Talk:96th Academy Awards

Snubbing

I don't see why the section on the snubbing of nominations of Greta Gerwig and Margot Robbie are at all noteworthy. Every single year, the Oscars come under fire for its dumb exclusions; I could write an entire book about snubs I hated. I dislike that the Mario movie, Sound of Freedom, Saltburn and Godzilla Minus One barely got nominations and yet that's never going to get talked about, so why is it noteworthy that a load of insecure activists are throwing a fit about a couple of nominations they don't like just because they're women? User:Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel talking 00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm with you. This is a perennially introduced category, that those with PTSD from "astonishing omissions" include. Ordinarily, it would be absurd. Last season, it was Andrea Riseborough's (thoroughly deserving and warranted) nomination. Why people didn't look towards schmaltzy Williams or shlocky De Armas as the ones who "robbed" Deadwyler and/or Davis is beyond me. But I digress.

However, this year is different in that Barbie was an international phenomenon and the box office juggernaut. With James Cameron and both Titanic and Avatar, he was easily omitted. So many see it as Gerwig being taken less credibly (i.e. not being ranked 1-2 (or 1-3)) and given the same credence for her equivocal achievements. Similarly with Robbie I suppose, since Gosling and Ferrera made it. But Best Actress was overloaded. And Director had a different female director, so one certainly can't cry feminism foul.

So since it has received significant press coverage, it does qualify as notable. It has sources....

....HOWEVER, I think we all need to keep an eye on it. We don't need every irrelevant external opinion on the matter. Gosling and Ferrera are notable POVs because they worked on the film. All that recent addition...uh, no. Yeoh is a stretch, but I'd still suggest no. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 01:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess, but consider the top 10 highest grossing films of all time, only four got any nominations let alone several, all three James Cameron films and Endgame. Barbie making a lot of money I don't think is relevant at all. Again, the Mario movie didn't get any nominations. I would think it would be credible to have if anyone in these sources actually gave a reason it should have received the nominations it didn't, and why they deserved them over those that did get nominations. Until then, it's just trivia. If we can't find a real reason to keep it, I'm getting rid of it. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 22:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not only a matter of Barbie's being an international phenomenon and a box office juggernaut. This specific snubbing has been widely discussed in mainstream media, and the sources are already cited. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The insecure 14-year-old girls on Twitter is what caught mainstream attention, not the snubbing itself. They would never have commented if it wasn't for them. It is doesn't deserve attention, nor does half the rubbish that's been added since that's already been talked about below. Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel (talk) 19:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Are you saying that fan reactions do not matter, because these fans are girls? Dimadick (talk) 21:34, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Briton Meaning?

I don't understand the following: Glazer became the first Briton nominated for Best Director. Can someone advise - as he is definitely not the first person from Great Britain to be nominated? Defenestration77 (talk) 06:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Whoever edited that misinterpreted the sentence in the article. He is the first Brit to be nominated either just in International Film period, or at least for the hat trick of that category combined with directing and writing. I have to do a cursory glance, but it's definitely not Best Director, haha. Somewhere, David Lean was howling. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 09:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Confirmed. After a cursory glance at the nominees page, two nominees even preceded him with Welsh-language films. One was a Welsh director, but the other was English. So really, his notability here is that he's the first to score for directing, writing, and international; and/or International + Best Picture, for a UK submission. To be honest, both really are notable facts. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 10:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Article is becoming a trivia list

There is a lot of activity on this page like ever year when nominations are announced. Lots of first and records and "history-making" happening. And every year people come to fill the wikipedia page to highlight those achievements. However well intentioned and sourced those informations are, the article inevitably becomes too long and filled with trivia

An article I see a lot being used as a source is the following: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/2024-oscars-records-milestones-nominations-1235803416/

Unfortunately, this Wikipedia page has basically become a "wikified" version of this article. There are two editors who are contributing a lot to this article, but I think that this article should be GREATLY revised and trimmed down. This is a wikipedia page and NOT an entertainment website, the information here should be pertinent. I do not see what the purpose is for so many trivial facts and what their inclusion in this article is trying to achieve. Just take a look at the wikipedia pages from previous ceremonies. The trivias are kept to a minimum. Guinova (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I think that when a person (e.g., an Oscar nominee) "breaks a record" or is "history making", then that information is not really "trivia". Of course, some editors push the envelope on that general premise. In this article, the record-breaking and history-making "trivia" should be kept minimal. People can always add to the article "List of Academy Award records". Thanks. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you, only truly record breaking or a notable firsts should be mentionned in this article.

Here are some of my comments/opinions about what should be removed or edited:

-Robbie Robertson has become the sixty-fourth individual to be nominated posthumously. There is a page dedicated to the matter, (List of posthumous Academy Award winners and nominees), where people can add to his it instead. Also, being the sixty-fourth to do anything is trivial.

-The whole « LGBTQ+ characters amongst the performances ». The orientation of the characters is maybe significant in the plot of their respective movies, but it has nothing to do with the nominations themselves. There is a lengthy article about LGBTQ+ performers, characters and nominees: "List of LGBT Academy Award winners and nominees", people should add there. I guess this could pass as a feat of representation, but five of the nominated actors are not members of the community, and many straight actors have been nominated and won for playing LGBTQ+ characters. Also, Lily Gladstone being non-binary is not sourced.

-Wes Anderson joining a « five-timers club »: Who else is in that « club »? Pertinent if he equals or beats Alfonso Cuarón and Kenneth Branagh’s record who received nominations in seven categories, otherwise let's not add every time a person is ont step closer to reaching a number of nomination, this would be endless.

-Ten actors received first Oscar nominations. Every year there are first time nominees. Last year there were 16 first time acting nominees. This is trivial, and naming them all makes the article longer for no real purpose.

-Two directors received their first nominations and first-time writing nominees… Why don’t we go down the list of categories and list all of the first time nominees? As with the first time acting nominees, this is trivial.

-Glazer being the first Briton person to be nominated for directing/writing/best international feature is a) false, as he does not receive a nomination for international feature, only the country does, and b) it is trivial information. Should we list every time a person from a specific country is nominated for a specific combo of categories? Denis Villeneuve became the first Québécois to receive nominations for producing and writing for Dune, Ryusuke Hamaguchi was the first Japanese person to be nominated for directing and writing for Drive My Car, Alfonso Cuarón was the first Mexican to be nominated as a producer, director, writer and cinematography for Roma… the list can go on.

-American Fiction being the first film to have black actors nominated for Best Actor and Supporting Actor. Again, do we need to point out every time a film has certain demographics nominated for a particular combination of nominations? It would be ground breaking if they were the first black actors nominated, or the first film to feature multiple black actors to receive nominations. There is a page dedicated to that matter where people can add information: List of black Academy Award winners and nominees

-The whole « couples receiving nominations together » is super trivial and really looks like it’s from a gossip magazine or an entertainment website rather than a wikipedia article. It is not relevant to anything. None of them landed the nomination because they were a couple. It's a fun fact at best.

-The list of female producer doesn’t need highlighting. Many films have had female producers nominated for years now. The list makes the reading overly long. There were four last year, five the year before, four the year before that and seven the year before that. We can go on and on. 142.116.235.161 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Nearly everything -- if not, everything -- that you cite above is trivia. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

There is also a new paragraph about the nationality of the directors and loads of statistics about foreign actors and directors from the 1960s onward. The Academy and film industry in general have opened up to more and more international members and nominees. This kind of statistics do not belong on the wikipedia page for an award event. Guinova (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not committing to consensus yet, but I do see the perspective on a great many of these.

-So what's the verdict on: Gladstone's Indigenous, Scorsese's 10th, John Williams yet again, and...oh yeah, Spielberg as producer? Plus the "Barbenheimer" phenomenon combo statement.

