Talk:Academy Awards

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Academy Award)
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Academy Awards was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
September 22, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
Taskforce icon
This article is on the project's core list.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the American cinema task force.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Film awards task force.
WikiProject Awards and prizes (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards and prizes, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.
WikiProject California / Los Angeles  
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Los Angeles task force.

Objectivity and professionalism[edit]

I'm getting a little tired of the unprofessional and biased edits that have been made to the "Criticism" section of this article lately. Look, I understand that we all have our little beefs with the Academy's choices, but rants, uncited speculation and unecessary additions to this section are inappropriate and should be deleted immediately. Personally, I'm okay with the section as it is now, but I won't discourage someone from editing or adding something to change it, as long as it actually contributes something and doesn't make Wikipedia look like a fanboy forum. -- metafact (talk) 5:20, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The running times for many of the movies are wrong[edit]

Look how many of the movies of the last 30 years claim to run more than 4 hours. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:15, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Those are the lengths of the ceremonies, not the BP winners. Crboyer (talk) 01:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)


  1. "For most categories, members from each of the branches vote to determine the nominees only in their respective categories (i.e. only directors vote for directors, writers for writers, actors for actors, etc.). There are some exceptions in the case of certain categories, like Foreign Film, Documentary and Animated Feature Film, in which movies are selected by special screening committees made up of members from all branches. In the special case of Best Picture, all voting members are eligible to select the nominees for that category."
  2. "The members of the various branches nominate those in their respective fields, while all members may submit nominees for Best Picture. The winners are then determined by a second round of voting in which all members are then allowed to vote in most categories, including Best Picture."

Isn't the first sentence of the second paragraph saying exactly what the first paragraph has already stated? CapnZapp (talk) 16:23, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Suggested move[edit]

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved per consensus. bd2412 T 20:52, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Academy AwardAcademy Awards – Why does the title prefer the award itself (singular), rather than the name of the ceremony (plural)? While the article includes information about the statuette given at the ceremony, it is generally about the ceremony itself -- the 'award' is just one facet of what the article discusses. I apologize if this has already been hashed over, but I have searched through the talk history and cannot find any justification for this naming. Perhaps there is just something I'm not seeing here. I am open to hearing feedback on the matter, but I feel it should be renamed. CrunchySkies (talk) 16:51, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose per WP:SINGULAR, which states to pursue the singular form over the plural form. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:00, 17 January 2014 (UTC) Sorry, I did not look at this closely. I was thinking that the article discussed the award itself, but it seems like "Academy Awards" is akin to "scissors" in the WP:SINGULAR exception. Obviously, the individual categories' article titles are singular. I think I would support this move, but I am wondering if it was not possible to have a stand-alone article about the award, apart from the ceremony itself. Would like to hear others' thoughts first. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the article should be renamed "The Oscars" because as of last year I believe, the award ceremony was officially renamed that.--Coin945 (talk) 17:56, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to Academy Awards, as long as the articles about the individual awards still us the singular "Academy Award for". Fortdj33 (talk) 18:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move to Academy Awards. In practice, it is short for "Academy Awards ceremony." -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move. But the name is not so much short for the ceremony, or "Academy Awards Presentations" as they say, but the entire annual phenomenon, at least the public competitive season that begins with announcement of the nominees.
Upon skimming Oscar (disambiguation), I think not only "Oscar statuette" (the current section heading) is practically available to title an article that focuses on the trophy, but also "The Oscar" with hatnote link to The Oscar (film). --P64 (talk) 19:44, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: How about we create List of Academy Award categories (based on what this article has) and redirect Academy Award there? It seems like searching for "Academy Award" (the award itself) could be distinct from "Academy Awards" (the ceremony). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:52, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Strong support since the article is seemingly mostly about the ceremony and the concept, less so about the award itself. We might split the article? Red Slash 22:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Alternate use "Oscar" in some manner, as it's more common -- (talk) 03:13, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support - Not given to a single person, need to be moved. It's stated official web site Maurice07 (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment: With the recent announcement of this season's nominations, it seems that many reliable news sources are starting to use "Oscar"[1] more than "Academy Award".[2] Even the official web site uses "Oscar" more than "Academy Award". IMO, "Academy Award" has never been a precise title since there are other academies, such the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences with their own "academy awards". Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Maybe we should give further consideration to "The oscars". Say "Academy Award" to someone on the street and chances are they won't know what you are talking about. Everyone knows what the "oscars" are though, and if that is now the official name it seems a no brainer to me. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support – as per Red Slash. -- Shudde talk 10:12, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Support move. There seems to be a need for a separate article on the figurine, the Oscar, and its history. I would guess that the history of this article is ambiguous on what it is about, and that needs to be resolved/clarified through a split.Haberstr (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Singular and plural Award(s)[edit]

