Talk:Academy Award for Best Actress

message: 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)
thread_title:  Just a repository of images 

message: Meryl Streep was nominated a total of 17 times and won 3 times as noted in the Oscars of 2012.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.219.140.244 (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Up date the list of Wins & Nominations 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Actress. 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/20090208011732/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/BasicSearchInput.jsp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Actress. 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/20141021054540/http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf to http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141021054540/http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf to http://www.oscars.org/sites/default/files/87aa_rules.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Academy Award for Best Actress. 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://archive.is/20120905/http://www.oscars.org/awards/academyawards/legacy/ceremony/55th-winners.html to http://www.oscars.org/oscars/ceremonies/1983
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Left a note at User talk:Michael 182 about his changes to the 4 related AA acting articles. Do any other editors/readers care about keeping the list as one continuous sortable table, or do you prefer a split by decade, and if so, why? Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No comments in a week, so nobody seems to care. Leaving it split is ok with this editor. Isn't anyone else watching this 'featured' list? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After seeing the layout of the Golden Globe Award categories, where they divide the list by decades, I think it would be useful to do something similar on this page, like what User talk:Michael 182 did.190.19.5.35 (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Splitting table by decade

message: Please see explanation and make any responses at the best actor talk page. Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: There has been no response so far, at any of the four related acting award articles. The Academy Award for Best Actor article has been changed to have only 1 image, of the latest winner, while the rest were moved to a Wikimedia gallery which was then expanded to include all winners in that category, not just the half or so that had been in the article. This article is next, unless there is a good, logical reason not to proceed. If there is, speak now or ... undo later. ;) Please see the reasons provided in the best actor talk page and respond there, or here if you prefer. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

text: Wikimedia gallery is now set up, including all the images of the 45 winners from the December 10th version of this article. The other 30 winners can now be added to the Wikimedia gallery, as was done for actors at the Best Actor gallery. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I'm moving them back, they can exist in both places. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That didn't take long. It's very interesting that no one reverted, or questioned, the removal of the men's images which was done almost a week ago, till now that is. :) Of course the images can exist in both places, but should they, and why? (other than they look nice, are they really adding to the article, or distracting from the basic idea of a simple list, and unnecessarily slowing page loads?) And why only a selected ~half of all winners - OK, to fit the table length, but why those particular ones? Who did the selection and was there any criteria? Only multiple nominees and winners, for instance? Why did only a very small fraction of all readers (~0.8%) click on the new (and obvious) links to the Best Actor gallery - about 24 people/day in the last 6 days, while the article had ~3000 viewers/day in the last 10 days? Do most readers not care to see galleries of pictures, whether in the article or 1-click away, or maybe they didn't see 3 different copies of the same gallery link? (admittedly, that was deliberate overkill to see how many readers would bite - not many) Certainly not annoyed you reverted the changes (in fact, you saved me the trouble of filling out the female gallery, for the moment anyway, and the supporting actors/actresses - thanks!), but I am still curious about any other editor's and reader's thoughts or opinions. Anybody?... Brian W. Schaller (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I didn't notice until a huge red -10KB appeared on my watchlist.  I like the lead infobox image, but see no harm at all in making a very dry list of tables a little less dry with some images of the rich and famous.  This was also considered at the very least acceptable, perhaps even desirable at the various FLC processes these lists have undergone. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No one else wants to say anything. Only 1 other reader agrees with me about the excessive images (look 6 sections above), but unless several more chime in, it's pointless to argue any further. As a compromise, how about at least moving all the images to a gallery, below the table, and reduce it to the latest 10 winners and all multiple winners, which makes 29 total images, rather then the current 42? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see the problem.  A gallery is an inelegant way of dumping a load of images into an article, as long as the images are in some semblance of chronological order alongside the table, I see no issue with the current format (nor do the literally hundreds of commentators at the literally hundreds of FLCs that are formatted similarly).  The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

text: I don't feel compelled to convince you of anything.  The format has been community-approved, through the FLC process.  If you'd like some examples of FLs where we have images down the side of the table, well Laureus World Sports Award for Team of the Year, List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft, List of airports in the Okanagan, PFA Young Player of the Year, Minnesota Mr. Basketball, List of Calgary Flames award winners, List of National Hockey League players born in the United Kingdom, etc. in a quick search.  Do you really think our readers will head to Commons for this?  In a straw(man) poll, I asked my colleagues about Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons.  All of them knew about the first, none of them had heard of the second.  We don't send people to Commons for an unstructured and un-curated view of dozens of similar and probably crap images.  That's not what an encyclopedia should do at all.  The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Still awaiting other replies... The examples you've given above all contain much smaller tables with reasonable amounts of images placed in good locations - there are only about 6 or so images in most of them - unlike the overload of 40+ images in these AA actor tables, which will only increase in time. Wikimedia Commons supplies most Wikipedia images so it's only ignorant editors that are completely unaware of it. Commons galleries are curated - it's the categories that are often full of bad images. Having the table-side galleries does not deter editors from constantly trying to enlarge them as has been evident these last few weeks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  really?  You really think that?  My work colleagues who are beyond degree-level educated are all "ignorant"?  The people I interact with outside Wikipedia are all "ignorant" because they've never heard of Commons?  Honestly?  I think we're done here if that's your genuine belief.  Wikipedia home page gets 20 million hits a day, what does Commons get?  I'm afraid until you come up with something actually helpful to our readers, this conversation has reached its natural conclusion, and that's that we leave the lists as per the community consensus at the FLC review. Time to do something positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

