Talk:82nd Academy Awards

Honorary Awards

An editor recently deleted Lauren Bacall's and Roger Corman's names from the list of people who will be given an Honorary Award during the 82nd Academy Awards, citing that only Gordon Willis will receive his Honorary Award during the telecast. I am wondering what other editors think about this, because, personally, I think that this article is not simply about the ceremony but the total awards given for this year. Cheers, Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest adding them back, but add a note as to why they are also on the list even though it wasn't presented to them at the ceremony. You never know, they might mention them at the ceremony. Tristan 753 (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with listing them. Propaniac (talk) 15:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If they receive an award, they should be listed. The Technical Oscars are not aired, but those people won Oscars and should be listed. This is not a TV show article. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well put.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As I just saw on tv all three received the award.Good call.74.234.21.245 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:21, 8 March 2010 (UTC).

Nominees

As the nominees are announced in the next hour or so, I've put some of the formatting in place ready for the info to be inserted on announcement. User:Dave Dubya 12:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Nice work so far.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lots of errors. Should have left it to the pros. --Kaizer13 (talk) 13:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you name an error? Or else, I suggest, that you keep within Wikipedia policy and be civil. Thanks.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good job to all who contributed. User:Dave Dubya 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You too! --Lhw1 (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The following films received multiple awards.

Premature to have this header, isn't it? Torquemama007 (talk) 14:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. I think it should be removed until awards night.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the pages for the 80th and 81st ceremonies used a "multiple nominations" section right after the nominees were announced.--Snowman Guy (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Overlinking

It makes sense to me to link each nominee/film in every instance they appear on the list of nominees, rather than simply the first time the name or title appears. In this type of article, it seems reasonably likely that someone would navigate straight to a particular award, and want to explore each of the nominees; there's no reason they should have to go scanning back up the list of nominees looking for the instance where that nominee is actually linked. WP:OVERLINK has been cited, but that guideline doesn't seem to address this kind of article, and does note that there can be many exceptions to the general rule of only linking a topic the first time it's mentioned. Propaniac (talk) 16:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But do really need 10 links to Avatar on the same article, all within an extremely close proximity? I don't think it is necessary. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 16:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've run some numbers on this thorn-bender and have come out with the result that the cost of having all these links adds up to $0.00. Torquemama007 (talk) 17:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The sarcasm is not much appreciated. Please read WP:OVERLINK and understand the reasoning behind it. We don't need multiple links extremely close to one another to the exact same page. It is to "avoid cluttering the page with obvious, redundant and useless links." Obviously the links would not be useless, but obvious and redundant, yes. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the OVERLINK guideline is generally written in reference to paragraphs of text intended to be read from beginning to end, where excessive links can be jarring to the reader (and less useful, since you're less likely to use a link if you just confronted the same link two sentences earlier). The opposite effect seems to be true when you're looking at a large table of text. Do you really think that the nominee table in 80th Academy Awards, where virtually all the text is blue, appears "cluttered" or more difficult to read/skim than the current table in this article, which constantly switches back and forth (apparently arbitrarily until you take a closer look) between blue, black and red (the latter of which will presumably mostly become blue as new articles for nominees are created)? The guideline is saying that it's a bad idea to create text that constantly changes from black to blue because of excessive linkage, but with this table, that's the effect we create if we DON'T link everything. Propaniac (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That certainly makes sense. I still think it is excessive linking, but would be willing to accept my difference in opinion. BOVINEBOY2008 :) 17:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So, what if a user is looking for a particular award and it's at the bottom of the page, but the film is linked near the top, they have to scroll all the way up? I think the guidelines need to be more clear when and where OVERLINK is not appropriate and where it's allowed. —Mike Allen 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sad that my sarcasm goes unappreciated. On a happier note, I agree with most of the commenters here which is that in this situation linking multiple appearances makes for an easier to use page. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think that the chart is an exception to the overlinking rule and would like to see more links. For my reason, I share this example, someone who is looking for the cinematographer nominees, will find that four of the five films listed are unlinked and thus may assume that there is no article for them.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with linking as much as possible in tables. We approach tables differently than we do prose. In prose, we read from start to finish (most of the time). In a table, it is more likely that we will look for a specific item, and we should not need to backtrack to find out where the link is, if we're even assuming that there is one available. Erik (talk) 13:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

External links

I think the external links should be built up and grouped in this style:

Official websites

News resources

Analysis

Other resources

--Snowman Guy (talk) 14:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. And, it matches the external links for the 81st Awards article. I say yes.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 14:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After "Official websites", the External links seems excessive IMHO. Qualifying which News, Analysis and Other resources are worthy of inclusion, and which of the thousands of others are not, seems like far too subjective a decision for this article unless someone can come up with a good third party citation like "so and so is the best source of analysis". That seems rather unlikely. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Character names in table

I believe that the names of the characters which the actor nominees played is not needed here. I think it should just belong on the articles for the awards.--Snowman Guy (talk) 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to semi-protect or what?

With the ceremony in just a matter of days, edits of speculation will skyrocket. After the show, vandalism will be on the rise. Just wondering, is this page going to be semi-protected in the way Super Bowl pages are? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{what are you} _{looking at?} 22:54, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur, a semi-protect template should be added to the article at least by tomorrow.--Snowman Guy (talk) 23:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It would have been a good idea... but obviously they didn't listen and look at all the vandalism... Geosultan4 (talk) 05:00, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Strongly agree. Protect this now and remember for next year. --Metallurgist (talk) 05:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Unbelievable and uncited statement

In discussing the Cablevision issue, where thousands of people may be unable to watch the Oscars, the following assertion is made: "it is projected to cause a devastating blow to advertisers and viewership for the Oscars". I find the idea that one station not carrying the Oscars being "devastating" a bit hard to swallow. If it's true, where's a citation saying so? I didn't want to cut it since I don't know the situation well enough to be sure, but if we have verifiable reasons to believe that statement, let's cite them. Jwrosenzweig (talk) 08:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

It's more than a single station not carrying it; it's an entire television provider losing the ONLY channel which is broadcasting the Oscars (and in New York to boot). I think several million people being unable to watch is pretty devastating.TheSix (talk) 01:56, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Since the decision to cut WABC from the cable provider was postponed, it has become a non-issue. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

After spending a while reading up on the WABC/Cablevision incident, plus checking up on other considerations like the poor reception of WABC's broadcast signal since going digital, I would amend my above opinion. Although it still had no real significance for the awards ceremony, the awards had an influence on the incident. Does that make sense? Anyway, a brief mention here would make sense, with linkage to articles dealing with the ongoing situation between broadcast stations, cable providers and their customers. Kid Bugs (talk) 02:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Former spouses: notable?

I'm not sure how often it has happened that former spouses competed for Academy awards.

Is it notable that Kathryn Bigelow was married to James Cameron, and that they were both up for Best Director and as producers for Best Picture?

I hate to admit that I never even thought of this until the show was almost over. Kid Bugs (talk) 06:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

False information

"For the second consecutive year a film won Best Picture while having no nominees at any acting categories" is not true due to the fact that Jeremy Renner received a "Best Actor" nomination for his performance in The Hurt Locker. Please edit this. If the writer was trying to say something different, this sentence needs to be clarified and fixed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.130.129.128 (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Fixed. Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 06:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

And the winner is...

Was there any reason why some of the presenters said "And the winner is..." instead of the traditional "And the Oscar goes to..."? --Scn82 (talk) 06:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It was because they ran out of Oscars and started giving out foil-wrapped chocolate bunnies with the ears cut off.

Sorry, just had to say that. Kid Bugs (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Assorted Bits and Bobs

Like that stuff in the 81st Academy Awards article, memorable moments and whatnot. Will that be put in this article? Or is it too trivial? 2J Bäkkvire Maestro ^{what are you} _{looking at?} 12:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be added. Most of the Oscar ceremony articles have sections of this nature.--Snowman Guy (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Special Mention - Sandra Bullock

Can something be mentioned in the 'notables' section of the feat in that Sandra Bullock also won the Golden Raspberry award for worst female actor in the same year as winning best female actor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bevstarrunner (talk • contribs) 12:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it is irrelevant to the ceremony and it wasn't for the same movie. Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 16:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Star trek

I've added Award that Star Trek (film) won for best makeup, some kid removed it, which really pissed me off, this page is a record for times to come so ppl can come and see who won what, all awards must be listed, not only thouse we like most ;) Mic of orion (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• Star trek was nominated for Best Picture? Answer NO. See all movies on the list, all contain something Notable, so please do not refuse it. Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 16:45, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Wiki serves as a record of events, all awards no matter how insignificant should be included and so it can be used as a source material for research and reference.

