Talk:List of Academy Award records/Archive 1

Archive 1

Reformat page

As I add cites and sources for each entry, I am also editing the format of the article. I feel that the new format more accurately reflects the purpose of the article, more efficiently categorizes the information, and more adequately employs Wikipedia standards. Thus, at this point, the formatting is a work-in-progress. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Sources

I have begun to add cites and sources for each entry. Any editors who are so inclined to assist in this effort are asked to do so. Regarding those editors who have itchy trigger fingers for nominating articles for deletion, be advised ... I will strenuously object to any and all efforts to delete this article due to lack of sources, as the Wikipedia community is hereby on notice that such sources are, in fact, being added. Thank you. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:05, 14 December 2007 (UTC))

"itchy trigger fingers"? That's the first page I've nominated in months! You got lucky in that afd. It was closed by a novice admin who had strongly felt the page should be kept. Most others probably would have restarted it. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:08, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Point 1 -- Why on earth do you think that I was referring to you? I believe it was William Shakespeare who noted, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” Point 2 -- Leaving Point 1 aside for the moment ... let me re-examine the facts. On December 12, at time 14:23, an editor closed the deletion debate. At exactly one minute later (that is, on December 12, at time 14:24), you deleted several records from the article with your accompanying edit summary notation reading, quote, "Clean up. If you want to keep some of that stuff, find sources." If literally one minute is not a manifestation of an itchy trigger finger, then I don’t know what is. Point 3 -- I was not aware that "luck" was one of the criteria within the Wikipedia policies for article deletion. But, that’s good to know ... thanks for the information. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

When I realized the article would be kept, I cleaned up the page and took out all of the stuff that I had removed while the page was still at Academy Award. I didn't realize that cleaning up articles was suddenly considered taboo. And no, luck isn't, but most admins would have restarted the nom as it only had comments from two users and afds generally should have more discussion than that. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 19:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Who said (and where was it said) that cleaning up articles is taboo? You are throwing out a red herring. Your edit-summary notation indicated (in paraphrase) ... "I am deleting this stuff from the article because it has no sources ... and if you want to keep this stuff in the article, then go find the sources." Uhhhhhhhh ... would not that reasoning apply to each and every entry within this article? In other words, why have you selected some entries to delete (purportedly for lack of sources) ... yet other entries to keep (despite their lack of sources)? Your reasoning (that term being used very loosely) makes no sense. I think that pretty much everyone in the Wikipedia community (myself included) agrees that these entries need sources. So, why is your itchy trigger finger deleting some of the non-sourced entries, yet keeping some of the non-sourced entries? Plus ... not to mention ... doing so within (literally) one-minute of the debate being closed. And, by the way, as to your last point ... I counted comments from three users, not two, in the debate. Two for "keep" and one for "delete" --- you conveniently forgot the third user's input? (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC))

For the final time, I removed some of the less notable and more ORish things and I felt reasonably sure that there would be no sources for that stuff. Hence the comment that if you could find sources, then it could be readded. Generally, the page should be for the more notable records, and although there are still quite a few that could easily go, I feel that most of the more useless and trivial ones are gone. And also for the final time, notability is determined by sources and you've known for well over a week that the page needs them, and yet you seem more concerned with attacking me than cleaning up the page. And finally, please learn how to count, because there was one keep, one delete and one neutral comment. Either way, I'm done with you. If you would like to discuss how to clean up the page and make it more encyclopedic, then by all means contact me, but this is rather pointless bickering. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Point 1: As I stated in an earlier discussion with you ( … which you conveniently chose to ignore … ), notable is notable is notable. I do not believe that Wikipedia has discriminating criteria such as "more notable" and "less notable". (I believe that that is simply a self-concocted figment of your active imagination.) Rather, something is either notable or it is not notable. If I am incorrect, please let me know. That is, where exactly are you coming up with the criteria for what you believe to be "more notable" versus "less notable"? I am curious to hear. Please share your criteria with the Wikipedia community. Furthermore, who exactly would be the appropriate one to determine which of the notable entries are "more" notable (and thus worthy of inclusion) … and which of the notable entries are "less" notable (and thus worthy of exclusion)? Should I assume that the answer to that question is that indeed you are the arbiter and the decision-maker of distinguishing between "more" versus "less" notable entries? And, by extension, that you shall decide which of the notable entries are designated "more" so that they remain in the article ... and which are designated "less" so that they do not remain in the article? Point 2: You state, quote, "And also for the final time, notability is determined by sources and you've known for well over a week that the page needs them, and yet you seem more concerned with attacking me than cleaning up the page." Uhhhhhhhhh ... yes, I believe we have all agreed 100 times over that notability requires sources. Have you read even a single word of all of these prior posts? And, uhhhhhhhhhhhh ... have you not noticed that I am, in fact, adding the appropriate sources? And, uhhhhhhhhhh ... isn't my addition of these sources the very topic of this thread that I myself initiated? Point 3: You state, quote, "you seem more concerned with attacking me than cleaning up the page." I have not once attacked you. Yes, your comments and argumentation and reasoning (as it were) are beyond asinine, to say the least. And, yes, I have attacked your comments, your argumentation, and your reasoning (as it were) strenuously. How, pray tell, is that attacking you? As I said, and as William Shakespeare said, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." Case rested. Point 4: Furthermore, you state that I am more concerned with attacking you than with "cleaning up the page"? Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, let's check your eyesight, buddy. Am I not, in fact, the ONLY one cleaning up this page? Hold on ... let me go check the edit logs, just to be sure, though. ... (return) ... Uh, yeah --- just as I thought ... I am, in fact, the ONLY one cleaning up this page. Do your edit logs show otherwise? If so, perhaps, there is some technical issue with the Wikipedia servers? Or, more likely, your arguments are asinine –- so, please help me to understand such asinine arguments. Thanks. Point 5: You state, quote, "And finally, please learn how to count, because there was one keep, one delete and one neutral comment." Pray tell, where exactly do you see that? There was one keep (that was me) … and there was one delete (that was you). The third editor stated, quote, "I'm willing to reserve judgment for the moment, because I think that there is the possibility of bringing this up to spec, but it will require that all records be notable in themselves, and definitely must be sourced to reliable publications." Uhhhhhhhhhh ... in a deletion debate, that is a KEEP vote, not a neutral comment. He or she is saying, in effect, "No, don’t delete this article ... but, rather, keep it for now ... because it has the potential for improvement, provided that sources are eventually included. So, KEEP it for now ... that is, don't delete it ... and give it a chance to be brought up to Wikipedia standard." Thus, in the context of a deletion debate, that third editor's comment is a KEEP vote, and not a neutral comment (as you claim). So, it seems that I do, in fact, know how to count pretty well. Agreed? And perhaps it is you who does not know how to count ... or, in the alternative, how to read. Agreed? Point 6: None of this is "bickering", as you claim. Rather, it is me making valid points ... and you not responding in any meaningful or intelligent way to those valid points. And, if anything, you avoiding and/or obfuscating the valid points being made. Point 7: Ultimately, your comments, your arguments, and your reasoning (as it were) are clearly asinine. And, quite frankly, barely worthy of responding to. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:33, 16 December 2007 (UTC))

