Talk:List of Academy Award–winning films/Archive 1

How to read the list?
What do the numbers after the title and year mean, please? Her Pegship 23:13, 10 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not 100% sure, but it appears to be awards won / nominations. Michael J 10:31, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * That looks about right. Peter S. 18:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is exactly correct. I added the following explanatory statement in the introduction of the article to make this issue more clear.  This list includes the number of awards and nominations received by each film, in the format "a/n".  For example, Titanic received 11 awards from 14 nominations and is listed as 11/14.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Cleanup: formatting and additional notes
Some films have additional notes, like where the oscars went to. That info can already be found in the films' own article page, and it really adds distraction and clutter to the list. To streamline the page, I'd like to remove all those notes except "best picture". Is that ok with everybody? Peter S. 18:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Should the "animated" notes also be removed?--Thumper44 (talk) 18:15, 15 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Currently, the list contains rather minimal notes. Only five films have explanatory notes included within their entries.  Thus, the clutter is kept to a minimum.  Also, I believe that the explanatory notes for this handful of films are somewhat necessary to clarify any confusion, given the odd circumstances surrounding the awards for these five films.  As far as the "animated" notes, I don't see them as much of a problem at all.  I'd rather see them be kept than be removed.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I started adding notes for the "Special Achievement Awards" and "Honorary Awards" and then noticed this discussion and so stopped.  I think they are Acadamy Awards and thus should be included somehow, but they weren't nominated so it doesn't seem to make sense to include them in the W/N.  Is there a better way to convey this information?  Steglev (talk) 18:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Steglev ... I have replied to the above comment at your User Talk Page.  Thanks!   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:41, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

"A" and "An" in film titles
The introduction says only "The" is to be ignored at the start of the film; however, it appears that the word "A" was sometimes (but not consistently) ignored as well. To be consistent both internally and with the introduction, I moved all the "A" films to the A's.


 * If "A" is to be ignored, then the other English-language article, "An", should be ignored as well; but that isn't the case in this article. Therefore, if you disagree with my action, PLEASE don't just revert it; please move *all* "A" and "An" films to the proper place as if those words were ignored.  Or, please discuss which way it should be done.  --RBBrittain 10:41, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


 * It seems reasonable for ALL films beginning with an article (a, an, the) to be re-alphabetized by the next word. It needs to be consistent throughout.--Thumper44 19:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The introduction and the list now reflect a standard and uniform alphabetization. All films beginning with A, An, and The are listed by the following word.Thumper44 18:39, 13 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Currently, the list ignores English language articles when alphabetizing film titles. I added the following explanatory statement in the introduction of the article to make this issue more clear.  If the title of a film begins with an article (such as "a", "an", or "the"), the article is ignored when alphabetizing the film title.  For example, The Godfather is listed as Godfather, The.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC))


 * Also, some films have foreign-language titles and thus foreign-language articles within their titles (for example, "la", "le", and "il"). I alphabetized these titles without ignoring the articles.  I thought that this would be a better convention and a less confusing approach for readers, many of whom will not know or recognize these foreign words to be articles.  Thanks.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC))

Missing titles
I believe there are some gaps in this list; I noticed three after a brief search: Shane (1953) 1/5; Sophie's Choice (1982) 1/5; and Some Like It Hot (1959) 1/6. I need to double check these films and there may be several others to add to this list.


 * Yes, this list does not purport to be complete ... and acknowledges that fact. At the very top of the article (list), there is a notation that reads: "This film, television, or video-related list is incomplete; you can help by expanding it."  This is the tag generally used when lists are currently understood to be incomplete.  Thanks for adding some missing titles.  (Joseph A. Spadaro 04:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC))


 * Thank you for helping me get up to speed. When I have time I'll try to do what I can.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thumper44 (talk • contribs) 20:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I have been adding in missing film titles myself, whenever I notice their absence from the list.  Sooner or later, this list can be completed to contain all Academy Award winning films.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I believe that the titles are complete now, with the possible exception of Honorary or Special awards. The Wins/Nominations also seems to be correct, again with the possible exception of the Honorary or Special awards. There are a couple of inconsistencies (in two films, the special award is included in the win total and in one film, the special award is included in both the win and nomination total), but these can be fixed once it is determined how to handle special awards. Steglev (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To Steglev ... Great job in adding the remaining films and completing the list! Thanks!  I have also replied to the above comment at your User Talk Page.   Thank you.   (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC))

