Jump to content

Talk:Golden Globe Awards: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 170: Line 170:
::Heard of a few of those, guy must have had 10th billing or something because I would have remembered him. I have trimmed down the paragraph about him and added an {{importance-inline}} tag, because "Gary Oldman" is simply not notable. [[Special:Contributions/2.217.214.1|2.217.214.1]] ([[User talk:2.217.214.1|talk]]) 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
::Heard of a few of those, guy must have had 10th billing or something because I would have remembered him. I have trimmed down the paragraph about him and added an {{importance-inline}} tag, because "Gary Oldman" is simply not notable. [[Special:Contributions/2.217.214.1|2.217.214.1]] ([[User talk:2.217.214.1|talk]]) 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Obvious trolling. Oswald in ''JFK'', Count Dracula in ''Dracula'', Stansfield in ''The Professional'', James Gordon in ''The Dark Knight'' etc. Not Tom Cruise, no, but big time nonetheless. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.246.242|82.132.246.242]] ([[User talk:82.132.246.242|talk]]) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
:::Obvious trolling. Oswald in ''JFK'', Count Dracula in ''Dracula'', Stansfield in ''The Professional'', James Gordon in ''The Dark Knight'' etc. Not Tom Cruise, no, but big time nonetheless. [[Special:Contributions/82.132.246.242|82.132.246.242]] ([[User talk:82.132.246.242|talk]]) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
::::OK, apparently he has had like 3rd/4th billing in a few things, but he has been consistently outshone by co-stars and as such, has failed to become part of public consciousness. I guarantee if you ask 100 people on the street who "Gary Oldman" is, none of them will have a clue. I like the article the way it is now, but still have doubts about giving any mention at all to this non-notable actor. Re-added {{importance-inline}} tag, and again noted that he is not a major actor. [[Special:Contributions/2.217.214.1|2.217.214.1]] ([[User talk:2.217.214.1|talk]]) 13:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:50, 26 January 2016


Emmys vs. Golden Globes

What's the difference between the Emmys and the Golden Globes??

  • Put simply, the Emmys only cover television while the Globes cover film and television.
  • The Emmys, like the Oscars are determined in the film industry, are decided by voting members of the television industry; usually, voting membership is granted by application (with sufficient work credentials) or prior nomination in the Emmys. Actors vote for the acting categories; directors vote for the directing categories; all voters in the television industry can vote for Best Drama and Best Comedy Series. Conversely, the Golden Globe nominees and winners are determined by a pool of only 22 journalists in the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and have no direct inside determination by members of the film industry. Author782 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well stated. Thank You. True, even today. -- AstroU (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Image to place in each award article

In the award articles (1st-63rd) there has been an effort to put images from films, then some got deleted, etc. I would suggest to follow the academy awards on this and place the Globe image (unframed) in each. Simple and gives a quality look to the page. Hoverfish 17:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture

Wasn't this an award at one time? If so, why is it not on the page under retired awards?

It was an award at one time, but this set of articles is so incomplete that a lot of the key aspects of the awards have been left out. If you want to know previous awards, and their winners, see the official site. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When did they begin?

This article says 1954, but the dates on the individual awards pages go back to the 1940s. Cop 633 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Henrietta Award exactly, and why the name?

While editing Charles Bronson I've found the information that he won a Henrietta Award, but I was able to find next to nothing about it, except that it was a "special" Golden Globe. Can somebody create a two-sentence stub? --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buying the award

A golden globe article without mention of Pia Zadora? Mention the phrase "Golden Globes" to some people and the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that Pia Zadora once won an award for the butterfly, allegedly because her husband Meshulam Ricklis "bought" the award for her.

I've always suspected that the Golden Globes were "fixed" or could be "bought." Some mention of this should be made in this article.

A hard hitting expose of the truth behind these rumors is out of the question, apparently..........

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.206.70 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated rumors have no place in Wikipedia. If you have a credible reference nothing is stopping you from editing this article and adding this. Many articles have a "Controversy" section. You can trivially create one.
Indeed you are wrong to say "A hard hitting expose of the truth behind these rumors is out of the question, apparently" when you have complete freedom to add the expose yourself.
Nick Beeson (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, if anyone wants to look into this there's a very interesting documentary called 'The Golden Globes: Hollywood's Dirty Little Secret,' which goes into detail about the legitimacy of the awards and specific dubious events from its history. If you find just an article about the documentary I'm sure you'll have a good deal of information to start with. --Breshkovsky (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rules Completed

I read the rules posted by the HFPA and summarized them completely. All important rules are mentioned. Fine grained detail was left out. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious

Are final ballots e-mailed as implied by a recent change? This seems like fine-grained detail. I suggest "sent to the membership" if there's a dispute, otherwise the original mailed seems most plausible. Mtd2006 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

image

could really do with a pictire of what a golden globe looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.140 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a possibility to download perfectly done pictures of the awards here: http://www.goldenglobes.org/awardimage/index.html The only thing is to ask them for permission, which should be no problem to get. Someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgracanin (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prominence

It occurs to me that this awards show has grown in prominence over the last 10 - 15 years or so. Is this true? If so, can something about it be added to the article? Hires an editor (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template restyling opinion needed

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Adding_seasons_to_award_winners.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Year added to template title

I have added year ranges to many award template titles. Please comment at the centralized location if there are issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Award by lobby??

