This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

why is this article redicrected to the main 81st academy awards article ? ArielGenesis ( talk) 22:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC) reply

There was a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Film awards task force#List of academy award winners and nominees, etc. to merge/redirect these articles. Zzyzx11 ( talk) 03:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC) reply

someone went through and put the winners with a bogus spanish "secret list" about the winners. so I just undid all of them, but couldn't find the original in the history. there you go. Hooty88888 ( talk) 05:04, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

The name of this page is "Nominees and Winners," but the winners have not been announced yet. Should a scheduled or expected event tag be put on this page? --DJM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.59.46.202 ( talk) 15:16, 22 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Could someone please add more information on this controversy? There are already two reliable references, but more should be added to furthur explain the snubings.-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 05:52, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

This article states that he is 69, but his birthyear is not clear. He may be 70 or 71. See note on his page. All Hallow's Wraith ( talk) 11:24, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

Can someone explain to me how this is not a trivia section? As I read it, it's pretty much the definition of trivia. Tomdobb ( talk) 16:18, 23 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I disagree ... and, strongly so, at that. This article is about all Academy Award nominees/nominations for the current year. This particular section of the article details those nominees/nominations which are particularly notable from amongst the lot of all nominees/nominations. There is nothing trivial or miscellaneous about it. All of these nominees/nominations are distinguished from the rest, for one reason or another. I think it is a valid section. I do not see it as trivial or miscellaneous at all. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 14:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)) reply

As you say yourself, these nominations are distinguished "for one reason or another." That sounds completely miscellaneous to me. There's not one set of criteria other than a hazy suggestion of notability. Tomdobb ( talk) 17:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC) reply

You shouldn't have to worry anymore. I deleted the section and added relevant content (that pertaininsto actual film milestones met by the picture as opposed to simple trivia) to the multiple nominations table. Bigvinu ( talk) 00:09, 5 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Who erased the Best Picture Reviews section? Someone should put it back up there, it further explains the alleged snubbing and critical reception is an important factor in the Academy's voting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.172.23.157 ( talk) 22:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I would reinsert it into the article, however, I believe we should wait for consensus from other editors first.-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 16:06, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm already so over hearing people talk about 'snubs'. What, do you think the 5000+ membership of the Academy had some secret meeting to say, "lets not nominate The Dark Knight or Wall-E?"

I would also add, there seems no point in including critical assessment of the Best Picture nominations, let alone to set them against a particular choice of 2 films that didn't get nominations. Why not include Doubt, which got a SAG nom, and good reviews? Or Revolutionary Road, Happy-Go-Lucky, and Vicky Christina Barcelona, who got Golden Globe nominations/wins? Critics don't decide the nominees, Academy members do.

This page is for listing the nominees (and eventually the winners), and notable facts/figures/trivia about the nominations. If anything, the most this segment needs is a brief paragraph mentioning that The Reader was a suprise nomination because of lower critical regard, and that many people expected TDK or Wall-E or some other film to have its spot. A listing of the critical reviews which includes films not nominated just looks like complaining that they films you liked didn't get nominated.

Tagging Heath Ledger's nomination parenthetically as posthumous seems to suggest that his death was somehow relevent to his nomination. Furthermore, additional information about other nominees is not provided as they are listed. That this is a posthumous nomination is noted in "notable" section anyway. So I have removed the "posthumous" tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damiwh ( talk • contribs) 21:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC) reply

A posthumous Academy Award nomination (or an Award itself) is a relatively rare (and notable) event. Thus, it is entirely appropriate to include it as a parenthetic notation. In fact, this is in line with many/most of the other Academy Award articles, in which the same parenthetic notation is applied. I am not sure how this is an issue of controversy? Furthermore, your statement that such a notation implies/suggests that Ledger's death was relevant to his nomination is not only unfounded, but also non-sensical. That is simply you reading into something that is not there. In fact, most would (and do) consider this to be a great honor. You have somehow turned that around 180 degrees to imply that he only received the nomination because of his death (and, thus, not on his merits). Where on earth did you get that idea from? Bottom Line: His nomination is posthumous. That is a fact. This is an article about Academy Award nominations, rarely granted posthumously. So, again, what is the issue in dispute or at controversy? I have re-added the notation, which was deleted for no reason. Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 06:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)) reply

