This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
In the second paragraph of the article, it is mentioned that "The awards were first given in 1929 at a ceremony created for the awards, at the Hotel Roosevelt in Hollywood.", also, in the History section this can be read "The first awards were presented on May 16, 1929, at a private brunch at the Hollywood Roosevelt Hotel with an audience of about 270 people". However, The following data can be found in the Current Categories list: "Best Actor in a Leading Role: since 1928". So, it is kind of confusing when awards were first given, in 1929or1928. [1]200.94.97.182 (talk) 00:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is confusing. Nowadays, the award ceremony is held one year after the year that is being honored. In other words, the 85th annual Academy Awards ceremony (the current one) is being held in 2013, but it will award the Best Picture (Best Actor, Best Director, etc.) of 2012. So, the ceremony itself is always "off" by a year, compared to the award being given. So, as an example, the Best Actor of 2012 receives his award in 2013. So, it is all semantics as to what year is being referred to. In the examples you cite above, the Best Actor of 1928 would receive his award at the 1929 ceremony. Hope this clarifies. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Parodies
This thread doesn't read correctly. I'm sure thre is some sense to be made of it but I don't know where to begin. I'll be back when I have more time. ```Buster Seven Talk17:40, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Then why has not the official AMPAS web site not followed suit? [1] A lot of phrases still say "85th Academy Awards" and "History of the Academy Awards".[2] As of now, the AMPAS has not changed a thing, only the producers of this year's ceremony. I would like to not only the official site, but all reliable sources as well change to solely "Oscars", per WP:COMMONAME.Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Is it true that the design of the "Academy Award" statute is a mimic after the general form of an (English, German[?]knight)? I have read the old periodicals of yore (like the "Life","Look","Time", and "The New Yorker") magazines of that period. Y'know; the periodicals of the WASP elite that gushed over, and publically endorsed Adolph Hitler's "achievements"? Well, at the same time (circa 1920s A.D.) that these deziens of Doomsday were self-congradulating themselves for consolidating their hold over three-quarters of the Earth, while making a cinder out of perhaps five percent (which also means the extermination of human lives, what I noticed is that certain of their intelligentsia wing were trying to come up with certain rather ritualistic motifs that celebrated and reflected their peculiar, mortal grace. When King Tut's tomb was discovered, mot only did it create the appropriate mass adulation and popular fads mimicry in mostly women dress, and popular design. I do contend that the "Oscar" was fashioned more in the form of an Egyptian figure than a European one. Remember, only the classic, ancient Mediterrenean nations built statues and figurines as near nude, and with not anywhere near in stolid postures, but rather more pathetic and heroic dynamism. One only has to use one's two eyes to see. Also, you had the wily, but otherwise very erudite social engineer, old Eric Trist (among others)gushing over the stream-lining and commercialization of the motion picture image technology, stating again and again that-as a tool for modern mind control and mesmerization, he colloquially described and pronounced it as the "New Hieroglyphics": By which the mass population can be manipulated into thinking, or acting on anything the "men-behind-the-mirror" dictate. And therefore "interpret" reality to their enthralled chattel. With all the Egypt-mania going on back then, it isn't a stretch to think that the "Oscar" statue was designed with an Egyptian motif in mind. And who was the Egyptian God of language and interpretation? --108.14.123.194 (talk) 19:35, 12 July 2013 (UTC)Veryverser
Hi. I'm planning to start writing a Wikipedia article on the Oscar speech (or perhaps more broadly, the award ceremony speech/acceptance speech), explaining things like their meme-ability, their cultural significance, their ability to make or break an actor, impromptu vs prewritten, their ability to spark conversation on issues, undelivered speeches (by both losers, and people like Marlon Brandon who refused the award due to support for American Indians). I really think there is a great article there, and would live done love some advice/ help from you guys. :)--Coin945 (talk) 11:10, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Someone will probably tag it AfD as soon as it is written like many deletionists do here. You may wish to start small and well sourced. That way you won't waste too much time if it is deleted. Don't forget that bald kid and the Pope picture as well.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
User:Coin945/Oscar speech - It's not much. but hey, it's a start. I'm still sussing out how such an article is meant to be structured. Regardless, this rough attempt consists of some hits from the first page of Google. Please don't hesitate to rally some Academy Award editors to give it some punch. :) Canoe1967 --Coin945 (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Coin945, I wholeheartedly endorse an Oscar speech article. There should be more than enough sources. In addition, this has a chapter called "I would like to thank ... : the acceptance speeches". If it can be a whole book chapter, it certainly can be its own encyclopedic article. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
The draft looks good so far. Sacheen Littlefeather is spelt wrong. Would three sections help? The good, the bad, and the ugly? I probably remembered the Pope picture thing wrong as I couldn't find any sources for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:33, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Image place holder?
