Talk:Academy Award for Best Director

Award /Achievement for Directing /Best Director

I have found in the individual award ceremony articles various names for this award and I have been copying them in the years in film articles. This article suggests there has been only this name (Award for Directing) from the 1920s to the present. In the 74th Academy Awards "Achievement in directing" and in 31st Academy Awards "Best Director" is found. Is this not the main award? Was the name different during this year? Can this be made clear in the article? I could then go ahead and make all the corrections through the years in film. Hoverfish 09:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

What's Up With The Flags???

Last time I checked this is the Oscars not the Olympics.

Is it really necessary? It looks confusing with flags all over the place as oppose to just having simply their names and films. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.101.215.61 (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC).

Take Off the Flags

I suggest we take off the flags. It makes the whole article messy and confusing with the colorful flags all over the place. The flags overshadows the names of the nominees and winners, in my opinion. Besides this is the Oscar not the Olympics.

Order inconsistency

Up to and including 1959, the names of the unsuccesful nominees for Best Director are ordered according to their surnames. From 1960, they're ordered according to the title of the movie. Is there any good reason for this inconsistency? The award is for direction, so these should all be ordered by the name of the director, not the title of the movie. I'd argue the opposite should apply for Best Picture. JackofOz 03:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Check for accuracy

I recently noticed on this page that Bob Fosse was listed as Best Director in 1972. If you check IMDB, Francis Ford Coppola won this award. Someone might want to give this page a thorough accuracy check, using the IMDB as a reference. Thank you. 16 April 2007

For 1972, Fosse won Best Director. Coppola was nominated for Best Director, but lost. Coppola did win Best Writing / Best Screenplay, however. (JosephASpadaro 08:58, 21 April 2007 (UTC))

I don't know the exact number of nominations James Cameron has received (two right? Titanic and Avatar), but he's listed has having 3 nods, with total number of nods at...0? Obegong (talk) 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Name of This Article

Is there any particular reason for which the name of this article is "Academy Award for Directing" ... as opposed to "Academy Award for Best Director" ...? The latter is more consistent with all of the other Academy Award articles (Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress, etc.). Any thoughts on changing the name of this article to "Academy Award for Best Director" ...? Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 00:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

The Academy officially calls the award by that name, that's why. Cop 663 01:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But it is still inconsistent with all of the other articles. In other words, all of the other articles do not go by what the Academy officially calls the awards. (JosephASpadaro 04:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC))

Oh, I see what you mean. Well, personally, I think the article title should be the award's official name. So this article should be called Academy Award for Achievement in Directing and Academy Award for Best Actor should be retitled Academy Award for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role. But I could be alone in this, what do you think? Cop 663 12:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the article titles probably should be the same as the award's official name. At this point, however, I see two problems with that. (1) That would involve making a lot of title changes to a lot of articles ... as opposed to just changing one title (for Best Director). (2) I also think that most people using the encyclopedia would search under the commonly known titles (e.g., Best Actor) as opposed to the "official" Academy title (Academy Award for Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role) -- due to this, I think the commonly known titles are more user-friendly. (JosephASpadaro 21:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC))

That's true, and some of the official titles are a bit unwieldy. And Use common names is a naming convention. So if you want to change it to 'Best Director' I for one won't object! Cop 663 02:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. I will wait a bit and see if any one else weighs in on this issue. If not, I will change the title. Thanks. (JosephASpadaro 21:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Pursuant to the above discussion, I have changed the title of this article from "Academy Award for Directing" to "Academy Award for Best Director". The new title is more consistent with all of the other Academy Award article titles (e.g., Academy Award for Best Picture, Academy Award for Best Actor, Academy Award for Best Actress, etc.). Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro 17:24, 18 September 2007 (UTC))

Best Director and Best Actor Awards

You list 6 ppl as nominated for both director & actor: Allen, Costoner, Eastwood, Beatty, Olivier & Benigni. First, it should be noted that Beatty did it twice, and got nothing for Heaven Can Wait. Also, Orson Welles was nominated for both for Citizen Kane and lost both awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.140.164 (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