Cate Blanchett

Should this be added to the records thing? Only actress to be nominated for both best actress and best supporting actress in the same year? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.49.239.251 (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Two things. Number One -- she certainly is not the only one. Ten others have also done so (7 actresses and 3 actors) and Blanchett as well ... making that eleven people in total. Number Two -- it's already in there. See the very last item under "Acting Records". Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2008 (UTC))

Walt Disney

Was it really Walt Disney who won 26 Oscars? Or is it rather Walt Disney Pictures? In the latter case, it is probably one of their executives who won most Oscars in person: composer Alan Menken (eight Oscars for four films, each of which won both the best film song and best film score awards). Steinbach (fka Caesarion) 11:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The official Academy website (oscars.org) lists many "Walt Disney" variations as Academy Award winners/nominees ... for example, Walt Disney Productions, Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Department, etc., ... and Walt Disney (the individual) himself. See this page: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1205140605813 [1]. Under the individual named Walt Disney, there are many, many, many nominations ... and I counted very quickly ... yes, in the neighborhood of 26 Oscar awards. Many of those were for films / animated shorts / etc. So, as the producer, (I guess?), he (not his company) would be the official recipient of the award. Or so it seems. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Also, Alan Menken is listed as an individual award winner / nominee many times -- without mention of his affiliation with Disney. See this page: http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/DisplayMain.jsp?curTime=1205140831588 [2]. So, it seems that the awards Menken wins get credited to him personally / individually ... and not to the Disney organization. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

Films With Mulitple Acting Nominations

On The Waterfront has 4 nominations for acting awards, and is not mentioned in this list.

The Godfather and the Godfather Part II each had three supporting actor nominations apiece. WHPratt (talk) 04:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt

From Here to Eternity had 5 acting nominations, 1 win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.12.71.4 (talk) 19:53, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Al Gore

Academy Award records/Miscellaneous records: "George Bernard Shaw is the only person to have been awarded both an Oscar (Academy Award for Best Adapted Screenplay for Pygmalion in 1938) and a Nobel Prize" - Now Al Gore has won both prizes, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.84.69.20 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I moved your question and comment to the end (bottom) of this Talk Page. That is the usual way of adding new material to a Talk Page, to keep things in chronological order. As far as Al Gore and the Nobel / Oscar distinctions ... this information was in fact added to the Misc. Records section a few days ago, but I deleted it. Al Gore did recently win the Nobel, but he did not win an Oscar. The film An Inconvenient Truth did win an Oscar -- but that award was presented to the film's producer (Davis Guggenheim), and not to Al Gore. It is a mistaken belief that Al Gore won an Oscar, because Gore was a prominent figure in the film and in the Oscar ceremony. Nonetheless, he did not actually win the Oscar ... and, so, George Bernard Shaw's record still remains intact. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 15:00, 24 October 2007 (UTC))

I copied the above Section from the Talk Page of the Academy Award article onto this Talk Page, as it is relevant to a recent edit. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC))

The claim about Gore is present in the current version of the article. Because my own knowledge on the subject is limited to what I have read above, I will not edit it myself. I suggest, however, that a corresponding alteration with an explicit mention of the misconception is made (if the above reflects the true version, obviously). 88.77.190.163 (talk) 03:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

African or African American winners

This category does not make sense, as proven by the fact that the one African (non-American) entry is Charlize Theron, who is one of the whitest women around. A more reasonable way to handle this would be to differentiate into separate categories with note-worthy entries from Africa (South-America, Oceania, ...) and from various US ethnic groups (e.g. African-Americans). 88.77.190.163 (talk) 03:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Ben Kingsley

This page incorrectly listed Ben Kingsley as winning the Oscar for his film debut. His film debut was in the 1972 film Fear is the Key and not Ghandi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.167.129.208 (talk) 03:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Penélope Cruz

"Marlee Matlin, Sophia Loren, Roberto Benigni, Robert DeNiro, Benicio del Toro, Marion Cotillard, and Penélope Cruz are the only seven actors to win Oscars for performing in a language other than English." - I guess it's a dubious statement, since the part of Ms. Cruz in Woody Allen's movie is partly in Spanish, partly in English. I am not even sure what language is dominant. Andrey Kartashov (talk) 21:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ages of winners/nominees (oldest/youngest)

There were lists of the youngest/oldest ages of the winners/nominees of Best Director, Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor and Supporting Actress, now it's gone. Where is it? 69.112.221.166 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not gone at all. See the following article: List of oldest and youngest Academy Award winners and nominees. Also, you can see the following six articles, as well: List of Best Actor winners by age; List of Best Actress winners by age; List of Best Director winners by age; List of Best Supporting Actor winners by age; List of Best Supporting Actress winners by age; and List of superlative Academy Award winners and nominees. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:50, 12 October 2010 (UTC))

Real life winners

Okay now, I was just wondering if someone can provide a list of people who won for real people. As you may notice, every year since 1998 someone has won for playing one. (And I do remember reading that Bullock was I believe the 13th person to win for playing a real person who was alive at the time) Kamkek (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Okay, this is who I have so far:

Best actor: Forest Whitaker for The Last King of Scotland,Robert Deniro for Raging Bull, Philip Seymore Hoffman for Capote, Jamie Foxx for Ray, Geoffrey Rush for Shine, Sean Penn for Milk), Daniel Day Lewis for My Left Foot, Adrien Brody for The Pianist, F. Murray Abraham for Amadeus, Ben Kingsley for Gandhi, George C. Scott for Patton, Gene Hackman for The French Connection, Paul Scofield for A Man for All Seasons, Yul Brynner for The King and I, James Cagney for Yankee Doodle Dandy, Gary Cooper for Sergeant York, Paul Muni for The Story of Louis Pasteur, Charles Laughton for The Private Life of Henry VIII, George Arliss for Disraeli and Jeremy Irons for Reversal of Fortune

Best actress: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side, Reese Witherspoon for Walk the Line, Helen Mirren for The Queen, Marion Cotillard for La Vie En Rose, Charlize Theron for Monster, Nicole Kidman for The Hours, Julia Roberts for Erin Brockovich, Hillary Swank for Boys Don't Cry, Susan Sarandon for Dead Men Walking, Jodie Foster for The Accused, Sissy Spacek for Coal Miner's Daughter, Katharine Hepburn for The Lion in Winter, Anne Bancroft for The Miracle Worker), Susan Hayward for I Want to Live!, Joanne Woodward for The Three Faces of Eve, Ingrid Bergman for Anastasia, Jennifer Jones for The Song of Bernadette, Luise Rainer for The Great Ziegfeld

Best supporting actor: Chris Cooper for Adaptation., Jim Broadbent for Iris, Martin Landau for Ed Wood, Haing S. Ngor for The Killing Fields, Jason Robards for Julia, Jason Robards for All the President's Men, Peter Ustinov for Spartacus, Anthony Quinn for Lust for Life, Anthony Quinn for Viva Zapata!, Walter Brennan for The Westerner and Joseph Schildkraut for The Life of Emile Zola

Best supporting actress:

Cate Blanchett for The Aviator, Jennifer Connelly for A Beautiful Mind, Marcia Gay Harden for Pollock, Judi Dench for Shakespeare in Love, Angelina Jolie for Girl, Interrupted, Brenda Fricker for My Left Foot, Maureen Stapleton for Reds, Mary Steenburgen for Melvin and Howard, Vanessa Redgrave for Julia, Estelle Parsons for Bonnie and Clyde, Patty Duke for The Miracle Worker, Shelly Winters for The Diary of Anne Frank and Alice Brady for In Old Chicago

In all honesty, this make a good page on Wikipedia instead of just a section on here.

And yeah I didn't do them in any order, though I eventully went in reverse order by years to double check to see if I missed anyone.

And yeah sometimes the film was a true story but had non true characters (Bridge on River Kwaii, 12 O'Clock High, ect.)

Kamkek (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

What constitutes a "record"?

There are a bunch of categories on the page that clearly are records and a bunch that seem to me to just be lists that some people might find interesting, but that are not records. Anything with "most", "first", "oldest", or "youngest" in the description clearly are records, but categories like "Actor or Actress to win playing the opposite sex", "Actors who have declined to accept their Oscars", and "Actors who have won or been nominated for playing a real-life acting Oscar winner or nominee" (among others) do not describe anything that can properly be called a "record". It also is unclear just what would not count as a "record" if these do. How about "Actors who play people older than themselves" or "Actors who play characters of a different nationality/ethnicity from themselves" or "Actors who play characters with the same first name as they have". These are all lists that someone might be interested in, but none of them are "records" in any standard understanding of the word. They are also no different in nature from several "records" already listed. I would suggest that these non-record categories be removed from the page. In a case like "Real life winners" (discussed immediately above on this talk page) a separate page could be started if the category is seen to merit it, but they should not be listed on a "records" page. 99.192.69.101 (talk) 17:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

While on the topic, why not nominees that played another race? I mean Robert Downey Jr. got nominated for that! (Okay he got nominated for playing a White dude playing the Black dude) ;) But yeah some are intresting. Older/younger be pointless, unless if it is something like them playing someone 10 years older/younger (Depends on age though, if its a 18 year old playing a 10 year old, that be impressive, where as a 88 year old being a 80 year old, not so much) Kamkek (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok. So seeing no objection to my suggestion that some sections be removed, I will start doing that. Some can be saved in an altered form that will improve them (making them more clearly about records), but others will just get deleted. 99.192.49.47 (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just did a lot of the changes. The 8th and 9th sections (Acting and Miscelaneous) need to be looked at still, but I'll get that another time. I've spent enough time on the article for now. 99.192.49.47 (talk) 03:23, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just finished (I think). There were a lot of format changes as well as moving some pieces around. I think now everything on the page now is an "most", "first", "oldest", "youngest" or some other superlative that makes it a record. 99.192.68.32 (talk) 15:37, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Also-debut acting nominations

Okay we have them for wins, but not nominations. Like we had True Grit and Precious with debut nominees.

I was thinking Tom Hooper was a debut, but he did a British film in 2009 and he did some made for TV stuff.

Kamkek (talk) 23:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Middle-Eastern nominees

I wonder under what criteria Shohreh Aghdashloo is considered the first Middle-Eastern acting nominee. Omar Sharif was nominated for best supporting actor for Lawrence of Arabia (1962). Sharif was born in Egypt to a Lebanese family. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.86.139.196 (talk) 03:55, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in the article - Luise Rainer

The article says :

Longest Life Span for a Acting winner Two acting winners have reached the age of 100. Two-time Best Actress winner Luise Rainer, who won for The Great Ziegfeld (1936) and The Good Earth (1937). She is still alive at age 101. George Burns, who won for Best Supporting Actor for The Sunshine Boys. He died in 1996 at age 100. Longest to hold the Oscar after they won Luise Rainer won her first Oscar in 1937, thereby holding the Oscar for 74 years, longer than any other Oscar winner.

I'm assuming that second date should be 1936, but could someone who knows this stuff make the correction? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrislintott (talk • contribs) 17:27, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Luise Rainer won her first Oscar in 1937 (i.e., that was the year in which it was physically presented to her). The award was presented for her acting work from the previous year (1936) in the film The Great Ziegfeld. In other words, films produced in 1936 were honored at the ceremony that was held in 1937. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC))

Oscar records

Hi, Steven Soderbergh wasn't the only person to be nominated as Best Director for two films in the same year. Michael Curtiz was nominated for both Angels with Dirty Faces and Four Daughters in the nominations for 1938. And in the nominations for 1928-1929, Frank Lloyd was nominated for (and won for) The Divine Lady, Weary River, and Drag. This is per Wiley & Bona, 1996.

