Talk:88th Academy Awards

This page is not for what magazines or newspapers think is the shortlist of nominations for the awards. Anyone is entitled to their opinion of what the best movies, actors, and actresses etc.. of the year are. However, that does not add encyclopedic value to the page. Please cease with the disruption caused by adding these so called shortlists. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:02, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

These are the Academy's shortlists !

Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS)
Thus fact and not opinion, this is your misapprehension.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 01:17, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

That page is just a list of all film 'Eligible' for nomination. It lists 305 films eligible for best picture, certainly not a shortlist. Jdavi333 (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

These are the Academy's shortlists !

http://www.oscars.org/news/10-doc-shorts-oscars-2015-shortlist

http://www.oscars.org/news/10-contenders-remain-vfx-oscar-race

http://www.oscars.org/news/9-foreign-language-films-advance-oscarr-race-1

http://www.oscars.org/news/7-features-advance-race-makeup-and-hairstyling-oscarr-0

http://www.oscars.org/news/10-live-action-shorts-advance-2015-oscar-race

http://www.oscars.org/news/10-animated-shorts-advance-2015-oscar-race Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 05:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

But these are not nominations. Nominations will be announced in 10 days, there's no need to confuse readers with such excessive information. Even as shortlists, it does not seem to be appropriate information to put in the article. Certainly fails WP:RAWDATA. Mymis (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I hope we will keep it once all scheduled events are over. It is still interesting and I miss it at former Academy Awards articles. --Jobu0101 (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Why? Does it get removed every year, after the dates all pass? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following 4 films are mentioned here but don't have a Wikidata item:

[1] [2] [3] [4]

--Jobu0101 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jobu0101 (talk) 23:43, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

The following 68 persons are mentioned here but don't have a Wikidata item:

[5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

--Jobu0101 (talk) 22:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Only two missing items left, see [73] --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:01, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I probably will add the sound editors sometime tomorrow. Wgolf (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Are these the same persons? [74] and [75]. --Jobu0101 (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

looks like someone added David White, though he was not linked to the sound editing page yet. Looks like just one sound editor remains and a few sound mixers for those. Wgolf (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Done --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I prepared a list of missing articles (62):

Joel Coen (Q13595311), Ethan Coen (Q13595531).

--Jobu0101 (talk) 00:04, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

All of them are nominated this year. If you click them you see what for. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just added Celia Bobak. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Wgolf: I updated the list, 59 missing now. You didn't link your new article to Wikidata. That's why I listed it here. --Jobu0101 (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Okay, btw-the Coen brothers have a combined page, hence why there names are here as they don't have separate pages. Looks like Hamish Purdy who I added last night has his wikidata up though. Wgolf (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just added a couple more just now. Wgolf (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I just updated the list again. Now there are 53 articles missing. Yeah, I realized Hamish Purdy (see [76]). And I also know that the Coen brothers share an article. But I want to be complete in my list of nominees without an article on their own. --Jobu0101 (talk) 22:35, 18 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Some of the people do need there nomination count updated also on the pages. (I did start on the 2014 articles and tried to continue all through last year but never did, I also tried to get as many names as possible during the past few years added for nominees, but of course never finished) Wgolf (talk) 02:02, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I've added some more but some are not showing up as having wiki data-though some are going by other names (like they had another page so I had them have something like Bob Smith (person) for example). Wgolf (talk) 03:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

There were many new articles linked in the article. I went through them and linked them to Wikidata. Now every article mentioned in 88th Academy Awards should be linked to a Wikidata item. Only 33 articles missing. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

By the way, here is a help page that explains how to link articles to Wikidata: [77]. --Jobu0101 (talk) 19:22, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looks like just a few visual effects artists are left for the tech crews, after that is the smaller categories (or rather the ones people tend to ignore during our bathroom breaks it seems). If you want you could start looking over the 2014 Oscar pages. One thing is that some seem to forget to link them to other pages which I have been doing. Wgolf (talk) 20:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

How do you link them? Without Wikidata the old fashioned way? --Jobu0101 (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I mean linking to other articles-like I had to link some of the names to the visual effects page. Wgolf (talk) 20:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

17 articles missing. --Jobu0101 (talk) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

2 articles missing, so we are   Done because they are condemned to share an article: Coen brothers. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for all who helped making this dream come true. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What happened? Looks like we have a mega duplicate area! Wgolf (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looks like I got rid of all that, but it was odd. Wgolf (talk) 00:15, 19 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Just a little interesting thing I noticed when I looked up the list of Australians nominated (which needs to be updated), as nearly everyone from Mad Max is Australian including one of the sound editing nominees! Wgolf (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Wouldn't this be better presented in a chart, rather than prose? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:49, 20 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Looks like someone created a chart. Thank you. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:49, 22 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

This section is very POV. There has been a lot of criticism regarding lack of diversity. But there has also been a lot of criticism of that criticism. Why is the former included, but the latter not? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Ironically I am reading more about how Hollywood is going to far with it then the actual stuff posted on here. Wgolf (talk) 05:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

What do you mean? I don't understand what you are saying? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Since all films and persons nominated in 2016 have got an article by now it is time to look at missing nominated films in general. I prepared a list: d:User:Jobu0101/Oscars. --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Awesome-hopefully we can do 2014 now! I tried to start a project nearly 2 years ago of adding nearly every missing Academy article, of course it has taken forever and I lose interest in it time to time. Wgolf (talk) 04:03, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I believe that the Academy's refusal to nominate Carol for Best Picture has drawn enough dissension to warrant its being covered in this article. Even if it isn't, my edit had still added much scholarly and relevant information to the page. Also, given that the film's politics have been speculated as the reason for its absence in the category, it could arguably go in the section about the nominations' traditionalism/lack of diversity. AndrewOne (talk) 04:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dozens of movies get snubbed literally every single year. If we decide adding them into the articles (currently none of the Academy articles has that), it'd be extremely hard since any writer of any possible publication has a different opinion. Adding an example of one movie certainly fails WP:NPOV. Mymis (talk) 07:04, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

I agree. It adds nothing to the article topic. Every single year, dozens upon dozens upon dozens of films, actors, and artists do not receive a nomination and get a "snub". We neither can nor should mention every "snub". The Oscars are subjective. And everyone has a different opinion about what films/actors should and should not get a nomination. Our readers understand that this is a subjective process and that people will have different opinions about the nominations. "Snubs" do not merit mention. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Might as well as add something like "Inside Out was snubbed for being animated", "Hateful 8 was snubbed for being a western", "Episode 7 was snubbed for being a part 7", ect! Really that is what it seems like! Wgolf (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

So we have an event, happening in a certain location at a certain time. Users Crboyer and Mymis want to add one other time zone, but not more. Why is one additional timezone relevant to the article, but not others?-217.248.55.59 (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

I'm neutral on the issue, but I can answer the significance of these specific time zones: Most of the national media in the United States reports everything in Eastern Time, which tends to make it a De facto national time within the country, even though major national events like this ceremony may take place in the Pacific Time Zone or any of the other several time zones within the United States. Then you have Wikipedia's guideline that recommends also reporting the time in Coordinated Universal Time, since this is an international online encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:14, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

There can't be two times the event starts, and local time should take precedence. If we need another time zone, why would anything take precedence over UTC?

I just checked Attack on Pearl Harbor, John F. Kennedy (for his assassination) and September 11 attacks, arguably the three most important events in US history with a distinct and well-known time information. No article uses anything but local time. Assassination of John F. Kennedy uses local time and UTC.

Oh, and in case this is unclear: Wikipedia ist not an electronic program guide-217.248.55.59 (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

WP:TIMEZONE is quite clear, and this might have been just a waste of time.-217.248.55.59 (talk)

With all disputes over diversity and race in one of most controversial Oscar ceremony it is important and worth mentioning transgender nominee Antony Hegarty also known with trans-name "Anohi" in Winners and nominees section highlighting the fact that she is one of the only two transgender people to be nominated in Oscar history and now that she decided not to attend the ceremony it has become more important to mention. So i have already add this information in winner and nominees section, which i think satisfies the rule of significance. Nauriya (Rendezvous) 21:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC).Reply

It's a good idea to mention this fact. I don't think it's currently written in the best section of the article, however. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

indent the nominees for Best Actress, who did not win 207.47.252.230 (talk) 04:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

This has been done within a couple of minutes since your post. There are several registered, regular editors here who have been monitoring/updating this article as the ceremony unfolds. Unfortunately, we had to put this article under semi-protection due to vandalism by numerous unregistered users wanting to add false information. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear Sirs:

Please correct me if I am wrong. In the section "Memorium" of this article "88th Academy Awards" I see the name "Saeed Jaffrey" missing.

regards, Caesar Dutta