Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor/Archive 1

Ryan Gosling
Is it worth noting Ryan Gosling being the first past Mickey Mouse Club cast member up for Best Actor? (LadySatine 19:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC))


 * It is an interesting side note of trivia, if true. Yes, I would say to include that.  (JosephASpadaro 22:12, 3 March 2007 (UTC))

Posthumous nominees
I believe Spencer Tracy was a posthumous nominee for Guess Who's Coming to Dinner- that makes three, not two,such nominations Wjiesq 20:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Bill Ingersoll


 * It's four, actually. James Dean, Tracy, Peter Finch and Massimo Troisi.  They're all mentioned in the article now.  JackofOz 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Award dates
Comparing the listings in the article with those at IMDB - eg [], etc - the dates in the article all seem to be a year early: what's going on? The dates in IMDB refer to the date of the ceremony, and the movie would have been made the year before, so if the dates in the article refer to the release date for the movie that might explain it, maybe? --Stephen Burnett 18:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Most awards ceremonies have the same problem: the 'awards for 2006 films' will be held in 2007, so some people call them the '2006 awards' and some the '2007 awards'. IMDB chooses the latter, but there seems to be a vague convention on Wikipedia to go for the earlier 'year of release' date. I don't know how this convention arose or whether it was a conscious decision. 18:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, many thanks. Maybe that's why the Academy decided to go for ceremonies numbered rather than dated, eg [42nd Academy Awards] --Stephen Burnett 18:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Take off the flags
I suggest we take off the flags. It makes the whole article messy and confusing with the colorful flags all over the place. The flags overshadows the names of the nominees and winners, in my opinion. Besides this is the Oscar not the Olympics. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.3.232.79 (talk) 04:34, 11 February 2007 (UTC).


 * I agree - also, why is the rarely-used "flag of england" used here, while other categories use the union jack?-67.85.183.103 15:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nuke them. They're fine in the 'Foreign Film' award article because nationality is important there, but nationality of the actor is irrelevant to the Best Actor award. Cop 633 03:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


 * What was the status of this? They're still there...  Jauerback 14:32, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Umm... no they're not! Are we talking about the same thing? Oh sorry, there are a few down the bottom. I'll zap them. WP:FLAGCRUFT gives good reasons not to use flags in lists like this. Cop 663 15:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

1984 Oscar
Can someone please have a look at the winning entry for 1984?! Somehow I doubt that the Greek poet Homer won the oscar as best actor some 2500 years after his death. *g* The movie title is linked to a disambiguation page which doesn't have a movie from 1983 or 1984 on it and the character name links to an Italian composer. 91.64.190.188 23:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Cop 663 00:30, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Seeing double
Anybody think it's worth including Lemmon got "Best Actor" & "Best Supporting", so far the only actor to do it? Trekphiler 15:24, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is worth including. But are you sure that he was the only actor to do so?  It seems like several others have achieved this as well -- no? (JosephASpadaro 22:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC))


 * There have been no less than six - from the article: "Six actors have won both this award and the award for Best Supporting Actor: Jack Lemmon, Robert De Niro, Jack Nicholson, Gene Hackman, Kevin Spacey and Denzel Washington." JackofOz 06:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert De Niro
At least an incorrect entry found. The Oscar for the best actor in a leading role in 1974 was won by Robert D'Niro (Godfather II). Source: www.oscars.com/legacy/pastwinners/index.html, Hobbit 16:06, 6 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like he won for "Actor in a Supporting Role" (emphasis mine). Removed factual tag. - Bellhalla 16:06, 8 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ooops! That's right. Thanks for the correction. Hobbit 19:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * No problem! — Bellhalla 22:40, 9 December 2005 (UTC)


 * For the 1974 Academy Awards, Best Actor was Art Carney (Harry and Tonto), while Best Supporting Actor was Robert De Niro (The Godfather Part II). (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC))

List of winners format
The formatting for list of winners in Best Actor and these decades for the Best Actress: 2000s,1940s, and 1950s use one format but the Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Directing use another. Any idea, which is the "correct" look? Bogsat 18:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know what is correct but what I prefer is the format used for Best Actor etc because it shows 1st, 2nd, 3rd etc which links to ceremonies many of which have their own article. I'm not sure where else the ceremony articles would logically link from if we didn't use them in this way. Rossrs 02:13, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I have changed it a bit as can be seen in 20s and 30s. I prefer this as better because it resolves the inconsistencies in case of ties. Hope people will abide by my choice. Please make changes to others too, else I will do in my own free time. Vivek 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I would like to add two points to this discussion. (1) All of the pages seem consistent in formatting at this point, except for one (somewhat minor) inconsistency.  It seems that the name of the character being portrayed by the actors in these pages is enclosed in quotation marks if it is a fictitious character ... but is not enclosed in quotation marks if it is a real-life character.  However, that style is inconsistent.  On the Best Actress page, particularly, quotation marks seem to be used in all character names, whether the character is fictitious or real.  But that does not seem to be the case with the other pages.  Also ... (2) It would be a good idea, I think, to include the Awards Ceremony Number (1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc.) as a link for each year.  Any thoughts?  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC))

