Talk:List of films with all four Academy Award acting nominations

Title of article

This article needs a better title, one that more accurately reflects its content. First, I don't like the word "with" in the title. It should probably be something like "films that have received..." (or some such). Second, the article is referring to one of each of the four acting categories (Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor, and Best Supporting Actress), not just four total acting nominations. For example, if a film received four nominations, all in the category of Best Actor, that would not "count". But, this current title is misleading in that respect. Perhaps, one of each of the four awards is implied in the current title. But, I think it can be improved. Does anyone have any suggestions? Thanks! Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest changing the title to List of films nominated in all four Academy Award acting categories. It gets rid of the "with" and eliminates the ambiguity worry. 99.192.81.220 (talk) 20:11, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

At first, I thought that this (List of films nominated in all four Academy Award acting categories) was indeed a good alternative title. Someone mentioned, however, (on another page) that the film does not get nominated in these four categories; it is the actor who gets nominated. Therefore, this suggestion doesn't seem quite right to me, after all. Any other suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 05:01, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

For more feedback about this topic, please see the following discussion at the Language Reference Desk: Wikipedia:Reference desk/Language#Word distinction. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Three more not yet in article

These: Gone with the Wind (film)#Accolades, The Silence of the Lambs (film)#Accolades, The Graduate#Accolades. In fact, according to Katie Couric, these three films plus Silver Linings Playbook are the only four movies nominated in all five big categories. Where the "five big categories" are the acting nominations plus Best Picture. --82.170.113.123 (talk) 18:26, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Those three films are not "missing" from the article; those films don't really belong in the chart at the top of the article. Gone With the Wind is lacking a nomination in Best Supporting Actor; Silence of the Lambs is lacking a nomination in Best Supporting Actor and a nomination in Best Supporting Actress; and The Graduate is lacking a nomination in Best Supporting Actor. So, perhaps there is some confusion when you (or Katie Couric) are referring to the "big five" categories. You state that you define the "big five" as Best Picture; Best Actor; Best Actress; Best Supporting Actor; and Best Supporting Actress. But, if that's the case, I have identified above why these three films don't qualify. (I am not sure what Katie Couric is referring to.) But, also remember that there is something referred to as the "Big Five" Academy Awards; and those are: Best Picture; Best Director; Best Actor; Best Actress; and Best Writing (Best Screenplay). Wikipedia has an article on that topic here: List of Big Five Academy Award winners and nominees. In fact, that article does contain the three films that you (and Katie Couric) mentioned. But, there seems to be some confusion about which five awards constitute the "big five". And, in any event, this article {List of films with all four Academy Award acting nominations} is only concerned with four, the Leading Actor/Actress awards and the Supporting Actor/Actress awards only. All that being said, it would be interesting to see if any films have nominations (or awards) in the "big five" as you have defined it above (Best Picture and all four acting awards). I believe that that info is indeed contained in the "Superlatives" section at the bottom of this article. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

The list in this article contains 15 films. Of that number, 14 (all but one) were indeed nominated for all four acting awards plus Best Picture. The article states, at the bottom: only one of the nominated films was not nominated for Best Picture, My Man Godfrey (1936). As far as winning all five awards (Best Picture plus the four acting awards), that has never been done as of yet. No film yet has won all four acting awards, much less Best Picture on top of that. Some came close, of course. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Superlatives section

I just moved the "Superlatives" section to follow the table, since the table is really what the article is about, but I would support Wikipedical's recent edit to remove the superlatives section altogether. Wikipedical is correct that the information there is redundant. 99.192.81.220 (talk) 20:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I think the "Superlatives" section is fine; it is not redundant. One, it contains some info that is not contained in the chart above it. And, two, it presents the info in a different way (to some, easier to read and understand than the chart format). However, there might be a better name than "Superlatives" for that section; those facts listed (most of them, at least) are not really superlatives. Any suggestions? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving the "Superlatives" section after the table is fine, and I support keeping the information contained within it. It provides the information in a more verbal manner than the table is able to convey. Many pages regarding the Academy Awards have a superlative section to list people or films that represent the superlative. For example, the page for Academy Award for Best Actor has a superlative section. I see no problem with having a superlative section here. Which examples were you referring to when you said that "those facts listed are not really superlatives?" As I understand, the definition of superlative is the greatest, best, worst, most, or fewest. Each one of the examples represents most awards won or nominated, though some films and people have tied. I support leaving the section called "Superlatives." 76.173.178.162 (talk) 08:38, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I agree with what you state above. Moving the section to the bottom of the article is fine by me. And I also agree that the information is worth keeping because – just as you state – it provides the information in a more verbal manner than the table is able to convey. I would strongly object to its removal. (To be honest, I think that I might have been the person who added it in, in the first place, albeit many years ago.) Whether or not the section is renamed is not that important to me. I can agree that these facts can be considered to be "superlatives" in a loose sense of the word. Some of them strike me as "almost superlative, if they had just one more win" ... or "almost a superlative, but not quite, because it is lacking such-and-such". But, I am OK with keeping the term. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

New column

I suggest adding a new column in the chart. So, that we have a column for "total number of awards won" (which is currently in there). But, we should also add a separate column for "total number of acting awards won" (which is the very purpose of this article and this chart). For example, the new column would say My Man Godfrey = 0 acting awards; Network = 3 acting awards; etc. I will add it in at some point in the future, when I have some free time. But, in the meanwhile, does anyone have any thoughts on this suggestion? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 20:33, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that column is a great idea. I say add it. Gstridsigne (talk) 02:06, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I added this in. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2014 (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 13:18, 4 April 2015 (UTC)