From the Controversy section: "winners were determined by lobby; if winners did not attend the event then another name would be chosen"

This seems somewhat important. A further explanation of this and how the system has changed since then belongs in the History section. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that these moves are appropriate in most cases, but a strong argument that there are some exceptions. I am sure that the nominator was right to try handling this as one group discussion rather than series of individual discussions, but the discussion has revealed that not all cases are the same. Feel free to open new individual discussions on these pages without delay ... tho I suggest that the most stable outcomes would be achieved by only having 2 or 3 discussions open simultaneously. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]


– I believe that the successful move at the Academy Awards page speaks for itself here. These pages all focus on the award ceremony, not the awards themselves. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Corvoe (speak to me) 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: So far there is a consensus to rename these articles, but only amongst a relatively small number of editors. This proposal involves 21 articles on highly notable topics, so it would be preferable to have input from more editors, to ensure that any consensus is broad enough to be stable. I hope that relisting will encourage more editors to contribute.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources for subarticles

I wasn't sure where else to put this, but a lot of the sub-articles (ie, 33rd Golden Globe Awards) are exclusively referenced with IMDB. As I understand, it is not considered best practice to use IMBD as a source (as with WP, much of it is user-generated). While doing research on one Golden Globe nominee, I found a couple better sources:

Digital Hit [1] and Hawaii Book Library [2]

The latter cite is from the World Public Library Organization and sourced from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, which must make it a much more reliable source than IMDB. I'm not particularly interested in the Golden Globe articles and don't have time to improve dozens of them. But anybody who is, and does, ought to look to incorporating these sources into these articles. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We should use the award site as the source. World Heritage Encyclopedia is a mirror of Wikipedia with some crowd sourcing, so worse than IMDB. Doug Weller (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Golden Globe Award. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

New NEWS today, for future editing

Julie Hinds does a great job, videos included. 

Headline-1: 20 best, worst, most jaw-dropping Golden Globes moments

QUOTE: "Well, that was fun. The Golden Globes may not be the most venerable award show, but they proved again Sunday night that they're the most entertaining, surprising and all-around jaw-dropping. While some jokes by host Ricky Gervais hit a new low (much like some of those necklines on the evening gowns), a number of presenters were so funny that their 2016 remarks could double as their 2017 hosting audition." -- AstroU (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.[reply]

Gary Oldman's Criticisms

A user with two different IPs is not convinced that Gary Oldman is notable enough and has tampered with the section on his criticisms about the ceremony. My attempts to persuade the user that Gary Oldman is notable have been unsuccessful. What should I do to settle this dispute? Crboyer (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The user has to be a Globes proponent. Oldman has been recognised by the Oscars, Emmys, BAFTAs and SAGs, and has had lead/central roles in massive films (JFK, Dracula, The Fifth Element, Air Force One, Harry Potter series, Dark Knight series, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) as well as cult hits (Sid & Nancy, True Romance, Leon: The Professional, Tinker Tailor). Anyone who watches film knows who Gary Oldman is, and his take on the Globes is absolutely notable. Malcum J (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Heard of a few of those, guy must have had 10th billing or something because I would have remembered him. I have trimmed down the paragraph about him and added an [importance?] tag, because "Gary Oldman" is simply not notable. 2.217.214.1 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious trolling. Oswald in JFK, Count Dracula in Dracula, Stansfield in The Professional, James Gordon in The Dark Knight etc. Not Tom Cruise, no, but big time nonetheless. 82.132.246.242 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, apparently he has had like 3rd/4th billing in a few things, but he has been consistently outshone by co-stars and as such, has failed to become part of public consciousness. I guarantee if you ask 100 people on the street who "Gary Oldman" is, none of them will have a clue. I like the article the way it is now, but still have doubts about giving any mention at all to this non-notable actor. Re-added [importance?] tag, and again noted that he is not a major actor. 2.217.214.1 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ "Golden Globe Awards Coverage". www.digitalhit.com. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
  2. ^ "Golden Globe Awards". Hawaii Book Library. World Public Library Organization. Retrieved 1 April 2015.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Globe_Awards&oldid=701770366"