Someone is trying to ruin this article [Suggestions for improvement of table(s)]
I don't know what the whole deal is, but this one guy is trying to ruin a perfectly useful, readable list by burying it in a much more complicated, badly organized chart. I'm reverting this, for the last time to prevent a revert war, but whoever's in charge of this article needs to stop this guy before he strikes again. Senorbad (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That's your opinion. With which I disagree.  The re-organized chart was created (begun) by another user (not I) ... but was never completed nor finished.  I elected to continue it and, in the process, to improve upon it.  And, as I stated, it is a work in progress ... neither yet completed nor perfected.  That being a result of the large amount of data under consideration.  You claim (in an edit summary box) that the new chart is unreadable and moronic.  I believe that it is more readable and not at all moronic.  (I am not sure how the adjective "moronic" would be applicable to a chart ... but that's a whole other issue.)  You also claim (in an edit summary box) that the new chart is badly organized and useless.  I believe that it is highly organized and highly useful.  In fact, it is the very epitome of organization (i.e., organized) and functionality (i.e., useful).  The purpose of information / data / charts / etc are multi-fold.  Not only is there a concern for aesthetics (readability) ... but also for using / analyzing / processing such information (functionality).  The original chart provides nearly zero functionality.  In order to obtain 1,000 times more functionality, some minor aesthetics need be sacrificed.  You claim (in the above post) that the new chart is more complicated and badly organized.  I believe that it is less complicated and more organized.  You claim (in the above post) that the original / old chart is perfectly useful.  I believe that the old chart is far less useful (i.e., able to be used or utilized or worked with) than the new chart.  So, it is clear that we disagree.  Furthermore, as already indicated, the new chart is neither completed nor perfected (i.e., in progress), due to its size.  I am sure that some editors on Wikipedia will agree with you and some with me.  So, as always, consensus will need to be solicited and respected.  Which, presumably, this Talk Page post will effectuate.  I believe that the "old" chart has little functionality, whereas the new chart has great functionality.  Presenting data is a matter of not only presenting it (visually, aesthetically, etc.) ... but providing for functionality of the use of that data (i.e., through organization and functional operations).  The new chart greatly provides both, the old barely provides either.  That's my two cents.  Thanks for your concern about this article.  It is a concern that I share as well.  Furthermore, do not accuse me of "trying to ruin" an article.  I have contributed greatly to this article, and to other similar articles.  So, it hardly makes any degree of sense that I am sitting around all day with the intention of trying to ruin perfectly good articles.  In fact, my take would be that I am doing quite the opposite -- making improvements to the articles.  Hence, my undertaking to do so.  As such, your theory makes no sense.  If, however, the consensus here at Wikipedia is that I am (and my edits are) ruining all of these perfectly good articles, then I would be more than happy to revert each and every one of my 10,000 plus edits.  And, then, we can see what these articles looked like -– in their "perfectly good" state, prior to my "ruinous" edits (per your claim).  Furthermore, furthermore … to refer to someone's efforts as "moronic" (as you did on more than one occasion) is juvenile, at best, on your part.  (And, by the way, speaks volumes about you.)  I am sure that I have called people names (like "moronic") ... but I believe I was in third grade or so, at the time.  That's, what, age 7 or 8?  Furthermore, furthermore, furthermore … no one is "in charge of this article" (as you believe).  We all (members of the Wikipedia community) are in charge of it.  And that "we" includes me, as it does you, and any other who wants to weigh in on this matter.  Which I invite others to do.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Problems with your chart: 1) The only information it adds is in the new "notes" category, which only includes information that could easily have been added, or was previously added, in the "History" or "Superlatives" section.  2) Whereas the previous list was easy to read with clear separations between the nominees of each year, the new chart blends them all together.  3) Where the previous chart helpfully listed the winner above the competing nominees of each year, the new chart places the winner in alphabetical order among the other nominees, making the grouping look haphazard and disorganized.  4) For some reason, the chart has both a category for "winner/nominee," yet also highlights all the winners in blue, which would seem to be very redundant, and somehow does not making reading the chart any easier.  5) It spreads what was once a compact list of information across the entire page, spreading out into a cluttered, hard to read chart.  6)  The chart includes some unnecessary numbering as its first category.  7) It repeats unnecessary information for each year's category -- the number of the ceremony and the year it came out -- where previously it was used as a heading, cutting down on needless repetition.  All of these issues should have been obvious well beforehand.  There is no gain to grouping these films like this.  To fix these issues, I'm going to throw out the wild suggestion that this article should not be a chart at all but instead a simple bulleted list, with all the nominees of each year grouped together with each year's winner bolded at the top of its year.  I don't know how much attention this article gets from people, so I'm appealing directly to you:  Please, please stop making this chart.  Senorbad (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I'm not sure which layout is being called "moronic", but fwiw, I like the sortable table. My suggestions would be (a) make it clear why some of the boxes are colored blue, (b) possibly split the lists/tables into a "List of Academy Award for Best Actor nominees", and (c) integrate the nationality info with the previous tables, possibly in the "notes" column, or just with a little flag icon next to the name. Just a thought - Her Pegship  (tis herself) 16:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to User:Her Pegship – Thanks for the input and the suggestions. Let me respond to your post above.  (1) The "new" layout (the sortable table) was being referred to as "moronic" by User:Senorbad.  (2) You say that, for what it’s worth, you like the sortable table.  Can you please say why?  What is it about the sortable table that you like?  Why is it that you like it?  Thank you, your opinion and input would be helpful and appreciated.  (3) In (a) above, it is indeed a good suggestion that the blue shaded boxes be explained better.  Please remember that the chart is a work in progress.  Therefore, you sort of have to see the whole chart after it's done – in order to really go back and see what looks good, what doesn't look good, what works, what doesn't work, etc.  To detail ... originally, the sortable chart had no column at all for winner versus nominee.  So, there was no way to separate winners from nominees.  So, I added a column for "Status" to allow one to separate those categories.  Visually, though, it was difficult to split the two categories apart / to discern them.  So, someone went in and made the entire row (for a winner) a different color.  That was quite overwhelming, visually.  It was "too busy" and very hard to read.  I then changed it from an entire row being blue – to just the winner’s name being blue.  As it looks right now.  I agree that probably could use some better explanation.  As the chart right now is a mix of old and new formats, I thought that explaining the distinction of winner versus nominee would be best saved for after completion of the chart.  Right now, the old format distinguishes winners by bold.  The new format distinguishes winners by blue shading.  Rather than explain all that in a convoluted statement, I figured it would be best to wait until the entire chart was in one uniform format, and then include an explanatory note about it.  But, yes, I agree – the blue shading needs some explanation or legend.  (4) In (b) above, you suggest to split the lists into a "List of nominees".  Can you explain more clearly what you mean by this?  I don't follow you at all.  Are you saying to have two completely different lists?  One just for winners and one just for nominees?  I am unclear and I don't follow your suggestion.  So would you please be so kind as to clarify what it means when you suggest to "possibly split the lists/tables into a List of Academy Award for Best Actor nominees"?  Once I understand your suggestion, then I can address it more properly.  Thank you. (5) Your suggestion in (c) above is to incorporate flag icons near each actor's name.  I actually agree with that.  However, the whole issue of flags and nationality has been rather contentious in the past.  These flags and the nationalities have been added, then subtracted, then added, then subtracted, etc., repeatedly in the past.  I personally would include or add them.  I think others disagree.  So, for the time being, I figured it best to create the chart without the flags and nationalities.  And, perhaps, at some later point, to incorporate them.  Creating and designing the layout of a chart is somewhat complicated and precise.  So, I figured one less complexity for now (icon flags that might likely get removed anyway) would be easier to deal with.   Thanks again for your input and feedback on this issue.  Please feel free to respond to my post here.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC))


