Talk:79th Academy Awards/Archive1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

AFD

How is it crystal ball? We know it's going to happen. The 78th awards are over so why not have the next one up?

  • If there's something worth saying about it, sure...but all the article has right now is to remind us that the oscars will be in the same place they are every year. Anyone linked here will be sorely disappointed. Christopher Parham (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
Please read the following archived discussions:
There are many other discussions that I cannot think of right now, but essentially they basically say this: If you have nothing else to add besides that one sentence you have on right now, this qualifies as "crystal ball" under WP:NOT. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok...but the last oscar article was created in January 2005 for a 2006 show and it wasn't deleted. Bremen 08:15, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What if there was some information about potential winners for 2007??

keep 78th is over and we wil keep getting information about the next one from here on. Starting the venue, later along the line the progress, some scandal if any, still later name of host. Please vote for the decesion. Vivek 12:29, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

keep 205.206.21.14 22:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Keep. If we delete it, we'll just have to make it again in six to eight months. --David Youngberg 03:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

keep We're going to need it sooner than later for potential nominees and the like.VeiledAbyss 23:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Might I suggest you make your votes and comments concerning the deletion on the actual deletion discussion, or else they will definitely not be counted. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

AfD Notice

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/79th_Academy_Awards_(2nd_nomination)  (aeropagitica)  20:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Dreamgirls snub?

Right now, under the nominees for "Best Motion Picture of the Year", the article states, "Surprisingly, early Oscar-favorite Dreamgirls was snubbed out of a Best Picture nomination in the biggest snub since the awards began." Is this appropriate for this place in this article, and is it even the biggest snub ever? Araker 23:00, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

One news report I've seen stated that it was the first time the film with the most nominations was not among the Best Picture nominees; I haven't checked that, but if true it would be a suitable way of stating the situation without using the somewhat POV term "snub". On the other hand, it wasn't nominated for directing, writing, editing or either of the lead acting categories, so there have probably been various competitors for the claim of biggest snub. MisfitToys 02:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I just looked it up, it is the biggest snub. Two other movies got 9 nominations and no Best Picture nomination but other movies in their respective years had more nominations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.225.206.193 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC).
Still, I'd avoid use of the POV word "snub"; in the absence of published evidence to the contrary, we shouldn't presume that voters deliberately avoided nominating any specific film. For all we know, Dreamgirls may have been mentioned on every ballot, but just not high enough to get into the five nominees. MisfitToys 03:24, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing, Cinematography, etc...

Should these nominations not be added? It really dumbs down the article to just have the celebrity catagories... Any thoughts? -cpblb

There are ten listed right now (out of 24); you're essentially suggesting merging the nomination list into this article, but it will end up getting separated later anyway. I think we can leave it as is. MisfitToys 23:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Voting Trends

The section listed as "voting trends" seems to have more to do with the box office results of nominated films than it does actual "voting trends", whatever that may be. You should consider revising or removing. It seems like a pointless discussion in an awards related article anyway.

No writers?

Any particular reasons the writers' names are not mentioned? Screenplays are not wikis (well, maybe), and even we sign our articles. Bruxism 11:57, 17 February 2007 (UTC)