Talk:Academy Award for Best Actress

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured listAcademy Award for Best Actress is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones
May 5, 2015Featured list candidatePromoted

Table Key section needs to go[edit]

I don't see the purpose for it.

There is literally only (1) posthumous nomination and that was Jeanne Eagels, which can be sufficiently told to readers with a note. Doesn't need it's own section in a Table Key.

Also, there is NO point in adding one of these ‡ after every winner when they are already highlighted yellow.

It just adds clutter to the page. Some people have not-so-good eyesight and if I squint it's hard to read because a dagger can look like a letter. For example (letter T - ‡). Please remove it to simplify the page a bit. HesioneHushabye (talk) 15:21, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @HesioneHushabye: The daggers are meant to ensure accessibility to all readers according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility#Color. Colorblind people will be unable to see the color mark of the winners, and blind people or users using a printout or device without a color screen will not receive the information on who the winner is. We have to think of accessibility for all readers including handicapped people. As for the asterisk for posthumous nominees, it is for the same purpose and it avoids space problems to write up (posthumous nomination/winner on every line) especially on small devices or devices with large text. On the Best Actor list there are five posthumous nominees and winners. It would be easier to markup with a symbol. I did it for the Best Actress list to maintain consistency with other Oscar awards featured lists.
Since this is a featured list (which means it is expected to meet a high quality of standards), please discuss your issues on this talk page before making drastic changes. I suggest also asking the WP:FLC delegates such as Crisco 1492, SchroCat, PresN, or Giants2008 if you have a problem with this.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact, I'll open this up for discussion right now.
@Crisco 1492, PresN, SchroCat, Giants2008, Cowlibob, and SNUGGUMS: What do you think should be done on how to properly indicate Oscar winners on these lists for accessibility?
--Birdienest81 (talk) 19:28, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

HesioneHushabye This is really simple. Featured lists need to comply with WP:MOS, one component of which is WP:ACCESS and part of that is WP:COLOR. We simply cannot use just colour alone to denote something, particularly in a technical article (i.e. one with lists and not so much prose), because it would not be clear to all of our readers. Consider those who are colour blind, those using screen readers etc. I know you "don't like it" but that doesn't really count for anything I'm afraid. If you want to change the Wikipedia-wide Manual of Style or the Featured List criteria, you're welcome to make proposals at the relevant locations, but otherwise this list, and all others like it, should retain the colour/symbol paradigm. Thanks! The Rambling Man (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have made it known I don't like the look of these "featured lists" and I also don't like when editors create lists and then feel like they have total ownership over the page. I do agree about the accessibility and consistency. I would suggest adding a space between the dagger and the name so it's easier to read. Shirley Booth‡ = Shirley BoothHesioneHushabye (talk) 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not an unreasonable compromise by any stretch and, as far as I recall, not compromising the WP:MOS, so perhaps we can do this to placate all parties. As for ownership issues, that's an entirely different discussion to the configuration of the page itself. Please take concerns about that to the relevant place if you truly believe pages are not open to be edited by anyone. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with the space between the daggers. You can go ahead and do it if you want, but I strongly suggest you do it also for the other acting winners lists as well to maintain consistency.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 20:04, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added spaces for all Oscar acting awards lists that are FLs.
--Birdienest81 (talk) 07:33, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just a repository of images[edit]

What possible reason is there to begin this article with forty similar pictures of actresses? 2602:306:8320:AF00:ED63:F813:779E:623A (talk) 16:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Up date the list of Wins & Nominations[edit]

Meryl Streep was nominated a total of 17 times and won 3 times as noted in the Oscars of 2012. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. Meryl Streep was nominated 19 times as of the 87th Awards, 4 of which were in Best Supporting Actress and 15 in Best Actress. 1 Oscar was in Supporting Actress and the others in Best Actress. The table counts her tally in Best Actress. Crboyer (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Actress. 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:

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) 03:05, 30 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Academy Award for Best Actress. 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:

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) 10:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

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) 18:50, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting table by decade[edit]