What you say is true. Orson Welles was nominated for both Best Director and Best Actor for Citizen Kane in 1941 ... and he lost both. Warren Beatty was nominated for both Best Director and Best Actor for Heaven Can Wait in 1978 ... and he lost both. I think that the section of this article that you are referring to is merely detailing those occasions where the double-nominee (in Best Director and Best Actor categories) actually won at least one of the awards ... seeing as how no one has yet won both awards. I would have to double check, but I would imagine that there are other instances (besides the Welles and Beatty examples that you cite) in which a double nomination occurred in Director / Actor categories. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC))

Although I have no source to verify it, I've ran through the list of directors again and the only other director I can find who was ever nominated for an acting award was John Huston. Though, he was nominated as an actor for a movie he didn't direct. Olivier two other times directed himself to an acting nomination (Richard III, and his long-titled adaptation of Henry V), but he didn't receive direction nods for those. To cover the last obvious base, Chaplin never received a direction nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.140.169 (talk) 04:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that the article -- as it now stands -- is correct and needs no editing ... right? That is, the article is correct in stating that those six people (Allen, Costner, Eastwood, Beatty, Olivier, and Benigni) are the only ones ever to be nominated as both Best Director and Best Actor for the same film ... and to win at least one of these nominations. All of the other instances that you cite do not fit these criteria, as you yourself acknowledge. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC))

The article says "Six people have been nominated for both Best Director and Best Actor for the same film, but none has won both." That's incorrect. 7 people have been nominated for both, your 6 + Orson. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.140.169 (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are right ... now I see what you mean. I went in and edited the article. Let me know if it looks OK now or if there is still some error. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC))

Looks great. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.121.45 (talk) 08:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Great catch, by the way. Thanks! (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 02:47, 11 February 2008 (UTC))

Kenneth Branagh was nominated for directing and acting in Henry V (1989) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.123.140.168 (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Also true. I added that into the article. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 08:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC))

Hitch

Hitchcock did not win Best Director for Psycho, although perhaps he deserved to. The winner was Wilder for The Apt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin324la (talk • contribs) 02:39, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Why are you saying this? I just checked the article, and it mirrors what you state here. If indeed there was an error / vandalism, it has since been fixed. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Yes, one editor made a whole series of vandalism edits. I just fixed them all. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 09:13, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Two issues

Do you think the tag "citation needed" at the first paragraph is really necessary? It's common knowledge that the whole Academy membership votes for that award in order to choose the winners. Also, when there's a mention to celebrated directors who never won the award, I don't see why Stephen Daldry should be there. I know this comment could be written off as POV, but I do believe that a little bit of common sense will show to anyone running their eyes through that list that it's a collection of big-name auteurs, plus Daldry, who's hardly in the same league in terms of critical recognition. And, since the next phrase mentions the fact that he got nominated for both his first and second feature films, it does seem that he got the mention sort of as justification for the next sentence (as if some fan of his wanted to add the second sentence and felt he should be mentioned first in some larger context). I don't know, it just sounds strange. He's not exactly someone whose lack of an Oscar statuette is a usual complaint on the part of cinephiles everywhere (as is the case with all the other names mentioned there). Maybe he could be removed from that list, and the second sentence could stay, but be moved to the end of the paragraph, stating merely that "Stephen Daldry is the only director nominated for both his first and second feature films". What do you people think? Cheers. JimboB (talk) 00:30, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I just made an edit that might resolve the problem. The sentence about being the only director to be nominated for first 2 films didn't really belong in that para as it was a unique feat. It focusses on the fact that he was nominated twice in a row (whether he won or not), not on the fact that they were both unsuccessful. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:54, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, although I still think his name doesn't belong on that list (if he merits an inclusion there, then we should consider including dozens of others), it does make for better phrasing. Let's see what other people think about the "citation needed" tag. Cheers. JimboB (talk) 01:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for coming back on the subject, but, as the latest editor accurately pointed out, not even the claim that Stephen Daldry was the only director nominated for both his first and second feature films was correct (first time around, I didn't bother checking that out, I assumed whoever added that to the article knew what he/she was saying). Again, it makes me think some fan of his really wanted his name on this article and pushed it. Well... may I remove him from that list? I'm asking here first to see if anyone has a problem with that, but I strongly recommend anyone who bothers to answer to just click on each name on that list and see for yourselves in the mere summary of each article the discrepancy between Daldry and the rest in terms of general recognition as a filmmaker (not to mention the fact that he only has two feature films to his name). If no one opposes, I'll remove his name in a few days. I also intend to remove the "citation needed" tag at the article's opening paragraph. You can check all the other articles concerning Oscar awards and see for yourselves that this is the only one carrying the tag (reason being, it's common knowledge who chooses the Oscar winners in every category). Cheers. JimboB (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:42, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, no one complained. Done then. JimboB (talk) 23:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Two flaws

