This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
90th Academy Awards article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
90th Academy Awards 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on March 5, 2018. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Voting seems to have died down and at the moment is 7 to 5 in favor to keep with limitations, but guidelines for those limitations have not been established or even proposed in a clear way. User:JDDJS, User:Film Fan, User:Nauriya, User:Krimuk2.0, User:QueerFilmNerd, User:Ca2james and User:North8000, you all voted to keep but limit. What are the limits? If this isn't established then this entire discussion is completely useless to contributors 11 months from now.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 17:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Well with the exception of Mary J Blige (which I could take or leave her inclusion on the list) I strongly feel that everything currently on the list should stay. Now if somebody wants to add something new to the list, I feel it simply comes down to whether or not they can provide multiple reliable sources that significantly cover the relevance of the nomination. JDDJS ( talk) 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
My idea is the the current number (14) is about right. The current criteria seem a little heavily based on race and sex....maybe lighten up on that a bit. North8000 ( talk) 21:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that adding something just because it is sourced is unwise because even the news media can and does report on unencyclopedic and trivial things. I think the key is context and that the source must state (or suggest) why it is noteworthy. In other words a source could mention that Gerwig received the fifth nom for a female and support that with the context of it being a low number, of recent events, etc. However the same source could also mention the Supporting Actor double nom thing, but I can't imagine anyone being able to articulate why that it noteworthy.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 15:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)-- Deoliveirafan Also, its been almost a week since the call for a vote was made. Its currently 7 to 6 in favor to keep, with more delete votes trickling in after the first few days. What should the time limit be for the vote?-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Where's the part about the 2108 Academy Awards having the worst ratings ever in the history of the awards, and they keep getting revised downwards, tied with Jimmy Kimmel blaming Netflix et al? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.91.54 ( talk) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I personally think enough time has gone by to call this. It should be noted that the current vote is very close, 7 to 6 in favor of keeping. I think that some ideas have been thrown around about what qualifies content to be kept for future editors to refer to and discuss, but I do not believe that these could be called clear guidelines that are inarguably encyclopedic and up to Wikipedia's standards. I am not sure if there is clear consensus to integrate the content of the section into the prose of the article, but I personally believe that that would be best and that if so it should go into the "Ceremony Information" section. So I need other editor's input/confirmation on three points: Consensus to Keep, Consensus on what the limits are, and Consensus on where the content belongs in the article.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 04:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Allison Janney is the third, not second person to win an Oscar while concurrently on a TV series, Helen Hunt and Viola Davis are the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 ( talk) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
90th Academy Awards article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 180 days |
90th Academy Awards 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. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
A news item involving this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the " In the news" column on March 5, 2018. | |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened: |
Voting seems to have died down and at the moment is 7 to 5 in favor to keep with limitations, but guidelines for those limitations have not been established or even proposed in a clear way. User:JDDJS, User:Film Fan, User:Nauriya, User:Krimuk2.0, User:QueerFilmNerd, User:Ca2james and User:North8000, you all voted to keep but limit. What are the limits? If this isn't established then this entire discussion is completely useless to contributors 11 months from now.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 17:04, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
Well with the exception of Mary J Blige (which I could take or leave her inclusion on the list) I strongly feel that everything currently on the list should stay. Now if somebody wants to add something new to the list, I feel it simply comes down to whether or not they can provide multiple reliable sources that significantly cover the relevance of the nomination. JDDJS ( talk) 17:41, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
My idea is the the current number (14) is about right. The current criteria seem a little heavily based on race and sex....maybe lighten up on that a bit. North8000 ( talk) 21:23, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I would suggest that adding something just because it is sourced is unwise because even the news media can and does report on unencyclopedic and trivial things. I think the key is context and that the source must state (or suggest) why it is noteworthy. In other words a source could mention that Gerwig received the fifth nom for a female and support that with the context of it being a low number, of recent events, etc. However the same source could also mention the Supporting Actor double nom thing, but I can't imagine anyone being able to articulate why that it noteworthy.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 15:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)-- Deoliveirafan Also, its been almost a week since the call for a vote was made. Its currently 7 to 6 in favor to keep, with more delete votes trickling in after the first few days. What should the time limit be for the vote?-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 16:51, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Where's the part about the 2108 Academy Awards having the worst ratings ever in the history of the awards, and they keep getting revised downwards, tied with Jimmy Kimmel blaming Netflix et al? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.91.54 ( talk) 21:18, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
I personally think enough time has gone by to call this. It should be noted that the current vote is very close, 7 to 6 in favor of keeping. I think that some ideas have been thrown around about what qualifies content to be kept for future editors to refer to and discuss, but I do not believe that these could be called clear guidelines that are inarguably encyclopedic and up to Wikipedia's standards. I am not sure if there is clear consensus to integrate the content of the section into the prose of the article, but I personally believe that that would be best and that if so it should go into the "Ceremony Information" section. So I need other editor's input/confirmation on three points: Consensus to Keep, Consensus on what the limits are, and Consensus on where the content belongs in the article.-- Deoliveirafan ( talk) 04:33, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Allison Janney is the third, not second person to win an Oscar while concurrently on a TV series, Helen Hunt and Viola Davis are the others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.189.88 ( talk) 16:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)