Talk:Golden Globe Awards

Emmys vs. Golden Globes

What's the difference between the Emmys and the Golden Globes?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.95.183 (talk) 19:09, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

• Put simply, the Emmys only cover television while the Globes cover film and television. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.137.201.188 (talk) 17:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• The Emmys, like the Oscars are determined in the film industry, are decided by voting members of the television industry; usually, voting membership is granted by application (with sufficient work credentials) or prior nomination in the Emmys. Actors vote for the acting categories; directors vote for the directing categories; all voters in the television industry can vote for Best Drama and Best Comedy Series. Conversely, the Golden Globe nominees and winners are determined by a pool of journalists in the Hollywood Foreign Press Association, and have no direct inside determination by members of the film industry. Author782 00:24, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Well stated. Thank You. True, even today. -- AstroU (talk) 11:21, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

...determined by a pool of only 22 journalists... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.238.245.124 (talk) 07:32, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nick Douglas controversy

Shouldn't the Nick Douglas controversy be in the HFPA article? It's not really directly related to the Golden Globes. --Rovie 02:54, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The yacht race

Ideally, "Golden Globe" would be a disambig page, pointing to

• Golden Globe Award
• Sunday Times Golden Globe Race

I actually did this, but reverted it again; the problem is that hundreds of movie articles link to "Golden Globe", not "Golden Globe Award". So, at the moment, "Golden Globe" redirects straight to "Golden Globe Award"; so someone looking for the yacht race might well end up here, hence the notice at the top of this article.

Ideally, we should go through and change all the links to "Golden Globe" to point to one of the other two articles. But there are so many... — Johantheghost 01:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what we want is to corral one of those fancy bots into doing it. — Johan the Ghost _seance 01:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it is so necessary that there be a disambig page for just two articles. Generally, the film awards are much more widely known than the yachting race and are linked to by many more articles. The current link seems adequate. Rather than change the links of 500+ pages, why not just change the links of the dozen or so (probably less) that point to the "Golden Globe" but reach the film awards? Volatile 20:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

• Why bother? Their is a link at the top of the page that points readers that way. That is enough. Forever young 01:17, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

needs more context

A recent HFPA president, Dagmar Dunlevy, was a bona fide journalist, rather than an occasional freelancer. With the income from the NBC broadcasting deal, the association has been making substantial donations to film-oriented charities. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zanimum (talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Best foreign language film inconsistency

As someone else also pointed out in the article's talk, you can't have english language films under this title. In individual years, there are various improvisations to cover up for this (foreign films, english language foreign films). I am doing large scale work in the years in film articles and one of my efforts is to give more awards. So, in Academy Award there is a Foreign Language Film Award, but there are no English language films there. Please clear out this point and if english films are included, move the page to a more appropriate title. Hoverfish 20:59, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It was changed to 'foreign language films' only in 1987. Cop 633 14:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Image to place in each award article

In the award articles (1st-63rd) there has been an effort to put images from films, then some got deleted, etc. I would suggest to follow the academy awards on this and place the Globe image (unframed) in each. Simple and gives a quality look to the page. Hoverfish 17:51, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

New Star of the Year in a Motion Picture

Wasn't this an award at one time? If so, why is it not on the page under retired awards? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.9.67.126 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It was an award at one time, but this set of articles is so incomplete that a lot of the key aspects of the awards have been left out. If you want to know previous awards, and their winners, see the official site. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 21:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When did they begin?

This article says 1954, but the dates on the individual awards pages go back to the 1940s. Cop 633 14:56, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Controversy

The Hollywood Foreign Press and the Golden Globes have garnered a fair amount of controversy in recent years, is there anyone familiar enough with all of it to comment on the main page? Filmmaker Vikram Jayanti directed a 2003 documentary on the subject entitled "The Golden Globes: Hollywood's Dirty Little Secret", and one may read about at this [1] link. --Frenk Melk 21:20, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I was wondering why a "controversy" paragraph was lacking. I'd like to see some more sources on this as well, although the documentary should be sufficient to at least be mentioned. -- MiG 18:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:Hollywood Foreign Press Association#Article is lacking details, criticisms and controversies for few examples. Most of the details belong in Hollywood Foreign Press Association but a summary belongs here. 67.100.123.202 (talk) 16:30, 13 December 2007 (UTC).

What is the Henrietta Award exactly, and why the name?

While editing Charles Bronson I've found the information that he won a Henrietta Award, but I was able to find next to nothing about it, except that it was a "special" Golden Globe. Can somebody create a two-sentence stub? --Kubanczyk (talk) 15:34, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Buying the award

A golden globe article without mention of Pia Zadora? Mention the phrase "Golden Globes" to some people and the first thing that comes to mind is the fact that Pia Zadora once won an award for the butterfly, allegedly because her husband Meshulam Ricklis "bought" the award for her.

I've always suspected that the Golden Globes were "fixed" or could be "bought." Some mention of this should be made in this article.

A hard hitting expose of the truth behind these rumors is out of the question, apparently..........

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.206.70 (talk) 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rumors have no place in Wikipedia. If you have a credible reference nothing is stopping you from editing this article and adding this. Many articles have a "Controversy" section. You can trivially create one.

Indeed you are wrong to say "A hard hitting expose of the truth behind these rumors is out of the question, apparently" when you have complete freedom to add the expose yourself.