-Mission Impossible and Godzilla can certainly get axed from the list. Celine Song is really not the first Asian, just Asian-born woman, so it's not significant at all.

-I actually had to CORRECT Hollywood Reporter by sending them an e-mail, in that they reported Willie D. Burton was the most nominated "black creative" because they forgot Denzel's 2 wins and 1 producer nomination, by only counting his 7 losses.

-LGBT group is a progressive achievement that I think is worth highlighting, as well as the out actors factor. We can strike Gladstone off of that however, because the source isn't a clear-cut identifiably reliable indicator of being non-binary. We should leave her Indigenous ID though. But if listing the characters' actors is unspectacular, then how about simply saying: Seven performances nominated were for LGBTQ+ characters, including the two out actors, Domingo and Foster. Period and no more.

-That monstrosity of foreign director percentages has got to go, I concur, because it is absolute insanity. I just saw that. The female producer, agreed, it is not something monumental. The 3 female-directed BPs however, that can stay imo. Think that's fair enough?

-All right, fair enough regarding first-time nominees. I personally think it's an interesting fact to name it every single ceremony which ones are nominated for the first time so that people reading per ceremony know when those people are nominated for their first time. But I suppose if we do it for actors, we have to do it for all nominees, and then it becomes a clusterfuck?

-Couples are definitely extra and unspectacular info.

-Bradley Cooper being the fifth to direct himself to a nomination is not special. He wasn't the first one either.

-As for the Barbie snub shit, if we're reducing this, that would have to be reduced too. Because it keeps growing, and I've tried to tame and maintain fairly. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 17:34, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Cinemaniac86,

Here are my thoughts about your input:

-Lily Gladstone being the first indigenous american actress nominated is worth leaving in. Spielberg's 13th nomination, Scorsese being the second director to achieve 10 nominations and John Williams nomination and age could also stay. Although I'm not a fan of the "Barbenheimer" combo, I see it at almost every award ceremony, plus it's cultural significance could warrant a mention in this article.

-I'm not opposed to leaving Godzilla and Mission Impossible, they are long running successful franchises that have never been nominated, but we also can axe it. Celine Song's mention of being the first asian born is not significant, I agree.

-There may be a better way to phrase the Willie D. Burton milestone, but maybe this belongs in this article: List of black Academy Award winners and nominees.

-I'm still on the fence about the whole LGBTQ+ section. The identity of the characters and actors have little do to with the nomination or the ceremony itself, but "Seven performances nominated were for LGBTQ+ characters, including the two out actors, Domingo and Foster" is a good compromise, maybe better phrased.

-Since it's the first time that three BP nominees are directed by women I think it's worth leaving it in.

-I still think that the mentions of first time nominees (in all category) should be removed, however interesting it might be for the few of us who are passionate about this kind of topic.

-Also agreed about Bradley Cooper, being the fifteenth and fifth to do something is not special.

-Regarding the Barbie snub subsection, maybe we should trim it down to something like this: there was a backlash against the snubbing of Margot and Greta. X, Y an Z criticized the Academy, while X, Y and Z defended the Academy. And then keep Margot's response and she is the one concerned about the whole controversy, and maybe leave out the whole "Barbie was nominated for 8 Oscars, Greta had 3 films nominated for BP", etc. Does this sound like a good plan? Guinova (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. Any general stuff that is basic and relevant to this particular ceremony is worth inclusion. That's mainly what I've curtailed other edits, trimming prose that's gotten a little too liberal with its flourish, such as "in history" or "the title of", et al. And I'd also say anything that's not a "first", perhaps isn't worth a damn. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 17:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Is there a consensus on what should be removed/deleted? There has been a lot of issues pointed out yet the article remains unedited. 142.116.235.161 (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

