Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Entertainment/2014 March 2

= March 2 =

Katharine Hepburn
I just learned today that Katharine Hepburn never attended any Oscar ceremonies, despite the fact that she was nominated (and won) several times. Does anyone know why this is? Also, does anyone know who accepted the awards on her behalf, in her absence? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * She did attend once, as a presenter: Hepburn made her only appearance at the Academy Awards in 1974, to present the Irving G. Thalberg Memorial Award to Lawrence Weingarten. She received a standing ovation, and joked with the audience, "I'm very happy I didn't hear anyone call out 'It's about time' . But that year was not one of the 12 times she was nominated.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * x2 Because, to her, "prizes are nothing". Dismas |(talk) 01:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, all of that info makes my question that much more intriguing. The only reason I would venture to guess is that she disliked the Hollywood "machine" and did not think highly of the whole concept of acting performances being competitive.  If that's the case, why on earth would she agree to be a presenter, of all things?   Any thoughts?   Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * People change their views. I remember Dustin Hoffman publicly casting aspersions on the whole Oscar thing and said he wouldn't be attending.  That might have been in 1980, when he was up for an award for Kramer vs. Kramer, which he won.  Earlier that night, Frank Sinatra said to the audience "The Oscars are important, no matter what Dustin Hoffman thinks", and he got an ovation.  But I'm sure Hoffman has deigned to grace the Oscars with his presence since then. I know he turned up to accept his 2nd Oscar in 1989 for Rain Man, when he joked that it was ok for the other nominees not to have voted for him, because he didn't vote for them either.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  01:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, but ... Your "people change their views" theory might make sense, except for the chronology of events. She didn't attend any ceremonies whatsoever for her first 11 nominations; then she (supposedly) changed her views, so she attended the one in 1974; then she reverted back to her old views and didn't attend her subsequent nomination (and win) in 1982.  That doesn't add up, for me, as an explanation.  I suspect that there is something more going on.  Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Fair enuf. This puts it down to plain conceit. "She was never sure she was going to win and she certainly didn't want to lose. There's probably no one more conceited than Katharine Hepburn. She always wanted to be the most fascinating person in the room."  Also, apparently her complexion was a bit of an issue, but then, why didn't that bother her in 1974?  Here is her 1974 appearance, btw.  --   Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  07:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow, very interesting. I certainly never knew that about her (the whole being conceited thing).  Thanks.   Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The Thalberg award that she presented isn't a competitive award like the acting awards. She could well have disapproved of the "regular" Oscars but have been willing to present such an honorary award, especially since Weingarten had produced the Tracy/Hepburn films Adam's Rib and Pat and Mike and a few other films that starred Spencer Tracy. Deor (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Lawrence Weingarten was an admired producer that had worked with Hepburn on some of her most successful films. She admired him and was happy to present him with what was in fact a lifetime achievement award for excellence in producing. He died not long after of leukemia. Markhh (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2014

Thanks, all! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Oscar music
At Oscar ceremonies, the orchestra plays an appropriate tune when the winner walks up to receive their award. Does this mean that they know who the winners are going to be ( and therefore have the correct sheet music in front of them), or do they have multiple sheets and hastily pick out the correct one on hearing the result? Widneymanor (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The latter is correct. The orchestra rehearses themes for all of the nominated films and can quickly cue them up as needed during the show. Markhh (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Widneymanor (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Music charts
WP:NSONG says that a song is generally notable if it "has been ranked on national or significant music or sales charts." Unless you're familiar with the guideline, please just explain it how you'd normally understand it. Being thoroughly unfamiliar with popular music, I'm unclear: does being "ranked on...music or sales charts" generally mean any position on a record chart, even 100th? My question arises from the discography section of our article on the Andrews Sisters: it lists 118 songs, and 117 of them have a position listed for one or more US charts. Is it likely that all 117 of them qualify as being "ranked on national or significant music or sales charts"? Note that I'm not planning on writing anything — my writing related to music is generally about music venues, e.g. the Jamestown Opera House. Nyttend (talk) 03:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, here's my perspective on things (and my own, as a Wikipedia editor since about 2006, not official or anything). Create an article when you have an article to create.  WP:IAR has in spirit the idea that rules overcomplicate the basic idea that we're here to build an encyclopedia.  Gather sources, write text, and if you have enough well sourced text to create an article you'd be proud to show others and say "I did that!", then go create it.  If you're creating an article because some WP:N-subguideline says that maybe, possible, a stand-alone article might be creatable, but you don't have enough to really write some good text beyond "this thing exists!" in the hopes that someone, someday, may possibly add to it if they find anything, then don't create the article.  In simplest terms, my feelings are if you can create something more than a tiny stub of an article from sources you have access to right now, go do that and don't worry about the WP:N subject specific guidelines.  If you have very little source material, and are just creating an article because it meets some technicality of some notability guideline, save yourself the effort and work on something you can put some meat into. -- Jayron  32  04:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me repeat: I'm not planning on writing anything. This is the way I write pages, and this is what I do for pages that meet some technicality of some notability guideline.  If I were trying to understand WP:SONG's perspective on notability, I'd ask at their talk page, rather than at the entertainment reference desk.  I'm attempting to understand what's generally meant by "charting".  Nyttend (talk) 05:49, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Your understanding is correct, so far as I'm aware. It may be useful to remember that these guidelines were put in place simply to act as a kind of first line estimate of how likely there is to be proper sources out there. Generally speaking, if a song doesn't pass any of the notability guidelines, there are very likely going to be problems with gathering enough reliable sources to make a decent article. Problem song articles on WP are usually not about songs that charted 99th out of 100 on the national charts, they're songs that "totally got a lot of airplay last week on the local station" or "won the battle of the bands for the whole county". Matt Deres (talk) 13:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Different charts have different significance and meaningful chart positions will vary from chart to chart and over time within the same chart. It would be almost impossible to specify definitively what position on what chart would make a single notable, and we shouldn't look to notability guidelines to do this as they should only ever be treated as a 'rule of thumb' rather than a rule. The existence of an article should reflect sufficient verifiable encyclopedic content that would not be appropriately covered as part of another article - I think that's a better principle to work to than any of the guidelines we have. --Michig (talk) 10:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC)