Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Film awards task force/Archive 1

Trademark
There's absolutely no obligation whatsoever to use the trademark symbols or disclaim affiliation with the American Motion Picture Association. We are not trading on the name of the Academy Awards; there's absolutely no trademark violation.

Catering to this is visually unappealing, and it makes Wikipedia look like complete toadies. We don't do it for any of the other hundreds of thousands of registered and unregistered trademarks in Wikipedia, and we shouldn't do it here.

There's more info on using trademark symbols in the GNU Coding Standards. --ESP 21:38, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)


 * Look man, I know, but ABC, which has a deal with Oscar, uses TM/R/C symbols on stuff they do, and they have a * deal* with Oscars. The Oscar people are * incredibly** incredibly* defensive of their copyrights. We may be legally correct, but I doubt we'll be feeling cocky when Wikipedia gets the inevitable cease-and-desist letter, or whatever letter, from AMPAS. I beg you to surrender to the toadying... :) jengod 21:41, Mar 1, 2004 (UTC)


 * ABC uses the TM/R/SM stuff because they have a deal with the Academy. We don't. We don't have to use the trademark stuff. Avoid copyright paranoia. --ESP 01:27, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Ok, whats this page meant for ? What happens now. Jay 16:12, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * Ok its meant for List of Academy Awards ceremonies. Thank (Jen)God ! Jay 06:26, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Links
Do we want to link to the various award pages? Like Academy Award for Best Picture. RickK 04:21, 8 Mar 2004 (UTC)
 * A fine plan! I'm too lazy to do it right now, but that's a great added dimension. jengod

Proposal to simplify categories
I believe Category:Academy Awards ceremonies should be deleted and all articles such as 76th Academy Awards should appear only in Category:Academy Awards. That would make the category structure simpler, easier to use, and more logical (after all, the Xth Academy Award articles don't just talk about the ceremonies, they also give the winners of the awards). In addition, sortkeys should be added so the articles show up in numerical order. I would prefer a format such as  * 076 — or possibly the "* " could be replaced by "#". - dcljr (talk) 03:21, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Oppose - this would make the main Category:Academy Awards crowded, something which is discouraged in WP:CG (see Categorization). The ceremonies subcat should remain as is. Dl2000 15:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Category cleanup
Just did a run through the individual Academy Award year pages, to update the categories for consistency. It became clear from the other awards listed and the general categorisation approach that the years of individual subcategories Category:Film awards by year were based on the release dates of films, rather than the actual ceremony dates. For example, the ceremonies under Category:1999 film awards were held in early 2000 or late 1999, but these were based on films released in 1999. That style of categorisation may sound a bit confusing, but that was the consensus. There is still some consistency work to be done on award categories and templates in general. Dl2000 17:38, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Potential images
Could the project make use of one or more of these images as found through the Wikimedia Commons?


 * Excellent searching. I like Image 1, personally. It's simple, yet it gets the point across. --Miguel Cervantes 03:33, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I changed the image on the WikiProject template to number one because it was far more Academy Awards-ey than a reel and film. However, this is only temporary; we need to decide which image to use. --Miguel Cervantes 13:11, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Table format updating
A few issues with the winners tables as currently set:
 * 1) Feature Films table - need to get straight whether the rightmost column is to list the Producer or Director.
 * 2) Tables for the winner lists can have varying widths from section to section, which gives an inconsistent appearance.
 * 3) Headings are centre-aligned, while rows are left-aligned - that makes the entries a bit difficult to scan.
 * 4) Writing: Example gives story/screenplay split in Original screenplay - should be under Adapted screenplay category.

A) What about a single table for all winners (some categories don't have tables and look out of place among the tables)?

B) If separate tables kept, how about this adjustment to the table format?:

Feature Films

Acting

Writing

Dl2000 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been working on getting a standard system to use on entries, and most of the material is a copy and paste from the 39th Academy Awards, which I in turn stole from last year's ceremony. I don't think too much thought went into them, and I don't know if I would have thought of these changes. The tables are good (I'll probably change the Table Codes page tomorrow); the changes improve the quality and bring about more standardization. I'm not sure if we should use one big table, however, as that would make browsing slightly harder. If we can ever get some more people to join this project (I saw someone putting up some banners for it a few days ago, but I haven't seen him since), maybe we can get some more input. If not, I suppose an RfC could help.--Miguel Cervantes 03:17, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * 1. We can agree on separate tables - just wanted to put the one-table idea on the table.
 * 2. The table format can also apply to the Music, Technical and Short Films categories. 75th Academy Awards would be a good example of winners that need tables.
 * 3. Director section usually only has one winner - a table might help visual consistency, but it might also be overkill.
 * 4. Just checked the Oscars database (www.oscars.org) - seems Best Picture winner lists show the Producers rather than Directors, so that may be the official approach. Need a bit more research to confirm that.
 * 5. My reading of RfC is that it's more for serious disputes which I don't believe we have here. Perhaps better to raise the table/content issues at Village Pump Assistance (WP:VPA) for others to review?
 * Dl2000 03:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Main Page
One of our articles, 34th Academy Awards, made it to the Main Page. Hopefully this can draw some more attention to the WikiProject. Now we just need to get Academy Awards to featured status.--Miguel Cervantes 01:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Project Directory
Hello. The WikiProject Council is currently in the process of developing a master directory of the existing WikiProjects to replace and update the existing WikiProject Council/Directory. These WikiProjects are of vital importance in helping wikipedia achieve its goal of becoming truly encyclopedic. Please review the following pages:
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Culture Directory 2,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Philosophy and religion Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Sports Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory,
 * User:Badbilltucker/Geographical Directory/United States, (note: This page will be retitled to more accurately reflect its contents)
 * User:Badbilltucker/History and society directory, and
 * User:Badbilltucker/Science directory

and make any changes to the entries for your project that you see fit. There is also a directory of portals, at User:B2T2/Portal, listing all the existing portals. Feel free to add any of them to the portals or comments section of your entries in the directory. The three columns regarding assessment, peer review, and collaboration are included in the directory for both the use of the projects themselves and for that of others. Having such departments will allow a project to more quickly and easily identify its most important articles and its articles in greatest need of improvement. If you have not already done so, please consider whether your project would benefit from having departments which deal in these matters. It is my hope to have the existing directory replaced by the updated and corrected version of the directory above by November 1. Please feel free to make any changes you see fit to the entries for your project before then. If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you. B2T2 21:03, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if you tried to update it before, and the corrections were gone. I have now put the new draft in the old directory pages, so the links should work better. My apologies for any confusion this may have caused you. B2T2 23:48, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification needed for Award for Directing
Hi, I have posted my questing in Talk:Academy Award for Directing but it may be out of the way there. I am updating the series of years in film, mentioning more awards where missing, and I need please this clarification to make corrections. Hoverfish 09:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia Day Awards
Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 16:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Best Foreign Film LONG LIST
Hi. I am very interested in what some call the long list. I found 15 lists, the oldest beeing Submissions for the 65th Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, but these awards have been given since 1956. Dose anyone have the remaining 37 lists? I quote one wikipedia pate "For many years, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) has invited each country to select one film to compete in the Best Foreign Language Film at the Oscars." --User:Steinninn 19:54, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Road to the 76th Academy Awards
Is this an appropriate item to have out there? I was thinking that Road to the 76th Academy Awards would be better placed under 76th Academy Awards if it is placed anywhere. I am not working on this project, but I wanted to bring it to the team's attention. Slavlin 22:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

WPFilms categorization problem
Hi, this is from the new WP Films Categorization department. We have a discussion about some lengthy Acad. Award categories that are given to film articles and make the category section almost unreadable. Please, see here*. Could a more concise naming be given (see suggestion)? The main event being Best Film or Best Actor, is hard to even find in some films. IMO it would be better to have a template with Awards including nominations and not assign such specific categories below the main winners. Soon more awards may do the same and it will get practically unreadable under the first line of categories. Another issue is the stated WP Films as parent project of this project. I think your scope is wider than Films. Actors, directors, etc belong to WP Biographies... Hoverfish Talk 14:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Portal:Academy Award
I've created a new portal for the Academy Awards.Please contribute as much as possible. Jairus Garin 16:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

flags in articles
The articles that list nominees and winners in the acting categories currently include little flags next to every actor indicating his/her country of origin. I propose that this is unnecessary, visually confusing, and subtly POV-pushing because a lot of these people are multi-national with citizenship in various places, and sometimes you'll see TWO flags (like Daniel Day-Lewis), or the flag of a country of birth but not the country of primary life-long citizenship (like Jessica Tandy.) Furthermore, some articles (like Best Actress) use the Union Jack for English actors, but others (like Best Actor) use different flags for England, Scotland, and Wales depending on what nationality an editor has decided to assign to an actor. All of this, however, doesn't even approach the question of why the flags are there to begin with; they don't impart any useful or trenchant information, and in fact they are simply irrelevant to the articles at hand. It seems like these flags should just be gotten rid of! Thoughts?- Dmz5 *Edits**Talk* 15:41, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

'Road To The __th Academy Awards' articles
For these articles, for example Road to the 79th Academy Awards, wouldn't it be better to have those awards in which the winners are restricted in some way, such as the European Film Awards, which are restricted to European films, in a different colour. That way, the tallies of winners could exclude these awards - this would eliminate the problem of seemingly anomalous winnners at these ceremonies, and would ensure that all films are able to win the tallied awards. Ygoloxelfer 09:41, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Winners without articles
I noticed that a lot of the winners in Best Original Screenplay don't have articles. Is there anybody working on that, or other major categories where there are a lot of redlinked winners? Seems to me that even within the field of popular culture it's a lot more important than the kind of fancruft that pumps up the Wikipedia article count. -- Orange Mike 23:07, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

AfD Road to the XXth Academy Awards
Just FYI, I have nominated these articles for deletion. (See Articles for deletion/Road to the 76th Academy Awards.) I wanted to let the project team know as well, in case you wanted to weigh in. It already seems to be leaning towards deleting all and merging the data into the respective winner pages. Slavlin 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

"19xx Academy Awards" redirects
I just found (fixing a link on The Passion of the Christ) out that probably all the redirects in the form of 19xx Academy Awards point to the wrong year... Ie. 2004 Academy Awards redirects to 76th Academy Awards, which are the awards for 2003. So they are pointing to the year the ceremony was held, instead of the year the movies came out, as the generic Academy Awards template suggests. Is this indeed correct, or should I go ahead and fix all the redirects? (which is gonna be hell checking all links to the redirects...) --Edokter (Talk) 22:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting problem, but we should compare with how year titles of other major awards are handled, such as these examples for 2006:
 * 2006 Tony Awards --> 60th Tony Awards, held June 2006
 * 2006 Primetime Emmy Awards --> 58th Primetime Emmy Awards, held August 2006
 * 2006 Juno Awards --> Juno Awards of 2006, held March/April 2006
 * 2006 Golden Globe Awards --> 63rd Golden Globe Awards, held January 2006
 * 2006 Grammy Awards --> 48th Grammy Awards, held February 2006
 * So it seems that year titles tend to represent the year the award ceremony was conducted, rather than the year in which the qualifying works were produced. This suggests we should leave the yyyy Academy Awards redirects alone, unless some need fixing to consistently point to the ceremony year. We should add specs for the proper Academy Awards article title format and names for redirects in the main project page, though, if there is consensus on this. Dl2000 00:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I think all redirects are consistent in that regard. If the names should point to the year the ceremony was held, then Academy Awards Chron and related templates should be fixed. --Edokter (Talk) 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed the years in Academy Awards (redir from former Chron template) as suggested, and as consistent with other major entertainment awards. Dl2000 01:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * So as I understand it, we should follow how other Wikipedia articles say list the ceremonies instead of the Academy's official database search engine. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Of course, it presents some confusion since the awards ceremony itself is held on the next calender year than the year of consideration. But every official publication from the Academy I have seen lists their ceremonies in that fashion i.e. the 79th Academy Awards is listed with the 2006 date, and The Departed is the 2006 Best Picture winner. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Last thing we need is an edit war! I agree the years should point to the year of the ceremony, since that is 1) the most popular use, and 2) would save a bunlde of work fixing all the redirects. So let's please make up our mind. I know it's evil but...

Support

 * 1) See my comments. --Edokter (Talk) 13:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) Also see my comments. Key issue is that readers can expect a consistent approach from Wikipedia entertainment award templates. Film vs. ceremony years can be explained in the main Academy Award article. Dl2000 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 3) It is good to be consistent in all awards. Hoverfish Talk 08:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oppose
May be too late, but I strongly oppose veering from Academy convention that was established LONG before the Internet (much less Wikipedia). Under current rules, the Oscar year (except for Foreign Language Film) is the calendar year of the Los Angeles County qualifying run, which is either the year of release (most commonly) or the following year (most famously for Casablanca). Using the year of the awards ceremony not only violates Academy policy, but is also too confusing when referring to early Oscar history (two ceremonies were held in 1930, for example).

The Grammy and Golden Globe redirects used to justify the change are wrong; NARAS and HFPA both use the prior year in referring to their awards. The Tony, Primetime Emmy, and Juno Awards examples are irrelevant because they are consistent with the policies of ATW/LATP, ATAS and CARAS respectively; the Tony & Primetime Emmy (but not Juno) eligibility years also close in the same calendar year as the ceremony (unlike the Oscars, Grammys & Globes). --RBBrittain 09:34, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Comments
Zzyzx11 (Talk) 11:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not really care as long as there is a footnote or something on each affected template and article so there is no confusion on what naming convention we are using i.e. it is different that that of the official Academy records. Also, are you considering modifying every single Academy Awards page using the unofficial system. For instance, Academy Award for Best Picture currently says "2006 (79th) The Departed". It would be more confusing if the articles in Category:Academy Awards and all of its sub-categories were not uniform across the board. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No. We're only talking about the years in redirects and templates. The 19xx (and 200x) redirects point to a different edition then the template links with the same year. --Edokter (Talk) 10:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Then if that is the case, I would rather have something like Template:SuperBowl and a redirect like 2007 Super Bowl. Similar idea - the game was played in 2007, but the winner is regarded as the 2006 champion.


 * I just noticed that the years in the template are (already) listed under "Ceremonies". In that respect, Dl2000's edit to Academy Awards was indeed correct after all, and would fix all indiscrepancies between templates and redirects. So I'll be bold and revert the template to his version. I tried the 79th (2006) format, but it really bloats the template. --Edokter (Talk) 13:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you wonder why it was on a seperate template before an anon user merged both of them? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. I didn't even know there was a seperate template. I came here when I found the dicrepancies from a link on a movie page, and the templates seems to have been merged weeks ago, so it never crossed my mind. --Edokter (Talk) 23:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I support, but would like to point out that in some festival lists (Golden Bear, Palme d'Or) the year given is the year of the films release. Now this could be because they premiered in the Festivals, but I haven't checked them all to know if this is the case everywhere. Hoverfish Talk 08:21, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Also the idea of having a footnote to indicate that the year is for when the ceremony was held, is quite useful. It took me some time to figure it out and to this day I'm never sure which year is given in an award and have to go looking to make sure. I suggest a text as a note under the navigation box, or even as a mini caption just above it. Hoverfish Talk 08:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

This is now on RFD
Sorry I did not see it earlier but it looks like those redirects might change back, see Redirects for discussion/Log/2007 July 23. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Use of "Best" in category names
For anyone interested, AMPAS only has one Academy Award with "Best" in the name: Best Picture. All other awards should not include "Best" in the name. For the most part, the public uses "Best" for everything: Best Actress, Best Costume Design, etc. This is incorrect. Wikipedia, as maintained by the public, also uses "Best" everywhere, and should be corrected as well, since most articles and list use "Best" for all categories. If you don't believe this to be true, go to AMPAS sources and you find this is consistant. Or, just call the Academy and ask them.TienTao 21:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, Wikipedia's guidelines on naming conventions prefer the terms that are most common by the majority of English speakers, not the official terms. Unfortunately for the Academy, it seems most of the media, and therefore most common usage, use "Best" everywhere. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification. It helps to know the rules of wikipedia! Though I disagree with it (why should wikipedia wish to provide inaccurate information?), it is acceptable. Though, for the record, I wasn't suggesting that all categories be changed to official names, which for example would be something like, "Academy Award of Merit for Outstanding Achievement in Animated Short Film."  But I know what you mean. TienTao 17:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Eligibility for Cinematography award: at one time was membership in a union/guild required by the rules?
Please see my query at Talk:Academy Award for Best Cinematography. --Mathew5000 08:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Henry Fonda
Henry Fonda has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Grim-Gym 02:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed merger with WikiProject Films
For purposes of centralized discussion, please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films. Thank you. John Carter 19:51, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Retagging
Am I right in thinking all articles tagged with AcademyAwardsproj need retagging as film with Awards-task-force=yes and the old banner removing? RWardy 09:26, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Need" is a big word, but, yeah, I have to think retagging the articles would definitely be a good idea. John Carter 15:56, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion of merging of academy awards articles
Hi, A discussion has been started on the Film talk page regarding merging nominee and winner articles with the actual ceremony article. You can see and contribute to the discussion here. Cheers RWardy 08:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/List of Academy Award records
An editor has requested that this receive attention from the community with an eye towards fixing rather than deleting. At the moment, it's a collection of unsourced trivia that could easily be construed as original research. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Golden Film on the way to FA
Recently the film award article Golden Film was not promoted to featured article, due to a lack of votes and comments after the featured article director restarted the nomination. With your help with the current peer review, I believe the article about this box office award can soon be promoted to featured article. Thanks! – Ilse@ 12:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Vote for Golden Film now on Featured article candidates/Golden Film. Thank you for your help! – Ilse@ 17:12, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

FLC - List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film
I recently created a List of Academy Award winners and nominees for Best Foreign Language Film and have been working to improve it for quite some time now. The article about the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film had become too long and contained too much textual material, so I thought it would be good to have two separate articles, one for the description of the award itself and one for the list of winners and nominees. The latter is currently a featured list candidate, and with your help and comments it could become the first Academy Awards-related article to become part of Wikipedia's featured content ! If it is promoted, I promise to start working on other Academy Awards articles. Thanks ! BomBom (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Awards formatting on crew
Can someone please point me to the proper formatting for an awards table or list for a NON ACTOR? I have looked at three different articles and seen three different methods. EraserGirl (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not entirely sure that a "proper" format exists. Perhaps you could link to several examples and we could discuss the strengths and weakness of each, and hammer out some sort of style guidelines in the process? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:20, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Peer review Golden Film
You can now peer review the article Golden Film. Thank you for your help! – Ilse@ 11:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme
As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
 * The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
 * The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
 * A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot  ( Disable )  21:54, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for Film awards
Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 23:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject for award articles
Just to let you know that I have proposed a WikiProject covering award articles, of which film awards would be a part of. Hopefully this project can get up and running and provide guidlines on how to improve award related articles. Please sign up if interested. Many thanks, Rambo's Revenge (talk)  13:11, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like an excellent idea! While I'd like to keep the task force where it is location-wise, we could certainly jointly coordinate it through both projects. We've been discussing drawing up more formal style guidelines and whatnot for these articles, and obviously this would be easier if there was an Awards WikiProject that could perhaps help direct this. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:49, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Proper name
I noticed that an editor had gone through and moved all of the New York Film Critics Circle Awards annual pages from New York Film Critics Circle Awards YEAR to YEAR New York Film Critics Circle Awards. I was thinking this was contrary to the recommended style, or am I mistaken? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The official website seems to start with the year, too. I know we moved the Academy Awards pages to xth Academy Awards and that year Academy Awards pages are disambiguation pages pointing to either the representative year or the hosting year.  I'm not sure if there is a recommended style because the pages now parallel the official website's presentation, which seems okay. Erik (talk &#124; contribs &#124; wt:film) 21:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries then. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

List of academy award winners and nominees
All of the requested articles for this project are "list of winners and nominees of (number)th academy awards" most of these pages have some equivelant in (number)th academy awards. I think just making redirects to the specific sections would be a fine way to turn all these red links blue. see 40th Academy Awards nominees and winners--Tim1357 (talk) 01:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh! it looks like this may not be what was intended. I will wait until i get some level of consensus before creating redirects for the rest of the articles. If this was not what people wanted I will go back and delete all these redirect pages or ask an Admin to do it. --Tim1357 (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was looking at the Academy Award pages today, and there is a lot of inconsistency with them. I am not sure why there were split-off lists for the winners and nominees.  Most pages of the earlier Academy Awards seem to list the winners and the nominees in one place just fine.  We should determine some kind of standard for these pages, such as avoiding such split-off lists, determining section structuring, and displaying the nominees and the winner. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't really see the rationale myself - the meat and bones of what an awards ceremony is about is the nominees and the winners. This is not an overwhelming amount of information worthy of a split, and the rest of the info is ancillary material pertaining to the details of the ceremony itself. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * So what shoudl i do with the re-directs that I have already made?--Tim1357 (talk) 21:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirects are cheap, so let the existing ones be and don't create any additional ones. I need to research who the primary editors are for the Academy Award articles to see how they justify the split-off lists.  We should merge the lists into the main articles, but it may be worth hammering out consistent style guidelines for the awards.  For example, it may be best to have a "Results" section with a tidy table so there aren't so many section headings for each award category.  I'll be out of town this weekend, but when I get back, I'm going to pick a specific page and see how I can format it better and share it with everyone here. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 04:22, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
 * See Template talk:Academy Awards and Nominations to discuss the creation of this template.--Tim1357 (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

← Tim, I appreciate the start of a separate discussion, but it is not what I meant by template. I didn't mean a template like the template pages on Wikipedia. I had in mind a table with placeholder cells so we could copy the table across the Academy Award pages and fill the cells with the right information from the Oscars database. In addition, we should conduct discussion here since this is the most relevant talk page. We don't have to worry about having too specialized of a discussion on a general talk page like WT:FILM. I ask you to replace the template talk page's contents with the db-author template. These are my ideas so far: We should use the gold color for the table header, we should figure out how to best list each award category (since the table won't be sortable), and we should come up with a common section heading for each table. Here's a rough example:

I need to explore table coding further to see what an ideal setup would be like, especially one for others to fill out. What do others think? — Erik (talk • contrib) 02:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this all might be too elaborate. While I support the general usage of a table for a broad structure, simplicity otherwise is best - IMO. Listing the winner first and in bold, with each of the other nominees on an indented line is clear, clean, and simple. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 06:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you thinking of having two or three columns? What about having "Award", "Winner", and "Nominee(s)" (or "Other Nominees") columns?  I'd like to avoid bold formatting per MOS:BOLD since it's only supposed to have a few special uses.  (Nevermind that WP:FILM has gone against it traditionally... that's something I'm trying to undo.)  The "Winner" and "Nominee(s)" column could make the distinction without the formatting. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 11:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Right, i deleted the template talk page. A bit of confusion about the definition of "template" on my part. I like Erics general idea so far. It is simple enough to be easily accessible, and organized in a nice way. My question: Will the nominees be in a numbered list? a bulleted list? One concern i have with Girolamo Savonarola's idea is that it may take up too much space. We must remember that there are 24 individual awards, with multiple nominees for each one. To list all the winners and nominees in a list-like format would take up a much larger amount of space then would be accessible to the average reader . The table version is small. dense, and simple.Tim1357 (talk) 21:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

New attempt:

A couple of questions... the Oscars database mentions producers and sometimes co-producers involved with Best Pictures. Should they be mentioned? I'm somewhat inclined to say no; it's not a very important detail when discussing Best Pictures. The other concern is overlinking... is it acceptable to link to an item twice in the same table? I think it should be okay because people don't read throughout the whole table. They could go straight to a certain award and have to backtrack to find a link to the film or a person. — Erik (talk • contrib) 22:34, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that the nominees (as in, the actual people being nominated) need to be mentioned. The Best Picture Oscar goes to the producers (at a maximum of three, IIRC). So it seems rather incongruous not to list them. I'd say just follow the official nominations list - whoever the Academy lists as the nominees are the nominees. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks like the above table would work fine. I don't think that a new template is necessary, as it may get more complicated beyond what a table would be, especially for the amount of awards included. For the above table, instead of requiring bold text, it lists the winning film right away at the center of the screen so it will stand out to the readers. I can't think of any separate columns that would be necessary beyond these. As Girolamo said, it would be best to pull the actual producers/actors/films that are listed officially by the AA, and include those. By the way, concerning the number of producers that can be included, see Little Miss Sunshine (nice, I just cited Wikipedia). The gold color heading also works well. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And btw, since I completely forgot - I otherwise do like the above table, Erik! :) One minor suggestion - it might be better to not have it span the entire width, and instead dynamically define its width based on what is needed. I don't know if that's technically possible, but it could make it look less oversized, at least in the above example. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * GS, the table will always take up the entire width anyway. I decided that the table needed to be more fully implemented to see how it looks for all the awards, so I implemented it at 53rd Academy Awards (expanding on the above example).  There are no established column widths in this case, though we may want to discuss which ones may need them.  A few questions I have based on this case... is there a specific order we should follow in listing the awards?  (I listed them the way the database did, though I'm not sure how the order is established.)  Also, I copied the naming conventions used in the database here... is this acceptable?  Also, should the Special Achievement Award and the Honorary Award be in the table or outside it?  Please feel free to make comments on any other aspect of the table's implementation! — Erik  (talk • contrib) 23:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
 * The order listed looks fine. The special award should have their own table (since I don't believe there are nominees for that). Maybe a table listed with a separate color would help to differentiate it from the one above. However, if the ceremony only releases those two awards (are there others?) then maybe it's not necessary. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 23:56, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks good so far, I was wondering if there was some way to make a Table of contents at the beginning of the table to make it easier to skip to a specific award? I know i've seen setups like that elsewhere--Tim1357 (talk) 01:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of that, too! Like a compressed table just above the main results table with anchored links to the table rows... I'll have to look into it tomorrow to see if it's possible.  Anyone else keen on the idea? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 01:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd probably need to see an example. I don't think the table will be long enough to really warrant it (in comparison to say an actor's filmography). I'm guessing that the majority of the readers will be going to the list to see the best actor/actress, supporting actor/actress and best picture. Perhaps best picture should be moved to the top (unless we want to keep it buried so that readers actually look at the other awards as well). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * This is an example using the Anchor template. I think what Tim has seen is a very compressed table containing all such categories so one can jump to what they want to see.  The list is on the long-ish side to really navigate for a particular award that one wants.  I think we should do this if we can make it look good, but also reorganize the list per some kind of importance scale (as used by secondary sources).  Such scales would normally have "Best Picture" at the top. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * What about going by this for an importance scale? It seems solid for the first few items, though I'm not sure about how it handles the rest. — Erik  (talk • contrib) 19:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I added the kind of TOC I think Tim was talking about at 53rd Academy Awards. It seems to be a navigational bonus, especially if we are just going to list the awards the way the Academy does in the database (which may make for easier implementation anyway). — Erik  (talk • contrib) 20:54, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the TOC cannot render three columns in IE, so we need to scrap it. What we may want to do instead is try to list by importance as intuitively as possible.  Moviefone.com is a good start, but it seems all over the place after the first half dozen.  Should we do this or just leave the ordering to what the Oscars database gives us? — Erik  (talk • contrib) 11:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An observation
I'm currently working at the early end of the scale and for those articles a separate list of nominees and winners is pointless. We have very limited information on the ceremonies and so the articles are typically a few sentences of background and then a simple list of noms and winners.

However when you get to 2008 the story is very different - there are lengthy discussions of controversies, ratings, etc. As a result the articles are becoming very cluttered. So as much as we'd all like to see standardisation, there might be a legitimate splitting point year where a separate list of noms and winners would be justified. Many readers will just want to see a list format at some point and trawling through disputes, ratings, broadcast channels, etc is a bit overwhelming.

I don't have a year in mind for where this splitting point (if one exists) should be. I've started in 1927/28 and am working forward on cleanup right now. I'll feed back later if I have an answer (and people want to explore the idea). Manning (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Correction to Academy Awards template
Just an FYI - for some reason the Template:Academy_Awards had the first six years listed as single calendar years, when they were actually combined years. Hence I changed it to match the format at http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org, in case anyone was wondering why. Manning (talk) 04:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It was previously changed that way in 2007 during a discussion that is now archived at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Film awards task force/Archive 1. Some of the participants in that discussion wanted the templates to be consistent with the formatting of other Wikipedia award articles instead of the Academy's official database. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... Surely factual accuracy takes precedence over internal consistency...? Oh well, I have no desire to start a dispute. I simply corrected what appeared to be a glaring error. Thanks for the link. Manning (talk) 04:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That debate seems to over the "eligibility year" versus the "year of the ceremony". As the consensus was for using the "eligibility year" then my changes are accurate. Cool. Manning (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Request for go-ahead
Hello, I have developed a table to better lay out the winners and nominees of the Academy Awards at 53rd Academy Awards and 54th Academy Awards. Some selling points about the table: My only concern with the table is organizing the awards by importance. For the two linked pages, I listed the awards in the same order as given to me from the Oscars database. I don't know of a way to organize it that would not be subjective, so I'm considering just going by how the database gives it. Thoughts on adopting this table across the board? Erik (talk | contribs) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The Academy Award pages are inconsistent in listing the winners and nominees, so a template like this would establish consistency.
 * Winners and nominees tend to be lists straight down the left side, so there is too much white space on the right side of the pages.
 * Such lists also use bold formatting, which does not comply with MOS:BOLD, so the table permits identifying the winner without having to bold.
 * Academy Award pages also use too many sections and subsections to categorize the awards; the table bypasses this.
 * I like it and think a consistent format across all the pages would be ideal. The only thing I can see that I would change is probably to put the Best Picture first. If it passes, I would be very happy to work on the other pages. I seem to be fairly good with tables. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I was not sure about... if Best Picture goes first, then follows Best Director, then Best Male Actor and Best Female Actor. I tried to look online somewhere for an order to follow but couldn't find anything.  I'll say this, though... the Academy Award infobox identifies the Best Picture.  Was not sure if that could answer your concern? Erik (talk | contribs) 01:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a lot of variety in how these are given across the net. I might have done Best Picture, Best Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor and Actress, then probably the rest in alphabetical order as you've done. Did you try using a line break to put the pertinent information like the name of the film on a second line below the name of the winner (using acting as the example)? Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, a lot of variety... I just wasn't sure what would be considered highlights. Why do you think line breaks are needed?  I tried it out here but am not sure if it makes a big difference.  I like the consistency in identifying the actor then the film in parentheses on one line.  Is the concern about how the winner lines stretch across the middle column cells, especially in later awards? Erik (talk | contribs) 02:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was mostly thinking of giving it a definite distinction. Maybe just a dash instead of parentheses? I'm not sure, I thought it looked just a tiny bit run together. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In looking closer, I think it's the busy look given by the parentheses. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I could go for a dash. MOS:DASH mentions en dashes for lists: "In lists, to separate distinct information within points." Would it be better to replace all instances of parentheses with a dash between film title and all the related people's names? Erik (talk | contribs) 02:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * GMTA sort of thing. I just did a test edit to look at that: I think it gives it a cleaner look. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:24, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Pardon me for saying so, but that looks a hell lot better! I'm about to head to bed, but what do you think we should do about ordering?  Should we bump up Best Picture and Best Director and leave the rest as is, based on the Oscars database?  I'd rather avoid having people shuffle the order of the awards in the table, which ruins the consistency.  Was hoping to solidify a consensus to stick to.  Anyway, 40 winks for me, but thanks for the dash tip! Erik (talk | contribs) 02:29, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think the Best Picture and Best Director should be bumped up. I simply do not like sortable tables, FWIW. They are too easily messed up. Basically, the rest is easily fixed if consensus doesn't want Director/Film first. The dash - ack, I make too many tables. :) I'll change the other example to dashes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way, forgot to respond to your willingness to volunteer last night; you are certainly welcome to help out! I was thinking that I'd be going at it alone (kind of a long road) but help is appreciated.  Any tips on filling out the tables?  Like when I try to fix WP:DAB issues, I usually have the table copied into Microsoft Word and use "Replace All" to fix them, like replacing   with   within the linking brackets.  Feel free to use that approach, especially for multiple fixes necessary.  Thanks for implementing the dashes! Erik (talk | contribs) 12:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I went ahead last night and did the 55th Academy Awards. What I did was copy the table formatting from a completed page for each individual award as I worked down the list, then just moved the content into its proper place. As for changing/adding Dabs, I've grown accustomed to copy and paste. It seems to go faster for me, so I don't use Word for it. There are quite a few categories that don't list the other nominees, especially in the latter part of the lists, so I get those from the Oscars database, which kindly lists the nominees in the same order we would use them. I don't seem to have any magic tricks for doing them, I just like making the tables. Have we ever decided on placement for Best Film and Best Director? Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, something that really helps is the navigation popups tool in my preferences. It will bring up a popup that shows the link and I can just copy and paste from that, so I don't have to go looking at another page. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Leave it alphabetical - the infobox already shows the Best Picture winner far higher up in the page. I, for one, like the tables as they now are. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * D'oh, so it's sorted alphabetically! :P I didn't catch on to that for some reason... I'm not too picky either way about moving up Best Picture/Director or not, but what if we had a note above the table that indicated how the awards were ordered?  Perhaps say something like how "Best Picture" would be "P" in such an order, and thus be more than halfway down?  Would that be an adequate substitute to moving them up?  (Asking of both GS and Wildhartlivie.) Erik (talk | contribs) 13:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that's overkill - most people will figure that out on their own. It would be better to mention that on this task force's main page in the task force-specific style guidelines. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:21, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't figure it out. :( It did not seem clear to me since it was "Best Picture" and not "Picture, Best".  There's a similar breakdown in the order with "Best Supporting Actor/Actress" because the Oscars database says, "Best Actor/Actress in a Supporting Role".  Should we amend this (and by extension amend to "Best Actor/Actress in a Leading Role"?  Just wanted to make navigation of the table clear to everyone that comes by.

Erik (talk | contribs) 18:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm completely unopinionated on the order with Best Picture/Best Director. However, going by alphabetical order for the acting awards would put supporting categories at the bottom. I would prefer that part to be alphabetical within acting awards, i.e., Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress (which is basically what you're saying, Erik, except doing so tacitly, without changing how it links within Wikipedia). Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:48, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical does not mean the supporting categories go to the bottom. The Oscars database already list it alphabetically, so it will go from the top, "Actor in a Leading Role", "Actor in a Supporting Role", "Actress in a Leading Role", "Actress in a Supporting Role", and so forth.  I'm not clear what you mean to say, though... do you mean that you want to keep it in alphabetical order but call the first four the way they are now, "Lead Actor", Supporting Actor", etc? Erik (talk | contribs) 22:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of alphabetizing of the categories without the use of the word "Best". I was going by how the Wikipedia pages are alphabetized - Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress. Mostly because that seems to be the pecking order of those four awards. I'm open to either arrangement, though. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think this task is big enough/ hard enough to merit a bot request. Should I request one to be built? One that can generate the tables using the database, which can then be reviewed by humans before being added? Tim1357 (talk) 02:36, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about Razzie Awards templates
Please weigh in with your thoughts about having Razzie Awards templates at the bottom of film-related articles. Check in here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers. Thanks! Cirt (talk) 07:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Category:Films whose...
I came across the following categories. My problem is how they are titled. Films aren't animate objects for which "whose" would be used. "For which", perhaps. In any event, the names are cringe-worthy. Any suggestions for this? Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Category:Films whose art director won the Best Art Direction Academy Award
 * Category:Films whose cinematographer won the Best Cinematography Academy Award
 * Category:Films whose director won the Best Director César Award
 * Category:Films whose director won the Best Director Academy Award
 * Category:Films whose director won the Best Director Golden Globe
 * Category:Films whose editor won the Best Film Editing Academy Award
 * Category:Films whose writer won the Best Adapted Screenplay Academy Award
 * Category:Films whose writer won the Best Original Screenplay Academy Award

Move or don't move?
Hi, I have some ideas about (bad) quality of the Oscars series, can you share your opinion about this matter here? Thank you! Grenouille vert (talk) 12:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nomination of Accolade Competition for deletion
WikiProject Film/ Film Awards Task Force: A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Accolade Competition is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted as non-notable. As members of this project, your input may be especially valuable.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Accolade Competition until a consensus is reached, hopefully within the next seven days, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion should focus on high-quality evidence and on our policies and guidelines. KDS 4444 Talk  17:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion
Category:XBIZ Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion
Category:AVN Award winners has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Right cite (talk) 17:26, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Article alerts
This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the  parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 09:08, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:18, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced living people articles bot
Okip  02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Help
I have some problems with this template. It need an A.L.T. code on the main infobox. Thanks Tb hotch Ta lk C.  02:53, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm new and need some help with the Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards. As a total newbie, I didn't know I was doing everything wrong but all the editors have been super cool and have helped me start to sort out my biggest issue - of COIN. I have since declared my conflict (I'm a member of the organization but do not have a say in who gets the awards) on the Women in Film Los Angeles and Women in Film and Television International pages which I did create and we're working on merging the two articles. I originally wanted to edit on Wikipedia because I saw that the Crystal + Lucy award page (which I didn't create) needed more information so I inserted the listing of all the awardees and what the awards were for and then I thought I'd be helpful and cross reference and add a mention of the awards to the pages of the recipients (if they had pages). If they did not have pages, I added a link to their page on imdb.com. I thought I was adding "verifiability" by linking back to the wif.org page where the recipients were all listed not understanding that that would be seen as an original source or promotion (I have so much to learn!). I have gone back and removed the wif.org references on the actor/director/producer pages but wondered do I need any other reference if it's a fact that they received the award (ie it's verifiable)? I saw that for example on the Crash page it mentions that it won the 2006 Best Picture Oscar but has no secondary source reference for it. Any help is much appreciated!G-Long42 (talk) 17:36, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Updates to TV#MOS
I'm not sure how many people monitor WP:MOSTV or even WP:TV (the basic WikiProject for all of us), but we've been trying to get some feedback on additions to the TV Manual of Style. It largely has to do with the inclusion of "Overview" tables at the start of the page, the order in which season lists are presented (currently, there is no concrete order), and what is considered too much info for DVDs (i.e. should we be placing every detail about the box set in the article, from each interview to the aspect ratio, or should be keep it more generalized). Please see discussion at WT:MOSTV. Thank you.  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  22:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

redundant templates?
I am working on lists and templates for Golden Globe Awards, Screen Actors Guild Awards, Academy Awards and Primetime Emmy Awards. I am trying to determine if they should have, WikiProject Awards or both.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:00, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Please respond at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949
Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay1940-1949 has been nominated for merging with Template:AcademyAwardBestOriginalScreenplay 1940-1960. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting branch finalists from Oscar articles
Because some branches vote in stages and publicly release finalists they were being posted in the articles but when the nominees are announced the finalists are deleted. Like in visual Effects and makeup he official finalists were all deleted from the 2012 article! Qwerty786 (talk) 01:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Women's History Month is in March
Hi everyone at WikiProject Film awards!

Women's history month is around the corner, in March, and we're planning the second WikiWomen's History Month.

This event, which is organized by volunteers from the WikiWomen's Collaborative, supports improving coverage about women's history during the month of March. Events take place both offline and online. We are encouraging WikiProjects to focus on women's history related to their subject for the month of March. Ideas include:
 * Improving coverage about awards focused on women
 * Content about women award winners

We hope you'll participate! You can list your your project focus here, and also help improve our to-do list. Thank you for all you do for Wikipedia! SarahStierch (talk) 21:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Deletion of Online Film Critics Society
This article page has 1 reference on it, and has been tagged as relying on a single source since June 2013. The other subpages, like Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, Best Documentary, Best Foreign Language Film, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Original Screenplay, Best Original Score, Best Cinematography, Best Editing, Best Breakthrough Filmmaker, Best Breakthrough Performance, Best Animated Feature, haven't been sourced and tagged that way since 2006/2007. And it's because these awards, these vast number of "Film Critic Society's" are hard to find reliable sources on. I feel like this page and all the other pages on {Online Film Critics Society Awards} template should be deleted per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. But I'd like to get other thoughts before nominating the whole lot of them. LADY LOTUS • TALK 12:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I realize this is belated, but everything you have said here makes sense to me and I encourage you to perform the nomination(s). KDS 4444  Talk  17:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Oldest living Oscar winners and nominees by category
Do members of this project consider this user page a viable possibility as a mainspace article? Obviously it would need appropriate referencing (I have found one useful source) and expansion for all categories. It has been suggested at Mfd that it be included in List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees which may be a viable alternative. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 00:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Now in mainspace at List of oldest living Academy Award winners. Cheers, DerbyCountyinNZ  (Talk Contribs) 22:52, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Review
Anyone interested in reviewing Featured list candidates/Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor/archive1. --Charles Turing (talk) 08:51, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Merger discussion for List of accolades received by English Vinglish
An article relevant to this project&mdash;List of accolades received by English Vinglish&mdash;has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Mathglot (talk) 19:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool
Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate Articles
2004 New York Film Critics Circle Awards or New York Film Critics Awards 2004. Shouldn't these all be merged. This is just one example. There is also 2003 New York Film Critics Circle Awards and New York Film Critics Circle Awards 2003. Qwerty786 (talk) 00:12, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Filmfare Awards Tamil
Filmfare Best Actor Award (Tamil) is incomplete on wikipedia. Tha data is not available for several years. I request someone to update it. -- Thalapathi  (Ping Back)  16:34, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Need Help with Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards
I've posted this on the Women in Film Crystal + Lucy Awards talk page already...but I need help with establishing notability and then figuring out how to best cross reference the fact that the recipients received an award on their wikipedia page. I have been asked because I am a member of Women in Film not to make changes myself since I have a conflict of interest. We are the biggest entertainment awards ceremony specifically highlighting gender diversity in the entertainment industry. I am a new editor and have become very fearful of making any contribution to Wikipedia because of the response I have received from other editors.

Here is what I posted for notability on the talk page- I wonder is that notable enough?

I did not create the Crystal + Lucy page, only per the banner had added to it to improve it and cross referenced with the actor pages. Here are just a few links where Women in Film and specifically our awards are mentioned. I guess if it's notable enough, someone will take down the banner flagging it for potential deletion?

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/jun/06/image/la-ig-scene-20100606 http://www.hollywoodbest.info/2011/06/03/elizabeth-taylor-to-receive-posthumous-honor/ http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118021998?refCatId=4080 (regarding the vision award) http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/2010/06/05/women_in_film_crystals_off_with_stilettos_on_with_mentors/ http://www.octv.com/email.video.php?link_id=AA1981732197 http://www.hulu.com/watch/30253/access-hollywood-women-in-films-crystal-and-lucy-awards https://secure.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/gallery/gallery.jsp?slideShowId=497754 http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118004828

Hopefully that is enough to be considered notable. Any help or advice from editors who are experts on articles in WikiProject Film or other Entertainment WP is much appreciated.G-Long42 (talk) 09:51, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Empire Awards
The current name for this page is Empire Awards and I've noticed that the Academy Award, Golden Globe Award and others go with the single form, while others such as Goya Awards go for the plural form. Do we have an agreed upon form for how award names should be? --Gonnym (talk) 04:28, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if this task force is even active but i'll continue with a followup question. Until now (most of the time anyways), the article names for film awards were " for " - for example - Empire Award for Best Actor. But how should article names for special awards be? for example - Empire had awards such as "Actor of our Lifetime Award" "Heath Ledger Tribute Award" "Icon of the Decade Award" "Movie Masterpiece Award". Should they follow the same format? "Empire Award for Icon of the Decade", "Empire Award for Movie Masterpiece"? I'd really appreciate the input on this. --Gonnym (talk) 09:49, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Project request
Discussion was initiated at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film, but is being moved here per an editor's suggestion that this would be a more appropriate place. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

In the past couple of weeks, I've been trying to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Canadian Genie Awards. The articles have been left in an extremely poor state for a very long time — for example, some of them still fail to actually list the winners or nominees for some entire categories — and it's long past time to bring them up to contemporary Wikipedia standards of formatting, referencing and completeness. However, I received little response when I asked for assistance at WP:CANTALK, so I thought I'd ask here if anybody's willing to help out.

The biggest chunk of the work involves getting the formatting up to scratch, and copying information over from IMDb in categories where it's still missing. Since most of the possible referencing will involve digging into Canadian newspaper databases, however, most people here won't be able to help much with that. Since I have direct access to Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail archives through the Toronto Public Library, I can look after this part on my own — but I'd appreciate any help that anyone's willing to provide on the basic formatting and missing data pieces.

I've written up a basic overview of the scope of the project, which you can read at Canadian Wikipedians' notice board/Genies cleanup project. At present, the following articles are the ones in need of attention:
 * Awards by year: 5th Genie Awards, 6th Genie Awards, 7th Genie Awards, 8th Genie Awards, 9th Genie Awards, 10th Genie Awards, 11th Genie Awards, 12th Genie Awards, 13th Genie Awards, 14th Genie Awards, 15th Genie Awards, 16th Genie Awards, 17th Genie Awards, 18th Genie Awards, 20th Genie Awards, 21st Genie Awards, 22nd Genie Awards, 23rd Genie Awards, 25th Genie Awards, 26th Genie Awards, 27th Genie Awards, 28th Genie Awards, 29th Genie Awards, 30th Genie Awards.
 * Awards by category: Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, Supporting Actress, Director, Animated Short, Art Direction & Production Design, Cinematography, Costume Design, Editing, Live Action Short, Original Score, Original Song, Screenplay (Adapted & Original), Sound, Sound Editing.

I want to stress that I need help with this badly — I seem to be the only person willing to take it on at all, but I can't do it all by myself. So I'd be most grateful if a few people would be willing to assist; even if you don't know that much about Canadian film, mostly all you need to do is some cutting and pasting, so that I can concentrate on the more complicated referencing stuff. Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 01:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is a very general project page rather than a task force, and is basically for resolving disputes and addressing the MOS. You'd probably get a better response at WikiProject Film/Film awards task force and WikiProject Film/Canadian cinema task force which have a declared interest in those article, or maybe contacting recent editors at those articles and seeing if they would interested in collaborating. Betty Logan (talk) 05:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Bearcat, I'd love to help with this, time permitting. I'm currently working on the Swedish Guldbagge Awards, with article creation, etc. Looking at some of those award cermonies, they have no sources. Is there a good online resource for the nominations outside of IMDB? Does the Genie Awards homepage have the nomination info? Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:30, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They do have an awards and nominees database — it's at this link. Just for the record, I personally find it very poorly structured and hard to use, though you can certainly grab missing information from there instead of IMDb if you prefer. In terms of actively referencing our articles, however, I'm concentrating on pulling out media coverage from the Toronto Star and The Globe and Mail archive databases instead of citing stuff directly to the ACCT database itself — for example, I've already added sources to 4th Genie Awards and 19th Genie Awards in the process of upgrading those. Again though, I'm willing to look after the referencing piece myself, since I do have access to a couple of appropriate newspaper databases that you or other participants might not have — but they'd get reffed up a lot faster if I could dedicate myself specifically to that, instead of having to leapfrog all over the place like a kid with ADHD (*grin*) Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll try to help, if I can. I can't commit to anything specific right now, though. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:55, 19 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks Bearcat. Remember, there's no deadline, but I appreciate the need to get things like this fixed!  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:49, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, true, there's no deadline — but at the same time, in practice things like this don't actually get fixed until one or more people actually commit themselves to getting them fixed. Just as another example of the problem, on 4th alone I caught one redlinked film which was being disambiguated as "(movie)" in some places and "(film)" in others — and actually already had an article...at the undisambiguated title. Groan, headdesk, harrumph harrumph. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)