Left a note at User talk:Michael 182 about his changes to the 4 related AA acting articles. Do any other editors/readers care about keeping the list as one continuous sortable table, or do you prefer a split by decade, and if so, why? Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:50, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No comments in a week, so nobody seems to care. Leaving it split is ok with this editor. Isn't anyone else watching this 'featured' list? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 23:35, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
After seeing the layout of the Golden Globe Award categories, where they divide the list by decades, I think it would be useful to do something similar on this page, like what User talk:Michael 182 did. (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move most of the images to a Wikimedia gallery?[edit]

Please see explanation and make any responses at the best actor talk page. Thanks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 19:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There has been no response so far, at any of the four related acting award articles. The Academy Award for Best Actor article has been changed to have only 1 image, of the latest winner, while the rest were moved to a Wikimedia gallery which was then expanded to include all winners in that category, not just the half or so that had been in the article. This article is next, unless there is a good, logical reason not to proceed. If there is, speak now or ... undo later. ;) Please see the reasons provided in the best actor talk page and respond there, or here if you prefer. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 05:35, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wikimedia gallery is now set up, including all the images of the 45 winners from the December 10th version of this article. The other 30 winners can now be added to the Wikimedia gallery, as was done for actors at the Best Actor gallery. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 06:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm moving them back, they can exist in both places. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:19, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't take long. It's very interesting that no one reverted, or questioned, the removal of the men's images which was done almost a week ago, till now that is. :) Of course the images can exist in both places, but should they, and why? (other than they look nice, are they really adding to the article, or distracting from the basic idea of a simple list, and unnecessarily slowing page loads?) And why only a selected ~half of all winners - OK, to fit the table length, but why those particular ones? Who did the selection and was there any criteria? Only multiple nominees and winners, for instance? Why did only a very small fraction of all readers (~0.8%) click on the new (and obvious) links to the Best Actor gallery - about 24 people/day in the last 6 days, while the article had ~3000 viewers/day in the last 10 days? Do most readers not care to see galleries of pictures, whether in the article or 1-click away, or maybe they didn't see 3 different copies of the same gallery link? (admittedly, that was deliberate overkill to see how many readers would bite - not many) Certainly not annoyed you reverted the changes (in fact, you saved me the trouble of filling out the female gallery, for the moment anyway, and the supporting actors/actresses - thanks!), but I am still curious about any other editor's and reader's thoughts or opinions. Anybody?... Brian W. Schaller (talk) 09:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I didn't notice until a huge red -10KB appeared on my watchlist. I like the lead infobox image, but see no harm at all in making a very dry list of tables a little less dry with some images of the rich and famous. This was also considered at the very least acceptable, perhaps even desirable at the various FLC processes these lists have undergone. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one else wants to say anything. Only 1 other reader agrees with me about the excessive images (look 6 sections above), but unless several more chime in, it's pointless to argue any further. As a compromise, how about at least moving all the images to a gallery, below the table, and reduce it to the latest 10 winners and all multiple winners, which makes 29 total images, rather then the current 42? Brian W. Schaller (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the problem. A gallery is an inelegant way of dumping a load of images into an article, as long as the images are in some semblance of chronological order alongside the table, I see no issue with the current format (nor do the literally hundreds of commentators at the literally hundreds of FLCs that are formatted similarly). The Rambling Man (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's no problem, it's just an argument for a simpler, streamlined layout. The main reasons (as stated in the Best Actor talk & above) are:

  • mobile users must scroll past all images to get to the top of the table, unless they previously entered 'desktop' mode which shrinks all text but activates sorting; such users are becoming an increasingly larger % of readers
  • selected images appear to be based on editors' personal preferences (mostly all recent winners and 'golden age' winners, very few from the middle years - bias?)
  • based on page view counts, very few readers are clicking on images to enlarge and really see them, with only ~16/day for the lead image in this article, which is scaled fairly small, while the article got ~3700/day (in the latest 20 days), so about 0.43% or 4 readers in 1000 open the image. Why have so many images when it appears that most readers are mainly looking for info, not images which are easily found in many other places?

A well-defined gallery with embedded comments in the wikicode ('do not add images, only substitute with better quality images') has kept galleries to a reasonable size in other articles. If 100's of editors really believe the readers want and benefit from all the images in theses articles, then great, leave them; however, the only non-acting Academy Award list with many images running alongside it is for directors, while only 1 of the 6 primetime Emmy acting awards lists has images. The Golden Globes acting awards lists have images for the TV cats, but no images in any of the 6 motion picture cats. SAG awards lists have images for all cats, but then not so many as they only go back to the 1990s. Not sure where the 100's of other FL's with lots of images running alongside are located. Someone please convince me that the current layout is better than simply having the latest winner at top, and a small, defined gallery below the table, along with a complete gallery of all winners in Wikimedia (which is already done for the Best Actors). Brian W. Schaller (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel compelled to convince you of anything. The format has been community-approved, through the FLC process. If you'd like some examples of FLs where we have images down the side of the table, well Laureus World Sports Award for Team of the Year, List of Connecticut Huskies in the NFL Draft, List of airports in the Okanagan, PFA Young Player of the Year, Minnesota Mr. Basketball, List of Calgary Flames award winners, List of National Hockey League players born in the United Kingdom, etc. in a quick search. Do you really think our readers will head to Commons for this? In a straw(man) poll, I asked my colleagues about Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. All of them knew about the first, none of them had heard of the second. We don't send people to Commons for an unstructured and un-curated view of dozens of similar and probably crap images. That's not what an encyclopedia should do at all. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:19, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Still awaiting other replies... The examples you've given above all contain much smaller tables with reasonable amounts of images placed in good locations - there are only about 6 or so images in most of them - unlike the overload of 40+ images in these AA actor tables, which will only increase in time. Wikimedia Commons supplies most Wikipedia images so it's only ignorant editors that are completely unaware of it. Commons galleries are curated - it's the categories that are often full of bad images. Having the table-side galleries does not deter editors from constantly trying to enlarge them as has been evident these last few weeks. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
so it's only ignorant editors that are completely unaware of it really? You really think that? My work colleagues who are beyond degree-level educated are all "ignorant"? The people I interact with outside Wikipedia are all "ignorant" because they've never heard of Commons? Honestly? I think we're done here if that's your genuine belief. Wikipedia home page gets 20 million hits a day, what does Commons get? I'm afraid until you come up with something actually helpful to our readers, this conversation has reached its natural conclusion, and that's that we leave the lists as per the community consensus at the FLC review. Time to do something positive. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:44, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so people who don't know about Wikimedia galleries are "ignorant". I just checked, this gallery is getting an average of 4 pageviews per day, while the Wikipedia article is getting an average of 3,724 pageviews per day. I think we can now definitively close this discussion as the ignorant are clearly running the joint. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but bear in mind that the second usage of the word was all that was intended. So, now you're aware of galleries but don't believe they are a better option. Unless others join in, this discussion does seem over, as this Talk page gets fewer views than the Wikimedia gallery. The same point about the tiny % of readers who look at galleries & infobox images compared to article views was made above. Brian W. Schaller (talk) 04:44, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the sidebar photo show a different award?[edit]

The sidebar photo here is showing Frances McDormand, but it shows her holding a different award. It's a bit confusing. Could someone change this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I came over here to ask the same thing but if I removed it y’all would type me a black eye on my talk page. I think the image needs to be removed and replaced with the trophy itself until someone gains permission to use a photo of her carrying an actual Oscar.Trillfendi (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

character noms[edit]

Only three film characters have been nominated more than once in this category: Elizabeth I of England (twice by Cate Blanchett), Leslie Crosbie in The Letter, and Esther Blodgett in A Star Is Born.

First off, this information appears to only be discussed by the lead, and not the main body of the article. No information should be given by the lead unless later discussed by the main article.

Secondly, finding out more is too difficult. We are given a clue for the first character, but what, say, is "The Letter" and which performances of "Leslie Crosbie" are intended? The article (but not the lead) needs to specify exactly which actresses in what films have garned noms playing each of these three characters. And ideally the section would also make it easy to find out the corresponding information for Best Actor and the two Supporting awards as well.

Finally a nitpick. Characters aren't nominated, actresses are.

CapnZapp (talk) 13:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism? Raini Rodriguez isn't 2019's oscar winner.[edit]

Someone's vandalised the page to put the Austin and Ally star to be the 2019 winner, when this is not the case. Is this a mistake of some sort? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dawkin Verbier (talkcontribs) 14:57, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Opening paragraph will need updating after tonight (4/25/21) when Viola Davis wins[edit]

Once Davis wins, Halle Berry will no longer be the sole POC to have won this category. In fact, Davis will then become the only Black woman to have won two Oscars for acting (she got supporting for "Fences). — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Academy Award-related pages are updated accordingly and almost immediately. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not a crystall ball. (CC) Tbhotch 22:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. (CC) Tbhotch 03:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The "Alleged LGBT" section[edit]

Isn't it a bit inappropriate to include a list of nominees (both here and on the Best Actor page) who never identified as LGBT during their lifetimes under the LGBT section? Shirley Booth, Ava Gardner, Joan Crawford, Lana Turner, and Barbara Stanwyck's own Wiki pages don't even allude to them possibly being LGBT. And some of Hepburn and Garbo's biographers speculate they may have been somewhere on the LGBT spectrum, but perspectives are not conclusive (more so in Hepburn's than Garbo's). And Blanchett and Sarandon are still alive... why include them when they themselves have not said definitively? It's one thing to include the nominees who have come out, but when most of these actresses' pages don't even allude to it at all (and they themselves never alluded it during their lives), why include it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dahl9871 (talkcontribs) 22:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deadnaming Elliot Page[edit]

There is currently a parenthetical note under Elliot Page's name on the 2007 nomination table listing his deadname. I don't know what Wikipedia's official policy on deadnaming is, but I think we can stand on IMDb's strict policy against it, especially when discussing the actor who, as of right now, is the only trans actor nominated for an Oscar. Surely we can just add a footnote indicating that this nomination was before Page came out, but there's no need to deadname him in the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Issues with OR and FLC status[edit]

I recently noticed the large number of supplementary tables that have been added to the end of this article – for instance, Nominated portrayals of the same role across different movies, Nominations for portraying multiple characters in the same film, and Diversity of nominees and winners. While these may be interesting, they are also entirely unsourced and are a massive violation of Wikipedia's original research policies, as well as featured list criteria #3B. Personally, I think all supplementary tables should be removed except the list of individuals with multiple nominations/wins (which is clearly and directly supported by information already present in the list) and the list of oldest/youngest winners and nominees (which is actually sourced). I feel particularly comfortable keeping these since they were included when the list was promoted to FLC. I would like to gain consensus before removing these tables myself; however, if the consensus is to keep them and no sources can be provided, I will feel obligated to bring the list to featured list review. RunningTiger123 (talk) 07:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a follow-up, the same issue seems to persist across the Best Actor, Supporting Actress, and Supporting Actor lists, as well as Best Director to a lesser extent. All five are FLs, so this should be addressed sooner rather than later. RunningTiger123 (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would support removal of these tables if they lack sourcing. When it comes to this kind of highlighting, I think it should come from the real world (like the whole [[List of EGOT winners] metric) and not be devised by Wikipedia editors themselves (e.g., "This is the fifth time actor A and actor B worked together"). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since there hasn't been any feedback opposing the move, I'll delete those sections from the lists. If anyone raises concerns, there's always WP:BRD. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awards by Genre[edit]

