Talk:Academy Award for Best Actress

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured list Academy Award for Best Actress 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.
May 5, 2015 Featured list candidate Promoted
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Film (Rated FL-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.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
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 Lists (Rated FL-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Awards and prizes (Rated FL-class, High-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.
Featured list FL  This article has been rated as FL-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

list of winners format[edit]

The formatting for list of winners in 2000s, 1940s, and 1950s is different then other decades. The Best Actor page uses one format but Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Directing use another. Any idea, which is the "correct" look? -Bogsat 18:38, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

write-in nominations[edit]

Bette Davis' 1934 nomination (Of Human Bondage) was a write-in nomination. It was not an official nomination. This might also be the case with other nominations as well.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pantaallou (talk) • contribs) 23:49, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Adding character name[edit]

As is done in the case of winners, so could it be done in case of all nominees. Adding as "character name" is a good idea, please add it. With free time I will add them but in case someone happens to do before me, it will be a good work. Vivek 01:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Take Off The Flags[edit]

I suggest we take off the flags. It makes the whole article messy and confusing with the colorful flags all over the place. The flags overshadows the names of the nominees and winners, in my opinion. Besides this is the Oscar not the Olympics.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:38, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason why in 2003 suddenly the English flags stopped and the UK flags started? In 2001 Judi Dench was English, in 2006 she's British 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (quoting previous anon contributor.)—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Kate Winslet trivia[edit]

The youngest actress ever to receive the most Academy Award nominations is Kate Winslet. At the age of 32, Winslet has received 3 Best Actress nominations, as well as 2 other nominations for Best Supporting Actress.

I've removed this paragraph because it is not saying anything, but what it does say is confusing and illogical - (how's that for a Goldwynism!). What is meant by "the most"? It certainly isn't the most compared to Meryl Streep or Katharine Hepburn. Maybe the most for her age? If so, that's a distinction that has little value as far as I can see. JackofOz 23:52, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree 100%. When I read that sentence, I was very confused. Even though the assertion may be factually correct, it is doubtful. Furthermore, the assertion would be difficult to research, and it holds little value. One can just as easily claim that Tatum O'Neal is the "youngest actress ever to receive the most Academy Award nominations." By the time Tatum O'Neal was 10, she received ONE nomination. And that ONE nomination is the "most" that any actress has ever achieved by the age of 10. Right? I think that the original posting means: by the age of 32, no one -- other than Winslet -- has ever received more than 5 nominations. And, yes, that may be true. But, then we can play a "numbers game" and simply change the age -- so that there would be a "most" for every imaginable human age (e.g., the most nominations by age 17; the most nominations by age 29; the most nominations by age 43; etc.). The sheer silliness of the assertion is best evidenced by the Tatum O'Neal example, factually correct as it is. And even the O'Neal example would negate the Winslet example. Agreed? (JosephASpadaro 05:29, 5 March 2007 (UTC))
Agreed. JackofOz 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)




BUT I THINK THAT IS MORE CONFORTABLE SEE THE FLAGS OF ALL THE NAME ONES WITHOUT CLICK ON THE NAME—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:43, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes nationality is too complicated to be expressed in a single flag. And not all flags are recognizable to the average person. Cop 633 21:00, 7 March 2007 (UTC)


See here. Cop 633 13:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Article Stripped Bare[edit]

Someone has single-handedly decided to delete a great deal of important information (to say nothing of contributors' hard work) from this article. What can be done? (JosephASpadaro 05:32, 10 March 2007 (UTC))

Character names in quotation marks[edit]

I think this looks ugly and it's not how characters are normally presented in written English. Someone has just added them citing the official Oscar database. What do people think about this? I don't think quotation marks add anything valuable. Cop 633 02:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure of any "official" Wikipedia rules about this. But, I think that the all of those quotation marks make the article harder to read and less aesthetically pleasing. Why is the official Oscar database format even important or relevant? They may have one way to represent a character name in a film, and we may have another -- no? Furthermore, quotes or no quotes, anyone reading the page knows that it is a character name. So, I agree, the added punctuation adds little to the page and, if anything, is distracting to the reader. (JosephASpadaro 13:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)).

Katharine Hepburn & Meryl Streep[edit]

Although Meryl Streep has been nominated for a combined total of 14 times, only 11 of those nominations were for Best Leading Actress, while 3 of those nominations were for Best Supporting Actress. While Katharine Hepburn has been nominated "only" 12 times, all 12 of those nominations were for Best Leading Actress. Thus, in the Best Leading Actress category, Katharine Hepburn holds the most nominations. In the Best Leading Actress category, Hepburn also holds the most awards. Hepburn has won a total of 4 awards (all for Best Leading Actress), while Streep has won a total of 2 awards (1 for Best Leading Actress and 1 for Best Supporting Actress). This information is current as of the 79th Awards ceremony in 2007. (JosephASpadaro 06:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC))

I stand corrected—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Fixed Nominations Table Error[edit]

Meryl Streep has infact been nominated 12 times for best actress source Ojk007 04:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC) OJK007

Hi! New edits customarily go at the BOTTOM of the talk Page, not the top. I looked at your source ... and it says the same exact thing that I already posted on this Talk Page. See the section entitled "Meryl Streep and Katharine Hepburn." The source you just provided says that Meryl Streep has 11 nom's for Best Actress in a Leading Role (also known as "Best Actress") and 3 nom's for Best Actress in a Supporting Role. So, according to YOUR OWN source, where are you seeing 12 nom's for Best Actress? Please share your insight! Thanks! (JosephASpadaro 05:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC))
I revised and reformatted the Superlatives table in this article to indicate more clearly the distinction between the acting records held by Katharine Hepburn and those held by Meryl Streep. I also included this revised table in the article for Best Supporting Actress. (Joseph A. Spadaro 03:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Nationalities of winners table[edit]

I have some concerns about the "Nationalities of winners" table that was recently added to this article along with the Best Actor, Best Supporting Actress, and Best Supporting Actor articles – many of them regard issues similar to what are raised WP:MOSFLAG.

What is the primary reason and basis to determine nationality or citizenship of the winners? Is it the nationality or citizenship of each actors' birth? Is it the nationality or citizenship when their specified film was released? Or is it their nationality or citizenship today?

There are many actors and actress like Oscar winners Anthony Hopkins, John Houseman, Elizabeth Taylor, and Charlize Theron who have changed their citizenship during their career. So unless there is some sort of standard, I am afraid I will have to remove the table. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 06:31, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you are ultimately looking to achieve ... removing the tables ... or establishing a standard? Those are two very different objectives. If it is the latter, I am sure that some standard can be derived through consensus. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2007 (UTC))
Please centralize discussion at Talk:Academy_Award_for_Best_Actor#Nationalities_of_winners_table to avoid repitition. Cop 663 (talk) 13:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Superlatives- Foreign language[edit]

I have removed the mention of Marlee Matlin in the superlative for Foreign winners of the award, because unlike the other two winners, the movie that Matlin won for was an English language American movie. I understand the American Sign Language explanation and that it was a non-speaking role, but the superlative mentioned in the article was for recognition as Best Actress in a film in another language other than English.. Perhaps the Marlee Matlin mention can be made into another superlative (talk) 01:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC) samusek2