 * And thank you for your orderly response. Regarding #2: I like the ability to see patterns in variation, so depending on what aspect of the award process interests you, you can sort by that - year, nationality, etc. - including sorting by "winners only" if you will. #3: A small note near the top of the table would suffice; I would also suggest that you highlight, not the actor's name, but the word "Winner", to denote the connection between the highlight and the winner (for those who might miss the note). #4: The body of the article has quite a bit of content even without the list(s). Frequently lists are separated into their own articles and linked to the "content" article, so moving the charts/tables/lists to List of Academy Award for Best Actor nominees and winners might de-clutter the article a bit. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 19:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Senorbad for the most part. The new table is ugly and sprawling and does not clearly differentiate visually between the separate ceremonies. The previous version was elegant and straightforward. If there are people who want to sort the different fields into alphabetical order, fine, but maybe a sortable version could be put on a separate page or something? Most people just want the basic info - who were the winners and nominees in x year - quick and simple. Cop 663 (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Reply to User:Cop 663 -- Thanks for your input. Let me address some points that you bring up.  (1) You state that the new table is ugly and sprawling.  To this, I would add two comments.  One, the chart is not yet completed or perfected.  So, it may not look as "ugly" or "sprawling" after it is indeed finished.  And, two, as I mentioned above -- one needs to find a balance of aesthetics and functionality in presenting information.  Adding more functionality to the table generally subtracts some level of aesthetics.  I think that is a given.  So, a balance needs to be found.  In other words, a table that is extremely functional may not be very aesthetic at all.  And, a table that is completely aesthetic may not be very functional at all. So, I think in presentations / communications, one tries to balance these competing interests.  (2) You state that the new table does not clearly differentiate visually between the separate ceremonies.  I don’t disagree.  But, that is certainly not an insurmountable problem.  I am sure that there are many "fixes" to that problem.  In fact, it was a problem that I indeed had also noticed.  So, yes, I agree.  But, I think, it's a rather easy solution to differentiate year by year.  That is more of an aesthetic issue that I had thought about and that I planned to solve at some point.  Again, this is a work in progress –- neither yet completed nor perfected.  And, suggestions and critiques such as yours help to improve this table and this article.  Thanks.  (3) You state that the previous version was elegant and straightforward.  I can’t say that I disagree.  But, I would add –- it was functionally useless.  So, again, that is back to Issue Number 1 above ... form versus function.  I strongly believe that the offer of material / information / data is not only to merely present it ... but also to allow the offer of that data to be useful, functional, and purposeful for the audience / reader.  (4) You state that perhaps a separate page be created.  I am not opposed to that idea in the least.  And I certainly thought about that.  Although, knowing Wikipedia, I am rather certain that such a page would (probably immediately) either be proposed for deletion or proposed to merge right back into this article.  That thought had crossed my mind (to create a new, separate page) –- and then I tempered that thought with the likelihood of a deletion or merge.  Which would only bring us right back to square one -– where we are right now at this point.  (5) You state that most people just want the basic info.  To be honest, I completely disagree.  Yes, many people do want the basic info.  And the new chart in no way robs any one of any basic info.  But, many film enthusiasts / Oscar enthusiasts want far more than just basic information.  Which actor has the most Oscars?  Which film has the most Oscars?  How many nominations did Tom Cruise receive?  How many acting nominations did Titanic receive?  Etc.  Etc.  Etc.  Stuff like that.  So, yes ... a good deal of the population wants basic straightforward information (like the old format bullet list) ... but a good deal of the population wants to manipulate, organize, and analyze said information.  The old format only addresses the needs of the first population and ignores the needs of the second population completely.  The new format addresses the needs of both populations.  It provides the second population with the ability to analyze and manipulate the info ... while in no way whatsoever does it deny the first population their ability to get the basic and straightforward information.  Furthermore, on Point Number 5 here ... if indeed someone just wants the "quick and dirty" info (a list of winners and nominees in any given year) ... such information is widely available in many other Wikipedia articles as well.  So, that population is being served many time over, I believe.  Thanks for your input.  Feel free to reply.  Thank you.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Hi Joseph, I realize that you're still trying out ideas, so maybe what you should do is create a sandbox page, i.e. this one: Academy Award for Best Actor/sandbox and experiment with ideas there before putting it into the main article - because at the moment, we have a jumble of different types of table which will please no-one. That way you (and others) can fix the problems without causing chaos on the main page.
 * I accept your point that some people would find a sortable table useful. A compromise would be to find a way of making the core information (winner and nominees) more prominent, and making the additional info less prominent (e.g. smaller fonts, perhaps). At the moment it's like a big splurge of too much information, which is why I recoiled against it. Cop 663 (talk) 19:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks to all of you for your input. I really do appreciate it. I have given this a great deal of thought, and I think that I have come up with a solution that should please everyone. All of you have made some valid points. All of which, I have taken under consideration. I can see the desire to keep the old format list, as it is aesthetic and simple and easy to reference. I can also see the desire to keep the new format (sortable) list, as it allows for greater functionality and use. Essentially, I think that Wikipedia is big enough to allow us to have both lists available. There is no reason that we need to choose one over the other. The old format list can stay here, where it has always been. And the new format (sortable) list can be placed separately on a new page (or, less desirable, separately in a new section of this page). I had originally thought that a new separate page just for the list of winners and nominees would elicit a deletion proposal. Then, I noticed that Wikipedia actually already has several similar articles / lists as separate pages. For example, on the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor page, I noticed the following statement: ''For a list sorted by actor names, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees. For a list sorted by film titles, please see List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films). Similarly, on the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress page, I noticed the following statement: For a list sorted by actress names, please see List of Best Supporting Actress nominees. For a list sorted by film titles, please see List of Best Supporting Actress nominees (films).'' Thus, in effect, I am creating the exact same list for the Academy Award for Best Actor. After I complete the new format (sortable) list for Best Actors, I will create a new article page on Wikipedia entitled List of Academy Award for Best Actor winners and nominees. And, at that point, I will include a statement on this Best Actor page that will refer readers to the new article page, if they want to see or use the new format (sortable) list. Thanks for your input. I think – and hope – that this solution addresses everyone's concerns. Please let me know what you guys think. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC))


 * That is a great idea Joseph, - much more elegant and user-friendly. Thanks for being so amenable. Cop 663 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. "Amenable" is my middle name.  And, I am still working on this (above) project.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

I notice that the comment was made in 2008. Has anything been resolved? What is the consensus. I also believe that a sortable list should exist in as few locations for both the awardees and the nominated. That way, it is possible to use that as a source by which to identify any significant distinctions of a film, actor, crew, genre, etc.

Same character
Is Peter O'Toole the only actor nominated for the same role in two different movies? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Apparently not. The article says:  Three actors have been nominated for Best Actor more than once for the same character: Bing Crosby as Father O'Malley in Going My Way and The Bells of St. Mary's; Peter O'Toole as King Henry II in Becket and The Lion in Winter; and Paul Newman as "Fast Eddie" Felson in The Hustler and The Color of Money. (Al Pacino was nominated in 1974 for a role for which he had previously been nominated for Best Supporting Actor, Michael Corleone, in The Godfather Part II.)   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Sayonara
Brando's character in Sayonara was Lloyd Gruber, not Garber. Just FYI Jvortiz 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)jvortiz, 01/25/07


 * Fixed. Better late than never.  Actually, the character is: Maj. Lloyd 'Ace' Gruver, USAF.  That is, Gruver, not Gruber.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:02, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Nationalities of winners table
I have concerns about the "Nationalities of winners" table that was recently added to this article along with the Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Supporting Actor articles – many of them regard issues similar to what are raised WP:MOSFLAG.

What is the primary reason and basis to determine nationality or citizenship of the winners? Is it the nationality or citizenship of each actors' birth? Is it the nationality or citizenship when their specified film was released? Or is it their nationality or citizenship today?

There are many actors and actress like Oscar winners Anthony Hopkins, John Houseman, Elizabeth Taylor, and Charlize Theron who have changed their citizenship during their career. So unless there is some sort of standard, I am afraid I will have to remove the table. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is it that you are ultimately looking to achieve ... removing the tables ... or establishing a standard? Those are two very different objectives.  If it is the latter, I am sure that some standard can be derived through consensus. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC))


 * The basic problem is trying to give people one nationality in order to count up the 'scores' for different countries. But many people in the list have multiple nationalities or are American citizens born in different countries. One solution is to call it 'nationality at time of award'. E.g. Yul Brynner left Russia when he was a child and was an American citizen when he won the award, so call him an American. But Anthony Hopkins was British when he won the award so call him British even though he became an American later.Cop 663 (talk) 13:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

most only become americans for ease and economics, it should go by birth unless it has exception circumstances —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.104.199 (talk) 19:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a very sweeping statement, many may have become Americans because they loved the country, not just for financial reasons. Nationality at time of award is the only objective way of doing it. Cop 663 (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reworked the table to arrange it by nationality at the time of the award. This results in only a small change to the numbers at the bottom. The major change is the number of Australian winners that are now apparent. I'm still not convinced that this table is 100% justifiable, but at least this method is verifiable. Cop 663 (talk) 23:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not get this section as well. What is the relevance? I would understand if this is an Olympics page, but this is the Oscars and the people who won does not really necessarily represent their own country in this competition but for the movie if not only themselves.68.127.175.225 (talk) 18:06, 24 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I will take a stab at the relevance. The Academy Awards is an American institution -- dominated by the USA and by Hollywood.  But, as we are all living in a very global world - with a great deal of diversity - this American institution has participants from all over the world ... all over the planet.  Not just the USA.  And, I think that people (in the USA and outside of the USA) like to see the global influence on great Hollywood (USA) films.  I am sure that Great Britain and Ireland are proud of Daniel Day-Lewis when he wins a highly acclaimed Academy Award ... as they should be.  I am sure that Australia is proud of Russell Crowe when he "brings home" a highly acclaimed Academy Award ... as they should be.  No different than anything else.  The global world is interested to see their influence on and their contributions to great film-making.  Even if (or despite the fact that) the center of the film world is Hollywood, USA.  What's wrong with that?  I see no harm in it, quite frankly.  Home town boy does good ... why deny people that national pride?  I just looked up Marion, Indiana on Wikipedia ... and they have a list of a dozen or so "famous" residents that hail from their town (James Dean, etc.).  It's local pride and there is nothing wrong with it.  I am sure several other town articles on Wikipedia list the same type of information.  Some cities / towns have monuments and statues and parks and buildings (etc.) in honor of their "famous" residents.  It's the same basic idea.  People want to -- and have a right to -- be proud when their local neighbors go on to achieve great things ... like winning an Academy Award, for example.  They have earned the bragging rights and there is no harm in encyclopedically listing nationalities of those who achieve high accolades.  Throughout history -- and embedded in our collective psyche -- we all know that Einstein hails from Germany, Marie Curie from Poland, Shakespeare from England, Arnold Schwarzenegger from Austria.  Why don't we simply remember them as a scientist or a chemist or a writer or an athlete?  Why is their nationality attached to our collective understanding of who they are?  Because they are people ... people that come from somewhere ... and that "somewhere" is indeed relevant.  They are not just "defined" by their "job / role" of scientist / athlete / politician / playwright / etc.  So, no different with actors who win Academy Awards.  This is my stab (i.e., my 2 cents) at the relevance of nationalities listed within these types of articles. You ask, "why have this information listed?" ... a better question might be, "why not?" ...  Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:31, 24 February 2008 (UTC))

