User talk:2601:2C3:8380:1780:3940:3472:FE62:F0CC

Edit Warring: Best Actress

Your recent editing history at Academy Award for Best Actress shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
I have made constructive edits to this, the other acting Oscar pages, and other Oscar superlative pages recently. I source when necessary. I explain my edits in summary, and have attempted to be reasonable by placating others' apparent favorites by reducing captions, moving a couple of actress who have won supporting to that page, and making room for just about the maximum amount possible. I don't see what else I can do to be fair. Please stop reverting/undoing my edits without any explanation or discussion. It is uncalled for. Discussion is the way. Leave an actual message on my talk page, please. Otherwise, I don't know how else to resolve this unnecessary, petty dispute. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 07:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The page was the fine the way it was before your unnecessary revisions. It looks tacky for the list of actresses to start right at the top of the page instead of with the actual list of nominees and winners which is far more official. You removed legendary actresses like Jessica Lange, Maggie Smith, Geraldine Page, Cate Blanchett, Marie Dressler, etc. for some half-educated starlets who will not stand the test of time? The Best Actress Oscar is often linked to only being given out to 20-year old women and ingenues yet Marie Dressler's early win proved that wasn't always the case. With your narrative, that is no longer apparent and you were wiping away the legacy of a veteran actress whose success, despite her age, was instrumental for the start of the industry.

I appreciate your attempts to make more space but the picture changes you made are unnecessary. The pics that were painstakingly chosen for years were chosen because they are iconic shots of icons. Julie Andrews is a winner of the Best Actress Oscar. The picture should reflect Julie Andrews, not Mary Poppins. The pictures were chosen to be similar headshots so that it would be like looking at a gallery. You have altered that rhythm with pics of various sizes and shapes which removes the uniformity of the winners and makes this look like a hastily put-together scrapbook created by some pre-teen with rudimentary conceptual knowledge of design.

Under your script, every actress now has an entire essay declaring how how each and every winner was somehow a historic winner. Leave the historic firsts for the top of the page. The captions exist to quickly identify each actress and her paired movie role, not to write a dissertation. You are only taking up more space when viewers want to take a glance and just get pertinent information on who the actress is. 2601:2C3:8380:1780:3940:3472:FE62:F0CC (talk) 08:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't start right at the top of the page. It begins right at the beginning of the 1930s. On the desktop version, you will see Janet Gaynor on the right-hand sidebar slightly above. The wikitext is placed above the key chart. If that is a problem on mobile, we can change that to start at the top of the 1930s table, so that it doesn't look silly. But I guess I primarily did that for the benefit of the desktop reader, since it created visual issues for desktop otherwise until I fixed this.

I didn't want to get rid of Marie Dressler, at all. I think she should be there. Jennifer Jones, for being the girlfriend of Zanuck, or whomever, whose Oscar was bought and paid for? Eh, not so much, she's overrated IMO, but the original person (whom I guess is you) who kept reverting was insistent upon her, so I tried to placate him. That's my own bias. Which I worked against!

You also are far too personally opinionated to decide by yourself who gets to be on the sidebar though. Part of the rules of undoing is it can't just be "your way or the highway", just because you decide what's right. I have made changes but in good faith. "Painstakingly chosen for years" is a matter of opinion, we can always discuss. I am fine with reducing it back to having proper headshots, and restoring Marie Dressler, but I also do believe that concessions must be made. Change is a good thing. Halle Berry (spotty career aside) is an important sidebar inclusion.

Geraldine Page wasn't removed, except briefly today by mistake. 8-time legend. Maggie Smith is a personal fave. I placed her in supporting, since she's won both. Blanchett, Zellweger, Lange, Hayes..these are all legends who have won both, and I hardly think it does them disservice to let them be seen on one list over another. Shirley MacLaine's a legend, and until today, she wasn't on this list. Neither was Helen Hayes, in fact, our first acting EGOT winner, very important. We should make compromises, and that's what I tried my best to do while being constructive as well. And btw, I get it, Lange only has ONE supporting nom, and five lead nominations. But compromise is a pain. Judi Dench is a legend. She's on supporting. What's the difference? A LOT more people know Tootsie than Blue Sky. I think she's a better supporting list representative, imo. Speaking of legends, why haven't you objected to Audrey Hepburn being missing?