• I trimmed off another chunk of it. There was no source supporting the 7 LGBT characters fact, so will be WP:OR unless we can find a source. I'm not convinced any "oldest living person to recieve nomination in X" and derivatives are notable, given how constrained and potentially repetitive some of them are. Perhaps some more can be cut even further, given how many people will recieve their first noms in any year. But otherwise I feel better about the current paragraph now. Soni (talk) 21:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

  Good stuff, I think it looks significantly better. Thanks for taking the initiative. I thought there was a source for the LGBTQ+ characters, but at least the actors remain, which is more important. The LGBTQ+ page showcases the characters in addition. I removed the Cooper tidbit, because it fits with removing stuff that isn't a notable superlative. (Was agreed upon above between @Guinova and I, too.) And I just utilized semicolons for the serial list w/ Scorsese & co., but I think you did a great job, @Soni.

  Not to try to expand it again, but there was one that was removed that I wonder if it's worth keeping: Danielle Brooks being nominated for the same role that Oprah Winfrey was nominated for in the 1985 film. I had added that initially, because it's a unique and rare occurrence. How do you feel about keeping that one? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 00:45, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  I personally do not care for it. Critically acclaimed movies or concepts get remade all the time, and they often win awards again (See "A Star is Born"). It's interesting trivia for Danielle Brookes or her movie's article, but I don't think it's anything but a contrived addition to this page. Soni (talk) 02:15, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  That's fair enough. It's perhaps more notable in the Rita Moreno/Ariana DeBose case, since they both won for the same role. Anyway, I reframed the last edit, due to the order in which Triet was wikilinked. The reductions have definitely improved things, though it wouldn't surprise me if someone wants to trim it further by chopping off the Spielberg/Scorsese, etc., paragraph. Hopefully this is satisfactory or at least an acceptable compromise for consensus sake. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 03:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  If other editors believe further cuts improve the article further, good. I stopped here because I think this level of trivia and detail is appropriate and useful for readers, but I'm happy if others take this up further. Compromise is not a necessity for consensus or improvement, editors can iterate over already done edits instead of stopping midway for our sake. Soni (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

• @Cinemaniac86: I attempted that rephrase because tacking LGBT and other diverse nominees to the end of "First time acting nominees" felt icky. I don't love that "In addition" in that paragraph. Not sure if there's a better way to structure it all Soni (talk) 03:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  Oh gotcha. I did feel that same way too about the "in addition". Perhaps we'll just get rid of that phrase. I was attempting to make it flow without making it seem like Foster was part of the first-time nominee group (whereas Domingo obviously is). --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 03:56, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Jimmy Kimmel just rattled off a trivia list about the 10 first-time acting nominees and three foreign-language Best Picture nominees. Glad his writers were around to peruse our Wikipedia history! =) Haha. Just kidding, although you never know. Perhaps it did serve a purpose.----Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 23:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

"First openly non-binary actor nominated"

Is it completely appropriate to say that Gladstone is the "first openly non-binary actor nominated"?

This makes at least two claims:

1. That she is non-binary.
2. That she is the first openly non-binary actor nominated.

The first one is a bit of a stretch. There are convincing references that directly say that she uses "they" as one of her pronouns, but by itself, it doesn't necessarily mean that she is non-binary. There are people who specifically say that they are not non-binary, but ask to be referred with the "they" pronoun; Farhad Manjoo is an immediate example I can think of, and there are more.

As far as I can see, pretty much the only source cited in this article and elsewhere for her being non-binary is this interview in People. In it, she mostly talks about the idea of gender in Native societies, and only a little about herself. The only thing there that gets close to self-identification is this: Gladstone adds that her pronoun use is a way of “embracing that when I'm in a group of ladies, I know that I'm a little bit different. When I'm in a group of men, I don't feel like a man. I don't feel [masculine] at all. I feel probably more feminine when I'm around other men.”

