Talk:86th Academy Awards

Change article title to simply 'Oscars' instead of 'Academy Awards'?
I read this. Wikipedia seems to be one of the few sites still referring to the Oscars by their traditional name. Is it time for a rethink? Crazy Eddy (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if this is a reason to change the article title. If you Google Academy Awards, there are numerous news headlines that still use that term. They seem interchangeable to me. I would say it is better to wait till after the ceremony to see what kind of naming goes on. Wikipedia is supposed to follow, not lead, in these cases. If you want additional input, you can post a notice at WT:FILM. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I'm fairly convinced 'Oscars' will be the standard some day soon, considering its hashtaggability. Crazy Eddy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * P.S. Can we have 'Oscars 2014' redirect here? Crazy Eddy (talk) 15:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. As for your concern about Oscars vs. Academy Awards, they still use both names to refer to the awards. The reason why AMPAS now uses 'The Oscars' more often is that producer Meron and Zadan wanted to refer to the ceremony as such without using the full name. However, the Academy Awards are indeed still intact. According to the official website here the award itself is still officially known as the Academy Award for merit. So even if the ceremony is refereed to as the Oscars, the names Academy Award and Oscars are still used interchangeably. --Birdienest81 (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah, interesting. It's true 'Academy Award' still has that air of prestige. Thanks for clarifying. Crazy Eddy (talk) 11:59, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose move: "Academy Awards" sounds more formal than "Oscars", which sounds like merely a nickname. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Alphabetical order
This seems to be a recurring issue, so let's create a consensus here and then move on to other matters. Do we want the film title 12 Years a Slave alphabetized first under the characters "12" ... or do we want it alphabetized under the letter "T" as if the "twelve" were spelled out? Edits are going back and forth on this, so I'd like us to agree one way or the other; then all editors can uniformly stick with this decision. And – whatever we decide – for consistency, we will need to do the same for the film 20 Feet from Stardom, nominated in the Best Feature Documentary category. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * It should be the number, meaning that it should come before A-Z. That is how it is normally sorted. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 05:24, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Is there anything in the Manual of Style (or elsewhere) about this? I could not seem to find anything.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * MOS:LIST points to Collation, which says various approaches can be used. However, I think a good rule of thumb to follow is how wikitables automatically sort titles. If you go to List of films featuring slavery and click to sort Z-A then A-Z, 12 Years a Slave comes before the A-letter films. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 18:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am fine with either way, although I'd tend to agree with your preference.  The alphabetical order for this film (12 Years a Slave) has been changed several times.  I think we just need to agree to some consensus on the issue.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you ping whoever is changing the order? Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:58, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It has happened a few times.  I'd have to look in the "edit history".  If I recall correctly, the editor did not have a User Name; they just had that long string of numbers (anonymous user / IP address).  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Per the above discussion, I changed the alphabetical ordering back, so that numbers like "12" and "20" (for example, 12 Years a Slave and 20 Feet from Stardom) are listed before the letter "A".  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Multiple nominations
On these charts, can someone "left justify" (instead of "center justify") the columns for "Film", "Name", and "Award Categories"? (And keep the columns for "Number of Nominations" as "centered".) I think it would look better, but I am not sure how to do this. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:32, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Proper format
For anyone who is doing this article, check out 72nd Academy Awards or any other Oscar ceremony that is a featured list to see how to create this list in a proper way.

BTW, I'm going to clean up this list sometime in April in order to submit it for featured list status in August.--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but that's not to say that we are required to mimic those articles 100%. If we want to improve this article with additional details, facts, and information, we should not be precluded from doing so on the basis of "well, that's is not how it was done in the 72nd article".  Do you agree?  The past articles are good guidelines and reference posts, especially if they were of featured status.  But, they are not hard and fast "requirements" as to how every subsequent article should be.  In other words, if this article does not exactly "match" the older (previous) ones, that does not render its format as "improper".  Agreed?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Best Song
One of the original nominations for Best Song was revoked by the Academy. Should we leave the song in the chart, with an explanatory footnote? Or should we just remove it from the chart altogether? It seems to me that the former option is better. What has been our practice in past ceremonies? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I added the revoked nomination back into the chart, with an explanatory footnote. Let's leave it that way, until we get a consensus here on the matter.  I am not sure that I did the format of the footnote exactly correctly.  Perhaps someone can clean that up a bit.   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:01, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * And, while we are at it, is the correct word "revoked" or "rescinded"?  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The most recent example of something similar was with the foreign language category at the 65th Academy Awards. That approach might work.. I don't think your footnote is the right approach, it should be evident in the box itself.. perhaps have small text at the bottom explaining the film was disqualified? I think revoked is the proper word also, as it means reversing after the fact. Spanneraol (talk) 17:32, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would omit it completely, and add a small note linking to the Best Song controversy section. If the nomination's revoked, it's revoked. Trivialist (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Add a small note with the link, where exactly? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:42, 30 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. "Alone Yet Not Alone" does not have an Academy Award nomination. Either it should not be on the list, or it should be written in strikethrough text. A simple footnote does not immediately give the reader the information that this is *not* an Academy Award nomination. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.122.100.21 (talk) 20:41, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Special tributes section
Just noticed someone got rid of it-I think that probably was just someone guessing-as it seemed to be a bit too many when it comes down to the In Memorium (Which IMO should be longer for once, after snubbing Andy Griffith and other people. (Though I do hope Shirley Temple gets a special one. So what has been confirmed is what I'm asking. Wgolf (talk) 17:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I think there was too much speculation on who would be included. Probably best to leave it till we know for sure. Do they announce the people they intend to include in the "In Memoriam" part beforehand? -- Connelly90 07:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No, usually not revealed till the ceremony. Spanneraol (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Then I think WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL would apply here. Leave it out till after the ceremony. -- Connelly90 13:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep they don't-I can see why they got rid of that section, not sure why it was there so long-then again I found the most amusing thing to be on a Oscar page for years and years-one of the winners for Assistant director was someone who never won, had no page and no listing on the Oscar site, I had to go though the history and it was listed as wrong since...are your ready? 2007! Wgolf (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * That's quite a mistake! Thinking we should maybe check them all now...-- Connelly90 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Oscar's First Time Live Streamed
Somebody need to mention that this was the first Academy Awards Ceremony that streamed live to mobile devices and ABC's website, as we mentioned the Oscar's first televised, first broadcasted on the radio, first in color, last in black and white, first live, etc.

