Talk:92nd Academy Awards

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Featured list92nd Academy Awards is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
January 12, 2009Articles for deletionDeleted
August 23, 2020Featured list candidatePromoted
In the newsA news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "In the news" column on February 10, 2020.
Current status: Featured list

Box office performance of nominated films

I think this Chart should be sortable, but also collapsible. When I made it collapsible, it took away the sortable feature. Does anyone know how to fix that? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Tttemplar for doing so. Much appreciated. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved

Why was this section removed? I found it useful to see how the Oscar nominations/win impacted the box office performance. --Aausterm (talk) 17:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

White space

There is a large white space in "Films that received multiple awards and nominations" paragraph. Can anyone fix it? Eschoryii (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

86th Academy Awards has the same problem. Eschoryii (talk) 09:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Omissions in In Memoriam segment

If you think the paragraph describing reported omissions in the In Memoriam segment don't belong in 92nd Academy Awards#In Memoriam, let's bring it up here first.

I believe that even a single omission could stir some controversies, so it should be noted in the article. Objections? JSH-alive/talk/cont/mail 15:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's awards seasons; there always going to be omissions Espngeek (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Every year someone adds omitted deaths but they have all been deleted. The article reflects what happened at the awards ceremony not what should have happened. SJH-alive should remove the edit. If you look at past Oscar 'In Memoriam' lists the missed movie notable deaths do not appear. Eschoryii (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They have been correctly deleted. Thanks. Eschoryii (talk) 05:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring over the "...twelfth and most recent..."

I can see edit warring in mainspace with accompanying lengthy edit summaries. Best to make your argument here, and not in edit summary. I can and will full protect this page if necessary to protect the pedia. I consider both editors nearing 3RR territory; I am attempting to courteously nurture consensus without choosing sides. BusterD (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, going to look at all of the edits explain my edits and rationale. I will not provide commentary on the other edits since I did not make those edit. Bolded my edits, and I will provide commentary to explain my point of view.
Also disclaimer that I went into these edits unaware of the 3RR, that this was my first warning for 3RR (not had any issues with edits in the past), and I just read the two relevant pages on that now @ 1650 EST ish, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Edit_warring and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Three_revert_rule_enforcement, so now I have a better understanding of the rule, intentions, and possible punishments after the fact
---
"best picture without any acting nomination" (19:53, March 25, 2023) I realized that Parasite won best picture without any acting noms, checked other Academy Award ceremony pages to see how they handled that trivia and saw they included the trivia bits ie. Slumdog Millionare, The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King and Braveheart in 81st, 76th, and 68th Academy Awards ceremonies pages respectively, so I added this first edit, albeit with the now-in-hindsight Collider/non-reliable source. This is the start of what is going on now.
"Collider is an questionable source. Also 12 does not seem special unless the last occurrence was in a long time" (06:25, March 27, 2023‎)
"1) added the "best picture and no acting noms" trivia back in with better non-collider sources via "Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources"(The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Insider); and 2) past "best pics without acting noms" trivia have been mentioned in past academy award pages for best picture winners (81th Academy Awards, 76th, 68th, 31st, 29th, 24th) (i added cite to 31, 29, 24, but the trivia was already there before) (missing on 60th, 25th, 5th, 3rd, 1st)" (19:44, March 27, 2023‎) I went to refer to the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources" page to see what qualifies as "good sources" since Collider is not a good source (and in hindsight good choice), and after that, found more reliable sources that are literally listed as good sources and these sources even mention the trivia bit I wanted to add to Wikipedia in the first place, the "Best Picture winner without any acting nominations" i.e. The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Insider (for culture)
"The distinction is better served on the film's actual article page. Twelve films earning that distinction with the last one happening 11 years earlier (and four of those happening within 32 years). That seems not distinct." 20:12, March 27, 2023
no need to relegate it to just one of film page or Academy Awards page, it can be on both; actual perennial sources this time around, and some of these sources even explicitly have this trivia (one of the WP, LAT); and consistency w/ other oscar ceremony pages that have the trivia (why does 92nd page not deserve to have it), 12/95 best pictures is notable (timeframe when irrelevant) (20:23, March 27, 2023‎) So I feel like "Best Picture winner without any nominations for acting" is a worthy trivia bit to have on any Academy Awards ceremony page, especially after seeing it on other pages just fine, and I feel there no need to hide this fact or relegate it to an "either or" where it can only belong on one page or the other (i.e. the film's article like Parasite or the ceremony page for the Academy Awards; its trivia that can belong on both, its not like I'm writing a completely new large section). Again, used actual sources this time, made sure those sources are reliable and perennial, and even with Insider the "worst" source of the bunch is still considered "reliable/perennial" as long as its on (culture) and not (Business Insider, Markets Insider, Tech Insider). Lastly, I based my edits on looking at the pages of the other Academy Awards ceremonies and years of the other "Best Picture winners without nominations for acting" to get an idea of whether that trivia is included, and if so, how to write my edit for this page, and seeing that trivia get mentioned meant I was going for consistency
"What do you mean Collider is a questionable source?" (20:27, March 27, 2023‎) (okay I will mention this was a 3rd party edit by neither conflicting editors, just another edit in between; that said this editor happened to use one of my previous edits with the Collider article)
"Insider is still not a reliable source. Also we are limiting how much trivia is allowed to not become bloated. If you want to add more trivia, please discuss on talk page with folks who are experienced in featured list promotion." (20:30, March 27, 2023‎)
Commentary to last point above since this was the last edit before the page got locked; typed and sent at (1715 ish EST, March 27, 2023) Alright mentioned in my previous 2 commentary bits, but Wikipedia/Reliable sources/Perennial sources states that "Insider (culture)", the most controversial and less mainstream of the sources (compared to The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Los Angeles Times), is still considered a reliable/perennial source, so no idea what's going on there; if you want to delete that page, sure, but its a reliable source by the definitions. Isn't the point of trivia, especially trivia that can be sourced and cited, meant for the reader to see small timbits of information? Was my edit really the difference between a good article and a bloated article? Not including the sources, my one sentence to add onto a single paragraph, not even a whole new section, was only 22 words and 137 characters. Was "Parasite also became the twelfth and most recent film to win Best Picture without getting any nominations for the four acting categories." really the grain of sand that broke the rest of the article and made it "fat"? This is like the "Sorites paradox/paradox of the heap", but in reverse. Other editor mentioned how the timeframe of occurrences of this trivia point makes the edit meaningless "Twelve films earning that distinction with the last one happening 11 years earlier (and four of those happening within 32 years)"; I would say only 12 films out of 95 (Academy Award ceremonies and Best Pictures), for a rate of 12.6%, makes the trivia notable, regardless of when those instances occurred; especially when other Academy Awards (ceremony) articles literally have this bit of trivia as well. I don't know if I have any other commentary to add at the moment, but hope my perspective was typed properly and has some level of reasoning. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 21:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for engaging so fully. Now let's let another editor make their own case. BusterD (talk) 22:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because something happened that is quite rare based on percentages does not necessarily mean that the fact should be included. For example, it could have been mentioned in the 94th Academy Awards that Drive My Car was the seventh film to be nominated for both Best Picture and Best Foreign Language Film/International Film. However, since there have been four films in the past five years to achieve that distinction (Roma, Parasite, Drive My Car, and All Quiet on the Western Front), it seems that trying to include that in the "Winners and Nominees' so-called trivia section seems a bit not special. Point is these article are not meant to include every single bit of trivia out there. You should read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections on such sections. Also, there is a reason certain sources are used and some are not. It is to maintain integrity of the article. Sure, maybe Collider, Insider. Comic Book, etc maybe okay sources, but if there are stronger sources, then that is better. Look, I really do not want to get into an edit war, but I worked hard on this list to get it to featured list status. Yes, I understand about WP:OWN policy and that I do not have ownership on this article, or any others on this website, but also there is a reason this list has attained featured status. I've noticed something similar happened over at the page for Alicia Keys's Alicia where there was also an edit war between Teflon Peter Christ and SamonsiteMan. Like this article, that article has featured article achieved featured status. Whenever an article/list is considered as featured status, it means the article has gone through a highly deliberative process that was reviewed by experienced editors who know the subject and can write things in an encyclopedic tone. Please ask those who have gone through such rigorous process before making such changes.
