Talk:Academy Award for Best Actor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Featured list Academy Award for Best Actor is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on February 23, 2015.
September 28, 2014 Featured list candidate Promoted

Non-fictional roles[edit]

Winners are in Bold

































List of films with more than one nomination[edit]

Year Film Nominees
1935 Mutiny on the Bounty
Best Picture
Clark Gable
Charles Laughton
Franchot Tone
1944 Going My Way
Best Picture
Bing Crosby
Barry Fitzgerald
1953 From Here to Eternity
Best Picture
Montgomery Clift
Burt Lancaster
1956 Giant James Dean
Rock Hudson
1958 The Defiant Ones Tony Curtis
Sidney Poitier
1961 Judgment at Nuremberg Maximilian Schell
Spencer Tracy
1964 Becket Richard Burton
Peter O'Toole
1969 Midnight Cowboy
Best Picture
Dustin Hoffman
Jon Voight
1972 Sleuth Michael Caine
Laurence Olivier
1976 Network Peter Finch
William Holden
1983 The Dresser Tom Courtenay
Albert Finney
1984 Amadeus
Best Picture
F. Murray Abraham
Tom Hulce

On the list only Franchot Tone, Barry Fitzgerald, Montgomery Clift, James Dean, Rock Hudson, Tony Curtis, Richard Burton, Peter O'Toole, Michael Caine, Tom Courtenay, Albert Finney and Tom Hulce never won the Best Actor. Caine and Fitzgerald have won Best Supporting Actor and O'Toole won the Honorary Award in 2003.

Best Actor winners on the list are Clark Gable (1934), Charles Laughton (1933), Bing Crosby (1944), Burt Lancaster (1960), Sidney Poitier (1963), Maximilian Schell (1961), Spencer Tracy (1937 and 1938), Dustin Hoffman (1979 and 1988), Jon Voight (1978), Laurence Olivier (1948), Peter Finch (1976), William Holden (1953), F. Murray Abraham (1984)

Splitting table by decade[edit]

Left a note at User talk:Michael 182 about his changes to the 4 related AA acting articles. Do any other editors/readers care about keeping the list as one continuous sortable table, or do you prefer a split by decade, and if so, why? Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

No comments in a week, so nobody seems to care. Leaving it split is ok with this editor. Isn't anyone else watching this 'featured' list? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
After seeing the layout of the Golden Globe Award categories, where they divide the list by decades, I think it would be useful to do something similar on this page, like what User talk:Michael 182 did. (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

I would like to repeat my argument that this kind of lists should be divided by decades, like the case of the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor - Motion Picture Drama. I also recommend eliminating the sortability from the table itself seeing as the Academy Award for Best Picture lacks one and there hasn't been any formal complaints about that. Michael 182 (talk) 18:38, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Seeing as nobody seems to have a problem with these proposed changes, I will carry on with them as well as apply them to the other acting and directing awards. Michael 182 (talk) 12:34, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
A survey on this issue in the film project area was unanimously in favor of keeping these articles as single sortable tables, and was previously discussed there in February and in November. The only one in favor of the split seems to be you, and various IP addresses traced to you. I only wrote that it was "OK" with me to leave them split if no one else objected. For the record, I am not in favor of splitting the tables. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 18:56, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
That particular survey was in regards to the international film festival awards, such as the Golden Lion and the Golden Bear, and how they should be kept into one sortable table. I complied with that survey seeing as these types of awards only present the winning film or performance while these kind of awards present both the winning performance or film as well as the other nominees. Therefore, the sortability of the table doesn't seem to be necessary for these articles. As for the division by decades, I would like to point out, yet again, that this format is being applied in similar articles like the Primetime Emmy Award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series and the Golden Globe Award for Best Actor - Motion Picture Drama, both of which present the winner and the nominees, are divided by decades and are established that way according to the desire of the users. My suggestion is that we restore the changes i've made to the page and wait for other users to see and comment on them. Michael 182 (talk) 12:23, 31 March 2018 (UTC)
The survey was for all film articles with sortable tables - the Academy Awards articles are not an exception. Sortability by name (actor or director) is certainly useful in all these articles, and could also be useful in the articles that never had the option, or had it removed. Splitting tables defeats that very useful purpose, only to gain a quick link (via the ToC) to specific decades, which seems to be the only logical reason to split any of these tables - to reduce scrolling. Otherwise, one could just add decade headers into the table to assist readers looking for certain decades, like in the first 2 articles you mentioned just above. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I'll be adding decades within the one sortable table, as it has been done in the Volpi Cup for Best Actor and the Cannes Film Festival Award for Best Actor. Note that there has been consensus in favor of this types of changes. Michael 182 (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
OK, maybe use a slightly darker shade for the decade headers to make them a bit more easily noticed - CACCD0 for instance. Are you waiting cautiously for others to see/comment before doing the same in the other acting lists? That's usually a good idea. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Sortability might be an issue if there were some statistics (e.g., actor's age, nationality, vote percentage) on the data line, but I don't see why anyone would want to sort by the "role" or the film title. This would only serve to highlight the very rare repetitions for popular characters or for film remakes, and only if these were rendered identically. Noteworthy cases (e.g., how many Henry VIIIs and Winston Churchills) are probably broken out in the article text anyway.WHPratt (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Actor names, not roles, is the most useful sortable column as many actors were nominated across several decades. Sorting allows one to easily group and see all the film nominations over all actors' careers. Roles and films are secondarily useful for sorting, in cases of popular characters and remakes, as you stated. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
Good enough, I didn't consider that. However, the decade breaks don't complicate a sort: they just add some blanks lines to the top or the bottom of the sorted list. WHPratt (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Move most of the images to a Wikimedia gallery?[edit]

Any objection to moving the large number of images to a Wikimedia gallery with a clear, prominent link at the top of the 'See also' section and maybe also at the top of the table? The only images, imho, should be the current winner (in the infobox) and maybe those few actors with many wins in a small gallery near the bottom. Readers can easily click over to a nice, full gallery of all winners if that's all they desire, or look at the table for all the information without the many images squeezing the table, possibly slowing page loads and any sorting. In the actress articles, the images have overrun into the following sections on widescreen monitors. Also, it seems one must scroll past all the images on some phone browsers just to see the table (not that a tiny phone screen is a good idea for looking at such a large table). All four AA acting awards tables would probably benefit from less images, but of course people love seeing other people, esp. famous ones, so no changes till some consensus is reached here first. If no answer in a week, however, I'll probably just be bold, like some others around here, and see what happens as very few people are looking at this talk page. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

No response for over a week, so the changes were made and a complete gallery of all winners assembled in Wikimedia. The same change is planned for the other three related AA actor/actress articles in coming days, unless some logical objections are made very soon. Also, the directors list article has a similar set of many images (about 40 of the claimed 69 winners), so that one may also be changed. No other Academy Award list or table includes more than a few images, as seems more appropriate for a simple encyclopedic list article containing many names where not all can, or should, have an image shown. Nor should editors subjectively choose about half or so of all the names for specific ones that will have their image included, with no apparent criteria for inclusion/exclusion specified. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:40, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
See more at Best Actress Talk page. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 10:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)