Is "I know that I'm a little bit different" the same as calling oneself "non-binary"? I'm not an expert on non-binary identity, but I'm not sure that it's enough. She certainly doesn't use the word "non-binary" there to refer to herself. (She also doesn't use the word two-spirit, which appeared in one of the earlier versions of the article.)

I've raised concerns about the above also on Talk:Lily Gladstone.

And then there's the second claim, that she is the first openly non-binary actor nominated. Is there a specific reliable source for that? I see it mentioned here and there on social networks, but that's not a reliable source. If there's no reliable source, then this claim is original research. Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It wasn't just the People article. But they all say the same thing, basically. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 17:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

All the articles I've seen on the topic essentially quote the People article. As far as I can see, the People article is the original source.

The important thing is what is it saying. The way I read it, it's a very weak confirmation that she is "openly non-binary". Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Seeing it's not directly supported by a reference, I've removed the claim. If a reliable source specifically says it, it can be re-added. Else it'll be OR. Soni (talk) 03:43, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

  @Presidentman, do you have a source explicitly stating Gladstone is openly LGBTQ? I think we removed that because the ref used just states Gladstone uses she/they pronouns.

  We're trying to avoid OR here, so a better source would be preferable. Soni (talk) 09:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  I couldn't find a source that explicitly calls her non-binary. Here, Gladstone refers to herself as "middle-gendered." In lieu of the challenged source, I've added one from AMPAS itself identifying her as LGBTQ. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah thanks. Both of these are strong enough refs for my request (We should probably include the Salon article there as well, that's more direct imho). This can be the more dicey bits of BLP, so I'd rather be safe than not. Soni (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Great job, @Presidentman, in exhuming those refs. I concur with @Soni, that it feels solid now, with all of them unified to anchor the statement. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:50, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Terrifier 2 Makeup and Hairstyling nomination?

Multiple news outlets have recorded Terrifier 2's producing company, Bloody Disgusting, submitting Terrifier 2 for an Oscar nomination. Why was it not added? Did the Academy not accept it as a nomination? https://bloody-disgusting.com/movie/3738565/we-have-officially-submitted-terrifier-2-for-oscar-consideration-because-its-too-funny-not-to/ https://collider.com/terrifier-2-oscars-academy-awards-consideration-damien-leone/ https://variety.com/2022/film/news/terrifier-2-submitted-oscars-fans-urge-voters-to-watch-vomit-1235421377/ 135.180.5.212 (talk) 00:08, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

They submitted it for consideration, but the Makeup branch thought five other films (from a shortlist of ten) were worthier of nominations. Also, article was dated in 2022, which would mean they submitted it for the 95th Oscars. CRBoyer 00:13, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

Please can i edit but i wont publish it, i will just screenshot the edit thank you 112.201.131.71 (talk) 10:42, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 12:59, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

Under Ceremony information, for Diversity rules, in the sentence where it mentions disabilities, please remove the sentence “ but does not count people with intellectual disabilities such as the autism spectrum”. This is not mentioned in either source in that section and thus constitutes WP:OR. 2600:100C:A218:92ED:9C18:7BF9:3E3:D540 (talk) 21:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter says the Oscars submission website asks if said cast or crew member is on the autism spectrum. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-features/oscars-inclusion-rules-sparking-debate-1235343128/

It's the guidelines themselves that are underestimating that underrepresented group like "autism" does not count as one of the "disabilities" they see fit the description, which is what's wrong. HM2021 (talk) 03:55, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Removed autism phrasing. The official guidelines only say "cognitive" disabilities, and we can't be extrapolating so much from one word. I would be happy to add back "autism" if someone provides a source that it is an official policy. I read the Hollywood Reporter source and I don't think it gives enough information to say one way or the other. Mokadoshi (talk) 22:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Israel controversy

Should allegations that the Rafah offensive was timed with the awards be included anywhere? Similar to the 12 February 2024 Rafah strikes being referred to as the Super Bowl massacre. Bill3602 (talk) 03:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources connecting these two events together ? Also, while 12 Feb Rafah strikes are dubbed as Super Bowl massacre, there is no mention of them on the Super Bowl LVIII. So, following that precedent, we should not add about the attack on this page. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 06:12, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

[1] and [2] are two examples.--Bill3602 (talk) 18:37, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Neither of the sources mention the claim that Israel specifically launched attack to coincide with the oscars. Also, second source cannot be counted as credible because it seems to be a mouthpiece of the Communist Party of the USA PrinceofPunjab^TALK 04:25, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Rafah offensive has been going on for months, and as of today [3/12], there haven't been any new events to report since the day before the ceremony. I definitely think that the protests outside and inside the ceremony should be mentioned somewhere on this page though. Here are some WP:RS:

https://www.npr.org/2024/03/11/1237488138/celebrity-red-pins-2024-oscars-ceasefire-gaza

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/10/movies/gaza-protest-los-angeles-oscars.html

https://www.cbsnews.com/losangeles/news/protestors-flood-streets-of-hollywood-ahead-of-oscars/

https://variety.com/2024/awards/news/oscars-protest-ceasefire-pins-red-carpet-1235927210/

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-10/protesters-rally-in-hollywood-ahead-of-oscar-ceremony-calling-for-a-cease-fire-in-gaza Kire1975 (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kire1975 both the inside and outside protests are mentioned in the article, The start of the ceremony was delayed by six minutes, due to arrivals being slowed by Israel–Hamas war protests outside of the theatre. and Nominees Kaouther Ben Hania, Finneas O'Connell, Billie Eilish, and Mark Ruffalo wore red Artists4Ceasefire badges calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. PrinceofPunjab^TALK 13:27, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Downey Jr. and Stone's controversy

Seemingly the "racism" controversy around Downey and Stone has died down, and personally I don't find most of the attacks well-founded and am therefore neutral. Yet in regard to a controversy that has attracted sources like HuffPost, NBC News, etc. ,I don't think a single editor claiming it's "too trivial and speculative" suffices to have the news completely wiped off. It seems that at least a genuine controversy has been sparked, and the news should be treated in the same way of Al Pacino's. I find it therefore necessary here to discuss whether it meets the notability criteria and other requirements like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP. Jason211pacem (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's ever held much weight. There's a lot of chaos as a winner rushes up on stage as is, with just one or two presenters. But these actors all have five presenters. Ignore the fact that they're Asian for one moment, and examine whether or not Murphy gave Fraser attention or Randolph acknowledged Curtis. I'm not sure, because I didn't observe or scrutinize. Stone did hug Yeoh, but as Yeoh said, Stone and Lawrence are like BFF, so J-Law couldn't wait to rush over to her. Hence the pandemonium. I don't really see it as an unconscious racist act. Plus Stone's dress issue too. Lots of fracas. Then you have RDJ, who had a bunch of his buddies up there, while he hasn't worked with Quan. For him, that could just be him being an elitist jerk, being a bro with his more well-known actors. I'm not sure if any of it really merits inclusion. I think it does fall under celebrity gossip more than anything else. This is essentially Hedda Hopper/Louella Parsons type stuff. And they just fan the flames and stoke the fire of simmering embers. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 07:30, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is too much WP:OR so I'll just use a simpler metric. Is this widely reported enough to be WP:DUE? Not really. The sources are quite weak or are talking about "clearing up" the controversy rather than actually consider it a controversy. Seems like WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP to me if we cant find decent WP:RS to say what we want. Soni (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

From my perspective the mentioned sources don't simply "clear up" the controversy, but anyway, my concern is a bit more complex and doesn't really rely on the "clearing up or not" issue.