On the Awards project talk page I have raised the general matter of naming articles about periodic sets of awards that share a name, as the Academy Awards do. But the articles do not feature annual events or seasons associated with the awards per se; some are mere lists of winners with short prefaces. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Awards and prizes‎#Singular and plural Award(s)

--P64 (talk) 18:41, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


The rename discussion includes some remarks that pertain to splitting the article. One possibility is to cover the trophy or statuette in a separate article (Oscar?) that would be {{main}} article for a shorter section 2.

Interjection. Another possibility is to cover the award(s) in one article and the seasonal event(s) in another.

Award (Academy Award?)

  • sections 2-3 and 7-8; much of 9-10; most of 12
  • origin including predecessors, false starts, early competitors
  • past and present (and proposed?) Award categories including links to all the lists of winners or nominees
  • consequences for the candidates (reputation, compen$ation, longevity) including winners and any who are known as losers
  • criticism of the all that stuff, including general criticism of who gets nominated and who wins
Interjection. Some of this material on the Award(s) per se is unclear in scope. For example, does section 3 Nominations pertain to all of the awards or all those covered in section 9 Merit categories or all those that confer the Oscar statuette. --P64 (talk) 20:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Event(s) (The Oscars?) -- presumably main article for Category:Academy Awards ceremonies

If not split then some reorganization is appropriate, probably including combination of secs 4-6 and 11 as one Ceremony or Presentation(s) section with subsections.

--P64 (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

  • I think we should wait until the suggested move is closed before discussing splitting the article. I do not support renaming the ceremony article "The Oscars," so I disagree with this at the moment. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:23, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Format of dates[edit]

In this article, there are many dates that are formatted incorrectly (e.g., using 1 February 2014 instead of February 1, 2014). Clearly, the Academy Awards is based in the USA; the USA date formats should be used in the article. I went through and changed a few, and then I noticed that there were many, many more that need changing. Is there some reason they are listed in the alternate format? Am I missing something here? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think you're missing anything. It seems straightforward that the U.S. style of date formatting should apply here. My guess is that editors sometimes instinctively use date format they are used to without realize it's inconsistent with the format for that article. I've done it myself without realizing it. I've seen editors do it before with both date formatting and national varieties of English. --JamesAM (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

The top of the article has the template {{use dmy dates}} instructing bots and people to use "1 January 2016" instead of "January 1, 2016". Is there a reason? -- GreenC 12:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

It would be easy to switch to mdy dates. Any objections? Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Selection procedure[edit]

The selection procedure is covered primarily in section 3 Nominations, which should be renamed. It needs update at least because subsec 3.1 Voting ends thus: "In May 2011, the Academy sent a letter advising its 6,000 or so voting members that an online system for Oscar voting will be implemented in 2013.[29]" Perhaps also because subsec 3.2 Rules includes this: "In late December ballots and copies of the Reminder List of Eligible Releases are mailed to around 6000 active members." Section 3 also needs attention to #Format of dates. --P64 (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2014 (UTC)


An interesting age analysis of oscar winners and nominees at [3]. Could be useful for the article so I will the link here in case anyone wants to incorporate some of the data into the article. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Model for statuette?[edit]

This article claims Emilio Fernández was the model for the Oscar statue, but the article on Emilio Fernández says there is no historical evidence for that. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:17, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

The official AMPAS page on the Oscar here specifically mentions that no model was used for designing the statuette, and no citation is already provided for Emilio Fernández having been a model. Therefore I'm considering making this change with the mentioned reference. I'm also removing this reference as it's not related to and doesn't provide information regarding the content.