Backup data for Number of awards by genre of the film - ties count equal

Awards by Genre
Actor Role Film Genre
Sissy Spacek Loretta Lynn Coal Miner's Daughter Biography
Julia Roberts Erin Brockovich Erin Brockovich Biography
Renée Zellweger Judy Garland Judy Biography
Marion Cotillard Édith Piaf La Vie en Rose Biography
Charlize Theron Aileen "Lee" Wuornos Monster Biography
Jessica Chastain Tammy Faye Bakker The Eyes of Tammy Faye Biography
Meryl Streep Margaret Thatcher The Iron Lady Biography
Helen Mirren Queen Elizabeth II The Queen Biography
Jennifer Jones Bernadette Soubirous The Song of Bernadette Biography
Reese Witherspoon June Carter Cash Walk the Line Biography
Judy Holliday Emma "Billie" Dawn Born Yesterday Comedy
Frances McDormand Marge Gunderson Fargo Comedy
Marie Dressler Min Divot Min and Bill Comedy
Loretta Young Katie Holstrom The Farmer's Daughter Comedy
Olivia Colman Queen Anne The Favourite Comedy
Ellen Burstyn Alice Hyatt Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore Comedy-Drama
Cate Blanchett Jeanette "Jasmine" Francis Blue Jasmine Comedy-Drama
Jessica Tandy Daisy Werthan Driving Miss Daisy Comedy-Drama
Katharine Hepburn Christina Drayton Guess Who's Coming to Dinner Comedy-Drama
Faye Dunaway Diana Christensen Network Comedy-Drama
Katharine Hepburn Ethel Thayer On Golden Pond Comedy-Drama
Louise Fletcher Nurse Mildred Ratched One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest Comedy-Drama
Gwyneth Paltrow Viola de Lesseps / Thomas Kent Shakespeare in Love Comedy-Drama
Shirley MacLaine Aurora Greenway Terms of Endearment Comedy-Drama
Vivien Leigh Blanche DuBois A Streetcar Named Desire Drama
Ingrid Bergman Anna Koreff / Anastasia Anastasia Drama
Jessica Lange Carly Marshall Blue Sky Drama
Hilary Swank Brandon Teena Boys Don't Cry Drama
Elizabeth Taylor Gloria Wandrous BUtterfield 8 Drama
Marlee Matlin Sarah Norman Children of a Lesser God Drama
Shirley Booth Lola Delaney Come Back, Little Sheba Drama
Jane Fonda Sally Hyde Coming Home Drama
Mary Pickford Norma Besant Coquette Drama
Bette Davis Joyce Heath Dangerous Drama
Julie Christie Diana Scott Darling Drama
Susan Sarandon Helen Prejean Dead Man Walking Drama
Emma Thompson Margaret Schlegel Howards End Drama
Patricia Neal Alma Brown Hud Drama
Susan Hayward Barbara Graham I Want to Live! Drama
Bette Davis Julie Marsden Jezebel Drama
Jane Wyman Belinda McDonald Johnny Belinda Drama
Ginger Rogers Kitty Foyle Kitty Foyle Drama
Halle Berry Leticia Musgrove Monster's Ball Drama
Katharine Hepburn Eva Lovelace Morning Glory Drama
Greer Garson Kay Miniver Mrs. Miniver Drama
Frances McDormand Fern Nomadland Drama
Sally Field Norma Rae Webster Norma Rae Drama
Sally Field Edna Spalding Places in the Heart Drama
Brie Larson Joy "Ma" Newsome Room Drama
Simone Signoret Alice Aisgill Room at the Top Drama
Meryl Streep Sophie Zawistowski Sophie's Choice Drama
Julianne Moore Alice Howland Still Alice Drama
Janet Gaynor The Wife Sunrise Drama
Jodie Foster Sarah Tobias The Accused Drama
Grace Kelly Georgie Elgin The Country Girl Drama
Norma Shearer Jerry Bernard Martin The Divorcee Drama
Luise Rainer O-Lan The Good Earth Drama
Olivia de Havilland Catherine Sloper The Heiress Drama
Nicole Kidman Virginia Woolf The Hours Drama
Katharine Hepburn (TIE) Eleanor of Aquitaine The Lion in Winter Drama
Anne Bancroft Annie Sullivan The Miracle Worker Drama
Holly Hunter Ada McGrath The Piano Drama
Maggie Smith Jean Brodie The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie Drama
Kate Winslet Hanna Schmitz The Reader Drama
Anna Magnani Serafina Delle Rose The Rose Tattoo Drama
Helen Hayes Madelon Claudet The Sin of Madelon Claudet Drama
Joanne Woodward Eve White / Eve Black / Jane The Three Faces of Eve Drama
Geraldine Page Carrie Watts The Trip to Bountiful Drama
Frances McDormand Mildred Hayes Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri Drama
Olivia de Havilland Josephine "Jody" Norris To Each His Own Drama
Sophia Loren Cesira Two Women Drama
Elizabeth Taylor Martha Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Drama
Glenda Jackson Gudrun Brangwen Women in Love Drama
Vivien Leigh Scarlett O'Hara Gone with the Wind Epic
Julie Andrews Mary Poppins Mary Poppins Fantasy
Jodie Foster Clarice Starling The Silence of the Lambs Horror
Emma Stone Mia Dolan La La Land Musical
Luise Rainer Anna Held The Great Ziegfeld Musical
Liza Minnelli Sally Bowles Cabaret Musical Drama
Barbra Streisand Fanny Brice Funny Lady Musical Drama
Glenda Jackson Vickie Allessio A Touch of Class Romantic Comedy
Diane Keaton Annie Hall Annie Hall Romantic Comedy
Helen Hunt Carol Connelly As Good as It Gets Romantic Comedy
Claudette Colbert Ellie Andrews It Happened One Night Romantic Comedy
Cher Loretta Castorini Moonstruck Romantic Comedy
Audrey Hepburn Princess Ann Roman Holiday Romantic Comedy
Jennifer Lawrence Tiffany Maxwell Silver Linings Playbook Romantic Comedy
Hilary Swank Maggie Fitzgerald Million Dollar Baby Sports
Sandra Bullock Leigh Anne Tuohy The Blind Side Sports
Natalie Portman Nina Sayers Black Swan Thriller
Ingrid Bergman Paula Alquist Anton Gaslight Thriller
Jane Fonda Bree Daniels Klute Thriller
Joan Crawford Mildred Pierce Beragon Mildred Pierce Thriller
Kathy Bates Annie Wilkes Misery Thriller
Joan Fontaine Lina McLaidlaw Aysgarth Suspicion Thriller