I mean, despite WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP Wikipedia editors have been continuously contributing opinions, tabloid gossips and conspiracies. Examples: 1. the recently hotly debated Kategate issue, in the deletion discussion of which the plurality by now tends to keep. 2. the Grammy snubbing issue: while the snubbing may be statistically persuasive, no one can safely say that the committee must have (sub-)consciously biased against SZA or Kendrick. Yet no one would find it improper to list these individual cases where only racial bias accusation is the main issue . Conspiracies in such cases are somewhat independent of what happens exactly and become a social issue, like, a reflection of the mass's mentality or so. Therefore, whether the criteria of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTGOSSIP are met may depend on the "due weight", which, from my own reading of WP:DUE, doesn't only depend on news accuracy and wide reports, but also on whether the interests of the people at issue outweigh the inaccuracy and the potential loss of the celebraties' fame. Back to the controversy here, while the Asian community's interests may still not be sufficient enough, I just wonder whether this may serve as a "test case" of the due weight issue. Jason211pacem (talk) 20:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

REDLINKING: edit war (2 varieties: corresponding foreign articles vs. no articles at all)

Initiating this topic so that it doesn't erupt into a hot mess. Or hotter mess, idk. Anyway, technically speaking, there is ample support for retaining redlinks to corresponding articles on interlanguage Wikipedias. Wikipedia:Red_link#Red_links_and_interlanguage_links One can certainly translate them, or have Google Translate automatically do it for you and work off of that—fairly easy. Or not. It doesn't seem terribly pertinent. But hardly an infraction.

On the other hand, the ones with no articles at all—Not so sure those names seem particularly relevant to truly warrant their own article…I have a hunch they would potentially be up for speedy deletion in the near future. But alas, that's my take on the redlink brouhaha! So, consensus discussion, yadda yadda yadda; be civil, and enjoy. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 21:40, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:RED LINK states: "In general, a red link should remain in an article if there is a reasonable expectation that the article in question will eventually be created (either as its own article or as a redirect); remove red links if and only if Wikipedia should not have any coverage on the subject." Next of the argumentation above, the living involved red-linked people are not at the end of their career so there is a reasonable expectation that these pages will eventually be created. Besides of that, better work is possible than the foreign pages. I don't see any reason why this page can't have any red links. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Hold on. Before this gets into an edit war, I'm going to page a few people who have worked on featured lists to sort things out for consensus.

@SNUGGUMS:, @RunningTiger123:, @PresN:, @Giants2008:, @ChrisTheDude:: There seems to be this problem regarding red links, and I'm trying to prepare this article for featured list submission. Also this A.Frame reference used for the final paragraph in the In Memoriam section of this Wikipedia article does not indicate anywhere in that any of the names appeared at the end of the segment. I know there are a couple of names that neither appeared on the In Memoriam segment of the broadcast proper or the final collage of names that appeared at the end of the tribute. There needs to be another source that confirms word for word that said individuals appeared on the broadcast. For example, the A.Frame article lists Dick Butkus and Sharon Acker on the list, but it does NOT indicate the names appeared on the actual braodcast itself (for comparison here is a photo of the names that appeared at the end of the performance during the broadcast. However, this should not be used in the article though because it's not a reliable source). There has to be a source stating word-for-word that the names appeared on the broadcast itself. Otherwise, this is simply just original research and source syhnthesizing. This was brought up in another FLC here.

--Birdienest81talk 23:30, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

The people with non-English articles could potentially get translations with English language pages as long as they meet WP:GNG. That's not so worrisome, especially once English versions are created (even when it requires translating citations from other languages). I'm more hesitant to link those without them: unless one has multiple third-party references discussing the subjects in more than just brief mentions (a cumulative paragraph or less would be inadequate), I wouldn't be so quick to assume they'll warrant articles. Remember that we have WP:GNG for a reason. It wouldn't hurt to use that as a basis for linking names. As for A.Frame, don't twist the source's words in an attempt to cite something it doesn't say or even suggest. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:48, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Regarding AFrame, I actually in general I find it a useful resource since it is published by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (the organization in charge of the Oscars). It’s just that the page in question doesn’t adequately back up the claim that the names appeared on the telecast itself. The Academy has published since 2012 a supplementary list of names of those in film community who died over the past year. However, as I said it does not necessarily indicate the names appeared on the telecast itself. You have to make sure the reference used to back up a claim has word for word indication for the claim in question. Otherwise, the statement contains original research. Birdienest81talk 00:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Not important for this discussion, but the names were on sreen, so as reference the original broadcast can be used. To see it yourself as example posted by Bocelli himself via youtube or ABC News. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

