Talk:88th Academy Awards

Nominations "shortlist"
This page is not for what magazines or newspapers think is the shortlist of nominations for the awards. Anyone is entitled to their opinion of what the best movies, actors, and actresses etc.. of the year are. However, that does not add encyclopedic value to the page. Please cease with the disruption caused by adding these so called shortlists. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These are the Academy's shortlists !

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) Thus fact and not opinion, this is your misapprehension.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * That page is just a list of all film 'Eligible' for nomination. It lists 305 films eligible for best picture, certainly not a shortlist. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
 * These are the Academy's shortlists !
 * http://www.oscars.org/news/10-doc-shorts-oscars-2015-shortlist
 * http://www.oscars.org/news/10-contenders-remain-vfx-oscar-race
 * http://www.oscars.org/news/9-foreign-language-films-advance-oscarr-race-1
 * http://www.oscars.org/news/7-features-advance-race-makeup-and-hairstyling-oscarr-0
 * http://www.oscars.org/news/10-live-action-shorts-advance-2015-oscar-race
 * http://www.oscars.org/news/10-animated-shorts-advance-2015-oscar-race Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)


 * But these are not nominations. Nominations will be announced in 10 days, there's no need to confuse readers with such excessive information. Even as shortlists, it does not seem to be appropriate information to put in the article. Certainly fails WP:RAWDATA. Mymis (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Keep the schedule
I hope we will keep it once all scheduled events are over. It is still interesting and I miss it at former Academy Awards articles. --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Why? Does it get removed every year, after the dates all pass?   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't see it anymore! Who did remove it? --Jobu0101 (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Could we get it back, please? --Jobu0101 (talk) 12:52, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Films
The following 4 films are mentioned here but don't have a Wikidata item:
 * 

--Jobu0101 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Persons
The following 68 persons are mentioned here but don't have a Wikidata item:
 * 

--Jobu0101 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Only two missing items left, see --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably will add the sound editors sometime tomorrow. Wgolf (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Are these the same persons? and . --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
 * looks like someone added David White, though he was not linked to the sound editing page yet. Looks like just one sound editor remains and a few sound mixers for those. Wgolf (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

✅ --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Missing articles
I prepared a list of missing articles (62):

--Jobu0101 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * All of them are nominated this year. If you click them you see what for. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I just added Celia Bobak. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I updated the list, 59 missing now. You didn't link your new article to Wikidata. That's why I listed it here. --Jobu0101 (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay, btw-the Coen brothers have a combined page, hence why there names are here as they don't have separate pages. Looks like Hamish Purdy who I added last night has his wikidata up though. Wgolf (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Just added a couple more just now. Wgolf (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I just updated the list again. Now there are 53 articles missing. Yeah, I realized Hamish Purdy (see ). And I also know that the Coen brothers share an article. But I want to be complete in my list of nominees without an article on their own. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Some of the people do need there nomination count updated also on the pages. (I did start on the 2014 articles and tried to continue all through last year but never did, I also tried to get as many names as possible during the past few years added for nominees, but of course never finished) Wgolf (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added some more but some are not showing up as having wiki data-though some are going by other names (like they had another page so I had them have something like Bob Smith (person) for example). Wgolf (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

There were many new articles linked in the article. I went through them and linked them to Wikidata. Now every article mentioned in 88th Academy Awards should be linked to a Wikidata item. Only 33 articles missing. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, here is a help page that explains how to link articles to Wikidata:. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like just a few visual effects artists are left for the tech crews, after that is the smaller categories (or rather the ones people tend to ignore during our bathroom breaks it seems). If you want you could start looking over the 2014 Oscar pages. One thing is that some seem to forget to link them to other pages which I have been doing. Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you link them? Without Wikidata the old fashioned way? --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I mean linking to other articles-like I had to link some of the names to the visual effects page. Wgolf (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

17 articles missing. --Jobu0101 (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

2 articles missing, so we are ✅ because they are condemned to share an article: Coen brothers. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for all who helped making this dream come true. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