Sidebar Images - Rather than constant edit warring.[edit]

And a few other little tidbits. First, intro paragraphs already mention Hepburn's and Streep's records. The superlatives section below does too. But it doesn't need to be immediately reiterated in the "winners and nominees" section, when it is visible, literally one paragraph above in the preceding section. It's excess.

I've noticed sporadic white space, sometimes larger than others, appear in margins between the sets of thumbnails on the sidebar for the actresses. My solution for all of the acting articles though has resolved this, and I hope you'll agree. Keeping them chronologically, but bringing them all up to the top above the key box, it allows for them to flow together and prevent any such undue white space. It also permits room for additional images. In one section where, for example, 1989's winner will spillover into the top of the '90s. But then the end of the '90s will be empty until '00s. But '00s will perhaps have more thumbnails? The 2000 winner starting just a tad earlier right below, ex. 1998 winner, keeps the flow going without ugly empty space.

Now, I've noticed there's been a dispute, mostly with this one particular article, about whose images are worth being on the sidebar, it seems. I've been making constructive edits as well in that regard. Reducing captions to just name and film, except for a brief record (piped with link) like an age superlative. Some pics are vertically longer, so I tried to circumvent that, but after being okay for a bit, edit warring has begun. So I just want to mention it here. Maybe ensure that all images are relatively equal then? I could use CropTool on the overly long ones so that they're more square, so long as it doesn't obviously crop important facial features or anything. But if it's a lot of torso, that can easily be reduced, right? Just no tiny horizontal ones, because we can't see clear faces, I would agree that I went too far trying to make room there. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 09:24, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Seems everything was fine for a while until today, but let's discuss of course. Again, sometimes pictures are longer than others. If that imbalance is the issue, I will take on the painstaking task of making them all even with the smallest one for balance, so that it all matches. Consistency is a good thing. I personally like having facts in the captions, though perhaps I had filled out a bit too much with German/English, those aren't really relevant, it's trivial. But age, language, etc., of course. So that's my input. Maybe a few other things I'm forgetting.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 06:18, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for posting here. I think the problem with the info in the captions is that there is either too much or too little. Most of the important info is at the top. Including that Anna Magnani is Italian seems silly when Claudette Colbert being French is not noted. And how we can say that there were not actresses before her with Italian or partial Italian descent? I think I saw Greer Garson noted as the first English actress to win but Joan Fontaine is also of English heritage even if she is born in Japan I think.
Marlee Matlin performing in ASL is important because she is deaf. Jane Wyman is not deaf so her performance being in ALS feels less important to me. Her character used ALS but her actress does not if that makes sense. Similarly with Hilary Swank not being trans but it being noted that her character was trans. The significance there is that the character is trans but this is not an article on the character. The article is on the actress so it seems messy to include.
I think the captions would be easier to just focus on the actor and the movie they star in. Leave all the outside information for the top of the page or other pages that highlight he diversity of the wins. Otherwise it gets too complicated and too messy. I say this in the Best Actor page as well because even picking which actor played the first gay character to win an Oscar is unclear. JeanGreyForever (talk) 18:52, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, not to carry on double convos, but I'll streamline this one, because I want to escape this chart. And thank you for responding.
I think some captions do need to stay and are good hyperlinks. But we'll keep them to a bare minimum of importance. Like you said, Matlin=deaf/youngest. Valid. Wyman ASL, let it go. Trans Swank, fine, you're right, her infobox is long enough anyway. Streep/Hepburn long enough, I know. Cotillard, French-language, yes. Other nationalities, no. As I said on the other talk page. --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 19:23, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with your choices. JeanGreyForever (talk) 19:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier discussion with Cinemaniac86 continued here.[edit]