Sir Ali (talk) 14:17, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Producers of Academy Award winners[edit]

I'm clearing out the 'Academy Award winners' category, moving people to relevant subcategories, or removing them altogether if their names are not included on the official Academy Awards database. I have a query about the status of film producers, who do not appear to be served by any of the relevant subcategories. Should they be created? How would they be named? Gareth E Kegg (talk) 11:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 February 2015[edit]

The correct number of awards given out is 2,853. The former number is before this years Oscars. Gabraden99 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} (etc) 00:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2015[edit]

The page List of films with all four Academy Award acting nominations should be added to the lists section on the Academy Awards page. (talk) 15:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Stickee (talk) 10:04, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Membership count[edit]

The AMPAS About page mentions 7000+ as the number of its members as of 2015-03-16. Should Academy_of_Motion_Picture_Arts_and_Sciences and Academy_Awards articles be updated to reflect this update? Mr. Ali (talk) 14:57, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 4 April 2015[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result was not moved, early close per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure) Snuggums (talk / edits) 01:16, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

– Per WP:COMMONNAME. The event is most commonly described as the Oscars, not the Academy Awards, both officially and unofficially. See here for article hits and coverage from the BBC, the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Telegraph. Other reliable sources act likewise. The event was officially renamed as The Oscars in 2013 (source, source). The trophy has been described by the Academy as an Oscar since 1939 (source). (talk) 13:10, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

  • Support as proposer. Using the common (and now official) name is helpful for readers and reflects reliable sources. (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Decline - The show is known as the Academy Awards. That is the formal name, while the Oscars is the informal name. Your claim the show was "re-named" doesn't hold strong if it is still referred to as the Academy Awards every year. HesioneHushabye (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
It was officially (and formally) renamed: The rest of the world may have been calling the Academy Awards 'The Oscars' for years, but now organisers have made the nickname official. source As well as now formally being called the Oscars, it has, for many years, been referred to as the Oscars much more commonly than the Academy Awards. Have a look at WP:COMMONNAME. (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose – No need for such a massive change, per WP:TITLECHANGES. I do not think that the proposed titled is in the encyclopaedic register, something that is required by WP:AT. RGloucester 14:12, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose Something like "2001 oscars" is ambiguous; does that mean the oscars for 2001 (awarded in 2002) or the oscars that are held in 2001 (for 2000). These page moves would mess up the disambiguation that has been established to resolve such ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose - the source cited by the proposer above notes that this was a marketing exercise for this year's advertising campaign, which is not the same as a formal name change. and that it may not continue next year. Not a good enough reason for such a huge change. Melcous (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per those who have already commented. Even if AMPAS made such a name change it wouldn't be retroactive. All previous presentations would still be under the "Academy Awards" banner. MarnetteD|Talk 14:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The designation "Oscars" is still informal. The actual rules for the most recent, 87th Awards don't mention anything about Oscars, only about Academy Awards. See 87TH ANNUAL ACADEMY AWARDS OF MERIT FOR ACHIEVEMENTS DURING 2014. I'd be surprised if the rules for the 88th look much different. Easchiff (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Britannica presents content such as: Academy Award (motion-picture award) and 2014 Academy Awards (awards ceremony 2015). GregKaye 18:21, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above users--Odythal (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Blindly replacing "Academy Award(s)" with "Oscar(s)" on all these articles results in more ambiguous page titles. "Academy Award" is more precise for these detailed articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: "The Oscars" was used only for marketing and television purposes as instignated by Neil Meron and Craig Zadan (who produced the 2013-15 telecasts). AMPAS still uses "Academy Awards" here and even here. The organization uses the phrases interchangeably. For the sake of encyclopedic purposes and to avoid further disambiguation pages, the name "Academy Awards" is deemed more appropriate. "Oscars" and "The Oscars" sound too generic and is inconsistent with other film award names on this site such as Golden Globe Awards, César Award, British Academy Film Awards, Genie Awards (now Canadian Screen Awards , etc.). Also, the ceremony numbering would be confusing since AMPAS counts by year of film release (which is more imperative since 1930 had two ceremonies). Oscar Awards would also sound weird.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Created the 88th Academy Awards as a redirect for now[edit]

