Talk:87th Academy Awards

Interstellar – Five nominations?

I only see one in award section (Best Original Score). --Jobu0101 (talk) 15:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I think once the editing dies down and the full list is updated, you should see five (hopefully)! Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Meryl Streep

This must set a record for Oscar nominations, yes? In fact, she probably broke her own record. Does anyone know? If it's a record, it should be noted here (along with any other significant records). Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: It's already listed at List_of_Academy_Award_records#Acting_records. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 18:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. But I am referring to this article. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:53, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Controversies

It seems to me that the sentence "For the third time in Academy history, the 20 Academy Award acting nominations were entirely comprised of white actors and actresses" needs clarification. In the linked source (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/oscars-acting-nominees-all-white-764018) it is specified "For only the second time in nearly two decades, the 20 Academy Awards acting nominations went to a group made up entirely of white actors and actresses", and it makes much more sense. Writing "in Academy history" implies that every year except 1998 and 2011 the acting nomination featured at least a black actor or actress, and it is not really the case.93.33.246.100 (talk) 16:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

This section currently contradicts itself: first it says that the Oscars previously had all-white acting nominees in 1998 and 2011, then says the last time this happened was in 1995. I suppose it's somewhat subjective depending on how you define certain people. But this certainly isn't the third time it's ever happened - the first 11 Academy Awards had no non-white nominees, until Hattie McDaniel in 1939. Robofish (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The part about Foxcatcher being the first film to be nominated for director with no picture nomination since they expanded the number of nominations shouldn't really go under controversy but somewhere else. (Which also a comment about Duvall being the oldest nominated male ever should be mentioned somewhere) Wgolf (talk) 08:02, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that a comment about Duvall being the oldest nominated male ever should be mentioned somewhere. And, as I mentioned above, Streep breaking a record of 19 nominations should go somewhere. In this article. (As well as in the "Academy Awards Records" article.) Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:08, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

How many times it's happened seems to be in dispute. 2010's nominees included Hailee Steinfeld, who is of 1/8th Filipino and 1/8th African-American ancestry. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 20:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, Javier Bardem, who is Spanish, was nominated that year. 74.66.79.48 (talk) 00:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I also take issue with this quote, "The Guardian columnist Bidisha also notes the overwhelmingly white nominee list while also discussing the fact that 'every nominated best director, screenwriter, screenplay adapter and original score composer is a white man,' additionally suggesting that there is an inherent lack of female representation in the Oscars this year beyond the Best Actress and Best Supporting Actress categories. Selma was directed by Ava DuVernay, herself an African-American female." This statement is categorically false because Alejandro González Iñárritu is not white, he is Latino.TheLastAmigo (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Changed list for accessibility

Update: I've added a before-and-proposed-after example further down the Awards arranged in two columns using tables for layout thread that solves the accessibility issue while retaining a layout table. Please visit. This notice is being posted at the Village Pump, the 87th Academy Awards talk page topic Changed list for accessibility, and pages on tables. Thisisnotatest (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Converted awards list from table for accessibility per Wikipedia guidelines on layout tables. Thisisnotatest (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing all that work. But, that seems like a pretty bold move that should probably get some consensus first. All of these Wikipedia award pages use that same standard format. So, I assume that the issue (table versus list) has arisen before. In fact, all of these award pages used to be formatted as lists. Then, they were all converted to the tables and charts. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you know approximately when that happened, whether there was any discussion about it at the time, and whether anyone from the WikiProject Accessibility weighed in on it? I'm not going to get in an edit war with you; I will add the AccessibilityDispute template so that the project is aware of the disagreement. The list of nominees appears to be using a table for layout purposes, a violation of Wikipedia table inappropriate use guidelines for page layout. That policy says that the table layout would properly be accomplished through div tags and CSS rather than through table markup. I'm documenting my edit. (I'm also going to re-apply bumping Criticism up a level, which is unrelated to this dispute. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:38, 19 January 2015 (UTC) (Signature fixed) Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the answers to all of your questions. But, I did go back and look at the 1st Academy Awards. In that article, the change-over from list to table format occurred on May 6, 2010. That is what the "View History" tab indicates. That is probably one of the more "high profile" Academy Award pages, so it was probably changed early on in the process. The 2nd Academy Awards changed over on July 8, 2010. And, over the years, the others followed suit. Probably in pretty short order. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the 1st awards are a featured list. Spanneraol (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