There is another Jean on here? I'd love to meet her. Ginger Rogers was one of the biggest stars of the 30s and kept audiences entertained during the Great Depression. She is my vote. I think Roberts should be included somewhere though which is why I go back to my earlier comment that it would be better to include everyone's face so no one is left out. It feels very elitist to only showcase some people...but I discuss this idea more in my later comment since you mention it later.

Duvall is also considered one of the great actors. Just saying. I don't need him to be in but that's something to be considered since he is regarded that way. I don't get the reference to Maggie Smith. But that made me notice she's not on the list. I feel she is important to include even if she is not a star. Casey Affleck is also problematic. Yes, I agree that Will and Julia are on the same level.

I agree, we should table the discussion to include everyone for now but consider it later. I'm surprised you mind sharing the discussion with a third person seemed friendly enough to them on their talk page.

If we're removing actors for scandals, then almost all of them would be gone. John Wayne was a known racist and there are plenty of modern-day articles about that. Russell Crowe had a scandal for an affair with married Meg Ryan. Geoffrey Rush had sexual assault accusations but they were never proven and his career continued.

I was going to remove Rami Malek yesterday but I was afraid it would upset people so I didn't. LOL.

Oh, I personally couldn't care less about "star"; I care more about "amazing actors". Truly impressive. So Maggie Smith or Daniel Day-Lewis >>>> Meg Ryan or Richard Gere. So hell, that'd make me wanna include Maggie more. But she is a star to me!
Point with Maggie Smith though is again, she is amazing, LOVE her, but like Gene, she won 1 in the supporting category too. The one where she won for being an Oscar loser, which is amusing. But also she has 4 nominations in that category; Gene also has 3 there vs. 2. It's not a big difference for either person. They're still lead actors to me. Each of them get like 8 or 9 personal Oscar nominations on my own lists in fact. They just make the supporting page look that much better.
Yeah, definitely. Well, we'll definitely keep Julia Roberts and Robert Duvall hot on the backburner then and see what develops. Maybe depending on what gets nominated and how long the titles are, perhaps...Well, haha, Michelle Yeoh is gonna have a long infobox, but Brendan Fraser's will be short. If we keep him. We're keeping Yeoh--like I'd even have to ask!
Btw, I think that Jean was a boy. Maybe. Maybe not?
Oh, by triumverates, I didn't specifically mean this group of three people. I was just being facetiously vague. Not about consensus per se, just about how due to the limited space, and there's always gonna be a Reese fan or a Foxx fan, that the potential to accommodate will linger and down the road, a more long-term solution would be awesome. Maybe duo pictures!
Actually, both Jamie and Aoidh have been tremendously helpful and patient, thankfully, as we veer from batshit crazy to slightly less batshit crazy over the course of this afternoon together. <3
Eh, that Russell Crowe scandal is piffle, he's kosher. His worst offense was the hotel phone hurling incident! So Rush ISN'T the Marquis de Sade irl, okay....Guess that leaves Marion. Marion Coti--oh, I mean John Wayne. Sorry, mon cherie. Well, no .. rush. We've got time to figure this out.
Forgot to add that hey, maybe Malek is the right answer after all...? =) =) =) =) Ironically removing an LGBT char--oh wait, they basically gave his gay one big gray erasure. This will teach 'em!--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 19:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
For me, the best actors can mix both star power and actual acting ability. I feel there was less of a divide in the old days compared to now.
Oh, you mean Maggie Smith was chosen to not be part of this page because she's on the supporting page instead. I got it now. Like Gene.
Fraser is an interesting win because he was once a big star but he won his Oscar long after his stardom days were over.
I have only met girl Jeans. But I think it can be a unisex name.