88th Academy Awards-which someone can create into a page when the time comes. Wgolf (talk) 21:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I don't see why we can't have pages to land on for the next two dozens of academy awards going forward. Torquemama007 (talk) 12:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


You have Life of Emile Zola as the first biopic; but The Great Ziegfeld is a biopic and won the year prior. On the Milestone page for Best Pics. (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Academy Awards. 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:

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:25, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


I created the change on the main page under the history section. I discussed the addition of the Animated feature category because it is important in the history of the awards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nick5792 (talkcontribs) 01:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Claimed drama bias[edit]

I removed this sentence:

From 1927 to 2001 around 49% of Best Picture nominated films had been categorized as a drama and out of the 432 films to be analyzed within that time 47% of the winning films were in fact dramas.[1]

Since it is obviously original research and nonsense: Almost half of all produced movies are dramas, so it is ridicolous to speak of a bias if also almost half of the nominated movies are dramas. -- (talk) 00:38, 24 January 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ "Academy Awards - The Oscars". Retrieved 23 August 2015. 

::It comes from a WP:RS. You need to read WP:OR to understand the difference between an editor making up figures and an outside WP:SECONDARY source quoting them. MarnetteD|Talk 01:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

For example your claim that half of all movies are dramas is WP:OR. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
It does not actually come from a reliable source - there is nothing on the webpage cited giving those numbers or percentages, and no mention of which movies are classified as dramas and which are not. That is original research - which includes "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources". Melcous (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The figures are original research. But even if they weren't: Using these figures to accuse the Academy Awards of a bias at Wikipeda would be original research anyway. -- (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing things up and removing the item [[User:|Melcous]] and thanks to the IP for removing the item the first time as well. MarnetteD|Talk 17:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

2016 controversy[edit]

Is someone writing something about the 2016 Oscar controversy re racial bias ? Juicebaby (talk) 08:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

YesY Archived sources have been checked to be working

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Added Archives[edit]

Here is a list of archives/accessdates that I added to this article.

Reference edited Actions taken
The Oscars – Feb 24th 2013 +archive_url, date (archived on 23 December 2014)
Oscar Statuette +archive_url, date (archived on 26 October 2015)
History of the Academy Awards +access_date (first seen 27 September 2009)
[ Meet the Mexican Model Behind the Oscar Statue


+archive_url, date (archived on 5 March 2016)
Oscar Statuette +archive_url, date (archived on 15 January 2016)
Oscar 3453 is 'born' in Chicago factory +access_date (first seen 23 August 2015);+archive_url, date (archived on 10 March 2014)
Oscar Statuette Gets a Face-Lift – This year's statuettes will be produced by Polich Tallix Fine Art Foundry and will be hand-cast in bronze before receiving their 24-karat gold finish. +archive_url, date (archived on 18 February 2016)
OSCAR STATUETTES, longtime creation of Chicago-based company, will now be made in New York +archive_url, date (archived on 8 March 2016)
Cinema: Oscars +access_date (first seen 16 May 2008)
[ Oscar statues to include engraved names


+access_date (first seen 1 March 2015);+archive_url, date (archived on 12 April 2015)
[ Governors Ball Secrets: Welcome to the 'Engraving Station,' Where Oscar Statuettes Get Personalized


+access_date (first seen 1 March 2015);+archive_url, date (archived on 27 February 2015)
Electronic Voting Comes to The Oscars (Finally) +access_date (first seen 25 February 2012)
Oscars Submission FAQ +archive_url, date (archived on 1 April 2015)
[ The Academy and its Oscar Awards – Reminder List of Eligible Releases


+access_date (first seen 12 March 2010)
Oscars: The wacky way the Academy counts votes, and the results of our 'If You Were an Oscar Voter' poll +archive_url, date (archived on 6 May 2016)
The Oscars' messed-up voting process, explained +archive_url, date (archived on 11 March 2016)
Oscar's 'In Memoriam' segment is touching to watch, painful to make +archive_url, date (archived on 6 March 2010)
Cut … all change at Oscars as winners are given just 45 seconds to say thanks +access_date (first seen 17 February 2010)
Can the 'thank-you scroll' save Oscar speeches? +archive_url, date (archived on 28 February 2016)
ABC's Oscar Contract Renegotiations: Who'll Get Creative Control? +archive_url, date (archived on 2 March 2016)
Inside the Oscars Deal: What it Means for ABC and the Academy +archive_url, date (archived on 1 September 2016)
Academy's red carpet big stage for advertisers +access_date (first seen 5 March 2008)
Oscars lack blockbuster to lure TV viewers +archive_url, date (archived on 15 September 2006)
Low Ratings Crash Party +archive_url, date (archived on 11 June 2010)
Oscar ratings worst ever +access_date (first seen 28 February 2008)
It's Time to Create an Oscar For Stunt Coordinators +access_date (first seen 13 January 2013)
Jack Gill Interview +access_date (first seen 13 January 2013)
Academy Votes Against Creating Oscar Category for Stunt Coordinators +access_date (first seen 12 February 2012)
Can a Boycott Change the Oscars? +archive_url, date (archived on 4 February 2016)
Academy Promises 'Historic' Changes to Diversify Membership +archive_url, date (archived on 3 February 2016)
George C Scott: The man who refused an Oscar +access_date (first seen 27 March 2009)
Show Business: Meat Parade +access_date (first seen 27 March 2009)
Kantar Media Reports On The Advertising Vitality Of The Academy Awards – Historical Advertising Data Showcases Ad Pricing Trends and Top Marketers; Super Bowl Overlap Increases as Sales Rise +archive_url, date (archived on 20 April 2013)
Sunday Final Ratings: Oscars Adjusted Up +archive_url, date (archived on 22 October 2015)
The Oscars Beat The Super Bowl In Advertising Premium +archive_url, date (archived on 14 October 2015)

--Tim1357 talk|poke 04:42, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

@Tim1357: thanks for adding archive links to citations, but I believe you are supposed to add |dead-url=no if the url isn't dead. See the respective cite template documentation for details. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 05:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Cool, TIL. --Tim1357 talk|poke 05:58, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Tim1357: Do you plan to fix the cites? Readers shouldn't have to link to archives if the original links work fine. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 18:00, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman: I spotted this in the Anarchism article, but I see you've been busy.
I don't know what tool you are using, but the actions you are taking are quite different what the edit summary says should be done: add "deadurl=no" to Tim's additions.
Instead, I see accessdates being stripped, along with archiveurls, from far more refs than Tim had added archives to. Is this easy for you to correct?  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 04:17, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Fine, but if you want to set deadurl=no where necessary, have at it. I won't touch it again. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Jmcgnh: I see you have already made the corrections to Anarchism. Thanks. All I was doing was reverting apparent tool-based edits that didn't do a complete job. It's not any editor's job to do cleanup editing after tools that leave issues. Reverting is normal in such cases -- even if they revert seemingly valuable edits. Stevie is the man! TalkWork 12:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
@Stevietheman:: but at Anarchism, your supposed reverts were not just targeting what Tim had done. It was not simply a revert of any edit that I could see, which is why it seemed to me that you might be using some automation. I don't have a problem with stripping accessdate from cite templates that don't support one - which is what some of your edits did (and I should check that I didn't mess that up) - but the other accessdates that were stripped were there before anyone, bot or not, added archivurls. And the InternetArchiveBot does have to be cleaned up after. It does a valuable service, but when it has problems, some URLs can be rescued by other means.  —jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 16:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)