This is all in semantics. The other superlative (the one that you removed) stated (correctly) that the three actresses won for foreign-language performances ... (whether or not the film itself was a foreign-language film). Your post above made the assumption (incorrectly) that the foreign-language performance must be within a foreign-language film. That is, this part of your above post is incorrect: "but the superlative mentioned in the article was for recognition as Best Actress in a film in another language other than English". So, as we see, Matlin's role/performance was indeed in a foreign-language ... but she did so in a film that was not in a foreign-language. Either way, it's all semantics. I think that Matlin deserves a mention, just as do Loren and Cotillard. The original superlative was correctly worded. But you (or someone) can create another, to highlight the disctinctions between Matlin and Loren/Cotillard. If not, I will come up with something. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:55, 26 February 2008 (UTC))
Since I am the one who initially put Marlee Matlin's name alongside Sophia Loren and Marion Cotillard, I have tried to come up with a solution. Here is how I have rephrased the statement:
Sophia Loren and Marion Cotillard are the only actresses to win this award for a foreign-language performance: Loren for her Italian-language performance in Two Women (1960) and Cotillard for her French-language performance in La Vie En Rose (2007).
Marlee Matlin and Holly Hunter are notable for being the only actresses in the post-silent era to receive an Academy Award for a non-speaking role. Matlin won the award for her American sign language performance in Children of a Lesser God (1986), and Holly Hunter won the award for her British sign language role in The Piano (1993). Unlike Matlin, who is almost completely deaf in real life and thus does not speak a single word in the film, Hunter's narrating voice can be heard offscreen in a few scenes, especially at the end of the film.
Regards. BomBom (talk) 12:16, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Hmmmm. It seems that now you are treading into even muddier waters. This note come from the article List of Academy Award records:
If, indeed, that note is true ... then the second part of your above proposal would not be true and would need some rewriting. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2008 (UTC))
Also, is it really necessary to say Italian language performance, or French language performance? Isn't the "language" word implied? I don't think anyone would miss the point if we said "Italian performance" and "French performance" ... no ...? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC))
This note is not true, or at lest it is incomplete. It should have added "received Oscar nominations for non-speaking roles in the post-silent era" (several actors did indeed receive Oscars for performances in silent films). Moreover, Marlee Matlin isn't mentioned in this note, even though her nonspeaking role is probably the most famous in the history of the Oscars (she is deaf in real life, remember, unlike the other actors). Anyway, the statement I wrote just needs to be rephrased. It should simply add Jane Wyman to the list, and mention that she is, along with Loren and Cotillard, "the only actress in the post-silent era to receive a Best Actress (yes, I should have been more precise) Academy Award for a nonspeaking role". As for the wording of the sentence, talking about an "Italian performance" or a "French performance" is simply bad English and very ambiguous. I don't see why "Italian-language performance" is bothering you. Anyway, if you wish to change it, you can say that "Loren received it for her performance in the Italian film Two Women (1960)" or that "Italian actress Loren received it for he role in Two Women (1960)". However, the expression "Italian performance" is simply badly phrased. Regards. BomBom (talk) 11:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Thanks for the reply. I never said it "bothers" me ... I was just asking a clarifying question. To me, a phrase such as "Italian-language" seems redundant, duplicitous, and unnecessary ... given that Italian is, indeed, a language. Well, it can also refer to art, culture, architecture, food, etc., --- but given the context of the sentence, "Italian" can only refer to the language known as Italian. That was my question on point of clarification. As far as the actor / actress names ... I'd have to look at all of this more closely. At a very quick glance, it seems that Patty Duke got lost in the sauce here. I don't recall off hand ... but she must have used sign language in that film, no? Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:57, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Number of different Best Actress winners[edit]