Perhaps I sardine-canned a few too many in lead actress though, with the small pictures, so I get the issue there. As much as I like Holliday or Dunaway or Magnani, I can compromise. Just no way, reasonably, they all can fit. But how about leave Marion Cotillard alone, please? And in return, I think it's only fair that you make a compromise as well. Could you be willing to get rid of someone I continually try to remove, like Jennifer Jones? It's back to being opinionated fluff, otherwise. Shirley MacLaine ought to stay. This is difficult, but try to work with me, please.

I might need to request that you compromise one more. Because remember, again, you can't have it ALL your way. We have to meet in the middle. Which means I'm gonna ask that you let Jones and idk...Pickford got cut too, I feel like she needs to come back, we need more silent stars. Even though that film was awful, we adore her silents, don't we?

I'm also gonna use CropTool on the images that are too elongated, so that for example, Charlize's much better red blouse picture doesn't consume as much space. but it'll be a lot better than that tiny little rectangle, I concede. Seems the actresses matter more to you?

But I do believe that the images need to be placed together above the key at the top of the winners/nominees section, so that they flow together on the sidebar. This way, at the end of, say, 1979 before 1980, if there's a larger white space gap, it won't allow that, it will allow Sissy Spacek to rise higher, because that space will eventually be compensated for towards the end. The facts in the infoboxes, I actually told you, I reduced almost all except for the essential ones. "Won twice", "1st Oscar", "portrayed Virginia Woolf", "1st black winner", most of that stuff was there before I got here on Sidney Poitier or Nicole Kidman.

Speaking of excess, that jabberwocky about Hepburn and Streep above the "key" is already in the intro and on the sidebar, so it's pointless a third time. That is not in any of the other acting pages, and has to go. No need for such excess.

Well, anyway, at least we are discussing. I'm sort of obligated to inform you that I had to post that though. Btw, you didn't know there was a talk page, but you did know this article and those pictures were "painstakingly chosen for years"...? That's perplexing.

== Notice of edit warring noticeboard discussion ==

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 09:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Also my lack of responses before was not due to disrespect or belligerence but because I was not familiar with the talk function or that it even existed. I only saw I received a message from you and now I've realized that this function exists and that you've been trying to reach out to me. Hopefully that explains why I was not responding. 2601:2C3:8380:1780:3940:3472:FE62:F0CC (talk) 08:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. I feel better having spoken to you and I can see the merits of your structure and argument now. I have noticed that you changed the pics for a lot of actresses like Claudette Colbert, Bette Davis, Joan Fontaine, Jane Wyman, Julie Andrews, Jane Fonda, Louise Fletcher, Geraldine Page, Emma Thompson, Helen Mirren, etc. and I'm curious if there were any specific reasons why. I don't have any particular attachments to the old pics but I'm just wondering. Are all the pic changes just because they're slightly shorter? Also I like the idea of you cropping the images that are too long. That's a great idea. Jane Wyman is the only one who I think has a worse pic now because she's using a hairstyle which isn't her iconic hairstyle which she sported for years so it's bit jarring to see. Let me know if you think similarly

I agree with you about bringing back Shirley MacLaine. She was removed some years ago and kept getting taken out so I'm glad she's been restored. She did used to be included up until she kept getting removed. With Faye Dunaway's pic, my question is if she should be given a contemporary pic, as she has now, or one of her from her younger days since she was a contemporary of Jane Fonda who also has a picture from her younger days. I think there should be consistency on that, since Shirley MacLaine and Julie Andrews also are depicted when younger. Audrey Hepburn I was fine with keeping out because I felt she's well represented on the BAFTA page where's she a multiple-time winner. I wonder if the reason Shirley was removed years ago was for similar reasons as Shirley's also a multiple BAFTA winner.

Like you, I have mixed feelings on including Mary Pickford. I'm not a personal fan of her but Hollywood more or less started, with the studio system we know today, because of her and she's one of the most iconic actresses of all time even if her Oscar-winning role is considered one of her worst. Although I think we should include her, I'm not a big enough personal fan of hers to really mind and since you also seem not 100% sure about including her, it should be fine if you decide to keep her out.

For Jennifer Jones, I think you're operating under a major misconception here. When she made The Song of Bernadette, that was before her personal relationship began with her future husband. They didn't become a couple with him grooming her for stardom until after her Oscar win. I think her performance is still well-noted and we've even had recent major movies, like The Miracle Club, on the same subject matter. Keep in mind the historical context that Jennifer Jones won in 1943, the darkest year of WWII for the Allies so her win was uplifting to the whole of America. If we can compromise on Marion Cotillard, as I am 100% willing to keep her especially since you feel so strongly about including her, hopefully you can find it in yourself to include Jennifer Jones as well.

My only other request is Jessica Lange. At the end of the day, a Best Actress win is more prestigious than a Best Supporting Actress win. That's perhaps not as commonly thought of as the accepted practice today as it was in Old Hollywood but it feels especially egregious to have five-time nominated Lange only represented on the other page, even though you noted that Tootsie is better known than Blue Sky. She's my main concern about being removed because she's considered one of the greatest actresses of all time so only appearing on the Supporting Actress page feels like a stepdown for her.

I don't find Judy Holliday a very important win, but I agree with you that Dunaway and Anna Magnani should be included. Magnani I was only removing because I didn't like the pic being used for her as it didn't adhere to the uniformity of the other pics. I haven't been able to find a proper picture of her on Wiki but I would very much like to see her included because I consider hers a historic win as well. Maggie Smith has also been removed and while I'd like to see her included, I'm fine with her being on the Supporting Actress page since she has more nominations there, and because I can't find a pic of her that would fit with the portrait style for this page. I'll make a concession for and let her go even though that's a difficult loss for me.

I see for actresses who won other Oscars in different categories (Bergman, Zellweger, Thompson, Blanchett), you've written what number Oscar they got in this category. Personally, I don't think it's necessary to bring up their other category wins but if you feel it's really important, I'm fine with it. However since anytime an actress played a historic or literary figure that person is mentioned as the portrayal, I think it should be consistent and have all those portrayals mentioned rather than a few missing because you removed Jessica Chastain, Renee Zellweger, Olivia Colman, and Helen Mirren's portrayals of historical figures. Either we should keep all these mentions or remove them all rather than just only have the last few actresses get their potrayals omitted if that makes sense.

I'm glad we are discussing now and thank you for being so civil with me. I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to undo all your edits with malicious intent and as I said above, I see the merits of most of your changes now. Thank you for putting the work in to try and make everything more organized and consistent. The reason I said this page has been "painstakingly chosen for years," is because I've always been a frequent visitor to this page of Best Actress winners and I've been following it for years as a resource. In that time, I've seen the various changes to the sidebar and which actresses would be added or removed, and which pics would be changed. That's how I know that Shirley MacLaine used to be part of the sidebar before being removed at some point, and same with Dunaway. Brie Larson used to be included as well but kept getting removed. I used to add her back in but I guess there is someone or more than one person who really doesn't like her so I stopped trying to keep her because she was always immediately taken out. For the longest time someone kept trying to remove Julianne Moore as well but I kept adding her back in until that person got tired, because there's no reason to remove Julianne imo.

And one last actress I want to discuss is Emma Stone. Do you feel her inclusion on the sidebar is absolutely necessary? I was upset when Brie Larson was removed but I made my peace with it and Emma Stone's removal sometime later also made sense to me then especially since it's her only nomination and one that seems divided in having won. I wouldn't mind her inclusion but I think there are a few actresses who would be more important to include (ex. Jessica Lange) which is why I stopped putting her back in after she was initially removed years ago. 2601:2C3:8380:1780:DDC7:1189:62B6:1B43 (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

My pleasure! My name is James by the way, what's yours? I figure, let's get acquainted. No more beef, eh paisan? (I'm an NJ Sicilian, don't mind me.) I was worried I maybe rambled on too much.

So the pictures! Emma Thompson in particular, I felt was necessary. She just looked kinda...haggish, in that pic. I loooove Emma. Didn't want to see her pic be ratty hair. I thought this felt very her, with that bob, more flattering. I hope you agree. Geraldine's, yeah, I'm cool with both. It helped that this was shorter though.

• Bette Davis, my favorite actress. Loved the former pic; switched because I wanted to capture "Bette Davis eyes", and I thought this pic did it best. Claudette Colbert, just thought this one was more elegant than the last, if that's okay? Btw, you see I switched back to Luise Rainer's old picture--you approve, I bet! I was like...eh, Idk, the head pose looked kinda awkward. She deserves much better. <3
• Julie's I like both, I thought the other one was almost too cherubic lol. Very nice pic though. The flowers, I just thought I'd test it out, it's very closeup, but I also like how inviting it is. Similar change to Louise, I thought it felt more like her circa her heyday..so much so, literally when she won. Kinda like that, Tatum has the token Oscar pic on the supporting page, Louise on the lead I guess. Again, lemme know what you think.
• Oh wow, I'm so glad you mentioned Jane Wyman. That one didn't sit right with me either. 100% agree, let's change it back. That is her signature hairstyle, true. This pic, so bleached out. I can totally change Joan Fontaine's back too. Love her hat, but it's also dark? Maybe the brighter pic works better, agreed? Jane Fonda, she's a trailblazer, so I just wanted her pic to be more..badass, ferocious, haha. I felt like this one kinda conveyed that better. That's Hanoi Jane!

Ohhhh, gotcha, I see. That explains it. But I'm glad you agree it's nice to see them back, or at least Shirley for sure. But I do think both would be best. Let's see if it can work out. Ahhh, that is a reasonable approach, to maintain consistency as much as possible. Exceptions like Geraldine having a classic photo in the '80s while Streep is modern in juxtaposition I guess is understood. Let's see if Dunaway has one that's NOT a movie still though. Speaking of which, brief aside. I did feel uncomfortable with movie stills from the onset. However, I let one justification throw off my whole rhythm via Jo Van Fleet on Best Supporting Actress. Love that performance too. So, what's the verdict there? Remove hers? Beatrice and Maureen also have snapshots, but there's are clear and work as nice photos. Jo's is rather grainy. Which sucks. And speaking of grainy, it REALLY sucks that our beloved grand Dame Maggie Smith's only picture is that fuzzy still. I wish there was something we could find. There's gotta be some good quality trailer or headshot somewhere out there. She deserves it. But I digress.....

Phew, I'm so relieved! So, what I'm thinking is a peaceful solution is to eventually just keep it simple and do a cascading collage for the Honorary page. Or does it have one? I forgot. Let's pretend it doesn't, haha. Rosalind, Stanwyck, Kerr, Lansbury, O'Toole, Cary, Chaplin, Pickford, Fairbanks, Lumet, Altman, et al., let them all get their due on that page. So I think that should really suffice, ESPECIALLY since it'll be her, Chaplin, and Fairbanks all together. (Granted, an "in the know" thing. Until they learn about it.)

Fuck, I feel like a fool. I forgot I had already proven myself wrong about this when I learned what a sweet inauspicious start she had, married to Robert Walker, with kids. She's been thru several tragedies. Mental health advocate. Yeah, you know, I find her more endearing than I recalled. And if it means a lot to you, I get it. But this also is a conundrum because of space, so let's talk supporting/leading dual winners again please. Jessica Lange, yes, I know lead is more prestigious, but the average reader won't make a fuss. Lange only won there because Streep prevented her from winning for Frances. Her win for Tootsie was a consolation prize, kinda like Clooney with Syriana. Happens all the time. But if she were to be in the lead section too, and I continued using CropTool (Within reason! I promise! I was very careful.) to reduce just enough, we're overbooked. So...if you want Jones AND Lange, would you be okay with letting one of Zellweger or Blanchett return to supporting? Zellweger's first works just fine there, I felt.
Or Blanchett, she's had 3 of 8 supporting noms, and her win playing Hepburn was historic, of course. (I MUCH prefer Blue Jasmine, and am a big Blanchett fan, mind you. But like with Maggie, their wins are cool victories + their huge talents who standout there.) I dunno, think about it. But I'd really like it if you could figure out which compromise you could make that would benefit us both, because I know we can achieve this, without omitting anyone. I love Cotillard and Stone, honestly. But beyond personal reasons, Cotillard is a major win and phenomenal actress. And Stone is a vibrant, stellar talent--possibly on her way to lead nom #2/overall 4 this year. That's disappointing re: Brie Larson, because I've always liked her. Short Term 12 is incredible; her and LaKeith Stanfield, wow. I also met Kevin Bacon and Kyra Sedgwick. Just on a normal day in NYC, they were just randomly at a cinema, no event. Sorry, see, I'm babbling. Loquacious motherfucker I am.

Back on track. Yeah, Magnani is outstanding. I suppose her pictures aren't the best to utilize unfortunately though, so it's all right. Holliday is great, but I suppose it's okay to omit because big picture, we're on the right track here. Oh, yes. PORTRAYALS! Right. So, this may be a bit..controversial. Between us, lol. Or whatever. I was minimizing them based upon the less obvious. Chastain, Zellweger, Mirren (well, debatable, that could be any queen, so..I should name that. maybe cut back on something else). Oh, Colman. Yeah, I had that in mind, to put Queen Anne back on there and forgot. I wrote that down. But I do see your point, is does feel strange to pick and choose. Except maybe with dual winners, that's okay to leave it off. Or maybe just don't do it at all for portrayals. Just let them cross-reference the portrayals, how about that. Would that be best?...........Maybe that WOULD be best. More room for a picture. This would include removing the mention of Vivien's famous fictional characters, because again, cross-reference, right?..........That part is easy, and redundant to mention another time. Whereas the superlatives aren't as immediately well-known. So having that little tidbit for a win in the blurb, succinctly written, and piped to the page for more info so they can learn about oldest/youngest, lgbt, black, EGOT; that's not something they would find. So, all right, I could definitely follow your suggestion! =) Be consistent, and see how it looks with no portrayals mentioned vs. all (all would be.....a nightmare, lol--all notable people or characters, not literally all). But I think no portrayals, as you said, consistency is the key. And I will 100% apply this to the other pages as well, which I think will improve things. I'm OCD, so I'm hoping lead #s will match, and supporting will too. As of my last in-process edit count, they did lol.

Aw, thank you. I appreciate that. I felt for a moment like I could do no right lol. And absolutely, I'm glad we could meet in the middle, and work together. This is actually beneficial for us both! I'm sorry if I was too dismissive of what you wanted either. I think as long as we make concessions, we can achieve good results. This is even better for the progress of it all, because with my anxiety, I second guess a lot, so it helps to have a second opinion or someone to debate with, or seek middle ground with. I think that covers everything in the reply....Oh yeah, whoever kept removing Julianne Moore ought to be bitchslapped. Hard. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 22:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Hi James! My name is Jean. I'm pretty verbose so long messages and "rambling" do not bother me in the slightest. It's a pleasure to make your acquaintance and how neat that you are of Sicilian background.

Good point about Emma Thompson. Her old pic wasn't a bad pic but I can see why that hair would be off-putting and not her usual style. She looks more like her usual self here. And I love Emma too. Geraldine's new pic, besides being shorter, I also consider an improvement. I like the longer hair on her and she looks quite glamorous now, even if that's not what she's usually known for.

Oooh you have good taste between liking Emma and having Bette as your fav actress. Bette is my second favorite actress, after Joan Crawford. This new pic of Bette does highlight her eyes so I'm not surprised to hear that you picked it for that reason because it immediately jumped out at me. I like your new Claudette pic as much as the old one so I have no specific preference. With Luise, I do think the original works better so I am happy to see you switched back to that. But if you feel the need to use the new one for whatever reason, that's also okay. Just to clarify, I don't really have any issues with the pic changes in case you think I'm some old codger who can't accept any change. Often I find the pic changes quite refreshing because it's pretty common to see them change over the years by various users who I guess all have different tastes on what pics these actresses look best in. Cate and Renee have switched a lot of times for example.

I like both Julie pics. My only concern about the new one is that it's a much more extreme close-up than with the other actresses so I'm worried about consistency there. With Louise's new pic, I do think this new one is a better showcase of how she looked during her film career but personally I've avoided pics of their actual Oscar wins just because they stand out when everyone else doesn't have their Oscar wins used as their pics. That's the main reason I'm against it but you're right that Tatum has her Oscar win as a pic in the Best Supporting Actress page and it's hard to say that one deserves to change so why couldn't Louise's pic be of her Oscar win then?

Jane Wyman was the only one who I felt really needed to go back to her original pic because the hairstyle on the new one was not working for me at all. She looked like a poodle with a perm. Her "iconic" hairstyle isn't my favorite either but it's what she's known for so there's nothing that can be done about that now. With Joan Fontaine, I love all her pics. The only reason I might not particularly use this one is because the hat, as you say, is so dynamic that all the focus really goes to the hat. I barely notice Joan herself underneath it. And I think the new Jane Fonda pic is absolutely stunning.

With actresses like Geraldine Page and Jessica Tandy, I felt since they worked in the Golden Age of Hollywood and are often lumped together with the classic actresses, it made sense to use B&W pics of them from their youth rather than more contemporary pics of when they actually won, even if they seem more out of place alongside the more modern winners. For Faye Dunaway, I looked at her pages to see if there are any B&W old photos of her. The only one I could find was on her awards/nominations page but I'm pretty sure that's from a movie so I don't know if she has any younger photos that would work. In the meantime, at least Faye looks stunning in her current pic.

I'm glad you brought up Jo Van Fleet's pic on the Supporting Actress page because that always bothered me as well but I could never find a more appropriate pic for her. I'd like to keep her but if you feel she should be removed for uniformity, I'd understand. Maureen's pic works fine but I think Beatrice's photo does stand out and pulls me out of place, but that might also be because I've seen very little with her so I really only know how she looks from Network and not a younger version. I tried for a long time to find Maggie Smith new photos but it seems like whoever designed her page really likes that one photo which is used, in different cropped forms, for all her pages.

I like the idea of including pics on the Honorary page as well. And I agree that if you're including Pickford there, that might be a better place overall than here since she's being grouped with Chaplin and Fairbanks. And it'll be nice to see the other greats like Debbie, Roz, Lansbury, Garbo, Stanwyck, Kerr, etc. all get their due with pics now.

There's a lot of information out there on Jennifer Jones but not all of it is always reliable so it's hard to tell what to trust. I've heard some rumors that Robert Walker was an alcoholic and abusive to Jennifer. Others say those allegations were made up to try and garner sympathy for Jennifer for leaving him. Selznick's ex-wife, Irene, wrote an autobiography and apparently she got to know Jennifer a little so even despite the breakdowns of two marriages, Irene felt bad for Jennifer. Another reason I'm favoring Jessica for Lead Actress category is because there's a lot of hype that she might get another nomination for Long Day's Journey Into Night. She won the Tony for that and was the first American actress to get a nomination for a play at the Olivier Awards for that performance so there's been some talks that she could even win a third Oscar this year (although we thought that about Cate last year as well). So some of my motivation to keep her on this page is also because there's a possibility she'd be a two-time Best Actress winner in which case she gets an automatic place on the sidebar anyway. I think Blanchett is also too prestigious to keep out of this page. Zellweger was actually not on the page for about a year or so. I was the one to add her back on and partly that was because I felt that since Judy Garland herself never got a Best Actress win, a win for another actress for playing her was the closest we'd get to that and it would be a nice way to honor Judy by including her on the page in some shape or form. However, I understand that might be a weak motivation and so I guess Zellweger would be my choice if we have to see someone go, because I'd like to keep Jennifer Jones and Jessica Lange both, along with Cate Blanchett.

Blanchett is a favorite of mine and I liked all her wins but I'm not a huge fan of her Hepburn especially in comparison to some of her other nominated performances which did not win. But that might also be because I wasn't a huge fan of the movie in general and would have preferred had it just been all about Blanchett's Hepburn. So I have to make a confession that I have never seen Marion Cotillard's Oscar-winning performance. I know, crazy right. Especially because I keep hearing people say it's one of the best tour de force performances to ever exist. It's on my list to watch for sure. So my reasons for omitting her were mostly because I hadn't seen the performance myself to vouch for it but I trust just about everyone else who does think she deserves her Oscar that she should be on the page. And with Stone, I've seen a lot of hype for her upcoming role so I could see her getting another nomination. I think I just find her too young to really be considered one of the greats as of now. I liked Short Term 12 as well and I've heard a lot of people became fans of Brie from that movie. Unfortunately, she has so many haters and Internet trolls who are out to get her which is why I'm convinced they were the ones who kept erasing her pic from this page and I stopped trying to restore her after a while when it got to be too much. And wow, that's crazy that you met so many celebs. I've never met any in person unless you count sitting in front row seats to watch Patti LuPone on stage where we made direct eye contact.

I understand your basis for removing some portrayals based on the name of the title of the work then, since some like Judy and Tammy Faye are pretty self-explanatory. I'm fine with the portrayals being removed. The characters they play are already included in the nominees/winners list so people can reference specifically what roles they play from that. Some of the "portrayals" are also a bit ambiguous like Susan Hayward played a very white-washed, Hollywood depiction of Barbara Graham who was not like the real woman at all. Which is funny since they asked Susan if she believed the real Barbara was a killer and Susan admitted yes. Meanwhile, the movie goes out of its way to make sure we all know she was innocent. Removing portrayals will also help us add more pics. You'd be surprised how much space you'll find if you remove all the portrayals because I remember that was a thing sometime back before someone else added them back in. And with double winners, Meryl Streep was already missing the mention of her portrayal as Margaret Thatcher, so it's definitely easier to just get rid of all the portrayals. I do think the superlatives are more interesting overall.

I've really enjoyed our discussions and I'm glad we could meet in the middle. I was used to anonymously defending the page from the weird haters that kept removing certain actresses (like the Julianne Moore hater which still astounds me) that when I started revisiting this page and seeing Lange or Blanchett missing, my first thought was that this was the work of more Internet trolls who had some vendetta against them for some reason. It wasn't until I saw the page history that I realized you were writing comments and trying to reach out and that you mentioned the talk page which is what led me here and got me to realize you've really only been streamlining all the pages for consistency. 76.30.174.168 (talk) 01:36, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Hey, I replied on your IP address page. Take a look over there. Only halfway through my reply, because I gotta run to the store, but I'll finish the rest later, lol. --Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 18:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

---