Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Various Oscar categories (redux)

Various Oscar categories (redux)
''Current votes: Foo Oscar Winners/Foo Oscar Nominees: 3 Academy Award Winners for Foo/Academy Award Nominees for Foo: 2

Moving to Unresolved.''

Although the last CFR failed, there are some essential renames we need to do to make these categories conform to standards. This applies to all "Oscar" and "Oscar Nominee" subcategories of Category:Academy Awards.

In general, should be renamed to cocks. should be renamed to.

Some categories also use unofficial titles: Category:Best Director Oscar (and related nominee category) should be. There's also a problem with this category in terms of semantics. This award is awarded to the film, not the individual. The nominees category has individuals, but the winners category has films. We need to split these categories like the actor/actress categories, but in the opposite way: should be for films, with  for the directors themselves. Alternatively, we could just stick both people and films into the category. I don't have a huge problem with that.

– flamurai (t) 01:26, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * For the prior CFR attempt, see discussion. RedWolf 05:58, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)


 * I stick by what I said before - do it the way they are announced Category:Academy Award winners for best director; Category:Academy Award nominees for best director, +c. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 06:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grutness on the naming. Also, I think it might be a good idea to get rid of the categories for things that aren't actually being given the awards - the film categories for awards that are actually going to actors, and the director categories for awards that are actually going to films, for example. That part's not such a big deal though as long as the names are fixed. The nominee/winner split is reasonable, IMO, and should be kept. Bryan 18:45, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Comment. So for every one Oscar category, we have FOUR WP categories?  Seems like overkill to me.  I'd support merging the films and people together, and even winners and nominees.  -Kbdank71 17:43, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * No, only two - and two that it should be in - nominees and winners. The two are very different things... Putting them together would be like having Category: Presidential candidates of the United States but no category for presidents. Why would you possibly need four? The film isn't a director, and does not win the award for best director. The director is the director. If for some odd reason you do want to list the film as well, it can go in the same category as the director. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]] 05:22, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong. The award is for Directing, not Best Director, and it is awarded to the film. The director's or directors' name(s) isn't even on the ballot. The only awards that officially go to a person, not a film, are the acting awards. Note the naming of the awards. Only the actor/actress categories are named with the people nouns. The rest are named with the process nouns: art direction, writing, directing, etc. – flamurai (t) 17:30, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)
 * Under the above recommendation, many award categories would only require two Wikipedia categories (nominees and winners), not four. (The acting awards, for example, are awarded to individuals.) I definitely wouldn't combine nominees and winners; they are very different things in the American film world. -Aranel (" Sarah ") 03:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Not all of them. Just the acting ones right now. I don't support grouping winners and nominees, but I don't mind mixing films and people in one category. – flamurai (t) 03:12, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)
 * Alright, then, I'll agree with the proposal for standards purposes, even though I don't see the need for a nominee cagegory. -Kbdank71 17:33, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * It's probably worth noting that the main thrust of my comment is not so much the separate nominees/winners categories (although that is a good idea), but more that I think the standard title should be Category:Academy Award winners for Foo, and not Category: Foo Oscar winners, which strikes me as an ugly way of saying it, especially with the longer award titles. Grutness|hello? [[Image:Grutness.jpg|25px|]]


 * I support the addition of "winners" and renaming "Nominee" to "nominees", but I vehemently oppose merging anything together. For awards like best actor, I see it necessary to categorize both the people who wonder the oscar and the films that got them the oscar (how ever you want to say it is semantics).  Putting films with people together is bad.  Putting nominees and winners together circumvents my entire purpose of this categorization to begin with (Category:Academy Award winning actors had both nominees and winners).  For entirely picture-centric awards (best picture is the only that comes to mind) I don't see the need to categorize the acceptors of the award (usually the producer or director?) but everything else can be to the people nominated, the people that won, the films nominated, and the films that won.  And I still oppose the last CFR to make them insanely long and presume this CFR won't drift toward that. Cburnett 21:22, 9 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Just want to further qualify my position. When I add the category to an article, I put the film or winner in HTML comment after it.  Specifically, so when all of the categorization is done then the comments can be removed and the data put into a section on the article (something like "Awards").  All robots that I've seen go through categories will move comments to top of the categories, which voids the purpose of them being there.  If a robot can't do the renaming without messing these comments up and no one is willing to do it by hand, then I remove my support until categorization and "Awards" section is done.


 * Removing the comments, or moving them so that they lose context (there's really little difference), would instill much more work to achieve the same goal. Cburnett 23:34, 10 Mar 2005 (UTC)

HI