Talk:Riding the Rails

Oscar nomination
The possible source for this confusion is Leonard Maltin's "Of Mice and Magic" (1980, revised edition 1987). In a discussion of Betty Boop's later films (page 106) he mentions "one amusing entry (RIDING THE RAILS) that was nominated for an Academy Award". But it doesn't appear in the list of Academy Award nominees and winners at the end of the book, and isn't designated as an Oscar nominee in Maltin's Fleischer filmography. Bobbnoxious2 (talk) 16:23, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that one of the reasons for which this article's AfD nomination was withdrawn is that "Riding the Rails" was supposedly nominated for an Academy Award. However, that is incorrect. You can confirm for yourself that the film is not listed by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences as a nominee by searching at the Academy Awards Database. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't involved in the AfD, but I turned up three sources for the nomination out of pure curiosity. However, EACH source has similar wording. See:
 * http://www.fascinatingfact.com/LinksFascinatingFacts.html (sooo glittery, ick) "and riding on the rails, which received an Oscar nomination."
 * http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/participant.jsp?spid=156441&apid=103905 "in more than 100 shorts, including "Boop-Oop-a-Doop" (1932), "Snow White" (1933) and the Oscar-nominated "Riding the Rails" (1938)."
 * http://www.filmsite.org/animatedfilms.html "Fleischer's first color cartoon with Betty sporting red hair, and the Oscar-nominated Riding the Rails (1938)."


 * They don't look copied verbatim, but since they all end with "Riding the Rails", either three people thought "save the best for last", or they copied it from the same text. It might be helpful if we could identify that text, to see where the erronieous claim is coming from, if it is indeed erroneous. If it is erronious, it is repeated an awful lot. Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a record of Dave Fleischer being nominated for an Oscar in 1943 for "SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Imagination", and a record of Max Fleischer being nominated for an Oscar in 1941 for" SHORT SUBJECT (Cartoon) -- Superman", but there is nothing for Riding the Rails as far as I can see. The sources aren't jiving with the database, as another source says about the studio
 * "They only received five Oscar nominations — Sinbad the Sailor (1936), Educated Fish (1937), Hunky & Spunky (1938), Riding the Rails (1938) and the first Superman cartoon (1941) — but that was a period when practically nobody was getting Oscar nominations except Disney."
 * http://www.toonopedia.com/fleischr.htm However, only Sinbad the Sailor, Educated Fish, Hunky and Spunky, and Superman are listed on Oscars.org. There is no record of Riding the Rails.Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:51, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * On a hunch I checked a list of nominees for 1938, 1939, and 1940, and there is no record of it on the list. http://aslan369.tripod.com/Movie/Oscars/Win1938.html Jo7hs2 (talk) 04:55, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here are the full lists (from Oscars.org) for 1938, 1939, and 1940. I'm not seeing it. Jo7hs2 (talk) 05:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have the 1997 A&E Entertainment Almanac in front of me. It lists Sinbad the Sailor, Educated Fish, Hunky and Spunky, and Superman as Oscar nominees, but not Riding the Rails. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:42, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that confirms what I'm seeing. I've sent an e-mail to Oscars.org asking for confirmation, but I'm pretty confident that this cartoon was never nominated. Somebody must have made a mistake decades ago, and it is still cascading through history. Jo7hs2 (talk) 14:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a factual dispute tag to the article now that the Oscar nomination has been added to the article. Based on the above discussion, the sources both suggest there was, and was not, such an nomination. Until we can resolve this question one way or the other, the factual dispute tag is warranted. If there was no such nomination, we don't want to be part of spreading incorrect information, but on the other hand, enough sources say that it happened that leaving it in the article (with the tag) until the question is resolved sounds like the best course of action. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I added that (the nomination), without first checking the talk page. In addition to the Star Tribune source, it is also repeated in the July 2006 issue of Antiques & Collecting Magazine. It would be good to sort this out. Thanks. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 19:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No biggie. ;) As you can see above, it is repeated all over the internet and in print media. I've contacted the Academy in the hopes of finding confirmation from them, but I don't really expect a response. If somebody has access to microfilm/fiche and could check 1938/1939 newspapers for confirmation, that might be a good place to look. After all, there may be gaps in the Academy database, or they may only list so many nominees. It is also possible that it was nominated for some other award, and this got corrupted to Oscar over the years. It happens. Jo7hs2 (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added to the article a mention that the film is not listed in the official Oscar database published by AMPAS. The claim that the film was Oscar-nominated appears in enough places that I wouldn't remove it from the article, but given that the official source disputes it I wouldn't want it to stand alone. By the way, instead of contacting the Academy, it might be a better idea to contact some of the writers who say that Riding the Rails was Oscar-nominated and ask them where they got that information. They might be able to point back to their source which would ultimately lead to the origin of the contradiction. (Turner Classic Movies might be a good starting place; I get the feeling that they care about being accurate.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have contacted TCM and Filmsite about the entries. Jo7hs2 (talk) 20:47, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Author of Filmsite says his source was other websites. He is revising his page. Good for his accuracy, but it doesn't put the debate to rest. ;) Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: No response from TCM or Oscars.org on the matter. I think we can safely assume there was no nomination, based on a relibility weighing analysis of the sources suggesting there was one, which are less reliable than the official academy database website saying there wasn't one. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to Oscar information, the only truly reliable source should be the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, shouldn't it? By the way, good luck with getting TCM to correct an error - I have notified them of several on their site and they never have responded.

I'm wondering. . . if this 6-minute short wasn't nominated for an Oscar, does it even warrant an article? LiteraryMaven (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This article was just up for AfD, and the AfD was withdrawn based on the erroneous information about the oscar nomination, discussed above. I suggest we wait a few more days to allow any additional information about the nomination to surface, and then reconsider AfD. Jo7hs2 (talk) 21:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks to me as if the film has had coverage in enough independent reliable sources that it would meet the general notability guideline, so it ought not to be deleted, even with the Oscar nomination being incorrect. Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please note, I'm not arguing for or against an AfD at this point. However, since it appears that there was no Oscar nomination, and since the AfD was withdrawn because people suggested the short was nominated, it may merit a new AfD to resolve the original concerns. On one hand, the short is mentioned in a number of sources, and does appear to be notable on the surface. However, one could also argue that since almost all the sources (apparently) incorrectly claim the short was Oscar-nominated, the sources aren't sufficiently reliable, and thus the article may merit deletion on notability grounds. My point is, let's wait it out a while to see if any new Oscar-nomination information surfaces before anybody re-AfD's the article, and then if somebody feels strongly about deleting the article, go for it, and we'll discuss the merits of the article in that AfD.Jo7hs2 (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay... I'm confident that we aren't going to get any more information about this Oscar nomination controversy. I haven't personally decided whether I think the article deserves to be deleted (or merged), but I have no objection to somebody conducting a merge or AfD discussion at this point. Jo7hs2 (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Betty-boop-opening-title.jpg