Information must not be censored; original idea behind Wiki is for others to have free access to information. Mic of orion (talk) 16:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• You are right, BUT, NOTABLE AWARDS AND NOMINEES, is the wrong section, this section is for memorable records like Katy Bigelow became the first women in win Best Director and Best Picture or Up became the second movie nominee for Best Picture. Star Trek didn't do a memorable record. Tbhotch^{Talk2 Me} 17:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've changed it in to "Nominations and awards" so all awards can be listed. Whole idea is for ppl to be able to reseach with ease and refernce material for the future. and lets leave it at that, thank you Mic of orion (talk) 17:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

It may be considered notable that this was the first time that a film in the Star Trek franchise has won an academy award, after over thirty years and eleven films. I'm sure that there are other film francises that have gone longer without oscar's recognition, but it would take a bit of research to dig them up. Kid Bugs (talk) 20:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

In Memoriam

Monte Hale was shown in the In Memoriam segment right after Patrick Swayze, though he is not in this list. Monte Hale should be added after Patrick Swayze and before Jean Simmons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.130.162.245 (talk) 23:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Maurice Jarre was the second after Patrick Swayze and Monte Hale was the third.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.137.103.57 (talk) 20:28, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Changes in tradition

Should we add a little section about this? I have notice that there are things that did not follow conventions like having 10 Best Picture, also, one important to note that the presenters did not announced the winner traditionally "and the Oscar goes to..." but instead they just went by "and the winner is...". Also the 5 nominated songs weren't performed. etc etc.88800 (talk) 02:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, "and the winner is ..." is actually a return to tradition. The Academy started encouraging the somewhat more strained "and the Oscar goes to ..." in the 1980s as a way to avoid the appearance of humiliating the unsuccessful nominees. But it would be interesting to know why so many presenters dropped that one this year. Daniel Case (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Presenters

Presenters of Best Actress and Best Actor nominees should be mentioned in the article. Can someone do that? --88.236.28.85 (talk) 16:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I taped the awards and will look up the presenters to add.--Snowman Guy (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The Cove acceptance speech

Should there be a entry on what happened with the sign during the producer's acceptance speech for The Cove? As soon as he held up the sign ABC cut away and (I think) turned off the mic and played the producers off, though I can't find anything that really labels it as a controversy. --PlasmaTwa2 00:16, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

In Memoriam

Maurice Jarre WAS included in this segment. He was the second person right after Swayze, it was just hard to read his name but the "Lawrence of Arabia" clip should have been a give away.

Missing Photo of Mo'Nique

I notice that there are photos of the winners of Best Director, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Actress, why is there no photo of the winner for Best Supporting Actress? If someone out there has a usable photo of her, she should be included in those photos. --Brendan OhUiginn (talk) 14:59, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Really, are these photos even needed? They don't really add any significance to the article or subject and they are nearing the limit for fair-use images.--Snowman Guy (talk) 15:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

AMC

Can this link be used as reliable source? Because it have been marked with {{Verify credibility}}. Additional Note: It's a blog page. Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 06:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable events

There are other notable events sections in other Oscar ceremonies articles. There should be one here too.

Nop, see Wikipedia:Featured list criteria Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 20:36, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 82nd Academy Awards. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100408194500/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/presenters.html to http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/82/presenters.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100310045004/http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/2010/03/07/music_by_prudence_burkett to http://www.salon.com/entertainment/movies/2010/03/07/music_by_prudence_burkett
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100925184255/http://www.playbill.com/news/article/142270-The-2009-Tony-Awards-Broadcast-Wins-Emmy-Neil-Patrick-Harris-Is-a-Glee-ful-Winner to http://www.playbill.com/news/article/142270-The-2009-Tony-Awards-Broadcast-Wins-Emmy-Neil-Patrick-Harris-Is-a-Glee-ful-Winner

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

lkcm,c, cdsmcmsd cdsmcds cdsm,c cdsmcdsm,cdscmsdk cpm,cdsm cdsmmcdsmcsd nckmdsmcdsm 150mgnmnmcas macs cansmcsa l,cs,acmsa,macs 2mmcsammc as casmm, 4emmcamca mcas ckasmca camsam, cas,,cs amccm plcsak,casm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.17.229 (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)