The first is Chaplin up for directing The Circus. Chaplin was initially nominated for direction & acting, but his nominations were rescinded in order to give him an honorary award. So, he was never officially nominated for directing The Circus. The second is in your "multiple nominations" category, you list Joel & Ethan Coen as having 2 nominations, but Ethan Coen was not nominated for directing Fargo, only Joel was. 67.162.137.3 (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Openly gay

• I don't think any of the LBGT who won were open @ the time, were they? How about nom'd? --208.38.59.163 (talk) 22:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Academy Awards which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:17, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Academy Award for Best Directing. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120113073946/http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/statistics/bestpixdirdiff.html to http://awardsdatabase.oscars.org/ampas_awards/help/statistics/bestpixdirdiff.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:29, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 14 December 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: pages moved. Consensus is unanimous in favor of these moves. (non-admin closure) Egsan Bacon (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

---

• Academy Award for Best Directing → Academy Award for Best Director
• List of Academy Award for Best Directing winners by age → List of Academy Award for Best Director winners by age
• List of directors with two or more Academy Awards for Best Directing → List of directors with two or more Academy Awards for Best Director

– Though the earlier WP:BOLD moves from Best Director to Best Directing were with good intent (the Academy itself uses "Directing" instead of "Director", and indeed "directing" is more accurate as it's awarded for the film to ALL of its directors), the moves clearly violate WP:COMMONNAME. I don't know how to do a proper Google search to prove it, but I'm 100% certain it will return far more results for "Best Director" than "Best Directing". Even if official names were preferred, the titles should be "Achievement in Directing" (AMPAS' official name) instead of "Best Directing"; but unquestionably "Best Director" is the most commonly used term by English-language sources for this award, even if technically incorrect. RBBrittain (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Even the Academy is confused: "Best Director" site:oscars.org (233), "Best Directing" site:oscars.org (780), "Achievement in Directing" site:oscars.org (20). Best Directing sounds stilted. I agree "Best Director" is probably the most common usage in the real world, and also clearer and less pretentious. Like best actor not best acting. "Best Director" oscar (3.8 million), "Best Directing" oscar (56,000). -- GreenC 22:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support - per nom and GreenC. I ran the same search with the same terms prior to looking at GreenC's comments, and I concur with the results. The original move by Wikipedical probably should have been discussed first. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support as the editor who revamped the table of this page, I fully support this. I feel like the redirect for Academy Award for Best Director is used more commonly than its current wording and I think it would be easier to find this way. Johanna^{talk to me!}_{see my work} 02:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Easily the common name. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Academy Award for Best Director. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards/oscars/env-oscarvote7jan07%2C0%2C6919642%2Cprint.story?coll=env-home-headlines
• 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/20080913120840/http://www.oscars.org/awardsdatabase/index.html to http://www.oscars.org/awardsdatabase/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Academy Award for Best Director. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:51, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Diversity - Indian/Asian

Just wondered why in the diversity section of the article M Night Shyamalan is singled out as Indian, rather than with the other Asian directors. India is part of Asia, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muinimula (talk • contribs) 11:27, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 14 June 2018

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Not moved. There is a clear consensus in opposition to the proposed move. bd2412 T 02:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Academy Award for Best Director → Academy Award for Best Directing
• List of Academy Award for Best Director winners by age → List of Academy Award for Best Directing winners by age

– The proposed move would essentially reverse the move undertaken at #Move discussion - Directing to Director which was based on a flawed rationale. The current title is neither the WP:COMMONAME or the official name of the award: "best director oscar" gets twice as many Google Books hits as "best director academy award", and while the award may be colloquially known as "best director" it is officially for "directing". If the aim here is to have the article under its common name then it should arguably be moved to "Best Director oscar"; however, the general sentiment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_68#Best_Directing_Academy_Award_and_related_changes is that the article should be moved back to Academy Award for Best Directing in line with WP:CRITERIA, to retain consistency within this family of articles (e.g. Academy Award for Best Picture, Academy Award for Best Actress etc.) and also analogous categories (see Category:Films whose director won the Best Directing Academy Award and Category:Best Directing Academy Award winners). Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Comment. I'm not sure I understand the rationale here as far as WP:COMMONNAME is concerned. "Academy Award for Best Director" without Wikipedia gets 6080 Google Books hits, twice as many as "Best Director Oscar" without Wikipedia (3260), while "Academy Award for Best Directing" without Wikipedia gets only 121 Google Books hits and "Best Directing Oscar" without Wikipedia gets 204. This does indicate that the current title is the common name. We of course do not necessarily use official names per WP:OFFICIAL, and to the extent that consistency is involved, "best director" is consistent with other titles within the family, which refer to the people or things involved (e.g., picture or actress, as above) and not the process involved (which might imply the titles would be at titles including "filmmaking" or "acting"). Dekimasuよ! 21:28, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
• Some more data: if you split the searches so that you're looking for "Best Director"+"Academy Award"-Wikipedia, there are 14,500 results. Meanwhile, "Best Directing"+"Academy Award"-Wikipedia yields 1280. Dekimasuよ! 21:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  I am sorry if I am not being clear. This move proposal is a result of the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_68#Best_Directing_Academy_Award_and_related_changes. The prevailing argument put forward there is that since this article is part of a family of articles it would better for the naming to be consistent across that family of articles in accordance with the consistency criterion at WP:CRITERIA. At the moment the article is at odds with the styling of article titles such as Academy Award for Best Film Editing and Academy Award for Best Sound Mixing etc. Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Striking that part of my comment per your reply, which makes sense. Also, I should say that the third proposed move should be pulled from the request, since it's already a redirect to Academy Award for Best Director (we can change the redirect target as necessary, but there's nothing there to move). Dekimasuよ! 23:51, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

  I have withdrawn the third article. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Support per nomination. The above-linked discussion has confirmed a reasonable consensus on the subject at WikiProject Film, based upon the Academy's own wording and database.    Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 09:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose – Being one of those participants in the last move discussion, some clarity is in order. The previous move discussion was about restoring the title "Academy Award for Best Director", which had been in place for over a decade when it was changed on a whim and without discussion to "Academy Award for Best Directing". So today's move discussion would be more aptly described as reversing the reversal. Taking a clean look at things this time around, I'm coming to the same conclusion. Dekimasu's assessment clearly shows that the current title is in line with WP:COMMONNAME, and I'm not seeing that point being adequately contested. The fifth bullet point at WP:CRITERIA is further down on the importance scale here. I wouldn't let other article names dictate the naming convention in this article when a clear common name exists, especially articles on the lesser-known awards of film editing and sound mixing (if the race were much closer, maybe I would). I'm also not going to let an inconsistent category structure influence whether or not I follow WP:COMMONNAME. Reading the discussion at WP:FILM, it seems the consensus was influenced by an improper common name assessment and concerns over categories, neither of which are enough to sway my position. --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
• Support per the academy the award is for directing. עם ישראל חי (talk) 16:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
• Weak oppose per the above, since it still appears that the current title is the common name. Dekimasuよ! 04:11, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose. We use English, we do not try to correct it, as that would be a form of advocacy. The proposed titles may in some ways make sense, but are not what the topics are called. Andrewa (talk) 11:25, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  Eh? WP:Use English does not apply to this situation at all. We are not translating anything, we are not using non-English names, or referring to entities more commonly known by a foreign name. And yes, the proposed title is what the topic is called because the proposed title is the official name of the award. This is simply a straight choice between using the common name or a consistent naming format across a set of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 12:07, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  The title of an article should generally use the version of the name of the subject which is most common in the English language ([1], my emphasis). So agree We are not translating anything, we are not using non-English names, or referring to entities more commonly known by a foreign name. But disagree that WP:Use English does not apply to this situation at all. It is exactly on-topic IMO. Andrewa (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  You are effectively arguing to apply WP:COMMONANE (which is applicable to this situation); WP:UE is for situations where there are more common foreign-language variants. Invoking this naming convention implies that I am arguing for a foreign-language variant which is not the case; if it were the case I would not have requested a rename in the first place. Both variants are English in this instance, and I am simply arguing for consistent naming across a set of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 06:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Oppose, "Best Director", per above comments, seem the common name even if not the official name. The major awards are commonly called 'Best film', 'Best actor' (not 'Best acting'), 'Best director', etc. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• p.s., the n-gram shows 'Best Director' as the common name and 'Best Directing' as almost non-existent in books, at least up to 2008. And this n-gram doubles down on that to the extent that the "official name" doesn't even appear. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

  It's not an issue for the actor/actress awards which actually are "Best Actor/Actress" as opposed to "Best Acting"; this seems to be the exception, probably because they are gender specific. Betty Logan (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• User:AmYisroelChai has suggested that the discussion be relisted, but I have reverted this change since he already expressed an opinion in the discussion. It may be worth considering this point of view on closure, however. Dekimasuよ! 15:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose, re Randy Kryn and his "n-gram" evidence. Wikipedia shouldn't be calling this "Best Directing" if the term is virtually non-existent in other sources. I've been watching the Oscars for years and had no idea it was the official title; I honestly wonder if that's even how it's presented at the ceremony? --Loeba (talk) 21:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I had exactly the same thoughts as Randy Kryn above regarding "Best Actor" vs. "Best Acting" and this discussion. "Best Director" is the still the common name in sources. Sam Sailor 19:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Female Nominees

I made two edits in the list of Female Nominees, both for consistency with other lists and to remove political/judgmental inferences.

The list started with "Just five female directors . . ." (italics mine), whereas the other lists started with "Five Asian directors . . . ", "Six black directors . . .", "Five Latin American directors . . .", and so on. (Notice absence of opening "Just".) While the dearth of female nominees may be regrettable in the minds of many (or even most), the political/judgmental inference by use of the word "Just" is inappropriate for a factual reference. In addition, it's inconsistent with the terminology used in the other lists. If there is a relatively small number of nominees in some classification, then either all should be "just <number>" or none of them should be.

Similarly, for the female nominees, the original stated that "one was given the award", whereas for all the other groups the phrasing was "<number> has (have) won the award". (Again, italics mine) The phrase "was given" is condescending in that it suggests that the award was made gratuitously rather than on merit.

