Talk:List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett
| While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard. |
 | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=logo}
# of Screen Actor Guild and Critics Choice awards edit
In the first paragraph it states she's won 2 SAG awards and 2 Critics Choice - that's incorrect. Blanchett has won 3 SAG awards and 3 Critics Choice Awards for Blue Jasmine, The Aviator, and The Lord of the Rings.
Source: Imdb (under Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, and Screen Actors Guild Awards sections, respectively): http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000949/awards?ref_=nm_awd --Lapadite77 (talk) 07:42, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Non-notable awards in need of removal edit
Lapadite77 I'm not disputing that she won those awards. The organisations' awards which I've removed have had their articles deleted because of their lack of notability so how can their awards be notable? Examples: [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]]. These lists are not meant to be an indiscriminate including every award from Academy Award to John the Internet Guy's Best Actress Award. Jezaria (talk) 11:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Jezaria, I did not say that's what you disputed. Their respective articles were deleted because they failed notability guideline to warrant their own article. It's relevant information that is verifiable and sourced, therefore it can be included; not having an article on Wikipedia does not mean the subject/topic can't be mentioned in another article. Films and plays without articles are sourced on actors' articles. Plus, it is not an indiscriminate list - it does not remotely include every award; an IMDb awards list is indiscriminate. These are the major industry and critics awards + regional state awards, which are included in "awards season" by secondary sources. On a different note, are you a second account of someone else? Lapadite (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was replying to your edit summary which I misread. Awards surely are different from saying that a person appeared in a film as they hold a different kind of significance. These state awards are not notable. I've just copied what has been done by other users on these type of articles such as Lady Lotus e.g. [[5]] which I presumed means it is agreed on this site. On your other note, I have lurked on this site for a significant amount of time and have learnt the basics offsite to try to avoid causing disputes like this but have clearly failed. Jezaria (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Disagreements are commonplace here; not generally a big deal when there's no incivility or other guideline-violations characterizing them. My position is - as with an article-less subject/topic being sourced in an article (such as a film, play, school, parent, organization, musician/band, etc), relevant "awards season" awards that are sourced to RS' can be included in a "List of awards..." article. Nothing in the guidelines say otherwise in actuality, which I'd mentioned before at WP:FILM (where you can post this discussion). To my mind, deleting sourced awards in a "List of awards" article because they don't have their own WP article is no different to deleting, say, the following information from the BLP because the names don't warrant their own article: "Her mother, June Wayback,[4] was an Australian property developer and teacher, and her father, Robert DeWitt Blanchett, Jr..." , "She attended primary school in Melbourne at Ivanhoe East Primary School..." , "Opening the 2008 9th World Congress of Metropolis in Sydney, Blanchett said..." , "Blanchett took part in the Green Carpet Challenge, an initiative to..." , "In early 2009, Blanchett appeared in a series of special edition postage stamps called "Australian Legends of the Screen"...". Lapadite (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Jezaria is right, the non notable awards are removed due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and just because they can be sourced (I would check reliablilty of those sources) doesn't mean they belong on her awards page, otherwise you'd be getting every Tom, Dick and Harry awards from someone somewhere saying it's relevant to her career. The Central Ohio awards had their page removed due to lack of secondary sources and lack of notability so why would you even want those awards on her page? If anything, I would only want the notable ones, that ones that mean something to be on her awards page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- That's an unsupported conclusion. Because a topic doesn't have it's own article it's then "indiscriminate"? Again, the information is sourced and it's not indiscriminate as dozens of awards from the IMDb page are not included (that goes for many other "List of awards" articles, many of which are unsourced). There's no guideline dictating the proposed notion (i.e., doesn't have an article, therefore no mention in an article - see examples above) and no guideline stating what amount becomes "indiscriminate"; if there is, link it please. Until there is, or official consensus at WP:FILM determines otherwise, it's not against WP to include relevant, sourced information in an article. Lapadite (talk) 14:39, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Jezaria is right, the non notable awards are removed due to WP:INDISCRIMINATE and just because they can be sourced (I would check reliablilty of those sources) doesn't mean they belong on her awards page, otherwise you'd be getting every Tom, Dick and Harry awards from someone somewhere saying it's relevant to her career. The Central Ohio awards had their page removed due to lack of secondary sources and lack of notability so why would you even want those awards on her page? If anything, I would only want the notable ones, that ones that mean something to be on her awards page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 14:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Disagreements are commonplace here; not generally a big deal when there's no incivility or other guideline-violations characterizing them. My position is - as with an article-less subject/topic being sourced in an article (such as a film, play, school, parent, organization, musician/band, etc), relevant "awards season" awards that are sourced to RS' can be included in a "List of awards..." article. Nothing in the guidelines say otherwise in actuality, which I'd mentioned before at WP:FILM (where you can post this discussion). To my mind, deleting sourced awards in a "List of awards" article because they don't have their own WP article is no different to deleting, say, the following information from the BLP because the names don't warrant their own article: "Her mother, June Wayback,[4] was an Australian property developer and teacher, and her father, Robert DeWitt Blanchett, Jr..." , "She attended primary school in Melbourne at Ivanhoe East Primary School..." , "Opening the 2008 9th World Congress of Metropolis in Sydney, Blanchett said..." , "Blanchett took part in the Green Carpet Challenge, an initiative to..." , "In early 2009, Blanchett appeared in a series of special edition postage stamps called "Australian Legends of the Screen"...". Lapadite (talk) 13:19, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I was replying to your edit summary which I misread. Awards surely are different from saying that a person appeared in a film as they hold a different kind of significance. These state awards are not notable. I've just copied what has been done by other users on these type of articles such as Lady Lotus e.g. [[5]] which I presumed means it is agreed on this site. On your other note, I have lurked on this site for a significant amount of time and have learnt the basics offsite to try to avoid causing disputes like this but have clearly failed. Jezaria (talk) 12:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
Not everything needs to be stated as a guideline or policy if it's WP:COMMONSENSE. If the article has been deleted then there is no reason it needs to remain on an awards page after it has been deemed not notable enough for it's own article. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:18, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm also sensing a situation of WP:OWN. Nobody owns an article regardless of how much work they have done to it. LADY LOTUS • TALK 15:27, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- In actuality, you're not assuming good faith Lady Lotus. Correctly stating there's no guideline to directly support your reasoning does not remotely = own. And the common sense essay does not trump a lack of guideline support, nor does it apply here. WP:FILM should get on with establishing a consensus on this so this awards issue is finally settled. Care to reignite that conversation? Lapadite (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- There doesn't need to be multiple conversations to accomplish consensus. This one that Jezaria started will suffice. And I never said that stating a guideline to directly support my reasoning means OWN, I meant your behavior on the article makes me sense OWN. The common sense essay is just that...common sense. And common sense tells me that if an award isn't good enough for its own article then it doesn't belong on an awards page. That happens many times, as it did with the Chlotrudis Award - it was deleted and subsequently deleted from awards pages. It makes no sense to keep it if it's not a notable award. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Cowlibob: want to comment on this situation? LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:24, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- Not a few local opinions on an article, consensus for a guideline I mean, that determines a particular threshold and/or states that critics circles without articles can't be added to awards articles. Otherwise, this 'issue' based on an unsupported assertion will continue to arise in awards and nominations articles - and my position clearly applies to all that are sourced, not just to this one. Lapadite (talk) 01:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm really not in a good state of mind for an indepth discussion. I think this was the initial conversation that led to the awards being deleted if they didn't have their own article [[6]], and [[7]]. Maybe it will be of help. Regards, Cowlibob (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- If an award is from something unreliable and/or doesn't have its own article, it's not worthy of inclusion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simple as that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- "Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE" has no direct relevance to this. It does not say that, plus it is per se vague and open to editor discretion. Refer to my comments above and refer to the two discussions Cowlibob linked (one editor's comment: "There is some misuse of the WP:NOTEABILITY standard. Notability is the standard for deciding if a subject should have its own article. It is definitely not the standard for determining if something belongs in an article."). Also, see WP:NOTESAL, WP:LSC. Nothing says that if a subject/topic doesn't have its own article It cannot be referenced in an article. In actuality, the present guidelines allow the contrary, which is again far from indiscriminately presented. Lapadite (talk) 21:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- If an award is from something unreliable and/or doesn't have its own article, it's not worthy of inclusion per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Simple as that. Snuggums (talk / edits) 17:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