Should we ignore our own policies and guidelines to keep a placeholder in the info box or should it be removed. There is no free image of the Academy Award as only commons allows source country Freedom of Panorama, but Wikipedia does not and requires non free rationales for 3 dimensional artwork that is still the copyright of the artist or copyright holder.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It seems like an attempt to push the envelope and "make a point" to attempt to place images that are non free without a non free rationale on Wikipedia. The simplest answer is to upload a Non Free image with the proper ten point non free rationale.--Amadscientist (talk) 18:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
We have a free image with File:ACMI 14.jpg but you keep removing it. If you read: Lex loci protectionis it states "...the law of the country where the intellectual property was created or registered is not applied." Lex loci protectionis has never been tested with Freedom of panorama in the USA where it will probably be decided that we can host images of Oscar from FOP countries. If you are so concerned then email WMF legal for their opinion. I already contacted them and the result was http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wikilegal/FOP_statues WMF owns the servers for commons as well as en:wp. Until they decide that they do not wish to seek funding to test Lex loci protectionis against the Academy in court then the image has not broken statute laws nor case law. We can't use a fair use image when this free one exists as well as more possible from List of Academy Award trophies on public display.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That was not legal advice nor was that in reference to Wikipedia, but Wikimedia Commons. The issue is not whether that file from commons is usable here (our polices on non free content seem to be clear, this a copyright violation on Wikipedia). We have a server location policy that only allows US applicable law for Wikipedia and this is about country of origin FOP. The issue is simply to ask contributors if they wish to keep that un-encyclopedic image place holder.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
That was the legal opinion that I received after asking about this image specifically for hosting in commons and use in en:wp. The country of origin for the photograph is Australia. Lex loci protectionis states that the law in country of origin overrides the country where the infringement is claimed which would be the the USA if the Academy wishes to file for DCMA with the WMF. Commons and en:wp follow the same laws as host country to all servers. Other language Wikipedias may have different laws but there is no difference between commons the English one. Consensus may vary with images between commons and en:wp but the USA copyright laws do not.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know the legal details about this, but adding a placeholder in such a way is highly unusual and most certainly requires a strong consensus before it is implemented. --Conti|✉19:57, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You don't know anything about the details but you decide to revert an edit without consensus? Could you please link the policy that states "highly unusual" edits should be reverted a 4th time without discussion, let alone consensus?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
You made a bold edit, and it was reverted. You should not have reverted that. I restored the status quo. I'd love to discuss this, but I have not yet seen a single argument for having an image placeholder in the article in the first place. --Conti|✉09:28, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
"For most categories, members from each of the branches vote to determine the nominees only in their respective categories (i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). There are some exceptions in the case of certain categories, like Foreign Film, Documentary and Animated Feature Film, in which movies are selected by special screening committees made up of members from all branches. In the special case of Best Picture, all voting members are eligible to select the nominees for that category."
"The members of the various branches nominate those in their respective fields, while all members may submit nominees for Best Picture. The winners are then determined by a second round of voting in which all members are then allowed to vote in most categories, including Best Picture."
On the Awards project talk page I have raised the general matter of naming articles about periodic sets of awards that share a name, as the Academy Awards do. But the articles do not feature annual events or seasons associated with the awards per se; some are mere lists of winners with short prefaces. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes#Singular and plural Award(s)
The rename discussion includes some remarks that pertain to splitting the article. One possibility is to cover the trophy or statuette in a separate article (Oscar?) that would be {{main}} article for a shorter section 2.
Interjection. Another possibility is to cover the award(s) in one article and the seasonal event(s) in another.
Award (Academy Award?)
sections 2-3 and 7-8; much of 9-10; most of 12
origin including predecessors, false starts, early competitors
past and present (and proposed?) Award categories including links to all the lists of winners or nominees
consequences for the candidates (reputation, compen$ation, longevity) including winners and any who are known as losers
criticism of the all that stuff, including general criticism of who gets nominated and who wins
Interjection. Some of this material on the Award(s) per se is unclear in scope. For example, does section 3 Nominations pertain to all of the awards or all those covered in section 9 Merit categories or all those that confer the Oscar statuette. --P64 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
If not split then some reorganization is appropriate, probably including combination of secs 4-6 and 11 as one Ceremony or Presentation(s) section with subsections.