I do not know, but if you read WP:MOSFLAG and go to the "Do not emphasize nationality without good reason" I think you will understand. Again I see no relevance of putting and tallying the nationality of all the winners. I really do not see the point other than chest beating68.127.153.67 (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I strongly support the removal of all the nationality-based tables for two main reasons.


 * Firstly, determining someone's exact nationality (especially in such a transnational field as that of showbusiness, where people tend to emigrate a lot and work in different countries) is always very tricky. The examples you give perfectly illustrate this. It is far too simplistic to say that Einstein was merely German. Einstein was Jewish, German, stateless, Swiss and American, and it is precisely this complexity that made him what he was. Attempting to reduce him to just one national origin is simply ridiculous. The same applies for Marie Curie (a lot of French people would be offended if you said that she was merely Polish; it wasn't thanks to Poland but thanks to France that she became a great scientist) and Schwarzenegger, who is now much more American than he is Austrian (in fact, many Austrians are not proud of him at all because, as Governor of California, he has presided over the execution of several inmates). Therefore, what sense does it make to have a table based on such a very shaky criteria?


 * Secondly, nationality as a criteria is not only shaky but also totally irrelevant. Your whole argument in defense of a nationality-based table goes exactly against what the Manual of Style says, namely that "Wikipedia is not a place for nationalistic pride". I have read the entire Academy Awards Rules and there is not a single rule that establishes a link between eligibility and nationality. Therefore, when an actor receives an Oscar nomination, his nationality is just as irrelevant as his sexual orientation, race, religion, political affiliation... If we follow your logic, then there would be no reason not to include these elements as well; many gays or Jews, for instance, are very proud when a member of their "community" receives an Oscar. In the List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film, having all the flags is justified since the name of the submitting country is explicitly mentioned in the nomination. However, in all other categories, nationality is irrelevant. What is relevant as far as the rules are concerned is whether a film has been released in Los Angeles or not, and that explains why the vast majority of nominees are always American (movies shown in Los Angeles theatres are predominantly American).


 * In any case, if it is absolutely needed to mention the winners' nationality, then I don't think a separate table is warranted. This only makes an already messy article look even messier. What the table truly aims to show is that some of the winners were not American, and this can be highlighted in a much less flashy way (even if it is mentioned, an actor's nationality should appear in a discreet way because, as the MOS says, "a national flag next to something can make its nationality or location seem to be of greater significance than other things"). I believe that a simple sentence in the lead section would be enough. For instance, something like this: "All the winners in this category have been American with the exception of (list of non-Americans)." As for the percentages, they should be removed because they are simply ridiculous. Not even Olympic tallies go as far as calculating national percentages. BomBom (talk) 17:25, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have time to reply in depth, at the moment ... but I later will. However, I will provide my initial reaction, for the moment.  There are many, many articles in Wikipedia entitled, for example, List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees ... List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees ... List of Puerto Rican Academy Award winners and nominees ... and the like.  Are you suggesting that we delete all of them?  Also, if you read any of the Academy Award articles (or a multitude of other articles, I am sure), you will see factual statements like "Mr. A was the first Black actor to win an Oscar" ... "Mrs. B was the first Australian actress to win an Oscar" ... "Mrs. C was the only female ever to be nominated for Best Director" ... and the like.  Are you suggesting that we comb through all of the articles on Wikipedia and remove statements like those?  My initial reaction tells me two things: (1) If I follow the logic in your posting above, that is exactly what you would advocate.  ("That" meaning that we should rightfully delete any articles or statements that are irrelevent to acting awards ... such as race, gender, ethnicity, religion, political affiliation, etc.) ... and ... (2) You will be in for quite the uproar if you advocate and/or defend such a position.  Please let me know.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC))


 * First of all, WP:OSE is not a valid argument. Secondly, I believe all of these articles should be deleted, just as all the religion-based lists of Nobel laureates were. I am far from being the only one who thinks so, since the List of Black Academy Award winners and nominees was nominated for deletion. Even though it was eventually kept, none of the users opposing its deletion succeeded in showing how being Black and winning an Academy Award were linked. All of these ethnicity/nationality/religon-based articles are at best an indiscriminate collection of information. In fact, none of them is able to provide a single reference (I just added the "Unreferenced" template on all of them), which shows just how worthless and unreliable they are. So Olivia de Havilland and Vivien Leigh are Asian just because they happened to be born in Japan and India respectively? Strangely, though, someone like Natalie Portman isn't included even though she is Israeli, and thus technically Asian (unless of course you take the word Asian to imply only people of the so-called "yellow race"). Anyway, I don't mind having simple sentences in the lead section of articles explaining, for instance, that "there have only been 3 Academy Award-nominated female directors" or that "Ang Lee is the first Asian to win the Academy Award for Best Director". However, having a whole nationality/ethnicity/religion-based article or section (especially if it's irrelevant to the topic being dealt with) is simply ridiculous. Thanks (and by the way, I appreciate very much your efforts to improve Academy Awards-related articles). BomBom (talk) 15:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The other problem is that there are so many people with dual nationalities or complex life stories that it's impossible to do an easy tally of who is American and who isn't. You often can't boil people down to one nationality. I tried to fix this by changing the tables to 'Nationality at time of award', but it's not a perfect solution. It would be better to simply delete the tables and replace them with a well-written paragraph of writing. That way, we could keep the information, but present it in a less nationalistic way. By the way, look at what this guy has been doing - outrageous! Cop 663 (talk) 22:58, 26 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Exactly. And if we are going to mention nationalities, then why just include them for actors, why not also for directors, writers, costume designers... ?? Anyway, it seems that the vast majority of users are in favour of the removal of the tables (5 in favour, 1 against). Therefore, I will wait a couple of days to see if anyone else has something to add, then I will delete the tables. BomBom (talk) 08:33, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, they already are included in all of the Best Actor / Actress pages, as well as the Best Director. The reason that we do not include them for writers, costume designers, etc., is because those people are not in the public eye.  They are behind the scenes and we never see them.  Much different than actors, clearly --- very much in the public eye and we see them all over the place.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC))


 * A quick reaction. Someone above (BomBom) said that "OSE exists is not a valid argument."  That in and of itself is not a valid argument!  No one has dispositively concluded that those other articles are deletion-worthy.  In fact, quite the opposite.  I am certain that some / most / all have been up for deletion nomination ... and all have survived.  So, the argument that "OSE exists" actually bolsters the position that the nationalities should stay, not that they should be removed.  That is, after a deletion debate, those articles were found "worthy" to stay and not be deleted ... and thus they do not constitute the "S" (sh****t) in "other sh****t exists".  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC))


 * I don't think all the information is irrelevant as such, but the tables are not the best way to present it. They fit people into either/or brackets that are not always appropriate, and the "tally" at the bottom relies on sorting people into one category, not several. A paragraph of writing (or perhaps a list, e.g. first French winner, first Austrian-born winner, etc.) would allow for greater clarity. Cop 663 (talk) 12:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think Cop 663 is on the right track. I don't think that, necessarily, an entire chart is warranted (as is currently in the article).  But, I do think that Cop 663 is on to something.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC))

Hello all. I have read and have reflected upon all of the above comments ... and the general ongoing debate about nationality / flag icons / etc. As such, I extensively edited the "Nationality" section of this article. (1) I renamed it "international influences". (2) I removed flag icons. (3) I shifted the focus off of an actor's nationality, and onto the international / global influences upon the Academy Awards. (4) With this new format, there should be no bickering about which "nationality" an actor needs to get pigeon-holed into. For example, if Daniel Day-Lewis has strong Irish and British roots, then he can be listed under both. No problem, and no big deal. (5) The new format is purposely "vague" about (and doesn't even mention) an actor's nationality ... for many of the reasons described in above posts. (That is, it's hard to pinpoint one label for every actor ... and that one label is often disputed or unclear, any way.) Basically, the new format shifts the focus off of the term "what is the actor's nationality" per se, and simply demonstrates that many different nations across the globe have made Academy Award winning contributions to American film-making. I think that this new format addresses all of the issues raised and concerns presented. Or, at the very least, is a livable compromise. I'd like some feedback. Please offer some input here. I am also intending to create similar changes to the other articles, as well ... Best Actress, Best Supporting Roles, Best Director, etc. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:36, 29 February 2008 (UTC))


 * This looks much better to me. Much less sprawling and the deliberate vagueness is better. At first glance, the only thing I'd change is "influence" to "presence" (you either win an award or you don't; you don't 'influence' it). Cop 663 (talk) 23:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. Yes, I also think that this works much better.  (1) I have finished making changes to all of the 4 acting articles (leading actor/actress and supporting actor/actress).  (2) I will finish up with Best Director.  (3) I see your point about influence versus presence.  True -- the winner does not influence the award.  I guess what I was probably trying to say was ... something like ... the international community greatly contributes to and its effects are influential on the entire Academy Awards process ... and, hence -- due to that creative / artistic influence -- we have so many winners from other countries.  That's basically what I was getting at.  Feel free to edit all.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:50, 29 February 2008 (UTC))


 * Yes, the new layout is much better. The previous table was really ugly with all those flags, it seemed as if we were in an Olympics-related article. However, if you're going to include an "International presence" section in each article, then wouldn't it be more coherent to actually group all these sections in a single article? I created several months ago a List of Academy Award-winning foreign language films, which I am currently working on expanding. I know that "foreign language" and "foreign" is not exactly the same thing, but I was just thinking that it would be better to have the "international presence" element included in a single article rather than dispersed over several ones. Anyway, great work Joseph, and thanks for taking into account our observations and always trying to come up with compromise solutions. That's what the Wikipedia spirit is all about. Regards. BomBom (talk) 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Best Actor redirects here
Why? Doesn't seem very NPOV to have the term 'Best Actor' redirected to an American awards page. BigTurnip (talk) 00:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

British Best Actor's
Can someone list me the British winners and nommines please —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.64.113.169 (talk) 17:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Australian Nominees
Before anyone gets angry, I just came across this page while looking up the Godfather, and just realised that Heath Ledger wasnt on the list of International Nominees, for Brokeback Mountain, so I just added him if thats ok. Nic Car Bel (talk) 05:50, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

What's happened?
Someone's removed loads of the nominees and winners... Can someone fix? I don't have the time right now... Adaircairell (talk) 13:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Question
What is the point of posting the above two sections on the talk page? The "non-fiction" roles is basically trivialization and content that can be found on the individual pages. It's far far beyond the intent of a page listing nominations and wins. The "multiple nominees" table is self-evident content already listed in the nominations and wins above and is over analyzing the same content. It's redundant, so what's the point of posting it on the talk page with no other commentary? Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

†
What the hell does † mean? Sherick (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Year for the award
Actually Jeff Bridges won the 2010 (Year) Oscar for the best actor and not 2009 how is in the article. Is anyone are going to correct this that? Or is it showing the year of the movie, and not the Academy Award Year? Please Someone Answer me. Sorry about my bad English, I´m learning, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DenisAdonis (talk • contribs) 14:46, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The year is the year of release of the film, not the year it is handed out. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Distance?
Quote: The distance of the two-time winners are Spencer Tracy (1 year), Tom Hanks (1 year), Sean Penn (5 years), Dustin Hoffman (9 years), Gary Cooper (11 years), Fredric March (14 years), Marlon Brando (18 years), Daniel Day-Lewis (18 years), and Jack Nicholson (22 years).

Comment: It's obvious what's meant in this context, but the grammar is execrable. If anyone asked me what Marlon Brando's "distance" was, I'd have no idea what they were talking about. And "The distance ...are"? I think not. We need to find a much better way of saying this. --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   00:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Gee, maybe it should be how many degrees from Kevin Bacon they are. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

dates are mixed up!!!
hey everbody

in the list "Winners and nominees" the dates are mixed up: for example: Jeff Bridges - won his Oscar for Crazy Heart as Otis "Bad" Blake in 2010 not 2009 and Sean Penn received his award for Milk as Harvey Milk in 2008

haven't checked any further

i would fix it myself but my english is rather poor!

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.130.56.177 (talk) 07:22, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We are listing the ceremonies by the release date, not when the ceremony is held. So, listing Jeff Bridges's win in 2009 is correct. In fact, the page says: "Following the Academy's practice, the films below are listed by year of their Los Angeles qualifying run, which is usually (but not always) the film's year of release." Crboyer (talk) 19:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

"Currently held by..."
It's not a title so how can it be held? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.27.48.162 (talk) 04:06, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Academy Award winning performances of non-fictional characters
Another editor brought to my attention the following list of (acting) Academy Award winning performances of non-fictional characters. I will leave it to others to ascertain whether or not this information belongs in the main article. I am posting it on the Talk Pages of the four acting Academy Awards in the event that someone wants to add in the information, as appropriate. I am also posting it for general information, in the event that a reader would like to know these facts. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC))


 * Best Actor: Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland; Robert Deniro for Raging Bull; Philip Seymore Hoffman for Capote; Jamie Foxx for Ray; Geoffrey Rush for Shine; Sean Penn for Milk); Daniel Day-Lewis for My Left Foot; Adrien Brody for The Pianist; F. Murray Abraham for Amadeus; Ben Kingsley for Gandhi; George C. Scott for Patton; Gene Hackman for The French Connection; Paul Scofield for A Man for All Seasons; Yul Brynner for The King and I; James Cagney for Yankee Doodle Dandy; Gary Cooper for Sergeant York; Paul Muni for The Story of Louis Pasteur; Charles Laughton for The Private Life of Henry VIII; George Arliss for Disraeli; and Jeremy Irons for Reversal of Fortune.


 * Best Actress: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side; Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line; Helen Mirren for The Queen; Marion Cotillard for La Vie En Rose; Charlize Theron for Monster; Nicole Kidman for The Hours; Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich; Hillary Swank for Boys Don't Cry; Susan Sarandon for Dead Men Walking; Jodie Foster for The Accused; Sissy Spacek for Coal Miner's Daughter; Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter; Anne Bancroft for The Miracle Worker); Susan Hayward for I Want to Live!; Joanne Woodward for The Three Faces of Eve; Ingrid Bergman for Anastasia; Jennifer Jones for The Song of Bernadette; and Luise Rainer for The Great Ziegfeld.


 * Best Supporting Actor: Chris Cooper for Adaptation.; Jim Broadbent for Iris; Martin Landau for Ed Wood; Haing S. Ngor for The Killing Fields; Jason Robards for Julia; Jason Robards for All the President's Men; Peter Ustinov for Spartacus; Anthony Quinn for Lust for Life; Anthony Quinn for Viva Zapata!; Walter Brennan for The Westerner; and Joseph Schildkraut for The Life of Emile Zola.


 * Best Supporting Actress: Cate Blanchett for The Aviator; Jennifer Connelly for A Beautiful Mind; Marcia Gay Harden for Pollock; Judi Dench for Shakespeare in Love; Angelina Jolie for Girl, Interrupted; Brenda Fricker for My Left Foot; Maureen Stapleton for Reds; Mary Steenburgen for Melvin and Howard; Vanessa Redgrave for Julia; Estelle Parsons for Bonnie and Clyde; Patty Duke for The Miracle Worker; Shelly Winters for The Diary of Anne Frank; and Alice Brady for In Old Chicago.

Nominations for playing the same character
Okay-I have noticed that it seems to be for just who was nominated for Best Actor, which does make sense. But I don't see a list for the 2 supporting ones. Also, what about if they were characters in both actor/supporting actor (as well as actress/supporting actress)? Like Howard Hughes was someone who has been potrayed twice as a nominee.

Wgolf (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Missing actor
For the 8th Academy Awards (1935), Paul Muni was nominated for Best Actor for Black Fury. It was not an official nomination. Rather, it was a write-in nomination. (In fact, he came in at second place in the voting.) Nonetheless, the nomination is listed in the official Academy Awards website. It should likewise be listed here. Would someone please add it in? (Or is it listed here, somewhere, and I am missing it?) I would add it myself, but I don't want to mess up the formatting of the chart. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Double daggers
Are these ‡ signs for award winners really necessary? What's the point of the buff colouring if not for the exact same purpose? --  Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The buff coloring is a key therefore according to WP:ACCESS, colors must have matching symbols, so the double-dagger is needed. — SoapFan12 (talk,   contribs ) 21:06, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I see. Thanks.  Then we need to extend it to all the other Oscar lists.   --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  21:20, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Removal of WP:CRUFT
I have added sections and removed the excessive amount of imagery on this page in order to preserve clarity. All the winners and the nominees are linked to their respective page so there is no need to have multiple images of promotional photographs or red carpet shots. As there are no free images of any of the actors ever receiving their awards at the Oscars, adding random images of them smiling or doing publicity stills is just a violation of WP:NOTREPOSITORY.

I am thinking about the reader, the casual interested person who wants to find out quickly and easily who won and who was nominated in any given year. This article is not supposed to be a fan page or a shrine to 90 years of Hollywood. As per WP:BOLD I have made the subsequent changes.

(Likewise just try and open this article on a smartphone, m.wikipedia just boots up image after image before text is even reached)86.157.137.188 (talk) 08:59, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Me and are trying to make in to a featured lists meaning, the commons photos are neded! In my previous FLCs I was told adding sections of years is very unnnesscary and  no one oppose to do that. Therefore, when this lists is going to nominated, I would not allow these sections!  — SoapFan12 (talk,   contribs ) 10:44, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Sections by year are unnecessary and add clutter, why have 10 sections when they fit into one? Some Commons photos are definitely needed. You can't have a list of winners without a photo of at least one winner. But specifics should definitely be discussed here, since this page is different from other pages, especially the ones SoapFan12 has dealt with in the past, what worked for those, might not work here.Caringtype1 (talk) 19:59, 14 September 2013 (UTC)
 * What a crock of shit. You answer my points as to why this page is a load of crap with your own justifications as to why it's a load of crap!!!
 * "we are trying to make in to a featured lists" FFS how shallow and petty is that! Surely the purpose of these articles is to carry information not try and win some kind of self-serving site award!!!
 * "In my previous FLCs I was told adding sections of years is very unnnesscary" Who cares?? If you weren't hell bent on creating a piece of self-serving crap you might realise how unmanageable this article is for both PC and mobile users. With almost a 90 year entries you can't jump to a particular decade, instead its scroll, scroll, scroll!! As I noted on the WP mobile version images are booted first, so you go figure!!!
 * "Sections by year are unnecessary and add clutter". Another piece of BS in violation of WP:IDL, how on earth can sections by year be clutter?? When ordering things by date is the most economical method on this planet. EG companies all around the world file by date, do you think they do that to add clutter???
 * " Some Commons photos are definitely needed. You can't have a list of winners without a photo of at least one winner" What?? There are links aren't they. It is immediately necessary to see an image of a winner, when their picture is just a click away?? Furthermore this article is now huge thanks to the heavy image count.
 * Anyone with a username with "fan" in it should be questioned on motivation and agenda. Any individual who says they're a fan can easily have too much vested interest in certain types of page, but I guess no one here worries too much about WP:OWN issues then?
 * "since this page is different from other pages" Yes, every other Academy page is laid out using COMMON SENSE, they don't contain too many images (1 or 2 or even better, none) and are sectioned by decade. At least they give some thought to the reader. Whereas this page, and its selfish editor does not, am I the only one who can't see that it's nothing but a temple to WP:CRUFT!!
 * The only thing stopping improvement being done to make this page readable and searchable are those in denial of WP:OWN. Sorry but if you have wasted your life sticking a loads images on this page, and making a massive unreadable list, in the hope another one of Jimbo's self-indentured slaves is going to give you a pat on the back or award you a merit badge, then seriously you need to take a good hard look at yourselves in a mirror. Take a look at what works, if other pages search by date, then what's the problem? None in my book because it's an efficient collation system. To argue otherwise, just makes you look protectionist and frankly ridiculous. But then what I am saying does sum up the passive-aggressive nature of this site though. 86.178.7.48 (talk) 16:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

, ″Anyone with a username with "fan" in it should be questioned on motivation and agenda. Any individual who says they're a fan can easily have too much vested interest in certain types of page, but I guess no one here worries too much about WP:OWN issues then?″ Excuse me? What is the problem of being intersted in one types of articles, it is a free website overhere. Also, I have absoutlety no motivation or agenda. And I am not showing anytype of ownership over this article or any other articles. How dare you call me selfish? This is rude and passive. Also, I suggested you not to swear, since I think it is not appropiate. However, I can not tell you what to do. Furthermore, I said what I beleive should be done and you did the same. I just felt otherwise and still feel that way. — SoapFan12 (talk,  contribs ) 02:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Jack Nicholson?
Jack Nicholson's article says he's won 3 Oscars for acting...? Doesn't that mean he ties with Daniel Day Lewis? Nicholson won for Cuckoo's Nest, Terms of Endearment and As Good As It Gets, didn't he? --98.246.156.76 (talk) 00:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Two in Lead Actor. One in Supporting Actor. Day-Lewis has three in Lead Actor and Lead Actor only.Crboyer (talk) 00:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Terms to be avoided
One thing that I notice that creates immediately dated articles, the following: Since its inception. This phrase and similar wording is wonderful to denote what exists at the time of writing but it just adds to all the other activities to maintain current articles. Maybe if it needs to be noted it should be dated so that if it does not get updated at least those that read it will know that "X" is true to that date. Does any one else share this concern? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.170.88.72 (talk) 01:56, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Editing format from old format to new format.
The old format of the article was very cluttered and hard to read, in my opinion. I changed the article (without changing any information) to match the Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress pages. Is this cool with everyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, and neither is your edit warring without trying to set consensus. Try again and face blocking before you can say "Oscar". — Indian: BIO  · [ ChitChat  ] 17:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the reason why I and SoapFan12 changed it to the format with the pictures was so that it would eventually meet Featured list criteria. See the Manual of Style for details.--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, got it. No need to be rude, IndianBio. As I said before on some talk pages, I apologize. I am relatively new to making edits on wikipedia and was not aware that there was a routine that needed to be followed when making edits. I also was not aware that the edits made to this page were purposeful. I did not intend to vandalize or edit war, I just wanted someone to clarify the reason why this page looks different than the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC) But if the Best Actor page meets the Featured List criteria, shouldn't the Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Supporting Actor pages be changed as well to meet the criteria? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rararawr21 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that would be of great help for me and SoapFan12. If you can at least format the tables like Best Actor, I'd appreciate it.--Birdienest81 (talk) 23:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks IndianBio. :) And yeah, as I said earlier, if other articles are bad doesn't mean this one will have to be bad too. This editor doesn't seem to understand that.-- KRIMUK  90  ✉  03:02, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

