Talk:84th Academy Awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured list 84th Academy Awards is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.

Update for Visual Effects Category

It seems the list for Best Visual Special Effects has recently been narrowed down to 10, should this announcement be updated to the article or should we wait for further conformation from a more reliable source? - here's the link - http://www.comingsoon.net/news/weekendwarriornews.php?id=85644 - 00:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

  • I don't get erasing all the steps though. It should be in the article. All the narrowing down until the official nominees. Qwerty786 (talk) 17:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
How about adding the "steps" to the separate award articles? This article is a global one and should be as concise as possible. — WylieCoyote (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
That pages layout is all locked up and impossible to put in the steps. It's just a big chart and the disruption of the chart would be sever. It should be here with the "Pre-nominees" section that was deleted for some reason. Qwerty786 (talk) 02:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
This is an AWARDS article and should only include the winners and final nominees, not a list of "Pre-nominees" that they whittled down over the course of the year, hence my term: concise. The mention of the shortened category in the Changes section suffices. — WylieCoyote (talk) 04:00, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
It is all part of a process and ignoring part of the process for some categories is incomplete and acting like the categories with pre nominees are like all the others is inaccurate. Even for this article. All parts of the process should be in the artilce. This article just wont have the winners when it is all done it will have the nominees as well. Some categories have different stages of nominating and it's not even mentioned. This article is incomplete and inaccurate. Qwerty786 (talk)
Do what you want, but I doubt I'm alone in my thinking. I vote you put it to a vote. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Mention of Brett Ratner's slur in a "Controversy" section?

Should the incident of Brett Ratner's gay slur and it's consequences be included in a "Controversies" section of the article?--Snowman Guy (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

It's mentioned in the lead but only sourced from AMPAS. If you do thorough research and remain "fair," I don't see why it can't be included. — WylieCoyote (talk) 03:54, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Tree of Life

Why wasn't Brad Pitt nominated for Tree of Life's Best Picture nomination? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:17, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Great question. I am not 100% sure in this particular case ... but I believe that the Academy limits the number of producers that can win (or be nominated for) the Best Picture award on any particular film. The following statement appears in the Wikipedia article for Academy Award for Best Picture. (I highlighted the relevant section in bold-face print.) "Note 1: Until the 23rd Academy Awards (1950), Best Picture was awarded to the studio that produced the film. Beginning with the 24th Academy Awards (1951), however, it has been awarded to the individual producers credited on the film. Note also that until 1943, there were ten (rather than five) nominated films per year. As of 2009, there are once again ten nominated films. The first year in which multiple individuals jointly won was 1973, with three winners for The Sting. The greatest number of joint winners was five, for Shakespeare in Love in 1998. After this, the Academy imposed a limit of three nominated producers per film; however, this limit may be exceeded in a "rare and extraordinary circumstance", such as in 2008 when both Anthony Minghella and Sydney Pollack were posthumously included among four nominees for The Reader.[1]" Hope this information helps! Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC))
  1. ^ Siegel, Tatiana (27 January 2009). "Acad allows 'Reader' 4 producers; Minghella, Pollack to be named as nominees". Variety. Reed Business. Retrieved 2009-05-24. 


See Rule Seventeen: “The nominees will be those three or fewer producers who have performed the major portion of the producing functions.” As an exception, in “a rare and extraordinary circumstance”, the Producers Branch Executive Committee may name any additional qualified producer as a nominee. The Tree of Life has five individuals with a produced-by credit; the three submitted on the AMPAS nomination form were Sarah Green, Bill Pohlad, and Dede Gardner. A fourth, Grant Hill, subsequently petitioned the Academy to be included.[1] According to the official AMPAS press release, the Producers Branch Executive Committee determined that four producers (Sarah Green, Bill Pohlad, Dede Gardner, and Grant Hill) functioned as genuine producers of The Tree of Life. Cinematical (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Records and milestones

Is information like “Woody Allen is the sixth oldest nominee for Best Director” a true milestone, or mere trivia? 00:58, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

See (prior) discussion below. This Woody Allen statement is a factual statement that is sourced by the official Academy Awards people (AMPAS). AMPAS is not only a reliable source in this matter, but the reliable source! Whether it is under the semantic label heading of "milestone" or "statistic" or "record" is hardly the germane point. The germane point is that the factual, reliably sourced information should be included. I have addressed all your concerns below. And you continue to revert without explanation or response. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
  • Comment It's mere trivia, but even the old fashioned encyclopedias had some trivia. Just don't have the whole article full of this type of trivia. SD (talk contribs) 00:47, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Discussion

Joseph A. Spadaro, regarding this edit, do you not see the irony in your edit summary claiming the information is sourced while you are restoring text along with the {{citation needed}} tag? Cinematical (talk) 22:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Also please have a look at WP:RD/L#Definition of "milestone". Finishing 6th (or 2nd for that matter) is neither a record nor a milestone. Cinematical (talk) 22:49, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

These are indeed milestones, at least according to the Academy (AMPAS). Which is a reliable source. Indeed, AMPAS itself would be the most reliable of all sources in this matter. The Academy itself would be the source! Who are you — or any other Wikipedia editor, for that matter — to supersede the judgment of the Academy as to what is or is not a notable milestone? I can (and will) offer the source, but I do not know how to format it properly. Which is why I have not added it in. PS: No, I do not see the irony at all. Just because a statement has a "citation needed" tag does not mean that a source does not exist. It simply means that the statement has not (yet) been sourced. In fact, that is the very reason for having the citation tag in the first place. It is used all the time! Otherwise, unsourced statements would simply be deleted, all the time. So, you are proving my case — rather than your own — by pointing to the citation tag as evidence that the statement should be deleted. Also, I have reviewed the link that you provided above (WP:RD/L#Definition of "milestone"). I am not sure why you provide that. That certainly is no "official" definition of milestone. Rather, it is a Reference Board discussion of the topic of what the definition of a milestone is (or should be). I am not sure how that is germane? It again proves my point that it is not what we at Wikipedia consider the definition of a milestone to be, but rather, what the reliable sources (i.e., the Academy) consider it to be. Furthermore, that discussion was sparsely attended, at best. I will provide the link/source below, although I really do not know the proper way to format it. (Perhaps someone else can do so.) I will be adding the deleted information back into the article. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
Here is the source: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics/indexStats.html. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC))
Thank you for finally supplying a source. But it does not bear out your claim; the page whose link you supply does not use the word “milestone”. Therefore please do not re-add this trivia until consensus has developed. Cinematical (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
The use of the specific word "milestone" is not the issue here. Inclusion of the factual information is the germane issue. It does not matter what verbiage you want/prefer to use as a heading (record, milestone, etc.). Furthermore, I find it quite ironic that you deleted my statements, in light of the other (unsourced) statements that you retained. Please explain your reasoning. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk))
Also ... you purport to be "bothered by" (i.e., object to) the use of the specific word "milestone" — and not by the inclusion of the factual information. I added the term "statistics" ... since that parrots exactly the verbiage of the Academy Awards website. And that should address your (purported) concerns. Therefore, please do not delete this factual (sourced) information until consensus has developed. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

please bring a citation for "records" and one for "milestones". thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:30, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

I did exactly that ... exactly what you requested above. That is, I provided several reliable sources as citations for the use of the word "records". In response to that, you reverted my edit, with an edit summary of "what the fuck". (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:06, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
These are normal everyday words, used in their normal everyday sense. I don't believe that they require, umm, "citations". Good grief. Let's not be silly. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:46, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
Trivial. Does not belong. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:48, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Says who? If a reliable source (such as AMPAS) reports it, then who are you to "trump" / supersede that reliable source with your "conclusion" that it is trivial? Please clarify. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
Thanks, Bugs. Joseph, you are very alone here. Besides, your "normal everyday words" constitute original research here, since the source does not report it. "Nuclear" and "scientist" are also normal words; you still can't claim to be one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:52, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
So, call it "statistics" ... as the reliable source does. And ... ummm ... as I suggested above. And ... ummm ... as I placed into the article myself. Read the above discussion. Furthermore, most people know what the word "record" means ... and know what the word "milestone" means. They are normal words that require no explanation or citation. And your "nuclear scientist" argument is non-sensical. Claiming to be something that one is not is a matter of fact (versus lie) ... not a matter of the normal everday words / usage / definitions of "nuclear scientist". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

You need to read WP:POINT and stop this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I thought that if a normal, everyday word was used in the article, it needs to be referenced exactly and specifically in the source? Wasn't that your argument above, when I mentioned the everyday words "record" and "milestone"? Why is it that you can "pick and choose" when your "rule" applies and when it does not apply? You are confusing me here. Your exact words were ... Besides, your "normal everyday words" constitute original research here, since the source does not report it. So, I was just applying your rule ... what's wrong with that? I am confused. Please clarify. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
"record" and "milestone" constitute value-judgments for which a citation must be given when requested. There is no value-judgment in the headings you tried to tag. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:22, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Number 1 ... call it "statistics", like I suggested multiple times above. (You clearly want to call it "trivia" so that it gets deleted under the "no trivia" rule. And you are being disingenuous about that, which is your ulterior motive.) Number 2 ... a "record" is a value judgment? Huh? What planet are you on? For real? You don't think that Meryl Streep earning 17 nominations is referred to as a "record"? And you don't think that that fact is highly and reliably sourced? Honestly? Who is being unreasonable and difficult here? I can probably find a dozen sources in the next 2 minutes that will refer to Streep's accomplishment as a, ummm, "record". It's a plain and simple factually true statement. Streep earned 17 nominations ... which is a "record" to the extent that no one else has earned more than her 17 ... ever in the history of the Oscars. Where exactly is the "value judgment" that you claim? Please clarify? Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
Change your rhetoric and try again. Until then, there's nothing to clarify. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 05:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
"Oldest" could be interesting. "Fourth oldest" or "27th oldest" is trivial. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Bugs, that is your personal conclusion. Not fact. The Academy, a reliable source, feels differently ... as do many other reliable sources. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:44, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
To - Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ... to address your, ummm, "concerns" ... I have added the following information to the article. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
Note: The fact that Meryl Streep has earned a total of seventeen Academy Award nominations has been referred to as a "record" in several reliable sources. For reliable sources that specifically use the term "record" in reference to Streep's situation, please see, for example, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/oscars/9095990/The-Oscars-2012-in-numbers.html, http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2012/1/oscars-2012-meryl-streep-extends-record-tally-for-most-nominations, and http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2093628/Meryls-magic-As-gets-record-17th-Oscar-nomination-faces-Ms-Streep.html.
To - Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ... you asked for sources to support the word "records" ... I provided MANY reliable sources that do exactly what you requested ... you delete them ... you use an edit summary of "what the fuck" ... and then you give me a warning? For real, man? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC))
Reliability of a source is not a ticket to a fact's inclusion in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:53, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, Bugs. So, please clarify. Assume that we have reliable sources ... how do we "pick and choose" from those reliable sources as to what to include in (or exclude from) Wikipedia? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2012 (UTC))

Protection

Due to the ongoing addition of nonsense and unsourced "wins" of awards that haven't actually been presented yet, I've put a one-hour semiprotection on the article to keep anonymous IPs off. Just so y'all know. Bearcat (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

An hour, right?[2] Just wanted to make sure. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:32, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Weird, I coulda sworn I'd selected "1 hour" before I hit save. Oh, well, thanks for the catch. Bearcat (talk) 04:33, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Performers section is not complete...

I would like to add to the performers section Esperanza Spalding and The Southern California Children's Chorus, who did a fabulous job during the memorium segment.

Campsmith (talk) 05:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC) 2/27/2012

"Reception" section

A "Reception" section needs to be added to the article.--Snowman Guy (talk) 12:55, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

First BP win since No Country to be filmed in the US?

Just wondering if this is something that should be added. Intresting that it is the first one to be filmed in the US when it was not an American film. (Also the first PG-13 winner since Million Dollar Baby)

Wgolf (talk) 16:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

This line makes no sense

The following line in the story makes no sense: "Head writer Bruce Vilanch was not involved in writing duties due to other projects." So was he involved in the ceremony or not? Was this just a ceremonial title (like some executive producer titles), or did the person who added that mean to say that Vilanch, who has written a number of past ceremonies, was unable to do so this year because of other commitments? 70.72.215.252 (talk) 13:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 84th 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:

  • Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130512052624/http://blogs.denverpost.com/madmoviegoer/2011/11/10/bill-crystal-returns-to-oscar-oscar-oscar/995/ to http://blogs.denverpost.com/madmoviegoer/2011/11/10/bill-crystal-returns-to-oscar-oscar-oscar/995/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:84th_Academy_Awards&oldid=781140882"
This content was retrieved from Wikipedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:84th_Academy_Awards
This page is based on the copyrighted Wikipedia article "Talk:84th Academy Awards"; it is used under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA). You may redistribute it, verbatim or modified, providing that you comply with the terms of the CC-BY-SA