![]() | A fact from Oscar bait appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 March 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've tagged this for refimprove; we need sources (preferably multiple for each film named) saying that it was Oscar bait for these reasons. It's not enough to say "source says historical films are Oscar bait, Shakespeare In Love is a historical film, therefore it is Oscar bait" - that sort of syllogism is WP:OR. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Properly developed, this article could be as rich as (tooting my own horn alert) dump months. There's a lot of interesting discussion in the cited sources. We could have a lot more than just lists of films here. I think we have a shot at a DYK nomination if we act fast. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This New York Times article from 1955. Beats the 1968 one we have at Wiktionary. Can someone look behind the paywall? Daniel Case ( talk) 05:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Is the list of Oscar bait films that failed to receive nominations truly needed? My reasoning is that it reveals little about the meaning of Oscar bait, its characteristics, etc. It can also give the impression that films perceived as Oscar bait never actually win anything (and there have been, i.e. Shakespeare in Love, Green Book, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc). I expect the list will get longer, and it is already such a specific topic.
Also, the list is almost word-for-word a list of episodes from the podcast This Had Oscar Buzz. The list could simply be removed and replaced with a reference for the podcast. @ Espngeek Spectrallights ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
![]() | A fact from Oscar bait appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 17 March 2014 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I've tagged this for refimprove; we need sources (preferably multiple for each film named) saying that it was Oscar bait for these reasons. It's not enough to say "source says historical films are Oscar bait, Shakespeare In Love is a historical film, therefore it is Oscar bait" - that sort of syllogism is WP:OR. – Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 17:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Properly developed, this article could be as rich as (tooting my own horn alert) dump months. There's a lot of interesting discussion in the cited sources. We could have a lot more than just lists of films here. I think we have a shot at a DYK nomination if we act fast. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:34, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
This New York Times article from 1955. Beats the 1968 one we have at Wiktionary. Can someone look behind the paywall? Daniel Case ( talk) 05:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Is the list of Oscar bait films that failed to receive nominations truly needed? My reasoning is that it reveals little about the meaning of Oscar bait, its characteristics, etc. It can also give the impression that films perceived as Oscar bait never actually win anything (and there have been, i.e. Shakespeare in Love, Green Book, All Quiet on the Western Front, etc). I expect the list will get longer, and it is already such a specific topic.
Also, the list is almost word-for-word a list of episodes from the podcast This Had Oscar Buzz. The list could simply be removed and replaced with a reference for the podcast. @ Espngeek Spectrallights ( talk) 15:49, 17 March 2023 (UTC)