Currently the page states: Throughout the past 80 years, accounting for ties and repeat winners, AMPAS has presented a total of 81 Best Actress awards to 67 different people. 67 is incorrect. 11 women have won the award twice and Katharine Hepburn has won 4 times. 12 from 81 is 69. I edited the page yesterday only to find it changed back today. Thanks. Amanda7061 (talk) 06:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but ... your Math is incorrect. I shall reply more fully, later --- as I have to leave right now. Trust me, there are 67 winners. In fact, see: List of Best Actress winners by age at win. If you sort the list in alphabetical order, you will count 67 different / distinct actress names. Your Math is wrong as follows. You say "12 from 81 is 69." But, that is mixing apples and oranges. Because, what that statement really is saying is: "12 people from 81 awards is 69 people". And, that is mixing apples and oranges (people versus awards). I will comment further later today. That's a good start, however. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Under your mathematical logic: "12 from 81 is 69." And, I see what you are doing. But, if you take that approach, you have to "minus" Katherine Hepburn three times ... not just one time. That is, you want to delete/remove/subtract her name for every duplicate award. So, Katherine Hepburn's ONE name has listed with it FOUR awards. So, out of those FOUR awards, we need to minus her name THREE times and only keep it listed ONE time (to count distinct winner names). If someone won the award ten times, you would keep their individual name once and delete the "extra" nine times that their name shows up ... you would not simply minus the name one time, but rather, you would minus it all nine extra (duplicated) times. Does this make sense? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC))
Also, in summary:
  • 55 actresses win 1 award = 55 awards
  • 11 actresses win 2 awards = 22 awards
  • 1 actress wins 4 awards = 4 awards
  • Total actresses = 55 + 11 + 1 = 67
  • Total awards = 55 + 22 + 4 = 81
  • Thus, 67 total actresses win 81 total awards
Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:24, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

black not afician amercian[edit]

in the hally berry part it should be changed to the first black woman to win not afican amercian because not all black people are from amercia and as the oscars are not just given to amercians it should be changed because but this if another black woman wins an award (and is not from amercia) hally will still be the only afican amercian to win the award. also hally is half white so maybe that should added as she's mixed race or bi-racial (think thats what amercians say)so maybe it should say she the only woman of black (or something esle)desent to win the award right, thats what it says on her wikipedia page—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I am moving your edit to the bottom of the page, as is the way these Talk Pages are set up. Feel free to edit the article, as you see fit. Personally, I myself am not getting in the middle of a "Black" versus "African American" debate, as someone out there, I am sure, will get offended about the distinction, one way or the other. A no win situation. That's my two cents. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC))

why the HELL would anyone get offended buy making it right wikipedia is not just for americans as is the oscars and is more offensive to not note everyone cause not all black people are american thats a fact and it should be noted here cause if a black woman wins and is not american hally will STILL be the first and only afican-american to win an best actress oscar IT SHOULD BE CHANGED as is sounds like only americans can wins the award, anyone that gets offended are idiots. also hally is MIXED-RACED not AFICAN-AMERCIAN so it should be said she is the first and so far only woman of afican desent to win the best actress oscarVeggiegirl (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


Helena Bonham Carter is half spanish which makes her a hispanic i think she should be added on here then just cause she's not american doesn't made her not hispanic if J.Lo or jessica alba won an oscar you would say they was first hispnic so think think she should be added and if anyone finds any one esle that has been nomited and are of south american or spanish descent they should also be added just cause there half hispanic doesn't make them less notble you wouldn't delete halle from here just cause she half black so i think we should make this fair please. (talk) 22:35, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Being Hispanic and being Spanish are two entirely different things. Spanish people are European. Hispanic people live on North or South America and come from a culture that predominantly speaks Spanish, and some, although not all, would content Portugese.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

International Presence[edit]

I wonder if some of these entries might not mislead unless there’s some additional information provided:

  • Audrey Hepburn is listed at Belgium because that’s where she was born and she did have Belgian ancestry; however, she’s generally described as an English actress. When she won her awards, she was not "a Belgian actress" ("a Belgian-born actress" perhaps)
  • Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine were born in Japan by an accident of history (their father was working there at the time), but they certainly weren’t Japanese in any sense. I’d be very surprised if they ever formally had Japanese citizenship. They’re American actresses who just happened to be born in Japan.
  • Nicole Kidman was born in Hawaii (USA) to Australian parents. She’s been a dual Australian-US citizen from birth. She's generally associated with Australia far more than with the USA, although her talk page is full of debates about how best to describe her.
  • Charlize Theron was naturalised American in 2007, but I don’t know whether she still retains dual South African citizenship, and whether her naturalisation came before or after her winning Best Actress.
  • Vivien Leigh was born in India, although at that time it was part of the British Empire rather than an independent nation. It’s accurate to put her against the UK, but that’s not the whole story. If it’s justifiable to allocate de Havilland and Fontaine to Japan, then to be consistent we’d have to allocate Leigh to India. -- JackofOz (talk) 01:12, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the same sort of logic that has John McEnroe as a famous German tennis player, because he was born there when his father was based there after WW2. The only conceivable sense is to use the nationality now (if alive), or at the time of winning the Oscar.

That makes Joan Fontaine American and Olivia de Havilland British at time of winning hers and now American. Neither are or ever were Japanese. Nor is Vivien Leigh Indian, but British. Cardicam (talk) 21:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree - not to mention the fact that the article claims Leigh is the only Asian actess to have won, and then in the the very next sentence claims that Merle Oberon is the only Asian actress to have been nominated. Makes no sense! This part of the article is clearly about race (it's listed alongside African-American actresses and Hispanic actresses - which includes Helena Bonham Carter! But that's another argument...) - and Vivien Leigh was clearly a British Caucasian actress, no matter where she was born! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianwilsonisgod (talkcontribs) 01:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

It gets worse[edit]

We now have Vivien Leigh listed both here and at List of Asian Academy Award winners and nominees as an Asian actress!! She was born in India, but that doesn't make her Asian. Likewise, Keisha Castle-Hughes is a New Zealander, which is also not part of Asia. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I see that Vivien Leigh's name has been removed as "the only Asian actress..." but the rest of the sentence is left as it was. Is this an incomplete edit that someone is working on, or is it merely an act of protest? SpankyMac (talk) 14:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Audrey Hepburn again[edit]

She was a British actress, who just happened to be born in Belgium, and just happened to spend some of her early years in the Netherlands. That does not make her in any sense a representative of either Belgium or the Netherlands, in International Presence.

See similar arguments above about why Fontaine and de Havilland did not represent Japan, Vivien Leigh did not represent India, or Nicole Kidman does not represent the USA because she just happened to be born in Hawaii. -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 01:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that being only part Indian should not qualify Vivien Leigh to be an "Asian" actress (she never acknowledged herself as such, anyway), but why does someone keep restoring that? (talk) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, Liz Taylor is British purely on the fact that she was born on British soil, she didn't grow up there, nor are either of her parents British. So why is she listed as an "international" winner? I'm removing both. (talk) 23:35, 15 March 2010 (UTC)


"As the Academy Awards are based in the United States and are centered on the Hollywood film industry, the majority of Academy Award winners have been Americans. Nonetheless, there is significant international presence at the awards, as evidenced by the following list of winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress."

The list includes Fernanda Montenegro and Salma Hayek for Brazil and Mexico respectively, however they were not winners of the award... just nominees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Best Actress curse[edit]

I think a section on how a lot of the Best Actress winners who were married at the time of their win later got divorced should be created. (talk) 21:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

That implies that one has to do with the other. It would be original research and therefore not acceptable. Wildhartlivie (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Not really original research, see [1], [2], and [3]. Whether winning an Oscar really does affect the marriage of a winner isn't what I'm debating, it's that the media does make a big deal about it. The page for the Best New Artist Grammy talks about the Grammy curse, never mind the fact that plenty of winners went on to have even bigger careers after they won. Look, this page mentions a study published nine years ago that Best Actress winners lived longer lives, and that theory was disproved in a new study six years later. (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Academy Award winning performances of non-fictional characters[edit]

Another editor brought to my attention the following list of (acting) Academy Award winning performances of non-fictional characters. I will leave it to others to ascertain whether or not this information belongs in the main article. I am posting it on the Talk Pages of the four acting Academy Awards in the event that someone wants to add in the information, as appropriate. I am also posting it for general information, in the event that a reader would like to know these facts. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:38, 2 April 2011 (UTC))

Meryl Streep[edit]

Hello users, I accidentally thought Meryl Streep won 3 Academy Awards, all for Best Actress. I neglected to notice that Kramer v. Kramer was actually for Best Supporting actress (even though she was the most highly starred lady in the cast). So my apologies for that one. Cheers --OettingerCroat (talk) 06:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Katherine Hepburn and Barbra Streisand's tie[edit]

Does anyone have a reason not to edit the table of winners (at 1968) so that Katherine Hepburn's name is listed before Barbra Streisand's? Alphabetically, Hepburn comes before Streisand. At the ceremony, Ingrid Bergman announced Hepburn's name before Streisand's (look it up on YouTube). Thoughts? (talk) 16:35, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Life Expectancy?[edit]

Does this even need to be here? It seems completely irrelevant and the second paragraph basically concludes that the whole theory is bullshit. I feel that given its already tenuous link to this article, the fact that a theory existed for a few years is absolutely not noteworthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:23, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress[edit]

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 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Table Key section needs to go[edit]

I don't see the purpose for it.

There is literally only (1) posthumous nomination and that was Jeanne Eagels, which can be sufficiently told to readers with a note. Doesn't need it's own section in a Table Key.

Also, there is NO point in adding one of these double-dagger after every winner when they are already highlighted yellow.

It just adds clutter to the page. Some people have not-so-good eyesight and if I squint it's hard to read because a dagger can look like a letter. For example (letter T - double-dagger). Please remove it to simplify the page a bit. HesioneHushabye (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

  • @HesioneHushabye: The daggers are meant to ensure accessibility to all readers according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. Colorblind people will be unable to see the color mark of the winners, and blind people or users using a printout or device without a color screen will not receive the information on who the winner is. We have to think of accessibility for all readers including handicapped people. As for the asterisk for posthumous nominees, it is for the same purpose and it avoids space problems to write up (posthumous nomination/winner on every line) especially on small devices or devices with large text. On the Best Actor list there are five posthumous nominees and winners. It would be easier to markup with a symbol. I did it for the Best Actress list to maintain consistency with other Oscar awards featured lists.
Since this is a featured list (which means it is expected to meet a high quality of standards), please discuss your issues on this talk page before making drastic changes. I suggest also asking the WP:FLC delegates such as Crisco 1492, SchroCat, PresN, or Giants2008 if you have a problem with this.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • In fact, I'll open this up for discussion right now.
@Crisco 1492, PresN, SchroCat, Giants2008, Cowlibob, and SNUGGUMS: What do you think should be done on how to properly indicate Oscar winners on these lists for accessibility?
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

HesioneHushabye This is really simple. Featured lists need to comply with WP:MOS, one component of which is WP:ACCESS and part of that is WP:COLOR. We simply cannot use just colour alone to denote something, particularly in a technical article (i.e. one with lists and not so much prose), because it would not be clear to all of our readers. Consider those who are colour blind, those using screen readers etc. I know you "don't like it" but that doesn't really count for anything I'm afraid. If you want to change the Wikipedia-wide Manual of Style or the Featured List criteria, you're welcome to make proposals at the relevant locations, but otherwise this list, and all others like it, should retain the colour/symbol paradigm. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I have made it known I don't like the look of these "featured lists" and I also don't like when editors create lists and then feel like they have total ownership over the page. I do agree about the accessibility and consistency. I would suggest adding a space between the dagger and the name so it's easier to read. Shirley Boothdouble-dagger = Shirley Booth double-dagger HesioneHushabye (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Not an unreasonable compromise by any stretch and, as far as I recall, not compromising the WP:MOS, so perhaps we can do this to placate all parties. As for ownership issues, that's an entirely different discussion to the configuration of the page itself. Please take concerns about that to the relevant place if you truly believe pages are not open to be edited by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with the space between the daggers. You can go ahead and do it if you want, but I strongly suggest you do it also for the other acting winners lists as well to maintain consistency.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
  • Added spaces for all Oscar acting awards lists that are FLs.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Just a repository of images[edit]

What possible reason is there to begin this article with forty similar pictures of actresses? 2602:306:8320:AF00:ED63:F813:779E:623A (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)