(Re Lloyd: I believe that in the first year, the awards were for the entire year's work rather than one film, so it's not quite the same thing. WHPratt (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)WHPratt) See the note on Janet Gaynor in the Sunrise article. WHPratt (talk) 13:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

(Sorry for not doing the edit myself, but I'm a complete newbie, and I don't want to start editing until I figure out what I'm doing.)Slobone (talk) 21:02, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. If someone else doesn't add the info, I will soon. Just can't do so at this moment. But thanks for the heads up. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC))

The page says its current for the year 2011 -- it should read 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.208.22.16 (talk) 16:22, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Most times hosted the Oscars ceremony

This might not be 100% relevant to this article, but it's certainly connected and interesting: What about the person who has hosted the Oscars ceremony the most? Apparently Bob Hope hosted 18 times.CrocodilesAreForWimps (talk) 21:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I do think that it is relevant to this article and can/should be included. Also, see this article: List of Academy Awards ceremonies. It reports that Bob Hope hosted the most, with nineteen (not eighteen) ceremonies. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Most and least amount of noms/wins in a year

I could of swore there was a section on this. But I think it should come back, a thing about the most/least a year. Of course it be in the early years for the least amount. (Although in 1997 there were only 6 wins ones you get rid of the foriegn/docs and short films) Kamkek (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure I follow what you are asking. Wouldn't there be "millions" of films that have the least awards/nominations, at zero? There are "millions" of films that do not receive any nominations or awards. Those with zero would always be the "least". So, what exactly are you asking? Please clarify. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Quvenzhané Wallis and Jackie Cooper

Quvenzhané Wallis is 9 years plus 4 1/2 months old today, the day she was nominated for an Oscar. Jackie Cooper was 9 years plus 20 days old (born September 15, 1922 and nominated on October 5, 1931) the day he was nominated. I have edited the list to include both (one for youngest male, one for youngest female). Cooper was 8 when Skippy was filmed while Wallis was 6 when Beasts of the Southern Wild was shot. So if either is to be named the overall "youngest nominee" it would depend what is meant by that - youngest when the film was shot vs youngest when the actor was nominated.

For now, we can solve the problem by naming both, just one as youngest male and one as youngest female. But if we think we have to choose one or the other as youngest overall, I would suggest that we could still list both by differentiating age when film shot and age when nominated. 99.192.94.28 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what we think. It matters what the sources report. That being said, "they" usually go by the date that the award is physically handed to the winner (i.e., the date of the ceremony). Or, in this case, the date that a nomination is "handed down" (i.e., formally announced). That is how AMPAS (the "Academy") reports things, and it seems to be the least "complicated" manner. Who can track down on what day and at what age a certain actor actually filmed a scene? Far too complicated. And who would keep records and source such information? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You have completely missed the point. Whether or not information is thought to be important enough to be included in an article is often a matter of what editors think. Reliable sources are available for the information that Cooper is the youngest nominee based on age on the day of nomination and reliable sources are also available that Wallis is the youngest nominee based on age when the film was made. "They" talk about both. So the only question left is whether or not editors think it is important to include these bits of information in the article. That is the question was addressing. 99.192.79.76 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.94.28)

Believe me, I do see your point. And, it's a good one. I, for one, was amazed to learn that she was only six when she filmed this. And, indeed, that is quite an accomplishment. As far as this Wikipedia article, I guess it's all semantics. Age at the time of nomination is the critical component for deciding who is the "youngest nominee". There really is no category for "youngest actress at the time of filming". Rather, the category of note is "youngest nominee". So, the nomination itself is critical, not the filming time frame. In any event, I would not mind if a parenthetical note was added, stating that she was age nine when nominated, but age six at the time of filming (provided it has a reliable source). Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You still don't get it. Wikipedia does not just report records as kept by the Academy or anyone else. It is reporting facts about the world that constitute records, whether or not anyone else cares about them. To that end, it is up to Wikipedia editors to decide if acting nominee with the youngest age when a movie was filmed is a significant enough achievement to put on the Wikipedia list. It does not matter what anyone else's list has on it. So when you say "There really is no category for "youngest actress at the time of filming". Rather, the category of note is "youngest nominee"." you say something that is only true because no one here has said that they think age when the movie was filmed is an important enough category to include here. It's up to editors to decide if that should change. 99.192.74.15 (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC) (=99.192.79.76 and 99.192.94.28)

I already told you that I do "get" it. I also mentioned that I don't think it's worth adding as a "separate category". But, I do think it is worth adding as a parenthetical notation to the (more widely accepted) category of "youngest nominee". What part do you not get about what I have stated? We (as editors of Wikipedia) can report a category like "youngest red-headed actress with blue eyes who was born in Russia and has two older sisters", if we wanted to and if there were reliable sources. But, I don't think it's a good "category" to include. Likewise with "youngest at the time of filming". It does not merit its own category, but it does merit a parenthetical mention to the more widely reported and accepted category. So, again, what part do you not get, about what my position is? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk)

I also mentioned that I don't think it's worth adding as a "separate category". - Not true. Read what you wrote carefully, and you will see that you did not say this at all. Everything you wrote previously indicated that you think that the "categories" for records only "exist" if some external source records it as a record, which I have twice had to tell you is not true. But with your "youngest red-headed actress..." comment it seems you finally do get it.

The matter of including a parenthetical is not a pressing one, since Wallis is already included on the list. But had Jackie Cooper been female or Wallis male, then without formally recognizing age at time of filming Wallis could not be included at all, which would seem like an notable omission. Unless/until another actress makes a film where (like Cooper) she is older than Wallis was when the movie was filmed, but younger than Wallis when nominated, it is probably not a significant concern. 99.192.74.15 (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I actually did "get it" all along. Perhaps I did not articulate it well, in the earlier posts. My apologies. In any event, I agree with all that you stated in the above post. So, we are essentially in full agreement. And we both "get" what each other is saying. So, that's a good thing. At this point, it's not a real "issue" because (as you indicated), both can still be mentioned (i.e., no one gets omitted) due to Cooper being male and Wallis being female. So, all is good. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

prepositions

I believe the preposition "in" is sometimes used inaccurately in the current version of this article. It should be replaced by "for", or the relevant sentences otherwise reworded. For example:

• "Walt Disney won 22 Oscars (22 competitive, four honorary). He also won the most Oscars in one year, with four in 1953."

Not correct. He won four Oscars in 1954 (for 1953).

Other times in the article, the word "in" is used accurately, which makes it confusing for readers. For example:

• "James Dean, nominated for Best Actor in 1956 for East of Eden."

This is correct, but it is confusing because for most of the article the stated years refer to the year before the awards ceremony, not the year of the awards ceremony.

Mathew5000 (talk) 09:33, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nominated for every technical cat

Shouldn't it be 8 and not 7 (which would not include Hugo), since after all there is makeup as well.

Wgolf (talk) 17:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Cate playing Kate

The record about Cate Blanchett being the only actor to win an Oscar for playing an Oscar winner (Katharine Hepburn) was previously in the Best Actress article. It wasn't relevant there (she won Best Supporting Actress), so I've moved it to BSA and also to here (as a general Oscar record).

Along the way, I got to thinking: there must be someone who's won an Oscar for playing, say, an Oscar-winning movie director, writer, composer or whatever. Or is Blanchett really the first Oscar winner to play a previous Oscar winner in any category? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, she's the only one. Kenneth Branagh came close when he was nominated for playing Laurence Olivier in "My Week With Marilyn."Alight (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Films that were nominated for best picture but no other major award

So I'm starting this list (I just did one for BP noms that won every award expect picture). Now I'm not including films that were nominated for just one Oscar. But still one problem comes up are the early years where films having 2 noms was quite common (where as when there were 5 noms only 2 films had 2 noms including picture and they both had a major nom.), but the early years kind of make the chart feel less special-so think it should be for films with 3 noms or more? Also not sure what to say about Assistant director if that was a major cat or not! Wgolf (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Ooops-my bad Decision Before Dawn was nominated for picture and editing, still my point remains that the fact that the early 30s does make this record a lot less fun then it should be. (After Wizard of Oz there are not that many that have done this). Wgolf (talk) 21:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Lowest Grossing film to win best picture

Currently, this is shown as Hurt Locker, $15 000 000.

This needs to be clarified. IMDb gives the Worldwide gross as $49,230,772, and the North American gross as $17,017,811.
There are many best picture winners that had a lower worldwide gross, including In The Heat Of The Night.
There are also best picture winners that had a lower North American gross, such as Gigi.

So perhaps some reference or explanation can be added.Ordinary Person (talk)

In the absence of comments, I've been bold and replaced Hurt Locker with what appears to be the correct answer, Cimarron 1931.Ordinary Person (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Contradiction: Most nominations without Best Picture

The article states: First film to receive the most nominations of its year without receiving a Best Picture nomination (Dreamgirls (2006), with eight nominations). Then, further down the list, the article states: Most nominations without a Best Picture nomination (They Shoot Horses, Don't They? (1969) with 9 nominations). Is this a contradiction? Can someone clarify the difference? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:55, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Dreamgirls was the most nominated film of 2006 but was not nominated for picture, while Horses did not have the most nominations of 1969. Wgolf (talk) 06:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

OK. I got it now. Thanks. So Horses has the most nominations (without a Best Picture nomination) ever, with 9. But, in that particular year, Horses did not happen to be the most-nominated film. Another film (Anne of the Thousand Days) had ten nominations. Even though Dreamgirls had less nominations than Horses (eight versus nine), Dreamgirl received the most nominations (without a Best Picture nomination) in its specific year. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Two charts: Youngest multiple nominees for an acting award

This article contains two charts. They are both located at the end of the "age related" records. The first is entitled "Youngest multiple nominees for an acting award (best actor or best supporting actor)" and the second is entitled "Youngest multiple nominees for an acting award (best actress or best supporting actress)". I don't understand what information these charts are supposed to be conveying. Can someone clarify? For example, the actress (female) chart says that Meryl Streep is the youngest (at age 50) to receive her 12th nomination. Who else would be in that list? Are there a lot of actresses with 12 nominations? Or is Streep the only one? (I suspect that Streep is the only one.) If so, then that "list" is a "list" with only one name on it, the name of Meryl Streep. So, how would that be a "record" for the youngest actress? Also, we can just as well call her the oldest actress to receive her 12th nomination. I suspect she is the only actress to get 12 (and, thus, by definition, she would be the oldest as well as the youngest). The same thing goes for Jack Nicholson on the male chart. And many of the others as well. Jack Nicholson, at age 55, is the youngest actor to receive his 10th nomination. Are there others with ten nominations or is he the only one? It just seems silly to call a 55-year-old the "youngest" person to achieve something. I guess I am not clear on what the chart is trying to get across? Any thoughts? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, a side note. I don't think that the title should be "Youngest multiple nominees for an acting award". I think (maybe?) it should be "Youngest nominees for multiple acting awards". The nominations are multiple, not the nominees. Right? In other words, Streep received multiple nominations (12), but Streep is not a multiple nominee. She's a single nominee with multiple nominations. (I think?) My head is spinning with this chart. Either way, the charts don't make sense to me. I am unclear on what they are trying to say. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Katharine Hepburn had 12 nominations. Wgolf (talk) 06:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

BTW-here List of actors with two or more Academy Award nominations in acting categories. Wgolf (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. But, I still don't "get it". So, the list has only two people on it. Streep and Hepburn. And we are saying that when Streep received her 12th nom, she was younger than when Hepburn received her 12th nom? Is that what we are saying? How is this important? If there is a list with only two people on it, it's really hardly a "list" at all. Of course, with two people, one will be older and one younger. This chart is very odd to me. And, again, it seems odd to call a 50-year-old person the "youngest" to do something. Especially when she is only being compared to one other person. Is this chart necessary? Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, do you agree or disagree that the title is incorrect? "Youngest multiple nominees for an acting award" versus "Youngest nominees for multiple acting awards". Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Great...now thanks to that chart I now want to see the oldest multiple nominees chart and who use to hold the records as well. LOL. Though it would be interesting to see the youngest/oldest in the technical cats. Wgolf (talk) 22:28, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Most amount of time for a supporting win/nom