You really should stop using the word "bad" because the other format wasn't bad. If it doesn't fit the featured page specifications then that's one thing, but it's not bad. I could've used a better explanation for why the other page wouldn't have worked other than just "it's just bad." Anyway, that's not even the point. The point is that there should be consistency between the pages. Rararawr21 (talk) 03:30, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While it is true that there should be consistency on Wikipedia, I strongly believe that quality takes priority over consistency. The more quality pages on Wikipedia, the better that Wikipedia's reputation as an encyclopedia will be. As I said before, if you really want consistency, then change the Lead Actress and both Supporting Acting awards to match the format outlined in the Lead Actor list to comply with FL standards. I eventually will submit many Oscar lists into featured list content.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the list of actors that played the same role?
I remember seeing that list on here, so what happened to it exactly? As well as the list of non American roles and other things on here.

Wgolf (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That section was taken out because this list is complying with Featured list standards (the list will be submitted in later in the year). Even though the information might be true, it does not suit the list in an encyclopedic manner. Perhaps, that stuff should have its own article.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 16:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That is a list I would actually like to see sometime. (Another list I've been looking for that I swear I've seen on Wikipedia is a list of animated films nominated for an Academy Award) Wgolf (talk) 17:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Mismatched references
Edit request: In the table of awards the first three years of awards have the wrong? links in the reference column. From year 27/28 to 29/30 references [1], [5]. [6] are not accurate. You may delete this comment when fixed, thank you wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.22.33.247 (talk) 01:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ - Fixed. Thanks, Musdan77 (talk) 02:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This article is not complete
Why do Best Actress and the two supporting ones have an International Presence part and this one doesn't? Can someone create one please? Also, doing a multiple nominations rather than from four would be good, as would a multiple nominations without winning. In addition, can someone sort out those photos on the side - maybe put them as a gallery at the bottom? I would do all this but I'm either too lazy or don't know how to. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.105.122.194 (talk) 15:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is a Featured list. You will have to gain consensus from members who create such lists. Also an international presence section would be too trivial.
 * --Birdienest81 (talk) 19:14, 17 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 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Actor. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090208011732/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Academy Award for Best Actor. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021054540/http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf to http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021054540/http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf to http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120905/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/55th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1983

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Move most of the images to a Wikimedia gallery?
Any objection to moving the large number of images to a Wikimedia gallery with a clear, prominent link at the top of the 'See also' section and maybe also at the top of the table? The only images, imho, should be the current winner (in the infobox) and maybe those few actors with many wins in a small gallery near the bottom. Readers can easily click over to a nice, full gallery of all winners if that's all they desire, or look at the table for all the information without the many images squeezing the table, possibly slowing page loads and any sorting. In the actress articles, the images have overrun into the following sections on widescreen monitors. Also, it seems one must scroll past all the images on some phone browsers just to see the table (not that a tiny phone screen is a good idea for looking at such a large table). All four AA acting awards tables would probably benefit from less images, but of course people love seeing other people, esp. famous ones, so no changes till some consensus is reached here first. If no answer in a week, however, I'll probably just be bold, like some others around here, and see what happens as very few people are looking at this talk page. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
 * No response for over a week, so the changes were made and a complete gallery of all winners assembled in Wikimedia. The same change is planned for the other three related AA actor/actress articles in coming days, unless some logical objections are made very soon. Also, the directors list article has a similar set of many images (about 40 of the claimed 69 winners), so that one may also be changed. No other Academy Award list or table includes more than a few images, as seems more appropriate for a simple encyclopedic list article containing many names where not all can, or should, have an image shown. Nor should editors subjectively choose about half or so of all the names for specific ones that will have their image included, with no apparent criteria for inclusion/exclusion specified. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * See more at Best Actress Talk page. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Splitting table by decade
Left a note at User talk:Michael 182 about his changes to the 4 related AA acting articles. Do any other editors/readers care about keeping the list as one continuous sortable table, or do you prefer a split by decade, and if so, why? Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No comments in a week, so nobody seems to care. Leaving it split is ok with this editor. Isn't anyone else watching this 'featured' list? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * After seeing the layout of the Golden Globe Award categories, where they divide the list by decades, I think it would be useful to do something similar on this page, like what User talk:Michael 182 did. 190.19.5.35 (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my argument that this kind of lists should be divided by decades, like the case of the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor - Motion Picture Drama. I also recommend eliminating the sortability from the table itself seeing as the Academy Award for Best Picture lacks one and there hasn't been any formal complaints about that. Michael 182 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Seeing as nobody seems to have a problem with these proposed changes, I will carry on with them as well as apply them to the other acting and directing awards. Michael 182 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * A survey on this issue in the film project area was unanimously in favor of keeping these articles as single sortable tables, and was previously discussed there in February and in November. The only one in favor of the split seems to be you, and various IP addresses traced to you. I only wrote that it was "OK" with me to leave them split if no one else objected. For the record, I am not in favor of splitting the tables. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
 * That particular survey was in regards to the international film festival awards, such as the Golden Lion and the Golden Bear, and how they should be kept into one sortable table. I complied with that survey seeing as these types of awards only present the winning film or performance while these kind of awards present both the winning performance or film as well as the other nominees. Therefore, the sortability of the table doesn't seem to be necessary for these articles. As for the division by decades, I would like to point out, yet again, that this format is being applied in similar articles like the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor - Motion Picture Drama, both of which present the winner and the nominees, are divided by decades and are established that way according to the desire of the users. My suggestion is that we restore the changes i've made to the page and wait for other users to see and comment on them. Michael 182 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The survey was for all film articles with sortable tables - the Academy Awards articles are not an exception. Sortability by name (actor or director) is certainly useful in all these articles, and could also be useful in the articles that never had the option, or had it removed. Splitting tables defeats that very useful purpose, only to gain a quick link (via the ToC) to specific decades, which seems to be the only logical reason to split any of these tables - to reduce scrolling. Otherwise, one could just add decade headers into the table to assist readers looking for certain decades, like in the first 2 articles you mentioned just above. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll be adding decades within the one sortable table, as it has been done in the Volpi Cup for Best Actor and the Cannes Film Festival Award for Best Actor. Note that there has been consensus in favor of this types of changes. Michael 182 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe use a slightly darker shade for the decade headers to make them a bit more easily noticed - CACCD0 for instance. Are you waiting cautiously for others to see/comment before doing the same in the other acting lists? That's usually a good idea. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sortability might be an issue if there were some statistics (e.g., actor's age, nationality, vote percentage) on the data line, but I don't see why anyone would want to sort by the "role" or the film title. This would only serve to highlight the very rare repetitions for popular characters or for film remakes, and only if these were rendered identically. Noteworthy cases (e.g., how many Henry VIIIs and Winston Churchills) are probably broken out in the article text anyway.WHPratt (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Actor names, not roles, is the most useful sortable column as many actors were nominated across several decades. Sorting allows one to easily group and see all the film nominations over all actors' careers. Roles and films are secondarily useful for sorting, in cases of popular characters and remakes, as you stated. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Good enough, I didn't consider that. However, the decade breaks don't complicate a sort: they just add some blanks lines to the top or the bottom of the sorted list. WHPratt (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Trash edit in the Best Actor mouseover text
Hi, idk how to edit this but on other pages, when you mouseover a Best Actor link, instead of the standard blurb text the pop-up box reads "Every winner is going to he11." Tested multiple links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.198.230.79 (talk) 21:47, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I thought I fixed it when I reverted the edit. Which links still display the message when you mouseover them? Crboyer (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi again, every page I've tried shows the same thing. Click any actor's name, find the link to the best actor page, there it is again. Also present on list pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drolldoll55 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Gene Hackman
Hi, Can I add Gene Hackman to the photo list of actors who have received the award? He has received numerous nominations, and is fairly noteworthy, so he should be included. Let me know if I can. Thanks. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 02:46, 21 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Since Jack Lemmon had 7 noms and 1 win (the most noms of any winning actor not already pictured), while Hackman had only 2 noms and 1 win (in Best Actor cat), I went ahead & added Lemmon's image rather than Hackman's. Also found 3 others with 3 noms & a win (R.Duvall, W.Hurt, J.Voight), as well as a few more recent 1-time nominee winners, not already pictured, but no room remains beside table as space is needed (on 16:9 screens - to not flow past the table) in a few weeks for the 2018 winner, when the new winner is placed in the infobox. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Photo List
Since you are wary of adding too many photos to the list of notable winners in order to match up with the table, why not remove a few more pictures from recent years? Starting with the 2005 winner, you have every single winner listed since then. Could you please remove a few more? Some of the winners in that batch (Gary Oldman, Forest Whitaker, Jean Dujardin, Colin Firth) were only nominated once or twice before. Besides, the actors you remove still won, and their names are on the table, so I don't feel you will be doing any harm to the article, or the actors themselves. Thank you. Jgwilliams873 (talk) 02:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * If you're addressing me, I did not choose most of the images. I am neither the creator, nor a top editor of this page. I've just been reverting vandalism and unexplained, illogical image changes for a few years. It is a featured article, so be sure to explain any changes and remain impartial (don't simply put personal faves over non-faves), as we all should while attempting to keep the image gallery in a reasonable state for the readers.
 * I'd lobbied, unsuccessfully, to have only a small gallery of the multiple award winners (at bottom) and the current winner in the infobox. The current set is just too big (& growing each year) and has no definitive criteria for inclusion/exclusion. I personally use the rule (based on how this list appeared years ago) that only multiple award winners, single winners with the most noms, and some "firsts" are included, plus the first/last winners & the most recent winners (until they're near bottom of table on widescreens). Maybe 15 years of recent winners is too many; McConaughey (2013) is the only one not shown. Anyone else have any thoughts on this subject? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 22:23, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Table Indicating nominees and wins...gone
Where has the table indicating nominees and winners for any given year gone to? The same fate has happened to the table in Best Actress, Supporting Actress, and Supporting Actor articles. They’re just gone. Someone has deleted them and left the table key, which I changed to say ‘Table is missing; Sept. 2020’ hoping someone would notice. Then I realized the Talk page might be helpful. Does anyone know where and why? These were very beneficial to old movie buffs like myself. Thanks. Clarawolfe (talk) 09:11, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