I think we should wait until the suggested move is closed before discussing splitting the article. I do not support renaming the ceremony article "The Oscars," so I disagree with this at the moment. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Suggested move
The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Academy Award → Academy Awards – Why does the title prefer the award itself (singular), rather than the name of the ceremony (plural)? While the article includes information about the statuette given at the ceremony, it is generally about the ceremony itself -- the 'award' is just one facet of what the article discusses. I apologize if this has already been hashed over, but I have searched through the talk history and cannot find any justification for this naming. Perhaps there is just something I'm not seeing here. I am open to hearing feedback on the matter, but I feel it should be renamed. CrunchySkies (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Oppose per WP:SINGULAR, which states to pursue the singular form over the plural form. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I did not look at this closely. I was thinking that the article discussed the award itself, but it seems like "Academy Awards" is akin to "scissors" in the WP:SINGULAR exception. Obviously, the individual categories' article titles are singular. I think I would support this move, but I am wondering if it was not possible to have a stand-alone article about the award, apart from the ceremony itself. Would like to hear others' thoughts first. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me)17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
I would argue that the article should be renamed "The Oscars" because as of last year I believe, the award ceremony was officially renamed that.--Coin945 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Support move. But the name is not so much short for the ceremony, or "Academy Awards Presentations" as they say, but the entire annual phenomenon, at least the public competitive season that begins with announcement of the nominees.
Strong support since the article is seemingly mostly about the ceremony and the concept, less so about the award itself. We might split the article? Red Slash22:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
Comment Maybe we should give further consideration to "The oscars". Say "Academy Award" to someone on the street and chances are they won't know what you are talking about. Everyone knows what the "oscars" are though, and if that is now the official name it seems a no brainer to me. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Support move. There seems to be a need for a separate article on the figurine, the Oscar, and its history. I would guess that the history of this article is ambiguous on what it is about, and that needs to be resolved/clarified through a split.Haberstr (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Selection procedure
The selection procedure is covered primarily in section 3 Nominations, which should be renamed. It needs update at least because subsec 3.1 Voting ends thus: "In May 2011, the Academy sent a letter advising its 6,000 or so voting members that an online system for Oscar voting will be implemented in 2013.[29]" Perhaps also because subsec 3.2 Rules includes this: "In late December ballots and copies of the Reminder List of Eligible Releases are mailed to around 6000 active members." Section 3 also needs attention to #Format of dates. --P64 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
Statistics
An interesting age analysis of oscar winners and nominees at [5]. Could be useful for the article so I will the link here in case anyone wants to incorporate some of the data into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Producers of Academy Award winners
I'm clearing out the 'Academy Award winners' category, moving people to relevant subcategories, or removing them altogether if their names are not included on the official Academy Awards database. I have a query about the status of film producers, who do not appear to be served by any of the relevant subcategories. Should they be created? How would they be named? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015
This edit requesttoAcademy Awards has been answered. Set the |answered=or|ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
This article claims Emilio Fernández was the model for the Oscar statue, but the article on Emilio Fernández says there is no historical evidence for that. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.119.205.88 (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
The official AMPAS page on the Oscar here specifically mentions that no model was used for designing the statuette, and no citation is already provided for Emilio Fernández having been a model. Therefore I'm considering making this change with the mentioned reference. I'm also removing this reference as it's not related to and doesn't provide information regarding the content.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Decline - The show is known as the Academy Awards. That is the formal name, while the Oscars is the informal name. Your claim the show was "re-named" doesn't hold strong if it is still referred to as the Academy Awards every year. HesioneHushabye (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It was officially (and formally) renamed: The rest of the world may have been calling the Academy Awards 'The Oscars' for years, but now organisers have made the nickname official.source As well as now formally being called the Oscars, it has, for many years, been referred to as the Oscars much more commonly than the Academy Awards. Have a look at WP:COMMONNAME. 31.54.158.36 (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose Something like "2001 oscars" is ambiguous; does that mean the oscars for 2001 (awarded in 2002) or the oscars that are held in 2001 (for 2000). These page moves would mess up the disambiguation that has been established to resolve such ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose - the source cited by the proposer above notes that this was a marketing exercise for this year's advertising campaign, which is not the same as a formal name change. and that it may not continue next year. Not a good enough reason for such a huge change. Melcous (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose per those who have already commented. Even if AMPAS made such a name change it wouldn't be retroactive. All previous presentations would still be under the "Academy Awards" banner. MarnetteD|Talk14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Comment Britannica presents content such as: [www.britannica.com/search?query=Academy%20Award%20%20%20Motion%20picture Academy Award (motion-picture award)] and [www.britannica.com/search?query=2014%20Academy%20Awards 2014 Academy Awards (awards ceremony 2015]). GregKaye18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
Oppose. Blindly replacing "Academy Award(s)" with "Oscar(s)" on all these articles results in more ambiguous page titles. "Academy Award" is more precise for these detailed articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: "The Oscars" was used only for marketing and television purposes as instignated by Neil Meron and Craig Zadan (who produced the 2013-15 telecasts). AMPAS still uses "Academy Awards" here and even here. The organization uses the phrases interchangeably. For the sake of encyclopedic purposes and to avoid further disambiguation pages, the name "Academy Awards" is deemed more appropriate. "Oscars" and "The Oscars" sound too generic and is inconsistent with other film award names on this site such as Golden Globe Awards, César Award, British Academy Film Awards, Genie Awards (now Canadian Screen Awards , etc.). Also, the ceremony numbering would be confusing since AMPAS counts by year of film release (which is more imperative since 1930 had two ceremonies). Oscar Awards would also sound weird.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Biopic
You have Life of Emile Zola as the first biopic; but The Great Ziegfeld is a biopic and won the year prior. On the Milestone page for Best Pics. 50.187.211.34 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Academy Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
I created the change on the main page under the history section. I discussed the addition of the Animated feature category because it is important in the history of the awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick5792 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Claimed drama bias
I removed this sentence:
From 1927 to 2001 around 49% of Best Picture nominated films had been categorized as a drama and out of the 432 films to be analyzed within that time 47% of the winning films were in fact dramas.[2]
Since it is obviously original research and nonsense: Almost half of all produced movies are dramas, so it is ridicolous to speak of a bias if also almost half of the nominated movies are dramas. --84.62.83.13 (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
References
^Academy Award; From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
It does not actually come from a reliable source - there is nothing on the webpage cited giving those numbers or percentages, and no mention of which movies are classified as dramas and which are not. That is original research - which includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Melcous (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The figures are original research. But even if they weren't: Using these figures to accuse the Academy Awards of a bias at Wikipeda would be original research anyway. --178.9.87.0 (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing things up and removing the item [[User:|Melcous]] and thanks to the IP for removing the item the first time as well. MarnetteD|Talk17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I have just modified one external link on Academy Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
In this article, there are many dates that are formatted incorrectly (e.g., using 1 February 2014 instead of February 1, 2014). Clearly, the Academy Awards is based in the USA; the USA date formats should be used in the article. I went through and changed a few, and then I noticed that there were many, many more that need changing. Is there some reason they are listed in the alternate format? Am I missing something here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I don't think you're missing anything. It seems straightforward that the U.S. style of date formatting should apply here. My guess is that editors sometimes instinctively use date format they are used to without realize it's inconsistent with the format for that article. I've done it myself without realizing it. I've seen editors do it before with both date formatting and national varieties of English. --JamesAM (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The top of the article has the template {{use dmy dates}} instructing bots and people to use "1 January 2016" instead of "January 1, 2016". Is there a reason? -- GreenC12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what tool you are using, but the actions you are taking are quite different what the edit summary says should be done: add "deadurl=no" to Tim's additions.
@Jmcgnh: I see you have already made the corrections to Anarchism. Thanks. All I was doing was reverting apparent tool-based edits that didn't do a complete job. It's not any editor's job to do cleanup editing after tools that leave issues. Reverting is normal in such cases -- even if they revert seemingly valuable edits. Stevie is the man!Talk • Work12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman:: but at Anarchism, your supposed reverts were not just targeting what Tim had done. It was not simply a revert of any edit that I could see, which is why it seemed to me that you might be using some automation. I don't have a problem with stripping accessdate from cite templates that don't support one - which is what some of your edits did (and I should check that I didn't mess that up) - but the other accessdates that were stripped were there before anyone, bot or not, added archivurls. And the InternetArchiveBot does have to be cleaned up after. It does a valuable service, but when it has problems, some URLs can be rescued by other means. —jmcgnh(talk)(contribs)16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The sentence "The Vanity Fair after-party, historically at the former Morton's restaurant, since 2009 has been at the Sunset Tower" in the "Associated events" section may be out of date. According to the Vanity Fair website, for the past three years the party has been held at a location adjacent to Beverly Hills City Hall. Bunkyray5 (talk) 01:49, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Date Formats - Revisited
