Talk:90th Academy Awards

What are the limitations?
Voting seems to have died down and at the moment is 7 to 5 in favor to keep with limitations, but guidelines for those limitations have not been established or even proposed in a clear way. User:JDDJS, User:Film Fan, User:Nauriya, User:Krimuk2.0, User:QueerFilmNerd, User:Ca2james and User:North8000, you all voted to keep but limit. What are the limits? If this isn't established then this entire discussion is completely useless to contributors 11 months from now.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 17:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Well with the exception of Mary J Blige (which I could take or leave her inclusion on the list) I strongly feel that everything currently on the list should stay. Now if somebody wants to add something new to the list, I feel it simply comes down to whether or not they can provide multiple reliable sources that significantly cover the relevance of the nomination. JDDJS (talk) 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)


 * What I can suggest is that, we should include only of those records that have impacted the ceremony as a whole, like I was reading in discussion, about Rachel Morrison the first female cinematographer, and somebody removed it, but that was important, as Jimmy in ceremony himself pointed this out and all major media outlet reported this achievement but at the same time he also said Timothée was a youngest nominee since 1939 and have look at this The Independent article that has pointed some of the mjore acheivments: (https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/oscars-nominations-2018-rachel-morrison-first-female-cinematographer-nominee-mudbound-a8174836.html). Also limitations, would mean perhaps mention of those achievements that happened for the first time or much significant. I am in favour of all the achievements already listed, but for example Sam Rockwell became the first actor to win Supporting Actor award competing against the second nominee who was also nominated for same award for same film, since 1991 film Bugsy, now the question is that important? I have seen similar mentions in previous ceremonies and they were heavily sourced and so this claim was but still somebody removed this. Nauriya (talk) 21:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with this. I agree that notable achievements that have received a lot (and I mean a lot) of talk deserve to stay. Rachel Morrison being the first female ever to be nominated for cinematography for example. I also think, as someone above in the RfC for Greta pointed out, context is key. Like, Greta being the fifth women (ever), nominated for best director (also the first I believe in 8 years, since Kathryn won for Hurt Locker, but that's not important), should stay, because, like with Rachel, its a milestone achievement if it put it in context. As you said, not every first is notable, the one about Sam Rockwell does not clearly have the same weight as some of the others on the list. I would personally suggest we would discuss guidelines, and obviously after, see if any on the list meet the guidelines, or even see if they need to be added. I also agree with someone way above with that they would probably look better in prose, but that's another discussion.--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 18:38, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

My idea is the the current number (14) is about right. The current criteria seem a little heavily based on race and sex....maybe lighten up on that a bit. North8000 (talk) 21:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The number is irrelevant. —  Film Fan  22:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest that adding something just because it is sourced is unwise because even the news media can and does report on unencyclopedic and trivial things. I think the key is context and that the source must state (or suggest) why it is noteworthy. In other words a source could mention that Gerwig received the fifth nom for a female and support that with the context of it being a low number, of recent events, etc. However the same source could also mention the Supporting Actor double nom thing, but I can't imagine anyone being able to articulate why that it noteworthy.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 15:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)--Deoliveirafan Also, its been almost a week since the call for a vote was made. Its currently 7 to 6 in favor to keep, with more delete votes trickling in after the first few days. What should the time limit be for the vote?--Deoliveirafan (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Ratings
Where's the part about the 2108 Academy Awards having the worst ratings ever in the history of the awards, and they keep getting revised downwards, tied with Jimmy Kimmel blaming Netflix et al? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.91.54 (talk) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It has been addressed and I dont think Netflix thing should be included as its not the reason mainly, I mean even if it has, we cant simply write because Netflix people stopped watching Oscars. Unless its a big issue and is reported with facts and figures. -Nauriya (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Consensus to "Keep with limits" Record nominations and winners section/content
I personally think enough time has gone by to call this. It should be noted that the current vote is very close, 7 to 6 in favor of keeping. I think that some ideas have been thrown around about what qualifies content to be kept for future editors to refer to and discuss, but I do not believe that these could be called clear guidelines that are inarguably encyclopedic and up to Wikipedia's standards. I am not sure if there is clear consensus to integrate the content of the section into the prose of the article, but I personally believe that that would be best and that if so it should go into the "Ceremony Information" section. So I need other editor's input/confirmation on three points: Consensus to Keep, Consensus on what the limits are, and Consensus on where the content belongs in the article.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 04:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was personally a consensus to keep on the section, but I agree that it should be integrated into the ceremony section, or somewhere otherwise (looking back, they have also been noted in the beginning portion of "nominees and winners"). As as couple others have said, something that is a "first", would possibly constitute as a notable event, but context matters (such as Rachel Morrison being the first woman in the history of the awards show to be nominated for Best Cinematography, or that Greta Gerwig was the fifth woman to be nominated for Best Director in the 90 year history of the academy). However, something such as the Sam Rockwell example mentioned above, does not have as much weight, and appears as more "fluff" trivia, if that makes sense. Those are my two cents, though still trying to think on the limitations portion. I do agree that it should be integrated somewhere, as none of the other pages have a section like this (and if we left it for this, would the other pages need it as well? What would make this page special?)--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 05:17, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, so if you agree in context I assume that you also agree that just because something is sourced by multiple outlets those multiple sources are not a reason to include in and of itself.--Deoliveirafan (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, definitely. I think there needs to be a more notable reason than 'the media talked about them a lot' (i.e. a historical precedent, etc.)--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)


 * As I said earlier it would be best to keep these facts in ceremony section, but if we are talking about it, never there is an empty section in "winners ans nominees" before too, for this years ceremony there is no expended prose on that. And I agree all the media trivia stuff should not be included. And it needs to go under ceremony info section.- Nauriya (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Oscar Fact
Allison Janney is the third, not second person to win an Oscar while concurrently on a TV series, Helen Hunt and Viola Davis are the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 (talk) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)