So finally after almost a decade common sense finally prevails!!
On 13 September 2013 As edited by 86.157.137.188, I made this edit which was (of course) quickly reverted by User:AwardShowFan123 (in cahoots with User:Birdinest81).

Then after almost a decade (the Chinese say "only a dog returns to its own vomit") I notice that after all this time someone with more clout than me finally had enough as well in October 2020.

So yes I am here to gloat because I was right then and seven years later I am right now. This article (just like the rest of Wikipedia) could have been so much faster if it wasn't all about who can stay "king of the mountain" the longest or "I'm in charge". Cut the ego and contribute to building a better encyclopedia.81.153.37.24 (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

multiple characters should include Joker
2601:602:9200:1310:7D17:94EB:A2A8:55FA (talk) 18:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Diversity of nominees/winners
Shouldn't Charles Laughton be on the LGBT list? While he never publicly commented on it, his contemporaries claimed (and Hollywood historians agree) that he was either bisexual or gay. 2601:346:C201:60C0:94BF:C64C:D78E:3316 (talk) 03:35, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Issues with OR and FLC status

 * To avoid confusion from splitting the discussion, I'd suggest discussing the issues at Talk:Academy Award for Best Actress. RunningTiger123 (talk) 07:20, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The Oscars
Shouldn't the word "Oscars" at least be mentioned anywhere? 2A02:8109:8380:7A98:58D1:91F6:6502:D390 (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Category Suggestion: Academy Award Winning Performances
There are about 35 pages of fictional characters that people have won academy awards for. If this category were to exist it would only include the fictional characters, for example Gary Cooper's performance as Will Kane in high noon would be included in the category. But Daniel Day-Lewis' Abraham Lincoln performance wouldn't. Just a suggestion. MrCboY1997 (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Also we could possibly apply this to other award ceremonies like the emmys, baftas or golden globes. MrCboY1997 (talk) 17:27, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Sidebar Images ~ Edit Warring
Just wanted to discuss. Recently worked with other users to come to a consensus for an approach that worked, and which actresses/actors to use, which was applied to the actresses first. Halfway thru the actors, lost my work when my laptop crashed, and after a family emergency, I postponed it until this past week. But I finally made the same amends here that I did there and all 4 pages felt consistent. A new user has an issue though. Just wanted to open for discussion, so with pictures, I'd be happy to trim all the pics for consistency if that would please everyone. It's an arduous task, but maybe would be the best thing for the flow. It's a shame Rod Steiger lacks a really good picture, unless we use his elderly picture, because his other pics are from the Al Capone movie--they're blurry, and small, and they throw off the consistency flow regardless, and I can't help matters there. But I worked very hard to make everything fit, with the right phrasing, spacing, sizing, and so forth. Captioning underneath the photos being reduced helps even more faces fit. I had tried to maintain a good balance. Other pages like Director have whole paragraphs underneath, but a lot more room to work with. Anyway, that's about it for now. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 06:30, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


 * @Ohnoitsjamie Thus far, we've managed to create a dialogue. I gotta be careful about being too much of a people-pleaser. I was too soft when I said I was "okay/cool" with this/that, which Jean took to mean consensus. Naughty. But for Actor, Cliff Robertson, Henry Fonda, Rex Harrison, and Forest Whitaker seem to be the most important inclusions we're working with right now.
 * We're reducing some of the captioning, i.e. nationalities. Sticking to foreign-language, ages, race, and uh..deaf I think as well. Those are all significant. Would you agree with that, Jamie? He disagrees that I should've mentioned that Booth and Ferrer were the first to win Oscars for the same roles they won Tonys for. That's fine, I suppose. They can learn it on their actor pages..Don't think I forgot anything else at the moment.
 * Oh, well, I see you kept the part about Hurt's gay character, awesome. So that was a question: keep that info or not? Or discard it in favor of mentioning Brando being an out bisexual winner instead? And Jodie Foster a lesbian. Thus real LGBT, rather than LGBT roles. I was thinking about that too, idk why I didn't go for it. But, thoughts? --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 18:57, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the significance of the Tonys/Oscars overlap but it doesn't feel necessary especially not on the side. That information can be found in other places. Also it makes for longer captions which is why I'm against them. But in theory, I have nothing against that information just to clarify.
 * I've mentioned below why I don't care for the sexuality or characteristics of the characters being mentioned. It's great that William Hurt played a gay character and Hilary Swank played a trans character but I think historic firsts should focus on the actors themselves. And like I said before, William Hurt's character is only the first openly gay character to win but Charlton Heston's character was coded as gay as one could openly be back then so it seems to discount the history of the evolution of those portrayals.
 * With Brando and Foster's sexualities, they both openly confirmed themselves so that makes sense. At the same time, I wonder if it's significant that Jodie didn't come out until after her wins. Or that there's a long history of winners who were gay or lesbian or bisexual but never came out in their lifetimes and I'm not sure if it's better to respect their decisions and not acknowledge their sexualities or if its erasing their significance that they identified the way they did (even if it was privately). JeanGreyForever (talk) 19:55, 10 October 2023 (UTC)