Hi all! Looking at recent changes to the article on dates, back-and-forth in the history, and a section above, I figure it is worth getting a consensus on this: What format should the dates use, MDY or DMY? Some history: As near I can tell, the article used the US standard of MDY until this edit in 2013. Another user asked the editor about his change here, to which the editor replied that he'd look into it. The Use-date template, and the format of the dates in the article, have changed back and forth a few times since then, most recently today. So to prevent future dispute, shall we settle the issue once and for all? CrowCaw17:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
Two sentences in Disqualified Categories section making no sense
As per the title above - Two sentences in the article's Criticism section don't make sense. Both were separately added on 5 Feb 2019. The first peculiar sentence is a bullet point in sub-section "Plagiarism controversy", stating as follows: "Up to now, there have been no movies because the plagiarism dispute was disqualified." It follows mention of TWO disputes (re Zootopia in 2017 and re The Shape Of Water in 2018) so which (if either) dispute is it meant to refer to? And what on earth is "there have been no movies" supposed to mean? The closest assumption I can figure is that the bullet point is meant to read "Up to now, there have been no movies disqualified for plagiarism as both disputes were dismissed." (The article doesn't mention this but I've checked - they were dismissed in 2017 and 2018 respectively). The second peculiar sentence is in sub-section "Disqualification", stating as follows: "However, no film was recovered after the award". What?? It was added at the same time as a preceding initial sentence "Eight films were disqualified before the official award because they violated the regulations." I therefore assume the peculiar sentence is supposed to read "''However, no film has been disqualified after receiving an award". I shall therefore change both sentences accordingly, in the hope that readers/checkers will agree with my reasoning and action. Pete Hobbs (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Academy Awards until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America100009:40, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Counting discrepancy in "Disqualifications" section
The "Disqualifications" section currently says that "nine films have been disqualified" but only lists seven. My best guess is that nine total nominations have been revoked among those seven films, but the wording should be changed one way or another. Oooooooseven (talk) 23:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hyperlink to Academy Awards shows rant, swearing
I was looking at the Wikipedia page for Britannia Metal, which has a link to the Academy Awards in its article under formatting as "Oscar Statuettes." Placing the mouse over the hyperlink produces a preview which seems to be a copypasta rant about Avengers: Endgame and the Academy Awards. I don't know how to fix it or anything about Wikipedia editing in general, so I just thought I'd put something here. Sorry if I've messed up my formatting or if this is in the wrong place. 99.93.199.52 (talk) 19:57, 3 March 2020 (UTC)
I am new to the editing side of Wikipedia, so please excuse me if I do not use the right vocabulary, etc. My issue with the article is that the picture we see when researching it is that of the latest Best Actor winner. I dislike the idea that the Best Actor is representing the whole Awards, mostly because it puts him at a «higher» rank than the Best Actress. I do not suggest replacing the picture with that of the Best Actress. I believe it would be more representative to use a picture from the Best Movie winner, or of the statuette. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannellp (talk • contribs) 20:26, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
I strongly agree and believe the image associated with this page should be the statuette and not any particular actor or actress. The section on images in Page Previews says that the image displayed should be the first image in the InfoBox, which is the statuette, so it's unclear why it is showing anything from the second InfoBox. Slvrstn (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The image in the first infobox, File:Academy Award trophy.png, is a non-free fair use image. The third point in the Images in the Page Previews guideline states that such non-free images can be skipped. This is consistent with the non-free content guidelines that emphasize that non-free images should be used as little as possible. There are other factors that may cause other images to be skipped like width and aspect ration, but to guarantee that the latest Best Actor winner stops showing up in the previews, you need to move the second infobox out of the lead section. Zzyzx11 (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Accusations of Plagiarism
I expected the plagiarism section of this article to be about accusations people have made that the Oscar shows steal jokes or sketch ideas, but instead it's about small selection of films that were accused of stealing their stories. Even if these films were nominated for Oscars, I don't think the accusations of plagiarism are related to the Oscars at all and am suggesting the sub-section be removed altogether. It's not even close to an exhaustive list of controversies related to films nominated for Oscars either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.213.81.188 (talk) 15:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KrystleW.
Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 5 March 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Gabyai.
Wiki Education assignment: Research Process and Methodology - RPM SP 2022 - MASY1-GC 1260 200 Thu
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 February 2022 and 5 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Aashima99 (article contribs).
Your information is not really a
Your information is not really accurate. The Awards weren't born at the Roosevelt but a little bit further towards the walk of Fame. Although I've been there (it's a bar now) I don't remember it's current name, that's were the first ceremonies were held. It's a tiny place.
This article states that the "1st Academy Awards were held in 1929." However, in the Naming section, it states that "Margaret Herrick, librarian and president of the Academy, may have said she named it [the statuette] after her supposed uncle Oscar in 1921." How could she name the statuette if the Oscars didn't yet exist?