66.165.12.108 (talk) 17:33, 24 January 2020 (UTC) Jim N

Nationality of winners

It is probably a good idea to identify the winners by nationality. The academy awards are technically not international awards, but they're the de facto "nobel prizes" of film, and for those kinds of international awards it's customary to associate winners with their country of origin. Perhaps this can be done via a "by nationality" table in the diversity section or a new section, or add country names/flag icons next to each director's name in the main list. Currently there is the "non English films" list, but that misses 1. Foreign directors of English-language films, and 2. directors from the UK and Canada (for some reason Oceania is already covered in separate section, which I think should be deleted). Topotrivl (talk) 18:28, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Edit filter false positive that would need sourcing to add

2A02:C7E:3878:3100:A037:3170:A389:BA62 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has reported an edit filter false positive that, while indeed a false positive, can't be added in its current form due to WP:BLP. It seems like this would be a valid addition to this article if sourced; I may get around to sourcing it myself, but if not, I offer it for anyone else interested: Special:AbuseLog/31481703. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Warren Beatty - 1975.JPG

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Asterisks in "Multiple nominations" section

There are several directors in the "Multiple nominations" section with an asterisk by their name, but no explanation of what that signifies. What is it? 2600:8801:13AA:DA00:ACE1:4A35:87B5:FEDB (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it. The original peer reviewed article didn't include them, so they were added by someone else at some point. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 20:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Slipped standards, no longer meeting FA criteria

The article has grown some extra features since 2016 when it was listed as a Featured Article. Some of these features do not meet FA criteria, for instance the violations of WP:SYNTH represented in the notations using dagger, et cetera (§ † ‡ ), in the extensive stack of flags violating MOS:FLAG (these people are not representing their countries officially), and in the unreferenced sections about diversity and records. Will someone remove the various violations, or should we start the process of delisting the FA status? Binksternet (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sidebar excess whitespace (desktop/laptop browser view) & imagebox captions.

In accordance with the 4 acting Oscar pages, I thought perhaps for consistency, it would look good if the captions maintained the same standard flow to them. We've been refining them a bit to simplify the text. For ex:

• "Name Name won for Movie (1900)."
• "Name Name won twice, for Movie (1900) & Other Film (1907)."

And if there's a significant superlative, which was tough for me to reduce at times--started to, then backpedaled, but back on track!--Such as "First black actress to win" or "Oldest winning actor", etc., and I notice that was pretty much what was done on here too. Wikilink to those superlative pages in the captions for further reading.

What was great over there was, realizing if we move all of the image links to the top above the "winner key", the way in which all of the images cascade down the right side flows cleanly without any big white gaps, or without the end set of faces overlapping into the bottom section. It looks a lot cleaner that way. It flows really well, occasionally the pics will be ahead or behind the table--it's not perfect, but they catch up eventually. And if that's an issue, let's discuss that? I was originally hoping when I was gonna give this a try today that it would allow for the pics to remain 145px. So that was the downside!

But on the plus size, minus the disappointment of having to omit Schlesinger and Richardson from the list, the great part here w/ many repeat winners, is by reducing size, we can include just about every Director nominee with a free license picture. That's great, I think.

The other good thing is that, on mobile, I believe if someone wants to scroll past the pictures and get right to the decades' tables, it should be collapsable within the winners&nominees tab? My cell is dead right now....If not, could a subsection help alleviate that?

I noticed that many had square pics anyway, older directors. Then newer ones were more vertically rectangular. So I hope no one minds, but I did crop almost all of them to make them relatively evenly squared. The exceptions were the Coens, who share that pic, the Wilder pic, and the Hazanavicius pic, which helped with spacing being horizontal.

The ampersand usage, a moderator told me on the acting pages yesterday, meets complete Wikipedia standards approval via MOS:&, and that goes for the infobox too, if I'm not mistaken. I think it's essential in preventing captions from being too long.

So there wasn't much disagreement on the acting pages, or pushback. Hopefully this will be received positively here, but I can understand it's jarring. I'm not thrilled with the wording for Borzage and Milestone, but I was afraid of being any wordier with them lol. However, if someone could phrase it a little better but still succinctly, please help. The template for the actors was "inaugural winner" for such and such film--but thanks to them winning a second one each normally, well that screws that pooch....

Okay. My loquacious self has anxiously rambled enough....Hope that what I hope are improvements are received well, but if not, I was hoping maybe we can discuss it at least.--Cinemaniac⁸⁶_{Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire} 04:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)