It's a featured article? Or a featured list? I can't imagine that that article is categorized as a "list", is it? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:26, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

These pages are considered lists because they are basically lists of the academy award nominations. Spanneraol (talk) 14:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I never knew that. It still seems somewhat odd to me. I've always thought of them as narrative articles that happen to contain a list. Thanks for the clarification. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll be calling for a revieqw of its featured status, if that table is not changed to something more accessible. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Well it looks better and more professional as a table than as a list and most other awards pages are using tables. What accessibility problems are created by the tables? Spanneraol (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Per JDDJS's recommendation, I'm moving my raising of this issue to the WikiProject Accessibility talk page. That said, in response to Spanneraol, the table doesn't make sense read left-to-right then top-to-bottom. A blind person having the table read to them by software that reads the screen to them would hear two different award names before hearing the nominations for the first of the two categories. If they were aware of the table structure, they could read down the first column then read down the second column and not get anything out of sequence, but (1) they'd have to be able to figure that was how the table was arranged and (2) they would get the awards in a strange sequence, e.g., Best Actress about 10 categories after Best Actor. I'm going to copy this over to the other talk page and will respond to further comments there. Thisisnotatest (talk) 01:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be aware there is substantial additional discussion at the moved thread. I'm apparently inadvertently guilty of Canvassing by moving this discussion to the WikiProjects:Accessibility. Rather than move this back and forth, I'll leave it there for now. That said, I would not be offended if an admin were to move the discussion back here or to some other appropriate place. If you do, please notify me on my talk page. Thisisnotatest (talk) 07:55, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I've attempted to mitigate this offense by cross-posting a reference at the Village Pump. Thisisnotatest (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Who exactly has an issue with the table? How many people does it affect? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion at the WikiProject Accessibility talk page, where I've previously responded to that same question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thisisnotatest (talk • contribs) 22:25, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Reverting removal of AccessibilityDispute template as the issue is not resolved yet. Thisisnotatest (talk) 00:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Missing articles

For the following eight movies I didn't find an article:

tt3610188 • tt3326262 • tt3838700 • tt2326094 • tt3612232 • tt2922078 • tt3008010 • tt3071532

--Jobu0101 (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

If a film title is listed with a blue link (example: Foxcatcher), then the film has a Wikipedia page. If a film title is listed with a red link (example: The Bigger Picture) or with no link at all (plain black text; example: The Bigger Picture), then the film does not have a Wikipedia page. Nonetheless, I am unclear on what you are asking. Are you letting us know that all of those films have no article? Or are you suggesting that someone create all of those articles? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm letting you know which articles are still missing so that if somebody likes to create a new article he knows on which articles he could work. By the way, if a film title is listed with no link at all, we don't know if an article exists. Even in the red link case it could be possible that an article of the linked film exists but with a different label. --Jobu0101 (talk) 00:16, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, those are good points. If you change them all to red links, they are much more likely to get noticed. The red link sticks out like a sore thumb and tells editors "please create an article about this". One problem is that oftentimes some editors don't like the appearance of red links and will turn them back to black no links (for aesthetic purposes). I will go change one or two to red links, in the hopes of encouraging their article creations. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

The eight films mentioned above have now been all changed to red-links. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:48, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, then the two of us may lean back now and watch the busy bees do their job ;) --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, there are also a lot articles missing concerning former Academy nominations: d:User:Jobu0101/Oscars --Jobu0101 (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Birdman should be listed under its submitted title

Birdman was submitted to the oscars under it longer name as seen here: [1] In addition to being referred to as Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) during the official nominations announcement.

Seeing as other films (Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Star Wars, The Invaders) are listed as their submitted name in other wiki Oscar articles, there is no reason why Birdman shouldn't be either.

There is someone however who keeps reverting the change without giving any reason but seemingly due to preference. Please stop. The info on what's nominated listed here is directly from the Academy, this includes the exact names of the films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.205.192.228 (talk) 05:24, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not think the longer title needs to be listed. It is not as though simply calling it "Birdman" is incorrect, it's just cleaner and simpler. HesioneHushabye (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Except that, in this case, since this is a page specifically about Academy Award Nominations, it is incorrect, because the film was not nominated under the title "Birdman". Throughout the nomination process (and at the award ceremony) this film will be officially referred to as Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), and it should be as well here. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 15:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. We should use whatever title the Academy reports as their "official" nominee. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)