--205.202.38.194 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Hersholt Award omitted
As IP edits are sometimes automatically reverted, I'll just note here that, despite it being included in the introduction to the section, the actual recipient of the Jean Hersholt Award, Angelina Jolie, was omitted from the awards list, so I have added it now. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 21:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Richard Hymns broke the sound editing record
9 nominations-but I can't find a place that has a link to it-but he has the most nominations ever in that cat to date. (I was just updating the sound editing and noticed that the data was wrong on it) Wgolf (talk) 21:51, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Adding AccessibilityDispute template
The list of nominees appears to be using a table for layout purposes, a violation of Wikipedia table inappropriate use guidelines for page layout. This would better be done as a list, similar to my edit to the 87th Academy Awards page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverted removal of AccessibilityDispute template as the issue has not been settled yet. There is a concern that a featured article has accessibility issues. The discussion is still ongoing at WikiProject Accessibility talk. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

RfC: How should the performers table be formated?
In the last few days, there was disagreement between how the table format should look. I wanted it to look like this:

OPTION 1

But User:Atomic Meltdown wants it like this:

OPTION 2 What do you think? Which of the two you think is suited in the context of a Featured list? Or is there a third method? If you do, show it here and we'll vote. IO believe there should be consistency among all the Oscar ceremony lists.Birdienest81 (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Option 1, unquestionably. I'm not sure why there is such disagreement when the similar format has been used across numerous FLs. - SchroCat (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I also prefer the first because for William Ross's performance the word Orchestral does not fit the description of Song(s) since Orchestral is not the name of any specific song.--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also option one. There are numerous possible roles that can be filled. We need to be explicit. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Also the first option, we need to be clear about roles in the table. Cowlibob (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Adding Accessibility Dispute template for bold winners
I have twice had my (accessible) indication of winners via ‡ (double-dagger) reverted, and so am adding the Accessibility dispute template.

Indicating winners solely with boldface is not accessible to some screen readers. That is, the screen reader may not necessarily read bold text aloud differently from non-bold text.

While it is clear that a winner immediately follows the name of an award, it may be ambiguous as to when the winning information is completed. Following the bold section with a double-dagger makes the end point clear.

The only reason given in the history for reverting the accessible code was "only Featured lists use bold." Being a featured list does not exempt the list from meeting accessibility requirements.

Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:32, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, you are very correct. In fact, there are several Oscar featured lists with a double dagger such as 72nd Academy Awards. In reality, they all should have double daggers or some other symbol for accessibility in order to pass for Featured list. I'm reluctant to do so because I keep getting into an edit war. You have my blessing to do so for the other Oscar featured lists.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 21:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)


 * (and thank you for introducing me to a useful template) It is tiring to get involved in an edit war, and that is not part of my vision for Wikipedia. At the very least there needs to be someone in addition to me reverting the removal of the double-daggers.


 * I nominate the article for featured list removal, but I'd rather the article be made accessible instead. In the meantime, perhaps I need to add nominations for featured lists to my watchlist and raise objections on any accessibility issues before the list gets featured. Following the manual of style  a requirement of featured lists. (So is not being part of an edit war, but I'm not going to start one to get this article off the featured lists list.) Thisisnotatest (talk) 05:28, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I raised the issue at the 87th Academy Awards Featured list candicacy. Thisisnotatest (talk) 06:39, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand your concern, but I think trying to demote Oscar ceremony featured lists just because of a conflict that is easy to solve (simply by putting a dagger) is kind of a lousy reason to do so. What would be better is to try to set some standard for future FL's by creating compromise. I really don't want this conflict to further slow down the FLC process for the 87th Oscars. I wonder if both the daggers and the boldface can be used simultaneously to please both parties.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to bold and daggers. I'm not sure how the bold got removed, unless it was part of the undo process. But you're right, it's separate for the 87th Awards issue. Thisisnotatest (talk) 10:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Additional official posters
I don't know how to add this or the images that go along with it, any help would be great: There were two additional Official posters for the 86th Academy Awards. One titled "Liquid" and the other titled "Spotlight" designed by ad agency 180LA and done by artist Casey Leveque of Rocket Studio. Here is the link to a high res jpg of one poster And here is a link to a high res jpg of the other 67.53.124.5 (talk) 00:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Critical Reviews error
In the Critical Reviews section, it says "The review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave the show a 82% approval rating, with an average rating of 0/10, based on 11 reviews." Is this correct? Poydoo (talk) 00:17, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

In Memorial
If you look at the latest 92nd Academy Awards the In Memorial list has the deceased party's name listed with his profession. Someone added a movie example of the artist and I agree that should be deleted. I am going to restore the list but only with the professions noted. Tell me if I am wrong. Eschoryii (talk) 01:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)