This could be kind of unfair given how long some films are. (And of course getting into child actors/actresses is another story of how many of them were really leads-such as in True Grit, pretty sure she was in at least 90% of the film) but yeah is there a way to do a % of time if possible? Wgolf (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

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 13:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The incredible shrinking Oscar

I see there's a mention of sweeps of the "Big 5", but what about the "Big 4" (minus Screenplay)? Does that add any films? IIRC, there'd be at least one more... And IMO it would be worth mentioning. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 16:39, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Wins after Honorary

How many people have ever won a competitive Oscar after receiving an honorary one? Because Ennio Morricone has a serious chance to do that this year. After a bit of research, Henry Fonda and Paul Newman both won for Best Actor the year after receiving an honorary award, and if you count any category, Chaplin won two separate honorary awards before winning Best Score for Limelight. Interesting bit of trivia, which I guess is what this page is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbb618 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Oldest winner of an Oscar

There is an entry for the youngest winner of an Oscar, so an entry for the oldest one should be added as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guidovilla (talk • contribs) 07:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Shortest lead role - Niven or Neal?

Up to Aug 2013, this page said that the "Shortest performance to win a lead acting Oscar" was David Niven in Separate Tables (1958) with 15 mins 38 sec of screen time. However someone then replaced this with Patricia Neal in Hud (1963) with 21 minutes and 51 seconds.

No source was provided to support this change, and neither the "Hud" nor "Patricia Neal" pages on Wikipedia (or IMDb) make any mention of Neal as holding this record. Any source please, or conversely any source to show that the Niven reference was incorrect? Otherwise can I just revert this change? Too Orangey For Crows (talk) 02:39, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

I changed this entry on 12 May 2016. That change was undone without comment by 71.15.239.207 on 14 May. Without a citation, I don't see how David Niven's 15 min 38 sec performance isn't shorter than Patricia Neal's 21+ min performance. I also don't see how Eleanor Parker 20+ min performance is shorter than his either, so that can't be considered "Shortest performance to be nominated for a lead acting Oscar".

The editor who undid my change is anonymous, so I don't have a means of discussing these changes. I'm not sure why they were made, but they appear to be contradicted by everything I can find via a Google search. E.g.

In the absence of a citation to the contrary and with no way to discuss the matter, I'm restoring the edits I made two days ago. Billbaldwin2 (talk) 14:23, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

The page has been reverted again, this time with the claim by user Stoogetins: "Niven's performance is 23 minutes long, not 15. Anyone who times it will get that result." If that's the case, then this record should belong to Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs for his ~16 minutes of screen time. Unless the web is wrong about that too. In the absence of definitive citations, I'm deleting the two claimed records affected by this controversy. Please do not restore any claims without adding a citation. Billbaldwin2 (talk) 19:48, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

I have restored the two records and added a citation to each. I would also like to note that the Patricia Neal citation refutes the myth that Anthony Hopkins's performance in The Silence of the Lambs is 16 minutes long, and also shows that David Niven's performance in Separate Tables is not 15 minutes long. Stoogetins (talk) 14:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Most wins for the same film by the same person

• As co-writer, director and producer of the 1960 film The Apartment, Billy Wilder collected three Oscars, the only person to do so for one film until James Cameron won three for 1997's "Titanic." [3].

Does this merit a place in the list? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_who_have_won_multiple_Academy_Awards_in_a_single_year

According to that page, Francis Ford Coppola (The Godfather Part II) and James L. Brooks (Terms of Endearment) won three for the same film between 1960 and 1997. Since then, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh (The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King), the Coen Brothers (No Country for Old Men), and Alejandro González Iñárritu (Birdman) have accomplished the feat. So, if you want to put it in the list, make sure to include all them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sbb618 (talk • contribs) 22:03, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of Academy Award records. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090301005626/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/helpMain.jsp?helpContentURL=statistics%2FindexStats.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080913120840/http://www.oscars.org/awardsdatabase/index.html to http://www.oscars.org/awardsdatabase/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Most Royalty / Leaders details

Category	Country	Title	Name	Actor	Film	Nomination	Win
Fictional	Bacteria	Dictator	Benzini Napaloni	Jack Oakie	The Great Dictator	Supporting Actor	N
Spouse/Consort	France	Queen Consort	Marie Antoinette	Norma Shearer	Marie Antoinette	Actress	N
Monarch	France	Emperor	Napoleon Bonaparte	Charles Boyer	Conquest	Actor	N
Monarch	France	King	Louis XI	Basil Rathbone	If I Were King	Supporting Actor	N
Monarch	France	King	Louis VII	John Gielgud	Becket	Supporting Actor	N
Monarch	France	King	Charles VII	Jose Ferrer	Joan of Arc	Supporting Actor	N
Monarch	France	King	Louis XVI	Robert Morley	Marie Antoinette	Supporting Actor	N
Civil Leader	Great Britain	Prime Minister	Winston Churchill	Gary Oldman	Darkest Hour	Actor	Y
Civil Leader	Great Britain	Prime Minister	Benjamin Disraeli	George Arliss	Disraeli	Actor	Y
Civil Leader	Great Britain	Prime Minister	Margaret Thatcher	Meryl Streep	The Iron Lady	Actress	Y
Spouse/Consort	Great Britain	Queen Consort	Anne Boleyn	Genevieve Bujold	Anne of the Thousand Days	Actress	N
Spouse/Consort	Great Britain	Queen Consort	Elizabeth	Helena Bonham Carter	The King's Speech	Supporting Actress	N
Spouse/Consort	Great Britain	Queen Consort	Charlotte	Helen Mirren	The Madness of King George	Supporting Actress	N
Spouse/Consort	Great Britain	Queen Consort	Eleanor of Aquitaine	Katherine Hepburn	The Lion in Winter	Actress	Y
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Henry V	Kenneth Branagh	Henry V (1989)	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Henry V	Laurence Olivier	Henry V (1945)	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Richard III	Laurence Olivier	Richard III	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	George III	Nigel Hawthorne	The Madness of King George	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Henry II	Peter O'Toole	Becket	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Henry II	Peter O'Toole	The Lion in Winter	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Henry VIII	Richard Burton	Anne of the Thousand Days	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Henry VIII	Robert Shaw	A Man for All Seasons	Supporting Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	Queen	Elizabeth I	Cate Blanchett	Elizabeth	Actress	N
Monarch	Great Britain	Queen	Elizabeth I	Cate Blanchett	Elizabeth: The Golden Age	Actress	N
Monarch	Great Britain	Queen	Anne	Olivia Colman	The Favourite	Actress	Y
Monarch	Great Britain	Queen	Victoria	Judi Dench	Mrs. Brown	Actress	N
Monarch	Great Britain	Queen of Scotland	Mary	Vanessa Redgrave	Mary, Queen of Scots	Actress	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King	Henry VIII	Charles Laughton	The Private Life of Henry VIII	Actor	Y
Monarch	Great Britain	King	George VI	Colin Firth	The King's Speech	Actor	Y
Monarch	Great Britain	Queen	Elizabeth II	Helen Mirren	The Queen	Actress	Y
Monarch	Great Britain	Queen	Elizabeth I	Judi Dench	Shakespeare in Love	Supporting Actress	Y
Monarch	Mexico	Emperor	Maximilian I	Brian Aherne	Juarez	Supporting Actor	N
Monarch	Roman Empire	Emperor	Julius Caesar	Rex Harrison	Cleopatra	Actor	N
Monarch	Roman Empire	Emperor	Commodus	Joaquin Phoenix	Gladiator	Supporting Actor	N
Monarch	Roman Empire	Emperor	Nero	Peter Ustinov	Quo Vadis	Supporting Actor	N
Monarch	Roman Empire	Trumvir	Mark Antony	Marlon Brando	Julius Caesar	Actor	N
Spouse/Consort	Russia	Empress	Alexandra	Janet Suzman	Nicholas and Alexandra	Actress	N
Spouse/Consort	Siam	Consort	Lady Thiang	Gale Sondergaard	Anna and the King of Siam	Supporting Actress	N
Monarch	Siam	King	Mongkut	Yul Brynner	The King and I	Actor	Y
Fictional	Tomainia	Dictator	Adenoid Hynkel	Charles Chaplin	The Great Dictator	Actor	N
Civil Leader	Uganda	President	Idi Amin	Forest Whitaker	The Last King of Scotland	Actor	Y
Civil Leader	Union of South Africa	President	Nelson Mandela	Morgan Freeman	Invictus	Actor	N
Civil Leader	United States	President	Woodrow Wilson	Alexander Knox	Wilson	Actor	N
Civil Leader	United States	President	Richard Nixon	Anthony Hopkins	Nixon	Actor	N
Civil Leader	United States	President	Richard Nixon	Frank Langella	Frost/Nixon	Actor	N
Civil Leader	United States	President	Harry S. Truman	James Whitmore	Give 'em Hell, Harry!	Actor	N
Civil Leader	United States	President	Abraham Lincoln	Raymond Massey	Abe Lincoln in Illinois	Actor	N
Civil Leader	United States	President	John Quincy Adams	Anthony Hopkins	Amistad	Supporting Actor	N
Civil Leader	United States	President	Abraham Lincoln	Daniel Day-Lewis	Lincoln	Actor	Y
Civil Leader	United States	President	George W. Bush	Sam Rockwell	Vice	Supporting Actor	N
Spouse/Consort	United States	First Lady	Eleanor Roosevelt	Greer Garson	Sunrise at Campobello	Actress	N
Spouse/Consort	United States	First Lady	Jackie Kennedy	Natalie Portman	Jackie	Actress	N
Spouse/Consort	United States	First Lady	Pat Nixon	Joan Allen	Nixon	Supporting Actress	N
Spouse/Consort	United States	First Lady	Mary Todd Lincoln	Sally Field	Lincoln	Supporting Actress	N
Fictional	Rukh	Raja	The Raja	George Arliss	The Green Goddess	Actor	N
Fictional	United States	President	Merkin Muffley	Peter Sellers	Dr. Strangelove	Actor	N
Theocrat	Vatican City	Pope	Benedict XVI	Anthony Hopkins	The Two Popes	Supporting Actor	N
Theocrat	Vatican City	Pope	Francis	Jonathan Pryce	The Two Popes	Actor	N
Monarch	Great Britain	King of Scotland	Macbeth	Denzel Washington	The Tragedy of Macbeth (2021 film)	Actor	N

Klantry01 (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Harold Russell

Why isn't Harold Russell listed as the 2nd person to recieve a Best Supporting Actress for a debut performance? Is it because we are counting the army film "Diary of a Sergeant". If so, and its appropriate to count it as his debut performance, then nevermind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.211.90 (talk) 12:00, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a great question. The Academy Awards official website does not list Harold Russell's performance in The Best Years of Our Lives as a debut performance. I suspect that it is exactly for the reason you mention ... because of his role in that Army training film. It seems odd, however, that the Academy would consider an Army training film as reason to disqualify Russell's performance from being considered a "professional" debut. I will email them and ask for clarification on this. I will post back here when I receive a reply from AMPAS. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2009 (UTC))

Here it is ... literally, ten years later. The Academy (AMPAS) has now listed Harold Russell (The Best Years of Our Lives) in their database of "debut" Oscar winners. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Longest time span between first and last nomination and between first and last award

• Katharine Hepburn: 48 years from Morning Glory (1933, in the 1932/33 awards) until On Golden Pond (1981)

I've read the title of this item 20 times but I still do not understand what it means. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

It's two separate categories combined in one title. "Longest time span between first and last nomination" and "longest time span between first and last awards". It just so happens that the record holder for both categories is the same person, for the same performances. Sbb618 (talk) 19:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It would make a lot more sense to me if the two categories were separately listed. There's no disadvantage in mentioning the same record-holder twice. By way of analogy, if the same person was the youngest-ever Best Actor winner and also the youngest-ever Best Director winner, for the same movie, I doubt we'd have a category called "Youngest winner of the Best Actor and Best Director awards". -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:59, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Confusion with year specifications

I haven't trawled through the page exhaustively, but there's definitely a problem with John Williams's items. The years we show for him are the years in which the awards were actually presented, whereas the general rule is the year in which the film was released, which is the year before the awards ceremony.