WP:REDLINK seems fine with red links, but MOS:REDLINK notes that excessive red linking can be distracting and could be a style issue (a sentiment I tend to agree with). Both are guidelines, so it's not clear which supersedes the other, though the MOS generally receives more engagement and may better reflect consensus. Also, why are red links only added when articles exist in other languages? If the point of a red link is to encourage new articles, shouldn't all of the currently unlinked names among the nominees be linked? (Though this would just make the overabundance of red links in some categories even more distracting.) RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference, User:Birdienest81/sandbox seventeen shows how red links would appear in the article. And yes, they do appear a bit of a distraction in terms of presentation especially if they don’t get articles as soon as possible. Also, as RunningTiger123, if the purpose of red linking is to create articles, why is it only limited to ones with non-English articles. In fact why don’t we red link Raj Kapoor, Katy Mullan, and McNearney as well? Of course, if we had to red link the ones in the winners table and In Memoriam section, it would only serve right to red link the producers in the Main info box and article for consistency, but then that would yield into too many red links possibly violating MOS:REDLINK. So that’s why for manual of style purposes, it’s best to leave them as non-links until they get an actual article. Birdienest81talk 02:46, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123: For the manual of style of overlinking per MOS:OVERLINK: It is overlinking when an excessive number of links, making it difficult to identify those likely to aid a reader's understanding. like Everyday words ... Common occupations ... familiar subjects ... That is not the case here. Next to that, red links in a list or table, are less distracting compared to plain prose. Per MOS:REDLINK, In lists, overlinking red links can occur when every item on a list is a red link. that is not the case here, the same for Red links can also be removed if they violate policy or the guideline for red links, but otherwise red links do not have an expiration date..

@Birdienest81: *Your point they do appear a bit of a distraction in terms of presentation is your opinion. In fact every red link is a bit distracting. But that is the aim of a red link. Your opion doesnt overrule the Wikipedia guidelines. Note that featured list can have red links in line with the manual of style. Your other point especially if they don’t get articles as soon as possible is also not a valid reason. There is not a guideline that red links should not be be placed if they will not be created within a certain timeframe. Please see the essay Wikipedia:There is no deadline. Your question why is it only limited to ones with non-English articles is a good one and you may argue more red links should be added. People with a page on a foreign page might be more likely to be notable, because the creator of that article had the opinion that person is notable enough for an article. Besides of that interlanguage red links are more helpfull for readers to find information. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:OVERLINK is pretty irrelevant – I don't think anyone would call it overlinking if every nominee had their own article. The issue is not the sheer number of links, but rather that some of the links would be red links. Overlinking can happen when every item is a red link, but that does not mean that is the only way it can happen (it says can occur, not occurs). Hence, there are other reasonable interpretations of what qualifies as overlinking. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:35, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Note I noticed Birdienest81 continued after a warning and after this discussion started with the edit war. I placed a notice about that at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. 46.44.158.42 (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Well according to Bb23, I am not violating the website's policy of WP:3RR. I reverted the list to the default status quo while having this content dispute up for discussion like how most conflicts are handled according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Until the conflict has been thoroughly been resolved and all parties have found a compromise, the list as pertaining to those section should remain as is. Birdienest81talk 19:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Well the best starting point was with red links, because that has always been the case (untill you removed them 26 June), and was the case at the starting point of this discussion. And may I remember the warning you have had: "Do not edit war even if you believe you are right." 46.44.158.42 (talk) 11:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)