, accurate and very detailed.--Snowman Guy (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you were invited to comment, but it should be noted that constructive criticism carries a lot more weight here than !voting. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:49, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

  • Why are we using multiple IMDb sources when a reliable source like this Los Angeles Times entry gives exactly the same information in a more relevant way.
  • I believe all the years are one to high (see source mentioned above). Whilst that is the year the award was (probably) given, the awards refer to the previous year in film. (this is ambigous).
  • What is the relevence of the order in which they were honoured?
  • Random second column header
  • Column header "Oscar recognition", you haven't mentioned that Oscar and Academy Awards are synonymous.
  • You cannot use Ref 2 or the EL – just because the Youtube user is called "oscarsinmemoriam" doesn't make it official.
  • Because of the above "Listed below, in order of appearance, are those who were honored on February 22, 2009 at the Kodak Theatre in Los Angeles, California during the 81st Academy Awards tribute" will need a citation.
  • Missing dates for Joseph M. Caracciolo
  • Random linking consistency. Isaac Hayes has Shaft linked in both his recognitions, and why are some years linked but others not. Be consistent.
    • I intended to link first occurrence only for movies and years. I hope I have fixed this.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not really fussed, but sortable tables are an exception to WP:OVERLINK because entries soon get out of order. Because of that you may link on each occurance if you wish. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You've italicised In Memorium in the opening sentence, but not elsewhere.
  • "81st Academy Awards' tribute included film critic Manny Farber", sentences shouldn't start with a number.
  • "and cellist Yo-Yo Ma did so during the 76th Academy Awards" why is this relevent out of the live performers
    • It is the only sourced example of a prior live performer I could find.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:42, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have tweaked the text to increase the relevance of this fact.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:22, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Out of "Live music has previously accompanied the tribute however and cellist Yo-Yo Ma did so during the 76th Academy Awards although his performance was solely instrumental." I don't see the point in the later bit. There is no added value in listing live performers, and simply because you have a ref for it doesn't merit inclusion. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were plans to attempt to dampen" - this is a past event so did the plan happen?
    • I have no source for which audio feeds were open during the telecast. However, the attempt to dampen applause was successful according to sources noted in the article.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 17:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prose seems to be missing a few commas e.g. "Each year, an In Memoriam tribute for distinguished members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences who died during the previous year is included during the televised presentation of the Academy Awards." and "During the 81st Academy Awards hosted by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences,"
  • Oppose per the 3b concerns Scorpion brought up. This could be compressed into a paragraph plus a bulletted list in the main article. The "Explanations" section is pushing into WP:UNDUE territory; noting everyone who the Academy didn't include when no secondary or tertiary source bothered to note their exclusion from this list is unnecessary. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 09:39, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am unable to source a couple of important things so I can't really fight for this as much as I awould like, but this would be listing everyone the Academy excluded. This list is a selective list of notable selections.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:59, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that the section is UNDUE. You're just listing film related people that died that year. A source that says "shock horror deceased actor Joe Bloggs wasn't paid tribute to" would merit inclusion. Someone simply dying in the allocated time frame doesn't IMO. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 18:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the top of that, that source is a blog and inappropriate per WP:RS. — sephiroth bcr (converse) 23:21, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, 3b. Yes, the honorees are notable but do not warrant a separate list. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Why is Sydney Pollack listed solely as an actor? His Oscar wins were for directing and producing. Gran2 21:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_81st_Academy_Awards_In_Memoriam_tribute_honorees/archive1&oldid=1223712064"