Joseph, I think you forgot to "assume good faith". You seem to think *I* am suggesting that he was nominated because he died. Not true. My comment was the opposite. I think that noting his nomination as posthumous suggests that he might have been nominated because he died, thus my recommendation to remove the notation is because I don't think that was the reason.

Frank Langella's age makes his nomination unusual, but the tag "(old nominee)" was not put next to his name in the list. Heath Ledger and Frank Langella were both nominated for the same reason: their performances were great. That Frank is old and that Heath is dead is not relevent to their performance or nomination, thus should not be noted beside the nomination. Damiwh ( talk) 23:04, 26 January 2009 (UTC) reply

I foresee much anonymous vandalism and random edits in the next 72 hours, and wonder if we can get some protection on this page. Does anyone know how to do that? I'll be away and can't monitor the page, but this would cut down on the predictive "winners" that people like to highlight before the actual announcements. Thanks. -- Mtjaws ( talk) 17:17, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

It is likely that is what will happen, but I'm inclined to be naïve and idealistic and assume good faith. Indeed, most of the recent bunch of anonymous edits seem to be improvements. Even "Today's Featured Article" is not automatically protected until the vandalism becomes extreme. When this page starts to be vandalised excessively, someone can request semi-protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Shreevatsa ( talk) 17:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC) reply

As long as we have enough people watching this page, then it should be okay. From my experience, awards ceremonies usually do have vandalism, but there are also anonymous editors who pitch in to revert those when they see it as the page is highly trafficked. Gary King ( talk) 17:34, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Lots of strange things going on right now – mostly from anons – on a page with lots of traffic. Semi-protection? Lampman ( talk) 02:21, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

In this article, shouldn't there be some names (the producers?) listed after the film titles for the Best Picture nominees? This (below) is what is listed in the Academy Award for Best Picture article.

• 2008
  • The Curious Case of Benjamin Button – Paramount & Warner Bros. – Kathleen Kennedy, Frank Marshall, and Cean Chaffin
  • Frost/Nixon – Universal – Ron Howard, Brian Grazer, and Eric Fellner
  • Milk – Focus Features – Dan Jinks and Bruce Cohen
  • The Reader – The Weinstein Company – Anthony Minghella, Sydney Pollack, Donna Gigliotti, and Redmond Morris
  • Slumdog Millionaire – Fox Searchlight, Warner Bros., and Pathe – Christian Colson

Thanks. ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)) reply

I agree. This was once edited into the article, however, an IP reverted it.-- Snowman Guy ( talk) 20:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Is there a set article maintainer around or is it normal for editing conflicts to happen so often? - Mardus ( talk) 02:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There will be conflicts due to edits/reformats/etc. all being sent to the database within a few seconds of each other, since the data is from a live televised event. Schweiwikist ( talk) 02:43, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

There is no maintainer as such. What editing conflicts do you mean? It is normal for highly visited pages to attract a fair share of vandalism, which is usually quickly reverted. If there is too much vandalism, the page might be (semi-)protected. Shreevatsa ( talk) 02:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Well, I already saw vandalism that had Ben Stiller's name in it in the Best Cinematography section. - Mardus ( talk) 02:39, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure I quite understand the pairing of the lower-level awards. Wouldn't it have a better internal coherence to pair them as follows:

• Documentary Short - Documentary Feature
• Live Action Short - Animated Short
• Original Score - Original Song
• Sound Editing - Sound Mixing

The remainder fall less naturally into pairs, but perhaps:

• Makeup - Costume Design
• Visual Effects - Film Editing

Lampman ( talk) 16:35, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree that your suggested pairings make a lot more sense. However, I like the previous list format better, just like the nominee pages of previous years (see 80th Academy Awards nominees and winners). That page puts the minor categories in alphabetical order, yet years before then don't even have an "Other Awards" section. Without discussion, one user converted to table format, which eliminates most TOC links, and I don't know why. Let's keep all years the same. -- Mtjaws ( talk) 17:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC) reply

Paring makes sense, but per WP:TABLE if you want to present the lists in that format, you should really use one of the options found at Template:Column rather than wikitable formatting. —Ed Cormany ( talk) 02:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I agree that the suggested pairing noted above makes more sense. The only reason I kept it in this order was to maintain the previous order. Naturally, in the 2 column format, the above pairings noted by Lampman make more sense. I apologize for not initiating discussion before creating this major formatting change, but I think it looks cleaner and mimics the neatness of the Golden Globe awards pages. See 66th Golden Globe Awards. Your thoughts are always welcome, and I'd suggest improving all past pages to this format. Thanks. Supertigerman ( talk) 08:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

This is a great section. I note that this technically has a list of facts around it, something that wikipedia does not generally support, but I would like to pre-emptively advocate that it is quite encyclopedic and delightful. Davedorr ( talk) 15:10, 24 February 2009 (UTC) reply

I second that. Thanks! ( Joseph A. Spadaro ( talk) 18:20, 24 February 2009 (UTC)) reply

I have the additional awards compiled, but hesitate to jump into the main page to add the data since it's so darn pretty now. If one of the folks who have been maintaining this page wants to add the information in a format consistent with the rest of the page, here it is:

Begin:

Scientific & Technical Awards Winners presented on February 7, 2009

Gordon E. Sawyer Award: Ed Catmull, a computer scientist, co-founder of Pixar Animation Studios, and president of Walt Disney and Pixar Animation Studios

John A. Bonner Medal: Mark Kimball, a computer scientist and motion picture technologist

Technical Achievement Awards: Steve Hylén for the Hylén Lens System

Scientific and Engineering Awards: Erwin Melzner, Volker Schumacher and Timo Müller for the Arrimax 18/12 lighting fixture

Jacques Delacoux and Alexandre Leuchter for the Transvideo-video assist monitors

Bruno Coumert, Jacques Debize, Dominique Chervin and Christophe Reboulet for the Angenieux 15-40 and 28-76 zoom lenses

Source: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences http://www.oscars.org/awards/scitech/winners.html

35th Annual Student Academy Awards 2008 Winners receive trophies (but not Oscar statuettes) and cash prizes

Alternative: Gold Medal Award: Shih-Ting Hung, University of Southern California Silver Medal Award: Phoebe Tooke, San Francisco State University

Animation: Gold Medal Award: Nicole Mitchell, California Institute of the Arts Silver Medal Award: Tatchapon Lertwirojkul, School of Visual Arts, New York Bronze Medal Award: Evan Mayfield, Ringling College of Art and Design

Documentary: Gold Medal Award: Laura Waters Hinson, American University Silver Medal Award: J.J. Adler, Columbia University Bronze Medal Award: Brian Davis, University of Southern California

Narrative: Gold Medal Award: Rajeev Dassani, University of Southern California Silver Medal Award: Z. Eric Yang, Florida State University Bronze Medal Award: Melanie McGraw, University of Southern California

Honorary Foreign Film: Reto Caffi, Academy of Media Arts, Cologne, Germany

Source: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences http://www.oscars.org/awards/saa/winners/index.html

2008 Don & Gee Nicholl Fellowships in Screenwriting

Jeremy Bandow, Hive Ken Kristensen & Colin Marshall, Out of Breath Jason A. Micallef, Butter Eric Nazarian, Giants Lee Patterson, Snatched

Source: Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences http://www.oscars.org/awards/nicholl/fellows/1986-present.html

End Kid Bugs ( talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC) reply