How the heck did we get a duplicate section on nearly everything?
What happened? Looks like we have a mega duplicate area! Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Looks like I got rid of all that, but it was odd. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this is the first year where a Aussie was nominated for sound editing!
Just a little interesting thing I noticed when I looked up the list of Australians nominated (which needs to be updated), as nearly everyone from Mad Max is Australian including one of the sound editing nominees! Wgolf (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Box office info
Wouldn't this be better presented in a chart, rather than prose? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks like someone created a chart. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Criticism regarding lack of diversity
This section is very POV. There has been a lot of criticism regarding lack of diversity. But there has also been a lot of criticism of that criticism. Why is the former included, but the latter not? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Ironically I am reading more about how Hollywood is going to far with it then the actual stuff posted on here. Wgolf (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean? I don't understand what you are saying?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Spike Lee explicitly stated that he is not boycotting the awards ceremony. He is merely not attending. While that is in and of itself a form of protest, it does not equate to a boycott. The article should reflect this. There is a big difference between deciding to not attend something and encouraging others to do the same. --Mrcyriac (talk) 09:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

108 missing Academy films
Since all films and persons nominated in 2016 have got an article by now it is time to look at missing nominated films in general. I prepared a list: d:User:Jobu0101/Oscars. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Awesome-hopefully we can do 2014 now! I tried to start a project nearly 2 years ago of adding nearly every missing Academy article, of course it has taken forever and I lose interest in it time to time. Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Section on Carol
I believe that the Academy's refusal to nominate Carol for Best Picture has drawn enough dissension to warrant its being covered in this article. Even if it isn't, my edit had still added much scholarly and relevant information to the page. Also, given that the film's politics have been speculated as the reason for its absence in the category, it could arguably go in the section about the nominations' traditionalism/lack of diversity. AndrewOne (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Dozens of movies get snubbed literally every single year. If we decide adding them into the articles (currently none of the Academy articles has that), it'd be extremely hard since any writer of any possible publication has a different opinion. Adding an example of one movie certainly fails WP:NPOV. Mymis (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. It adds nothing to the article topic.  Every single year, dozens upon dozens upon dozens of films, actors, and artists do not receive a nomination and get a "snub".  We neither can nor should mention every "snub".  The Oscars are subjective.  And everyone has a different opinion about what films/actors should and should not get a nomination.  Our readers understand that this is a subjective process and that people will have different opinions about the nominations.  "Snubs" do not merit mention.  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Might as well as add something like "Inside Out was snubbed for being animated", "Hateful 8 was snubbed for being a western", "Episode 7 was snubbed for being a part 7", ect! Really that is what it seems like! Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Time Zones
So we have an event, happening in a certain location at a certain time. Users Crboyer and Mymis want to add one other time zone, but not more. Why is one additional timezone relevant to the article, but not others?-217.248.55.59 (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral on the issue, but I can answer the significance of these specific time zones: Most of the national media in the United States reports everything in Eastern Time, which tends to make it a De facto national time within the country, even though major national events like this ceremony may take place in the Pacific Time Zone or any of the other several time zones within the United States. Then you have Wikipedia's guideline that recommends also reporting the time in Coordinated Universal Time, since this is an international online encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
 * There can't be two times the event starts, and local time should take precedence. If we need another time zone, why would anything take precedence over UTC?
 * I just checked Attack on Pearl Harbor, John F. Kennedy (for his assassination) and September 11 attacks, arguably the three most important events in US history with a distinct and well-known time information. No article uses anything but local time. Assassination of John F. Kennedy uses local time and UTC.
 * Oh, and in case this is unclear: Wikipedia ist not an electronic program guide-217.248.55.59 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

WP:TIMEZONE is quite clear, and this might have been just a waste of time.-217.248.55.59 (talk)

Antony Hegarty
With all disputes over diversity and race in one of most controversial Oscar ceremony it is important and worth mentioning transgender nominee Antony Hegarty also known with trans-name "Anohi" in Winners and nominees section highlighting the fact that she is one of the only two transgender people to be nominated in Oscar history and now that she decided not to attend the ceremony it has become more important to mention. So i have already add this information in winner and nominees section, which i think satisfies the rule of significance. Nauriya ( Rendezvous ) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC).


 * It's a good idea to mention this fact. I don't think it's currently written in the best section of the article, however. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 February 2016
indent the nominees for Best Actress, who did not win

207.47.252.230 (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * This has been done within a couple of minutes since your post. There are several registered, regular editors here who have been monitoring/updating this article as the ceremony unfolds. Unfortunately, we had to put this article under semi-protection due to vandalism by numerous unregistered users wanting to add false information. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

In Memorium - 88th Academy awards - missing name in your article
Dear Sirs:

Please correct me if I am wrong. In the section "Memorium" of this article "88th Academy Awards" I see the name "Saeed Jaffrey" missing.

regards, Caesar Dutta — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.22.109.19 (talk) 05:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC) A few names that were mentioned during the In Memorium are missing in that section right now. Wgolf (talk) 06:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Presenter
It's Sacha Baron Cohen and Olivia Wilde. It's Sacha Baron Cohen, not Ali G. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 14:11, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * He was playing the character of Ali G. but I added his name as presenter. DrkBlueXG (talk) 16:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Notable omissions "In memoriam"
Masem removed an entire section dedicated to omissions from the In memoriam segment of the show, which in normal circumstances would be a warranted part of the article, due to the backlash from the public and media alike. Although the stars such as Abe Vigoda were omitted from the presentation, it would be respectful for this information to be included for purposes of completion, as these stars did pass away during the qualifying period for this segment. I would like to suggest this information be re-added and be protected against removal for that reason. Grez868 (talk) 16:14, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * At the time I removed it (eg while the show was being run still and preping for ITN posting), there wasn't a lot of coverage and the source used was a very weak RS, so it could seen as pushing a POV. However, checking just now via "in memoriam oscars" in Google News, there is clearly RSes that mention the omission of Vigoda and others, so it can be added back using these sources to back it. We do want to be careful that minor, D-list type celeb deaths aren't forced it - it should be snubs specifically identified by multiple RSes. --M ASEM  (t) 16:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree low-grade celebrity snubs could easily be passed because not many people would notice. It was Vigoda specifically that shocked me, considering his roles in The Godfather, Good Burger and many other films spanning as far back as 1949. It just seemed a little offensive to skip out one of the biggest veterans of the industry.Grez868 (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * New omissions section added to the end of the In Memoriam section, with more veteran names added, and adequately referencing to Huffington Post, E! Online and USA Magazine. Many more references are freely available if required.Grez868 (talk) 16:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's much better sourcing. I have no problems with the section now, just at the point when it was added before sourcing became apparent. --M ASEM (t) 17:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

MOS:LEAD issue
The lead lacks a summary of one of the article's notable sections:
 * 88th_Academy_Awards

I think it would only require a couple of sentences. I would draft such an addition if the article had not been semi-protected.

70.89.177.161 (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Time Zones are wrong again
Remove the irrelevant time zone from the lede, was fixed already but someone turned the article into a program listing again.

If you have doubts, read WP:TIMEZONE. Thanks-217.248.56.25 (talk) 22:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 March 2016 - "Asian Jokes" paragraph of "Critical Reception" section
The final paragraph in the "Critical reception" section, which details criticism against jokes made during the Oscars for being racist against Asians, should be improved. As of right now, said paragraph provides little information and may be confusing to anyone unaware of the controversy. In addition, there should be a mention of Sasha Baron Cohen's "Minions" joke, which was perceived to be racist against Asians as well, and additional sources, namely this New York Times article should be included.

I do believe that there is enough notability to warrant an expansion of this paragraph in general. I would recommend that this paragraph should be upgraded to its own subsection (labeled something along the lines of "Asian Jokes Controversy") due to expanding it to include the background context as well as the controversy itself.

Currently, the paragraph looks like this:

However, publications such as GQ, The Hollywood Reporter and The Washington Post criticized the jokes involving Asian kids. Jessica Contrera of The Washington Post noted "There was a lack of diversity in the lack of diversity. This became most apparent when Rock brought three Asian children to the stage, posing as “bankers” from finance firm PricewaterhouseCoopers."

I would like it to be changed to this:

Asian Jokes Controversey
However, criticism ensued after Rock and Sacha Baron Cohen told jokes onstage that were considered stereotypical and offensive towards Asians. During the show, Rock brought three children of Asian heritage onto the stage in order to pose as accountants, where he said "They sent us their most dedicated, accurate and hard working representatives...Please welcome Ming Zhu, Bao Ling and David Moskowitz;" he continued with saying "If anybody’s upset about that joke, just tweet about it on your phone that was also made by these kids." In addition, Baron Cohen made a comment stating "How come's there's no Oscar for those dedicated, accurate, and hardworking little yellow people, with tiny dongs. You know, the Minions." which many people, including Lowen Liu of Slate, interpreted as offensive against Asians.

In addition to criticism from the public, especially online, the jokes faced criticism from publications such as GQ, The Hollywood Reporter, The New York Times and The Washington Post. Jessica Contrera of The Washington Post noted "There was a lack of diversity in the lack of diversity. This became most apparent when Rock brought three Asian children to the stage, posing as “bankers” from finance firm PricewaterhouseCoopers." Actress Constance Wu, of Fresh Off the Boat, and basketball player Jeremy Lin also commented on the jokes, with the former stating "To parade little kids on stage w/no speaking lines merely to be the butt of a racist joke is reductive & gross." and the latter writing on Twitter that he was "tired of it being 'cool' and 'OK' to bash Asians."

Now, this is the first time both requesting an edit or wanting to make a substantial change to an article, so constructive criticism is welcome. Hopefully we can get an expansion that can properly encompass this issue.

Stuff Knower (talk) 06:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)


 * , thank you for your detailed edit request! Just to let you know, edit requests like these are for when the page is semi-protected against editing by new or unregistered users. The 88th Academy Awards article was semi-protected, but the protection expired just a few hours before you made this request. Additionally, the right to edit semi-protected pages is automatically granted after 10 edits and 4 days of account registration. Your edit request was your tenth edit, so you can now edit any semi-protected article directly without having to post a request like this. For these reasons, I have deactivated the edit semi-protected template, since you should be able to make the edits yourself. However, you and other editors may continue to discuss your proposed changes here, since they do appear to be substantial. Mz7 (talk) 05:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ennio Morricone win at age 87
Hello, i have added this trivia of Ennio Morricone-winning an Oscar at the age of 87 in a "Competitive Category". The reason i post here is that, Academy keeps age-related data only for the acting and directing categories and no winners in those races have exceeded 82. A spokesperson for Academy has told Los Angeles Times that, "We do not have this kind of data for the other competitive categories. That being said, we are not aware of a competitive award winner older than 87,". It means they do know that oldest competitive-Oscar winner age is 87, despite they only have record for Best Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress categories.

However a competitive award is a award that is based on "merit" and members vote for it as they does for other. So it is significantly enough to mention such achievement. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 20:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. It's significant.  What's your question? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

In Memoriam
Harper Lee's book To Kill a Mockingbird was made into a film. All she is a writer. Is it possible to add Harper Lee to the missed In Memoriam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * That would be original research unless we had a reliable source that mentioned her as an omission.  Considering she didn't write the screenplay, that's unlikely.  I don't think the Academy Awards have ever cast their net so far as to include people who were solely book authors. --SubSeven (talk) 06:49, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple Awards/Nominations Tables
Can someone please add tables with films that won multiple awards and nominations? If you need assistance getting the list started, Mad Max: Fury Road won the most awards, while The Revenant won the most nominations. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
 * What does merging the two tables accomplish?Eschoryii (talk) 06:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Alejandro González Iñárritu 2014.jpg