text: Yes, but bear in mind that the second usage of the word was all that was intended. So, now you're aware of galleries but don't believe they are a better option. Unless others join in, this discussion does seem over, as this Talk page gets fewer views than the Wikimedia gallery. The same point about the tiny % of readers who look at galleries & infobox images compared to article views was made above. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move most of the images to a Wikimedia gallery? 

message: The sidebar photo here is showing Frances McDormand, but it shows her holding a different award. It's a bit confusing. Could someone change this?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.91.144.6 (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I came over here to ask the same thing but if I removed it y’all would type me a black eye on my talk page. I think the image needs to be removed and replaced with the trophy itself until someone gains permission to use a photo of her carrying an actual Oscar.Trillfendi (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does the sidebar photo show a different award? 

message: First off, this information appears to only be discussed by the lead, and not the main body of the article. No information should be given by the lead unless later discussed by the main article. 
Secondly, finding out more is too difficult. We are given a clue for the first character, but what, say, is "The Letter" and which performances of "Leslie Crosbie" are intended? The article (but not the lead) needs to specify exactly which actresses in what films have garned noms playing each of these three characters. And ideally the section would also make it easy to find out the corresponding information for Best Actor and the two Supporting awards as well.
Finally a nitpick. Characters aren't nominated, actresses are. 
CapnZapp (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  character noms 

message: Someone's vandalised the page to put the Austin and Ally star to be the 2019 winner, when this is not the case. Is this a mistake of some sort?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawkin Verbier (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? Raini Rodriguez isn't 2019's oscar winner. 

message: Once Davis wins, Halle Berry will no longer be the sole POC to have won this category. In fact, Davis will then become the only Black woman to have won two Oscars for acting (she got supporting for "Fences). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.113.104.20 (talk • contribs) 
:Academy Award-related pages are updated accordingly and almost immediately. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. (CC) Tbhotch™ 22:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: And this is why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (CC) Tbhotch™ 03:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening paragraph will need updating after tonight (4/25/21) when Viola Davis wins

message: Isn't it a bit inappropriate to include a list of nominees (both here and on the Best Actor page) who never identified as LGBT during their lifetimes under the LGBT section? Shirley Booth, Ava Gardner, Joan Crawford, Lana Turner, and Barbara Stanwyck's own Wiki pages don't even allude to them possibly being LGBT. And some of Hepburn and Garbo's biographers speculate they may have been somewhere on the LGBT spectrum, but perspectives are not conclusive (more so in Hepburn's than Garbo's). And Blanchett and Sarandon are still alive... why include them when they themselves have not said definitively? It's one thing to include the nominees who have come out, but when most of these actresses' pages don't even allude to it at all (and they themselves never alluded it during their lives), why include it?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahl9871 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "Alleged LGBT" section 

message: There is currently a parenthetical note under Elliot Page's name on the 2007 nomination table listing his deadname. I don't know what Wikipedia's official policy on deadnaming is, but I think we can stand on IMDb's strict policy against it, especially when discussing the actor who, as of right now, is the only trans actor nominated for an Oscar. Surely we can just add a footnote indicating that this nomination was before Page came out, but there's no need to deadname him in the process.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.228.213.61 (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deadnaming Elliot Page 

message: I recently noticed the large number of supplementary tables that have been added to the end of this article – for instance, Nominated portrayals of the same role across different movies, Nominations for portraying multiple characters in the same film, and Diversity of nominees and winners. While these may be interesting, they are also entirely unsourced and are a massive violation of Wikipedia's original research policies, as well as featured list criteria #3B. Personally, I think all supplementary tables should be removed except the list of individuals with multiple nominations/wins (which is clearly and directly supported by information already present in the list) and the list of oldest/youngest winners and nominees (which is actually sourced). I feel particularly comfortable keeping these since they were included when . I would like to gain consensus before removing these tables myself; however, if the consensus is to keep them and no sources can be provided, I will feel obligated to bring the list to featured list review. RunningTiger123 (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: As a follow-up, the same issue seems to persist across the Best Actor, Supporting Actress, and Supporting Actor lists, as well as Best Director to a lesser extent. All five are FLs, so this should be addressed sooner rather than later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I would support removal of these tables if they lack sourcing. When it comes to this kind of highlighting, I think it should come from the real world (like the whole [[List of EGOT winners] metric) and not be devised by Wikipedia editors themselves (e.g., "This is the fifth time actor A and actor B worked together"). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, since there hasn't been any feedback opposing the move, I'll delete those sections from the lists. If anyone raises concerns, there's always WP:BRD. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with OR and FLC status 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion