Talk:97th Academy Awards

Walter Salles did not win Best International Feature

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)

Read more carefully: Academy Award for Best International Feature Film § Recipient

"Therefore, the director is the only official recipient of the Award, accepting it during the ceremony on behalf of the film creatives. But this just has happened since the 2014 change to include the movie director as official recipient on the Oscar award." --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 14:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Record-tying 11 losses? Not relevant trivia when the film won 2 awards.

Emilia Pérez. Winning 2 out of 13 awards = an Academy Award-winning film. It is fluff—irrelevant trivia to mention it alongside other films which lost 11 but still WON 1 Oscar. (The Power of the Dog, Johnny Belinda, and Becket.)

The ONLY two films that hold a record as Oscar losers are The Turning Point (1977) and The Color Purple (1985): Each film tied with 11 nominations and ZERO wins, thus left empty-handed. That's the only loss trivia that is notable on a main page.

As it is with records, even the stuff about Madison being the 9th-youngest winner or "El Mal" being the 3rd foreign song is the same kinda trivia that is eventually going to get removed by @Birdienest81 most likely~! But I'll leave that to others to negotiate. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 14:23, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, despite the film losing 11 of its 13 nominations, Emilia Perez still won two which meant that it still is an Oscar-winning film in the grand scheme of things. Also any record related to age is not really notable unless it involves someone being the youngest or oldest winner/nominee.

Eventually, I will get around the cleaning up this page so that it will be ready for featured article candidacy in July. I will in the meantime be making changes in a sandbox. Birdienest81talk 22:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

The table looks terrible on mobile

I just changed this on pl.wiki and I see that there is the same table here. Is there a flexbox toolkit like the one we have on plwiki (pl:MediaWiki:Gadget-wikiflex.css)? That would work to make things fit in 2-3 columns on large screens and a single readable column on mobile.

It would still be better to just put everything in simple sections like e.g. on de.wiki. I can transform that to normal sections if you don't mind.

Cheers, Nux (talk) 23:43, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

That requires consensus since you want to affect 97 pages plus hundreds of award-related ceremonies using this format. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 00:45, 10 March 2025 (UTC)

Moved to talk page for feature or best article

For her performance in Emilia Pérez, Spanish actress Karla Sofía Gascón became the first openly transgender performer to be nominated for an acting category. This is the first year two films were nominated for both Best Picture and Best International Feature Film—Emilia Pérez and I'm Still Here, with the latter becoming the first Portuguese-language film to be nominated for Best Picture, as well as the first Brazilian film to win an Oscar, after winning Best International Feature Film.

The Best Director nominees were all first-time nominees in the category. The last time an entirely new lineup of nominees competed in the director race was in 1998. Sound mixer Andy Nelson received his 25th nomination for Wicked, second only to John Williams (with 54) for the most nominations for a living person. Sean Baker's four wins (for Anora) tied with Walt Disney for most Oscars won by a person in the same year—with the unique distinction of Baker being the first person to receive all four Oscars for the same film.

Memoir of a Snail became the second R-rated animated film to be nominated for Best Animated Feature after Anomalisa (2015). GeniusTaker (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

Why was this moved here? Kire1975 (talk) 00:27, 3 September 2025 (UTC)

References

Double daggers

Hi @Birdienest81, is there a reason you particularly think we need double daggers to denote every award winner? My impression was that each award being listed first is enough demarcation.
Raising this here, as the most recent ceremony; but obviously applies to every article. — HTGS (talk) 04:48, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Double daggers or some other symbol is necessary to highlight the winner because according to @RunningTiger123:, in the event that there are two or more winners in a category (happened at the 67th and 85th editions, listing them first on the list isn't sufficient enough for screen readers to detect which film or film(s) won. You have to consider the possibility where the tie or joint winners would look exactly the same alphabetically as if they would appear solely as nominees. Since this is a featured list, it is supposed to comply with all the rules including a new rule (5c) (It uses proper formatting to be accessible to all readers. Bulleted and unbulleted lists and tables are structured correctly. Visual media, if included, utilize alternative (alt) text). And according to MOS:NOSYMBOLS (By default, most screen readers do not indicate HTML attributes like presentational text attributes (bold, italic, underline, monospace, strikethrough)...). You have to consider consistency for all lists and consideration for visually impaired readers. I'm going to also call @Giants2008, @The Rambling Man, @SNUGGUMS, and @RunningTiger123 to clarify things up. This was previously settled at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/87th Academy Awards/archive1.

--Birdienest81talk 09:14, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I fully endorse keeping the daggers to signify winners. We shouldn't assume all readers would be able to decipher them only from being listed first within a category. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

It seems reasonable enough for pages where there are multiple winners, but why should we assume some readers cannot tell that the first listing is the winner, having been told so at the top? Or are you hoping to cater for people who did not read the top of the section? — HTGS (talk) 19:06, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

We state that the winners are listed first, but that doesn't mean only the first entry is the winner. I find the easiest way to avoid any confusion is to include the double dagger. In your view, what is the negative impact to including the double dagger? I see no real harm in including double daggers that may be redundant to some readers if they remove confusion for other readers. RunningTiger123 (talk) 21:24, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I see them as unnecessary, especially when there are three other cues to let readers know who the winner is, and two of those cues—listing the winner first, and using a nested list for nominees—are accessible to screen readers.

If we were really concerned with accessibility, we would just use the word “winner” at each winner, and we would note at the top of the section which awards were awarded to multiple winners. (If we were really really concerned with accessibility, we wouldn’t be using lists within a table, with undifferentiated headings, but I don’t think we need to rewrite the whole setup.) I question which of the three of you have actually used a screen reader, given how ardent you are about this issue. — HTGS (talk) 23:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it’s reasonable to keep daggers for pages that have categories with multiple winners. There is no need for them on any other pages. — HTGS (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

It appears the consensus supports daggers (I know I'm biased but I don't see anyone else calling for their removal), so please do not remove them unless a different consensus develops. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Do you have a substantive response to any of my comments, or are you simply counting editors by their opinion in their first comment? — HTGS (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Multiple people responded after your original comment where you suggested removing the daggers, and they said the daggers should be kept. Just because you got The Last Word in any back-and-forth with those editors doesn't mean their comments are invalid. You're welcome to ask an uninvolved editor to assess, but I think they'd reach the same conclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:40, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

You can say “the last word” and I can say “stonewalling” but I’d rather just discuss the question.

I don’t see any need to use four different cues on pages that only have a single winner in each category (which is over 90% of articles). I think that winners being listed first is enough for the few screen readers that don’t pre-announce each level of nested list. To add a dagger is overkill, and if we are “doing more” we may as well just write the word “Winner:” at the start of the line. Do you have a different idea of what is necessary and why?

I’d also like to remove the bullet from the winner, and use an unordered list only for the nominees, do you have thoughts on that? — HTGS (talk) 07:00, 5 February 2026 (UTC)