- I'm really not in a good state of mind for an indepth discussion. I think this was the initial conversation that led to the awards being deleted if they didn't have their own article [[6]], and [[7]]. Maybe it will be of help. Regards, Cowlibob (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
- There doesn't need to be multiple conversations to accomplish consensus. This one that Jezaria started will suffice. And I never said that stating a guideline to directly support my reasoning means OWN, I meant your behavior on the article makes me sense OWN. The common sense essay is just that...common sense. And common sense tells me that if an award isn't good enough for its own article then it doesn't belong on an awards page. That happens many times, as it did with the Chlotrudis Award - it was deleted and subsequently deleted from awards pages. It makes no sense to keep it if it's not a notable award. LADY LOTUS • TALK 17:03, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- In actuality, you're not assuming good faith Lady Lotus. Correctly stating there's no guideline to directly support your reasoning does not remotely = own. And the common sense essay does not trump a lack of guideline support, nor does it apply here. WP:FILM should get on with establishing a consensus on this so this awards issue is finally settled. Care to reignite that conversation? Lapadite (talk) 15:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
And it seems like the building consensus here is to remove the awards if they don't have their own page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with the removal. If it was decided that an award was not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, then mentioning that award adds no value to "List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett" (if to exaggerate this point, it would be akin to adding an award she received from a neighbor which was reported in a local new magazine. You can source it, but its still not notable). If you believe Las Vegas Film Critics Society, Oklahoma Film Critics Circle and Phoenix Film Critics Society are indeed notable, you can try and raise the issue that they should be brought back from the dead. --Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- There was also this discussion that I had brought up and was told that consensus was reached about removing awards that don't have their own page. LADY LOTUS • TALK 16:20, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Agree with the removal. If it was decided that an award was not notable enough for an article on Wikipedia, then mentioning that award adds no value to "List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett" (if to exaggerate this point, it would be akin to adding an award she received from a neighbor which was reported in a local new magazine. You can source it, but its still not notable). If you believe Las Vegas Film Critics Society, Oklahoma Film Critics Circle and Phoenix Film Critics Society are indeed notable, you can try and raise the issue that they should be brought back from the dead. --Gonnym (talk) 15:53, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett. 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/20150206083622/http://www.skynews.com.au/news/showbiz/arts/2014/09/26/blanchett-receives-honorary-doctorate.html to http://www.skynews.com.au/news/showbiz/arts/2014/09/26/blanchett-receives-honorary-doctorate.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
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422075216/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/118-2013-chicago-film-critics-awards to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/118-2013-chicago-film-critics-awards
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160422075216/http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/118-2013-chicago-film-critics-awards to http://www.chicagofilmcritics.org/awards/118-2013-chicago-film-critics-awards
- Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/60n2TZCZu?url=http://moviecitynews.com/2004/01/washington-dc-film-critics-2003/ to http://moviecitynews.com/2004/01/washington-dc-film-critics-2003/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129035115/http://www.psfilmfest.org/archive/featurefestivalawards.aspx to http://www.psfilmfest.org/archive/featurefestivalawards.aspx
- Corrected formatting/usage for http://theenvelope.latimes.com/env-2008-teen-choice-awards-scorecard17jun17%2C0%2C2603341.htmlstory
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 10:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
External links modified edit
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on List of awards and nominations received by Cate Blanchett. 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/20141129030430/http://www.bifa.org.uk/nominations/2007 to http://www.bifa.org.uk/nominations/2007
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924095629/http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/ffc/newsletter/newsletter_051215/ffc_int_newsletter_awards.asp to http://www.screenaustralia.gov.au/ffc/newsletter/newsletter_051215/ffc_int_newsletter_awards.asp
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120606092606/http://hollywoodcrush.mtv.com/2010/06/14/teen-choice-awards-2010-nominees to http://hollywoodcrush.mtv.com/2010/06/14/teen-choice-awards-2010-nominees/
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: 18 January 2022).
- 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) 18:01, 28 December 2017 (UTC)