This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Film: Awards / American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the Film awards task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. Awards Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of awards and prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. United States: Cinema Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force. California: Los Angeles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Los Angeles area task force.

It was for the year 1998 that Fernanda Montenegro was nominated for Central Station. 209.122.216.158 (talk) 21:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The film was 1998. The award/nomination was 1999. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why do so many entries have this notation? When AMPAS does their official nominations, haven't they already determined the nominees? 32.209.69.24 (talk) 08:08, 27 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer lies here. Kailash29792 (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I never heard of that before. Thank you. 32.209.69.24 (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

While there has been significant discussion of Gascón's comments and scandals in recent weeks, this article feels like the wrong place to cover them, as (a) while the Oscars are the biggest awards, the controversies affect awards season as a whole, and (b) it implies the controversies are related to the ceremony instead of the person. I think the coverage at Karla Sofía Gascón#2018–2024: Transition, Emilia Perez and controversy is sufficient and the better location. I have boldly removed the section for now. RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:13, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What about Oscar season?

Or rather this actually, might be a more suitable : Film_awards_seasons#List_of_film_awards_seasons (Just need someone to initiate the page—for this year's respective season.

Speaking of which, this is the same thing that should have been done all along for last year's Barbie "snub" drama. And perhaps these pages are a preferable places to include all superlatives per season? Because I remember there was dismay about it getting out of control, and greatly reducing it. Food for thought.) --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 07:04, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: Thank you for removing the Gascón controversy out of the 2025 Oscar ceremony article. Unless said controversy results in the actual Academy stepping in and doing something regarding Gascón (very doubtful and would be a slippery slop) or it directly affects the production elements of the ceremony, then any mention of this crisis on this page would seem to be violating Wikipedia:CRYSTAL. Also, there seems to be a controversy with at least one nominee each year.

For an example of what an Oscar ceremony article should not look like, take a look of how the 78th Academy Awards looked like before it was edited to featured list standards. It had a lot of natter and complaining about Brokeback Mountain losing Best Picture to Crash. Wikipedia should always strive for neutrality or objectivity and not show favoritism for one film. Birdienest81talk 09:31, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of a tangent... "Neutrality" means covering the subject as other sources cover it. If the controversy directly relates to the ceremony itself, it should be included, regardless of how positively or negatively that controversy portrays certain films. Crash over Brokeback Mountain is a good example of a controversy that should be included at the ceremony article, as it is a direct result of the former's win at the Oscars. RunningTiger123 (talk) 15:25, 8 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That is all. Thmazing (talk) 03:44, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CybJubal, Rafaelmanman, and ElijahPepe: Okay. So, User:Tbhotch just reported me at ANI because they badly misunderstood my edit summary here, where I called each of you out even though the problems I highlighted weren't limited to you. I want to be clear about what happened because I don't think ANI, which isn't supposed to address content issues, is the place to air this out.

Like a billion other people, I was watching the 97th Academy Awards. Like less than a billion people but still a lot of people, I was accompanying my viewing by trying to keep tabs on what was happening in real time via this article. I kept hitting walls because, since a pending edit prevents all readers from seeing anything added after it, tons of updates weren't visible to me unless I was logged in. Going into the page's history, I was shocked to see at least sixteen pending edits, most of which were messy, bad faith changes by anonymous editors, newer editors, and CybJubal. I was further aggravated because several veteran editors, like Rafaelmanman and ElijahPepe, were not only not bothering to try to address this problem but were adding to it by making good edits which themselves needed to be addressed one by one via PC1. (Patrollers like me are obligated to keep good changes and address bad ones. Search this article's history for the text "accepted by City of Silver" and you should come up with 62. Please know that I did every single fucking one of those sixty-two reviews by hand, one by one, because good editors couldn't be bothered to address bad edits.) Every time I edited this page, I accompanied it with an effort to catch up on all the pending edits. I bet I was the only veteran editor doing this.

That edit summary is harsh but as regards you three, I stand by every single letter of it, including the part where my bewilderment at this page's lack of semiprotection in the face of a wave of terrible contributions from new and anonymous editors led me to ponder taking extreme measures to keep such people from editing 98th Academy Awards. I won't actually do that but lesson learned: I'm going to absolutely go all out to get that page semiprotected in the leadup to that ceremony because I believe I could have prevented this page from getting wrecked in real time. I hope I made a difference. If not, fuck it. I'll still try to help.

The only editor I called out who I haven't addressed here is User:PeteStacman24. I apologize for going so hard at you, thank you for the note to me, and know that your most recent summaries are perfect, no notes. City of Silver 05:17, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea on what this drama is about, but I was making those edits without any knowledge on what else was going on with this page. I agree that pending edits should not have been applied to this page when there were certainly better ways of preventing vandalism. I am not a pending changes reviewer and if I had seen vandalism, I would have certainly reverted it. However, your conduct in that edit summary and—arguably—in this talk page is not professional, including the directed swearing. If you intend to address an issue, do it on a talk page by pinging editors and notifying administrators if there is a serious issue with a page, not by insulting others in edit summaries. I will not defend that behavior at ANI should I be asked for my input, but I am also unfamiliar with anything beyond this message and it would be unwise for me to comment. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"Messy, bad faith changes" - I agree the page was very messy but my edit that you reverted fixed a mistake on the page. The pending changes definitely made things confusing, but I was actively trying to fix formatting issues other editors had caused.

Also, "bad faith"? I made all my edits in good faith and I agree with ElijahPepe in that your conduct on talk pages and in edit summaries was unprofessional. CybJubal (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include the Adam Sandler incident? Here are a few sources:

https://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/adam-sandler-oscars-conan-obrien-zelensky-b2707927.html

https://variety.com/2025/film/news/adam-sandler-crashes-oscars-opening-yells-chalamet-1236325282/

https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/03/entertainment/adam-sandler-oscars-casualwear-intl-scli/index.html HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:47, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not an "incident", it was a scripted part of the show.--Inspector Semenych (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That award goes to the country, in this case Brazil, not to the director or producers. Counterintuitive, I know. Inspector Semenych (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]