It would be nice if others on here also chimed in on whether or not everyone who is a winner should be included with a pic. I wonder if it could also be done to change the structure of the page so that when the winners are listed with the nominees, the winner also gets their picture listed. The nominees would not have their pics because that would be insane with too many pics. And if a winner has more than one win, the idea would be that the pic is used for around the time the winner won for that specific award so Kate could have 4 different pics. Or they don't have to be different pics but I like the idea of the photo of the winner being used with the main list and not on the side like a side gallery.
I recognize Aoidh from my page but I'm not familiar with Jamie by name besides your references to that user.
The problem with censuring John Wayne for his racism is that if we do that for him, then arguably we would have to do that for every other winner for everything they've ever believed in that doesn't hold up today. And what holds up today in 2023 will not be the same 10 years from now or even 1 year from now. And even people like Casey Affleck and Kevin Spacey technically did win so ignoring them doesn't change anything.
See, Rami Malek is another example of why I do not put much weight in having the captions mention important aspects of the character. His character should be LGBT but is not in the movie. I feel all this information and the disputes over it is better on the other pages about historic firsts or in special sections here rather than on the side for a quick look. Even something like Michelle Yeoh being the first Asian actress to win I have seen disputed because some people claim that Vivien Leigh should count for having been born in India. Or Olivia de Havilland and Joan Fontaine who were born in Japan. JeanGreyForever (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Jean Stapleton! Jean Dujardin. I think I've met at least one of each in real life. And I am 25% French, but I hardly know those relatives.
The other disappointing thing about Maggie Smith's Wiki is her picture. It's so grainy. I hope one day we can find a better pic. At least a sharper trailer image. With a good quality trailer (and not a period piece), could probably get an image that would suffice better than stills. Sadly, she's only got that one. She deserves a better one. And so does Rod Steiger. Hate having to use that small square for him.
Yeah, a young Hepburn, a middle-aged Katharine, and then, well, golden Kate. Perhaps even if it extends the page, it could be done in a way where some of those old film pages are, where the main cast has their screencaps on their cast list. Only it would be headshots of an era. Something to consider.
Interestingly, that is a conundrum with LGBT info in film history, but why I think even you bringing up what's coded. We can't erase the coded, but at the same time, as Jamie reverted, it's too "fluffy" to claim either. So it's better when there's evidence at least, Brando/Foster. As for Yeoh, I was doing fun research about birthplaces because of a "records" page section that is atrociously unkempt. I did states too. Then I got sidetracked with just England. And then just with London alone....But I digress. Point is, Leigh, Fontaine, De Havilland. CHAOS. British rule in India....White but in Japan....And then Yeoh, ofc, properly east Asian origin, Malaysian. So, it's either specify the first east Asian winner, or don't specify. We've got another 6 months before that's a problem, thankfully! --Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 20:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot about Jean Dujardin tbh. I guess I consider the French Jean to be more John compared to the English language Jean.
I didn't think about the picture quality for Maggie Smith and Rod Steiger. I can see that Rod's pic is a bit like a square.
Some of the information on historic firsts could be added to the bottom of the page, including some of the disputed info that isn't already at the top, if the page would need to be long enough to include all the photos.
It gets trickier with some of the actors who never came out in their lifetimes but there's concrete evidence or even loved ones who confirmed their sexualities. Personally, I don't consider Leigh, de Havilland, or Fontaine to be Asian just because they were born there but I may be in the minority because I regularly see online that they are characterized as such, particularly with the recent Michelle Yeoh win where people wanted to be careful. JeanGreyForever (talk) 20:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]