Talk:List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film

Order
Hungary, Romania, Bosnia, Luxembourg, Kazakhstan, Croatia, Germany, Guatemala, Switzerland, Palestine, Panama, Iraq, Sweden, China, Finland, Austria, Venezuela, Norway, South Korea, Greece, Japan, Paraguay, Serbia, Bulgaria, Dominican Republic, Netherlands, Portugal, Jordan, Iceland, Chile, Kosovo, Taiwan, Brazil, Pakistan, Peru, Slovenia, Lithuania, Georgia, Nepal, Estonia, Macedonia, Turkey, Ireland, Colombia, Latvia, Czech Republic, Mexico, Lebanon, Morocco, Cambodia, Slovakia, Hong Kong, Philippines, Albania, Israel, South Africa, Afghanistan, Russia, France, Belgium, Thailand, Poland, Kyrgyzstan, India, Denmark, Bangladesh, Montenegro, Malaysia, Canada, Uruguay, Iran, Italy, Argentina, Spain, Vietnam, Costa Rica, Singapore, Ethiopia, Algeria, Australia, Ivory Coast, United Kingdom.

As at 9th Oct.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Names of directors
In the chart, the names of the directors do not sort correctly, when sorted alphabetically. If one attempts to sort that column, the names of the directors get sorted by their first name (which is obviously incorrect). Their names should be sorted alphabetically, by last name. The problem is that each entry (name) is simply entered into the chart as its Wikipedia link. For example,  Pablo Trapero . However, if we want this to sort correctly, we need to use a special sorting template. Namely, in the previous example for Pablo Trapero, we'd use  Pablo Trapero  instead of simply  Pablo Trapero . In other words, we need to use the "sortname template" (located here: Template:Sortname). Making use of this template will let the column of directors' names sort correctly, alphabetically by last name (instead of by first name). It should be changed in this article. I assume it's a bit of work, if someone is up to it. However, at the very least, this new method should be incorporated when next year's new article is created (for the 89th Academy Awards). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:35, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Date format
The Oscars are clearly an American institution. Why are we using British dating format? I changed it to American format, and someone changed it back with the notation "MOS:RETAIN". I don't think MOS:RETAIN applies. It is not in dispute that the Oscars are an American institution. Strong national ties, etc. Thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:59, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * MOS:RETAIN states: When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.  In other words, "when a topic has strong national ties" is one of the few exceptions to the "retain" rule.  There is no dispute that the Oscars are an American institution.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Per MOS:RETAIN - "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. ", so we use the British dates. Also, none of the films are American.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 10:37, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You just quoted the same quote that I quoted. But you left out the significant piece that I was bringing up, which are the "few exceptions" to that general rule. Namely:  With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties).  This article is about the Academy Awards, which is an American institution.  There are many films listed, and probably many of those films country's use different date formats.  Should we oblige all 81 date formats for all 81 countries listed?  No.  Of course not.  So, the fact that the films are not American is irrelevant. (They are not British, either.)  It's the Academy Award component that is relevant.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no good reason to change it. That's the date format that was used from the creation of the article and for all the inline references added since.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)


 * There's no good reason to change it. Your saying so doesn't make it so.  And I gave you the "good reason to change it".  Which was in the exact policy that you yourself cited.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * That's the date format that was used from the creation of the article ... This article relates to the current year (2016) Academy Awards.  And the article is merely a few months old.  If that.  You make it sound like it's been around for ages and, hence, can't be changed.  Neither of which is true.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Surely there's more important things to be editing?  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * You keep avoiding the substantive issue. And I could just as easily say to you, "Surely there's more important things for you to be editing?" ... correct? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:21, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not avoiding anything, apart from your WP:LAME circular argument. MOS:RETAIN, so we retain the original date formatting. Thanks for your input.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:07, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes there is. And don't call me Shirley.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * A Third Opinion has not been requested. However, here is a Third Opinion.  For the Oscars, which are American, either use American-style dates, or publish a Request for Comments on the date format.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Request for input about date formats in this AND all other similar articles
Following the above discussion, I would like some input about what date formats we should be using in this article and all of the other similar articles. Apparently, this article (in its individual forms) extends back to the 29th Academy Awards. See here: List of submissions to the 29th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. So, I would like to develop a consistent format not only for this 88th article, but also for all the others extending back to the 29th. And, of course, extending forward from the 89th on. Any thoughts? My opinion, as stated above, is to use American dates, for reasons stated above. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe American date formats should be used throughout the series. It's an American event; and even if it had no tie to any particular country, American formats are the default throughout en:Wikipedia, as preferred by the majority of its users. Maproom (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I have waited a while. Seems like this discussion is not gaining any new input. As a result of the above discussion, I am going with the consensus. I am changing the dates to American format. This should be done for all other similar articles, as well (i.e., the 87th Annual List, the 86th Annual list, etc.). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:23, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It needs more input/consensus before you change it. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * So far, I see the input of four people: three in favor to change to American dates and one in opposition. So, what would you like exactly?  How much more input?  And what input?  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:07, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * A few passing comments don't equal a "consensus", Joseph. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:26, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * My contribution to this thread was not a "passing comment", it was a response to the RfD. Maproom (talk) 15:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I believe American date formats should be used..." Well what if you believe the moon is made of cheese and no-one challenges you? We then change it because you believe it? Oh.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 15:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Clearly, you have no interest in a rational or intelligent conversation. You just want it your way, period.  Regardless of what anyone else says; however many people say it; and whatever time frame is employed.  News flash:  Wikipedia is not about you.  It's about the readers who use the service.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hats off to you, Spadaro, you're a credit to WP. Off you go, and fix the article.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:10, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Why are hats off to me? There were four or five other people involved in this decision.  Not to mention an arsenal of Wikipedia policies.  I assume yours is a back-handed compliment.  Thanks, though.  Now, we can both improve this article (and the 50+ others like it).  And we now both know what direction to take, as far as date formats.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:33, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * You best great cracking then son, as there's a lot for you to do!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 12:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are very passive aggressive, I see. You are implying that it is my job -- and mine, alone -- to fix all of these 50+ articles.  And that it is my own fault for setting up so much work for myself by bringing attention to the date format issue.  You are very transparent.  It is easy to read you like a book.  If you care so much about these articles, I assume you'd want to see them done the "right" way, not necessarily "your way".  But I think that's giving you too much credit.  It is so obvious that you are trying to bait me.  And imply that I should regret my actions above.  Very transparent.  Stay classy, though.  When a decision does not go your way, bring out all the sour grapes.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's super, Spadaro! I see a lot of talk, but no action. No surprise there.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 19:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * See my above post: You are very passive aggressive, I see. You are implying that it is my job -- and mine, alone -- to fix all of these 50+ articles.  And that it is my own fault for setting up so much work for myself by bringing attention to the date format issue.  You are very transparent.  It is easy to read you like a book.  If you care so much about these articles, I assume you'd want to see them done the "right" way, not necessarily "your way".  But I think that's giving you too much credit.  It is so obvious that you are trying to bait me.  And imply that I should regret my actions above.  Very transparent.  Stay classy, though.  When a decision does not go your way, bring out all the sour grapes.  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Squawk! Who let a parrot in here? Sorry Spadaro, I'm the guy busy building an encyclopedia. You must be the other guy.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:53, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Yeah, let's both move on. You have sour grapes over the above decision.  And you want to deflect your anger to someone; so you choose me.  Great.  Hope you feel better now.  Again, let's both move on.  As I am sure you want, why don't you post one final comment to this thread.  So that -- as you most likely want -- you can have the last word on the subject.  OK?  Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"List of List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of List of submissions to the 88th Academy Awards for Best Foreign Language Film. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Regards, SONIC  678  04:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

>>>FYROM
The name "Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia" is used here. Should it be left that way, or updated to "North Macedonia"? I don't think that North Macedonia ever actually used the FYROM name for itself. Now, I know that North Macedonia was not called that back when the film was released, but does that matter? It's not a different country now just because its official name is different. Kelisi (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)