Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/87th Academy Awards/archive1

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

The list was promoted by Giants2008 01:21, 21 September 2015 [1].

87th Academy Awards

[edit]

87th Academy Awards (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating the 2015 Oscars for featured list because I believe it has great potential to become a Featured List. I also followed how the 1929, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2014 Oscars were written. Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support — I can not find anything wrong at the moment. It looks excellent to me. Jimknut (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:42, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • "were announced. [14]" remove the space.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "and actor Chris Pine [14]" replace the space with a full stop.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best Director is actually Academy Award for Best Directing.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:57, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Wikipedia, Damián Szifrón is actually called Damián Szifron.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On Chrome, I get huge amounts of whitespace following the "Films with multiple nominations and awards" heading.
  • Done: It all depends on what browser you use and what screen you view it on. I notice widescreens tend to do this. Anyways, I removed two pictures.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how useful sorting on Role is in that Presenters table, particularly when all the individual presenters sort first, then the multiple presenters sort next... it'd be better to sort this by the award they gave I suspect.
  • Done: So I sorted all the competitive awards alphabetically (for those who presented two awards, the two categories are listed in the order of which was presented first since this table is organized by order of appearance in default). I hope this helps.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Neil Patrick Harris hosted the 87th Academy Awards" needs a full stop.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:05, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Boston Globe is The Boston Globe.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref 29, NBCUniversal is referred to without the space.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Check refs are live, when I reviewed this, e.g. ref 60 was dead.
  • Done: Fixed that link. All links work according to this Checklinks inspection. The filmsite.org external link works when you actually click it despite marked as indefinite.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 01:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Various WP:DASH violations (e.g. "do it -- light on his feet working the crowd or at center stage without his pants, winkingly self-deprecating, moving-right-along when his prepared material didn't land (which was too often) -- and", "18-49 demo", "Oscar ceremony - bad jokes"...)

The Rambling Man (talk) 08:38, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Cowlibob (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
*I think it would useful if you wrote a sentence about what the Academy Honorary Award and Jean Hersholt Award are for because we can't wikilink titles. Could you make this a standard for all the Academy Award ceremony pages? Cowlibob (talk) 21:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob: Okay, but it might take me awhile because I have college financial aid stuff that I have to do before September 8.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just do it for this list for now and have it in mind for the future as I think it's a good idea for all of them to be standardised. That's what I try to do with my ones, I update even the old promoted ones with new improvements from newer nominations. Cowlibob (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cowlibob:: Done: I've added sentences explaining reasons according to the AMPAS website as to why each person was recognized for their respective award.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In this specific ceremony, there was a fair amount of coverage regarding the lack of diversity among the nominees that was not pertaining to only film critics (i.e.: being covered in a neutral third person perspective). Usually we do not include what was snubbed at the Oscars for Neutral point of view purposes and objectivity concerns. However, if there is criticism that results in action that affects the production of the ceremony (protests against homophobia at the 64th Academy Awards and protest regarding lack of diversity at the 68th Academy Awards) without being related to any specific film in particular, then it was agreed that it can be included. The criticism was in response to a lack of diversity based on omission of not just one film in particular (you might think it was because of solely Selma, but also other films such as Beyond the Lights, Dear White People, and Get on Up with prominently black actors were overlooked as well). Furthermore this is focusing on a social problem in general rather than a snubbing of particular films. So we won't give focus on film critics whining that Forrest Gump, Shakespeare in Love, or Crash got "robbed" for the sake of objectivity purposes. Those can be dealt at the respective film's articles.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:27, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All I am trying to say is that even those points can be briefly mentioned in those articles. If this was widespread and received a whole section, in those cases they probably warrant a sentence somewhere. There are plenty of respectable sources that some actors/movies surprisingly did not win or get nominated in other years. Nergaal (talk) 18:30, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Even if they come from respectable sources, that does not mean they should be used. There were many people who thought Fruitvale Station was snubbed for the 86th Oscars or Michael Fassbender in Best Actor for Shame. Every year there will always be perceived snubs. Iget what you are trying to say, but in order to satisfy neutrality, there has to be a rebuttal statement or article defending such choices which is difficult. Snubs and surprises are very arbitrary. Anyways, I suggest you bring this up in the respective talk pages of the ceremonies you think is appropriate. Better yet, ask the FL delegates such as Crisco 1492, Giants2008, or PresN about your inqueries. This FLC should only be devoted to stuff pertain to this specific ceremony.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 09:03, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some actual comments:

  • I don't see the point of having the acronym AMPAS in the intro, nor the start time of the ceremony (they can simply me mentioned only later); "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences " is used twice in the intro.
  • AMPAS is placed in the intro in order to identify the abbreivation. Removed Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences and used AMPAS to avoid redundancy.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:39, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the governors awards stuff from the intro should be trimmed town to half; there is other more important information that can be present in the intro instead
  • Done: Removed the Governors Awards items since they are mentioned below the competitive winners table and seems redundant. Moved the Sci-Tech Awards sentence to first paragraph like most Oscar ceremony lists. That sentence is still important since that is part of the annual awards festivities.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the intro should mention all the big five winners
  • Done: Second intro paragraph now is only devoted two winners of Picture, Director, and four Acting Awards. It also has who won most and small mention of ratings.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "every nominated film won at least one award" you eman every fo the films nominated in the best film category probably, since not all shorts and documentaries could win
  • Done: Changed to "every Best Picture nominee"
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • why not have winners in bold?
  • Done: Originally there was a dispute over if bold can be used simultaneously with the dagger because according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility, screen readers cannot usually detect bold text. The Rambling Man said that the bold text can remain as long as there is a symbol that screen readers can detect (daggers in this case).
--Birdienest81 (talk) 04:38, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • the gover nor awards section probably does not need an extra bullet for the explanations; remove the extra bullets or even merge the explanation row with the winner
  • Done: Both award and reason are on same line separated by em-dash
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:17, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • you can probably have "The following 17 films received multiple nominations:" move as table cation with the "|+ [insert caption here]" so you dont have sentences ending in "
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:54, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the box office section can probably discuss the oscar bump the movies received (i.e. how much more they made after they were nominated)
  • Done: Large table added with pre-nomination, pre-awards, and post-awards box office figures.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Memoriam can probably easily use 3 rows, and I think some people complained about featuring non-film related entries here
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nergaal (talk) 18:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Nergaal:: I've addressed all your comments.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 18:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nergaal:: Thanks. Could you hide your comments in a bar so that these comments don't make a mess and that the FLC delegates can see your comments have been resolved. Keep the support comment outside the bar.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from FrB.TG

Resolved comments from Frankie talk
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "with the former film earning Best Picture honors" → "with the former film earning the Best Picture honor"
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiki-link the publishers or whatsoever of ref 9, 21 and 47.
  • Done: Publisher of reference 9 is on reference 3. The Wrap Inc. has no link.
----Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does, TheWrap. -- Frankie talk 08:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Already linked The Wrap on ref 3 (unless you want to link every instance).
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences does not to be in italics in ref 23.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 02:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Birdienest81 (talk) 03:11, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:DASH advises to use either endash or emdash. They are found in the titles of ref 22, 27, 34, 45, 52, and 58. -- Frankie talk 08:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:56, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 25 – an error to fix.
  • Done
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@FrB.TG: I fixed almost everything above and responded to your comments swiftly.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Thisisnotatest talk
*Comment: I have a concern about the accessibility of indicating winners. The 87th Academy Awards page currently has accessible double-daggers marking the end of each winner's information. Someone tried to remove it, and someone else restored it because it was up for featured list. My concern is that it will be removed once this list has attained featured status. I tried adding such daggers to the 86th Academy Awards and someone has reverted my edit twice on the basis (apparently) that bolding is the style they use to indicate winners. (I had not removed the bold, I just added the double daggers.) If these lists are to be continually added to featured list, I'd like some affirmation that the lists need to stay accessible to stay featured. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a common issue for all articles of academy award ceremonies, the boldface should simply removed as not allowed by the manual of style, but a lot users just don't care, they claim all other pages has the same format, so this is for some kind consistency, they're 100% commit to this "consistency", manual of style don't matter, editing war also fine with them.--Jarodalien (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems to be more of a problem in more recent ceremonies. Earlier ceremonies such as 71st and 79th still maintain the daggers. More recent ones such as 82nd and 84th still have the boldface. I was wondering if both the boldface AND the daggers can exist at the same time. That way, it would meet the accessibility″ requirement since there is a symbol at the end of the winner, and screen readers would be able to detect the dagger.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 08:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would see no problem at all with using both. Using just the double dagger would be sufficient, but just using bold is not sufficient. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with The Rambling Man; using boldface and dagger is fine but at least include the dagger. It would otherwise be more difficult for screen readers. My only other comments would be replacing "Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" with just "Birdman" for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing "Hollywood, Los Angeles" with "Hollywood, California" since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's great news. I've just begun to start returning the boldface back into the text. I just hope the anonymous person is pleased with this.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So this is some kind of compromise, I still feels the boldface should be simply removed, comply with manual of style.--Jarodalien (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jarodalien:: There is nothing wrong with having both bold and daggers simultaenously. The Manual of Style says NOT to USE ONLY bold to indicate something. As long as there is a symbol, it is fine whether or not it is bold. By the way, compromise is usually the best way to resolve differences on Wikipedia.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 06:08, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, this is now ready for FL. I support since my comments have been addressed. Good work once again, Birdie :) Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:42, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: Support for same reason. Thank you, Birdienest81 for coming up with a workable solution. I've struck out my concern. Thisisnotatest (talk) 11:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Birdienest81: For clarification, I support the accessibility improvement. I'm not qualified to support or oppose the content itself, as I do not follow the awards. Thisisnotatest (talk) 20:57, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The following comment by SNUGGUMS was inadvertently included in the above discussion on accessibility. I do not know whether it has been resolved, so I am not comfortable hiding it:

    My only other comments would be replacing "Birdman: Or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)" with just "Birdman" for recognizability (not everyone knows it by the full title) and replacing "Hollywood, Los Angeles" with "Hollywood, California" since it seems incomplete to list a city/county/neighborhood/etc. without a state. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:06, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

    Snuggums is welcome to edit this section, including removal of my comment wrap, to reflect their current concerns. Thisisnotatest (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no concerns left, Thisisnotatest, since the dagger has been implemented and the prose has been adjusted. Reaffirming my support. Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:25, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/87th_Academy_Awards/archive1&oldid=1223748070"