--Birdienest81talk 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The trivia being mentioned is not a super specific edge cases of "Best Pictures filmed in X city, Y country in the Month of Z with Camera A, with B Actors involved" or "Most times x thing happened at Y time on Z day with A,b,c variables" or nonsensical things like that, otherwise technically there can be hundreds, thousands, or even theoretically infinite trivia points that can be made by combining super specific variables together and adding endless definitions onto those trivia points. The trivia bit I'm using is not super specific or with weird edge cases or super limited/contrasting qualifiers, the trivia I added is cited and mentioned in mainstream sources, and the trivia bit I wish to add is in fact on other similar pages so I was at least trying to use the precedence of occurrences on other pages as a mark of consistency (i.e. the "Academy Awards" and the ceremony pages of other years), or at least attempted consistency (some of the other pages I mentioned are missing the points for some reason, most notably the earliest Academy Awards pages; but the recent ones do have it).
- Axiom to the above point since it's the most "subjective" point I had, the trivia point can be seen as relevant, when paired with the right contexts and branches thoughts on related topics ("How can a movie that was named the "best movie" of the year, not even get any nominations or recognition for their acting performances? Isn't the acting a part of what makes a movie great? Is a movie really that good if the acting wasn't considered on par with the mainstream Academy recognition the movie received?"). Yes, there are hundreds of other awards and ceremonies where acting nominations can be had outside of the Oscars, and in Parasite's case their acting has indeed been recognized elsewhere, most notably the Screen Actors Guild Best Ensemble Cast, but for the simplicity of the trivia, only the context of the Academy Awards is a part of this discussion and the discussion of the page itself
- Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, "Control+F" : "Comic" or "Comic Book" = 0 results; "Collider" = 0 results; "Insider (culture)" = 1 result, with that result being "There is consensus that Insider is generally reliable for its coverage in its culture section." and it has that green checkmark and shading of "Generally reliable in its areas of expertise". I am literally using a source certified by Wikipedia's own standards on what on what constitutes a "reliable source" and a "perennial source" in order to supplement the trivia and make sure its cited and has actual proof/evidence behind it, to make sure the citation is within the standards of Wikipedia, and I'm actually being mindful about the specific version of Insider (I'm not using any discussion on business, technology, or markets, which is considered " No consensus, unclear, or additional considerations apply" with the orange shading and the exclamation mark + triangle caution; but the greenlit "Culture" section). Just as an anecdote, I was not aware of Reliable sources/Perennial sources when I was making edits to another page, using a source of "Forbes.com contributors", that is considered as "Generally unreliable" with the red shading and the circle slash stop sign; and when my edits were changed, I found out about that, and tried my best to keep that in mind for whenever I'm using bigger resources as citations. I am not sure why you decided to interlink "Insider" as the same with "Collider" and "Comic Book", when the points above, as mentioned previous in this paragraph and my first response to the Talk page, were made, but I digress.
- Even if you continue to insist that "Insider" is a terrible source, even though I disagree with you and even though Wikipedia/Reliable sources/Perennial sources says it's okay, but let's say you still want to remove that citation anyways, I still had other mainstream sources (The Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, The Washington Post; last time I checked they were in the green too) that not only mentioned the trivia point, but some of those sources even when into commentary on that trivia bit (Asian/BIPOC representation or lack thereof in Academy Award acting nominations, SAG Ensemble win and yet no Academy recognition, etc.).
- On the example of timeliness of trivia and whether or not it's special, your example, 4 times in 5 years, 4/5 = 80%, for Roma, Parasite, Drive My Car, and All Quiet on the Western Front for nominations Best Picture/Best International Feature Film is indeed close. I don't see how a hit rate of 3/16 = 18.8% spanning 2003 starting with The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, then 2008 and Slumdog Millionaire and 2019 with Parasite is "close (it becomes 16.7%, 4/24, if I include 1995's Braveheart). The overall ratio, with 95 Academy Award ceremonies and 95 total best pictures, and 12 qualifying best pictures, is 12.6%; that seems pretty low, spaced out, and notable; personal opinion, more notable timeframe and infrequency than your point.
- Does 1 sentence in 1 paragraph ruin a featured article? Does a cited addition with precedence really bloat an article and make it too fat to the point where it automatically loses its gold star in the top right corner? Does 22 words and 137 characters, not a whole new section, not even a whole paragraph, really do this to an article where it somehow lessens the entire quality and body of work of the rest of the article, which I did not touch at all? The "featured article" argument I feel doesn't cut it at all, when the page for the 81st Academy Awards, for films of 2008, and for the year Slumdog Millionaire won Best Picture without any acting nominations, is a) a featured article itself, and b) has the very same trivia point we are debating in the first place now. Postedit: featured articles/lists, semantics.
- You're right that the page does not belong to me, nor to you. It belongs to Wikipedia. My edit is an edit in good faith to add to the article and its high standing, to follow the rules and use prior precedence with writing in my edit and keeping the featured status in mind, to add more information/trivia/whatever you call it. I believe that my edit is notable, sourced, and still small enough were it deserves a mention. Duyneuzaenasagae (talk) 01:09, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I still vehemently disagree with inclusion and agree with
WP:FLC so you can see how deliberative the process is. Birdienest81talk 06:33, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply
]
--Birdienest81talk 23:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed with Birdnienest81; not a detail worth mentioning. I have no further comment. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like trivial info to add, the film is notable for so many significant other things. Just because you can source something doesn't mean it has to be included. I'll leave it at that. Cowlibob (talk) 20:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also @Chompy Ace:, @Giants2008:, what do you think about the above situation? Birdienest81talk 06:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:92nd_Academy_Awards&oldid=1197111567"