Batman nominated twice?
Shouldn't it read Batman 1/2? See Batman (1989 film). --Alexander Dreyer (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Batman was nominated for one -- and won one -- Academy Award. So the current notation of "1/1" is correct in this list. You may refer to the Academy's official web site at oscars.org to verify this. Also, I reviewed the Wikipedia article mentioned in your post ... and I did not see any mention of two Academy Award nominations. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC))

Following threads copied from redirected article talk page
Note: See Articles for deletion/List of films receiving six or more Academy Awards for the discussion referenced in the box above. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC))

Cut-off point at 8 awards
Is 8 oscars some sort of a magic barrier or why was it chosen? Peter S. 22:29, 19 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I would suspect it was chosen because there are so few films above that number. It would seem to make more sense perhaps if we listed films that had won two or more... --136.242.131.115 17:05, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I think the page is fine as it is, just wanted more info. Peter S. 22:27, 5 September 2005 (UTC)


 * As it stands now, the cut-off is at six or more Academy Awards. From some comments (in the discussion sections below), I believe that creating a cut-off of five or more Academy Awards would render many more films (over 20) eligible for this list.  Which, I believe, would dilute the value of this list.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:27, 20 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I just checked the web site Little Golden Guy. As of the 80th Academy Awards ceremony for 2008, there are a total of 24 films that have each won 5 Oscars.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

Gone with the Wind
Somebody moved this film up from 8 to 10 awards. Now imdb tells us 8 oscars, 2 extra awards (Technical Achievement, Honorary). Here are my questions: Comments? Peter S. 00:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Are those awards generally counted or not? If they are indeed counted, and since those additional awards are not called "Oscars" (see the linked imdb page), we should probably change the section titles from "oscars" to "awards".
 * Are there really no nominations for those additional awards (if there would be, Gwtw would have 15 nominations)? This way, a film could theoretically have 5 nominations and win 7 awards, which is a bit strange, no?


 * You make some great points! To answer your questions, (1) the Honorary Awards and Technical Awards received by a film are generally not "counted"; and (2) there are no nominations for some of those other Awards, they are simply awarded based on the sentiments of the Academy to "honor" a film or an individual.  Ultimately, the distinction is between the competitive awards and the non-competitive awards received by a film.  In the case of Gone with the Wind, the film received 8 competitive awards and 2 non-competitive awards, for a total of 10 awards.  I rewrote the introductory paragraph to the article, to indicate that the article lists films with six or more competitive awards.  And, for any film, I listed the non-competitive awards under the "Notes" column.  I think this is a satisfactory solution which alleviates any confusion for the readers.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:37, 20 June 2008 (UTC))

Move cut-off point to 6 awards
I suggest moving this page to 6 or more. 6 seems to be the magic number, as only 10 films ever won 7 Oscars, and 9 films won 6 Oscars. Whereas over 21 film won 5 oscars. --PCPP 00:45, 15 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Currently, the list in this article indeed employs a cut-off point at six or more Academy Awards.  So, as you proposed, it includes the 10 films with 7 Oscars, as well as the 9 films with 6 Oscars.  If what you say is correct (that over 21 films have each received 5 Oscars), then I think that the six or more cut-off point is an appropriate one.  Including all of the films with 5 Oscars would virtually double the size of this current list and, in my opinion, would dilute the value of the list.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC))


 * I just checked the web site Little Golden Guy. As of the 80th Academy Awards ceremony for 2008, there are a total of 24 films that have each won 5 Oscars.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:13, 21 June 2008 (UTC))

Best Picture winners
I may be missing something here - can someone please enlighten me? Why is it that some entries (e.g., Cabaret, A Place in the Sun) specifically state "Did not win Best Picture" and other entries do not? Is the reader to assume that, if this specific notation is not added, then the film did in fact win Best Picture? If that is the case (and I am not sure that it is), should not the article give some indication? It's pretty confusing. Thoughts? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 05:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC))


 * I clarified this by adding to the introductory sentence of the article. (JosephASpadaro 04:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC))

Proposal
The AfD just ended in no consensus so I'd like to bring up the proposal I made there. To help distill the arbitrariness of this list, if we would push the cutoff to seven awards there will be a much rounder number (25) of entries in the list. Then we could rename the list to something like "List of highest performing films at the Academy Awards" and keep the criteria at the top 25 (or in the future, ties for that place). What do others think of this?  Them From  Space  00:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * List of Academy Award-winning films is now sortable, so this list is 100% redundant. With the main list you get all of them, not an arbitrary cutoff. Therefore, I think the AFD should be reconsidered. I voted keep, but I would now change it to delete, as would others, perhaps. Reywas92 Talk  03:04, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I just became aware of this article today, after creating List of movies that have won eight or more Academy Awards on April 22, 2009. I did it in good faith as a response to it being listed as an "article needing creation" at WP:FILM.  Today, that article was redirected to this one by User:PC78.  After corresponding with PC78 on my talk page, he told me about this article and suggested bringing the discussion here.  I have copied our correspondance below for reference and invite further discussion. --Thomprod (talk) 17:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Greetings, PC78. I created the new article based on its inclusion in a list of requested articles at WP:FILM.  I was not aware of the existing article listing winners of six or more.  You redirected "8" to "6" here.  Although 6 does list the same films, I believe 8's structure as prose includes more details on the actual awards won by each film.  Please explain why you think both articles couldn't co-exist.  Thanks. --Thomprod (talk) 13:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's simply no need to have two articles that cover the same ground. I have no objection to converting the other list to prose and/or raising the threshold to eight, but it can all be done within the one article. It's something you would probably be better raising on the article's talk page. Regards. PC78 (talk) 13:56, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd just redirect this. It's absolutely pointless now that List of Academy Award-winning films is sortable. Granted, that table could use some cleaning (wouldn't be hard, just immensely tiring). If I have the time (which will probably be after my school year ends), I'll bring it up to FL. At that point, this will really become redundant. It would be more tolerable if there was some sort of cut-off the Academy used to recognize really good films, but there's no such standard we can use here, and whatever number we're going to set will be arbitrary. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 20:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article I created was redirected to this one. Since it was written in prose and gives more details on the actual awards won by each film, I thought it might be of value in addition to the sortable list in this article. --Thomprod (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but that doesn't really add anything. First, the format isn't very endearing and would probably be changed if it ever went to WP:FLC. Next, the added details don't really justify creating a separate list. One can look at the individual film article for information on what individual awards the film won. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 21:23, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm also all for redirecting per Sephiroth. Redirects don't need an AfD so if we get a suitable consensus here it can be done without admin supervision.  Them From  Space  05:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The article I created has already been redirected to this one, so if that's the consensus, I will abide by that decision. However, I think many readers are looking for a list of top award-winners and their individual awards.  Although one can find the movies in this article's table (after sorting, which some may not be familiar with), and their awards in the individual articles by clicking on them, the advantage of my version is that all of this information is displayed in one article without sorting or clicking. --Thomprod (talk) 09:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't justify an additional article. If your list (or this list even) was ever brought to WP:FLC, it wouldn't pass over 3b concerns and that's a death knell to any list's viability. Per Themfromspace, anyone who cares to redirect this, do so. — sephiroth bcr  ( converse ) 09:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Redirected. --Thomprod (talk) 10:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Sephiroth mentioned cleaning this up. I was helping Spadaro with a format he was trying and I can populate any format you like fairly quickly (an hour or so).  An example (it does not have the latest awards in it, but thats just because I haven't refreshed it lately) based on Spadaro's format is at Sample Format.  If you have an alternate format, I can fill that, too.  Let me know. Steglev (talk) 17:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)