For example, we show him with an award for 2018, which turns out to be for a movie released in 2017. In the general case, "2018" means a film released in 2018, for which awards were announced at the 2019 ceremony yesterday. Williams was not nominated for yesterday's awards, but was nominated for the previous year's awards.

There may well be other errors of this type, and it needs someone to go through and check them all. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 20:58, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Merger Proposal

I think List of superlative Academy Award winners and nominees should be merged with this article (List of Academy Award records). The former contains very little information not presented here, and is out of date. Also, having two very similar pages with the same information, albeit structured differently, is confusing and unnecessary. Calbow (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. They are separate content. I can go in and "clean up" the former one (superlatives) and bring it up-to-date. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:01, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

How Many Awards for Walt Disney

The caption under his photo says 27, while the entry under "Most awards won by a man" says 22. Rdvaldesdapena (talk) 14:59, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Trans winners/nominees/characters

Why aren't there any mentions of "first transgender person to win/be nominated"? I get that there's a whole page of LGBT+ winners/nominees, but it seems strange to me that this page includes multiple instances of firsts for men and women but no instances of firsts for any other gender. (Similarly, I find the exclusion of gay/lesbian firsts egregious. The list of firsts by country is extensive and many other socially-constructed categories are included.)

I also think a list of people who have won/been nominated for acting awards for playing trans characters would be helpful. Furthermore, I feel like seeing the number of cis actors who have won/been nominated for playing trans characters would support trans representation. But, maybe this kind of list would be more consistent with the List of LGBTQ Academy Award winners and nominees page and should be included there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.99.160 (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Header switches

Concerning edit #1017592193, which undid a swap of headers regarding nominations and awards: How was it originally correct? Awards should be represented first, agreed, however the headers do not represent the data:

Most awards won by a single film: 11

• Three films have won 11 Academy Awards:
  • Ben-Hur (1959) – 15 categories available for nomination; nominated for 12
  • Titanic (1997) – 17 categories available for nomination; nominated for 14
  • The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003) – 17 categories available for nomination; nominated for 11

AND

Most nominations received by a single film: 14

• Three films have received 14 nominations:
  • All About Eve (1950) – 16 categories available for nomination; won 6 awards
  • Titanic (1997) – 17 categories available for nomination; won 11 awards
  • La La Land (2016) – 17 categories available for nomination; won 6 awards

The "Most awards won" header is clearly displaying data that references the most amount of nominations, and vice versa. The proper edit then would instead be to swap out the data sets under the headers "Most awards won" and "Most nominations received". Chollaren (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Most Awards Won by a Single Film

That category is written confusingly. Could someone clean it up? The Mo-Ja'al (talk) 04:26, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. I'd love to clean it up, if only I understood it. It says three films are tied, having won 11 awards each, but in-line it is noted that some of these three only won 6 awards. Additionally, I realized the following two movies are not included in the list; Ben-Hur and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, which I know both won 11 awards each. Is something wrong, or are you actually just using a system that I can't comprehend? :) Amargaard (talk) 09:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

It seems both the Most Awards won- and Most Nominations Received-sections have been spliced into an abomination. None of the numbers make sense, nor the following bullet points; the headers themselves have been swapped with each other?? What happened? Chollaren (talk) 19:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Basil Rathbone vs. Charlize Theron vs. Chiwetel Ejiofor vs. Cate Blanchett

Rathbone's page rightly says he "was an English actor" (though born in SA), while Theron's article lead correctly identifies her as "a South African and American actress and producer". Theron holds dual citizenship while Rathbone never did (he fled the country at 3 and didn't/couldn't go back). Britannica calls him a "British" actor (rather than "English") but nowhere (I can find) except this page is he identified as: African. Unless all of the other articles on this are in error, Rathbone should not qualify here as "African". It is internally inconsistent with the encyclopedia as a whole, and even with some of the other entries on the list at this page. Being born in SA doesn't make you "from" SA. If it did, then it's hard to see why Cate Blanchett isn't the first Australian to win a Best Actress Oscar (rather than Nicole Kidman, "from" Honolulu). It may have been that Rathbone was mis-identified by list makers of the past as an African man, but, if so, those (erroneous) sources aren't even cited in the article. That must strongly incline us to update this record. Can a single citation be found for Rathbone's identity as an African? NB: the key identity named in this article is "descent" (i.e. "First actress of Russian descent"). Culturally, the Rathbones were always English (of English expatriate "descent" though residing in SA). There was never anything identifiably South African about him. That is why Rathbone is rightly excluded from the List of African Academy Award winners and nominees article (since this article usefully defines its inclusion criterion as follows: "This is a list of African Academy Award winners and nominees, which includes both ethnic African people born and/or raised in Africa and non-ethnic Africans born and raised in Africa.") The emphasis in that quote may be mine, but the point is common-sense: if you weren't raised in the country, are ethnically unrelated to it and have no cultural connections there then you aren't "from" there (and shouldn't be on the list). By internal consistency (with that article specifically on African Oscar winners) Rathbone's entry here should be corrected to read as follows:

First African to be nominated for acting

Chiwetel Ejiofor (British-Nigerian) nominated for Best Supporting Actor for 12 Years a Slave (2013)

Wragge (talk) 19:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Strange criteria for Academy Award firsts

Diopic (talk) 19:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)As why in this category for example used First Australian or Italian to win Best Actor or Actress and not e.g. Best Picture or Best Director. As counterpart, the first Canadian Best Director winner preseented on list which is James Cameron, while other non-american Best Director winners as French Michel Hazanavicius, or British David Lean, or Australian Mel Gibson In my opinion, this section about firsts should be consisted with not national related records as each country through time has potencial to win or at least became first time nominee in all competitive and honorary Academy Award categories unless retired. Besides there are plenty of lists with focus on national and ethnicity of winners so this section better be removed or changed to first Academy Award winner/nominee in any category e.g. First Canadian to win any Academy Award, with Mary Pickford as illustration. Thanks.

Mel Gibson has never been an Australian, technically. He was born in the USA, was raised in Australia, and has lived in the USA for decades. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 19:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Consecutive awards

Russell Crowe wing Best Actor for Gladiator 2001 and A Beautiful Mind 2002 45.19.27.76 (talk) 19:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)