Nick Beeson (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, if anyone wants to look into this there's a very interesting documentary called 'The Golden Globes: Hollywood's Dirty Little Secret,' which goes into detail about the legitimacy of the awards and specific dubious events from its history. If you find just an article about the documentary I'm sure you'll have a good deal of information to start with. --Breshkovsky (talk) 07:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Rules Completed

I read the rules posted by the HFPA and summarized them completely. All important rules are mentioned. Fine grained detail was left out. Nick Beeson (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

image

could really do with a pictire of what a golden globe looks like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.67.39.140 (talk) 18:35, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

There is a possibility to download perfectly done pictures of the awards here: http://www.goldenglobes.org/awardimage/index.html The only thing is to ask them for permission, which should be no problem to get. Someone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgracanin (talk • contribs) 13:44, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Dubious

Are final ballots e-mailed as implied by a recent change? This seems like fine-grained detail. I suggest "sent to the membership" if there's a dispute, otherwise the original mailed seems most plausible. Mtd2006 (talk) 12:50, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Prominence

It occurs to me that this awards show has grown in prominence over the last 10 - 15 years or so. Is this true? If so, can something about it be added to the article? Hires an editor (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Template restyling opinion needed

Please comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Adding_seasons_to_award_winners.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Year added to template title

I have added year ranges to many award template titles. Please comment at the centralized location if there are issues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Award by lobby??

From the Controversy section: "winners were determined by lobby; if winners did not attend the event then another name would be chosen"

This seems somewhat important. A further explanation of this and how the system has changed since then belongs in the History section. Tad Lincoln (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. There is a clear consensus that these moves are appropriate in most cases, but a strong argument that there are some exceptions. I am sure that the nominator was right to try handling this as one group discussion rather than series of individual discussions, but the discussion has revealed that not all cases are the same. Feel free to open new individual discussions on these pages without delay ... tho I suggest that the most stable outcomes would be achieved by only having 2 or 3 discussions open simultaneously. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

---

• Golden Globe Award → Golden Globe Awards
• Critics' Choice Movie Award → Critics' Choice Movie Awards
• Directors Guild of America Award → Directors Guild of America Awards
• Producers Guild of America Award → Producers Guild of America Awards
• Screen Actors Guild Award → Screen Actors Guild Awards
• Annie Award → Annie Awards
• Saturn Award → Saturn Awards
• NAACP Image Award → NAACP Image Awards
• Writers Guild of America Award → Writers Guild of America Awards
• Edgar Award → Edgar Awards
• ADG Excellence in Production Design Award → ADG Excellence in Production Design Awards
• Young Artist Award → Young Artist Awards
• GLAAD Media Award → GLAAD Media Awards
• XRCO Award → XRCO Awards
• Emmy Award → Emmy Awards
• Grammy Award → Grammy Awards
• Satellite Award → Satellite Awards
• TV Land Award → TV Land Awards
• Peabody Award → Peabody Awards
• TV Guide Award → TV Guide Awards
• Tony Award → Tony Awards

– I believe that the successful move at the Academy Awards page speaks for itself here. These pages all focus on the award ceremony, not the awards themselves. --Relisted. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC) Corvoe (speak to me) 21:00, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

• Support, but not per nominator's reason. These articles have more to do with the respective awards ceremonies and not the physical award statuettes themselves. Since it is common to refer to the ceremony in the plural ("the Academy Awards," "the Grammys," etc.), I support the requested move. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, nominator- please be thorough in the request. Make sure you add Satellite Award, TV Land Award, and others that have been left out. -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:29, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
    • I was trying to be thorough, I just couldn't remember every award with this title. Adding those two now, and I've amended my request with your reasoning. Corvoe (speak to me) 16:42, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support all and rewrite WP:PLURAL if necessary to clarify that this is okay. Red Slash 02:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support all and agree that WP:PLURAL should be updated to specifically include this type of exception. The singular is used for a particular award to a particular performer; The topics of these articles are best described by the plural. Andrewa (talk) 11:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support all (if they are about the ceremonies and not the award itself). © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose all and revert bad precedent — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: So far there is a consensus to rename these articles, but only amongst a relatively small number of editors. This proposal involves 21 articles on highly notable topics, so it would be preferable to have input from more editors, to ensure that any consensus is broad enough to be stable. I hope that relisting will encourage more editors to contribute.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

---

• Oppose massive page move. I prefer to have individual RM discussions on a case-by-case basis. For example, the current versions of Producers Guild of America Award and Writers Guild of America Award do not have any content about the ceremonies per se, the primary basis why the Academy Awards page was renamed. Thus, those pages are instead more closer to the Nobel Prize article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:03, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:COMMONSENSE. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
• Comment did you guys even read Emmy Award? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.175.135 (talk) 02:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Sources for subarticles

I wasn't sure where else to put this, but a lot of the sub-articles (ie, 33rd Golden Globe Awards) are exclusively referenced with IMDB. As I understand, it is not considered best practice to use IMBD as a source (as with WP, much of it is user-generated). While doing research on one Golden Globe nominee, I found a couple better sources:

Digital Hit and Hawaii Book Library

The latter cite is from the World Public Library Organization and sourced from the World Heritage Encyclopedia, which must make it a much more reliable source than IMDB. I'm not particularly interested in the Golden Globe articles and don't have time to improve dozens of them. But anybody who is, and does, ought to look to incorporating these sources into these articles. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 21:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

We should use the award site as the source. World Heritage Encyclopedia is a mirror of Wikipedia with some crowd sourcing, so worse than IMDB. Doug Weller (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

References

New NEWS today, for future editing

Julie Hinds does a great job, videos included.

Headline-1: 20 best, worst, most jaw-dropping Golden Globes moments

• http://www.freep.com/story/entertainment/2016/01/11/golden-globes-best-worst-moments-jamie-foxx-andy-samberg-jonah-hill/78610824/

QUOTE: "Well, that was fun. The Golden Globes may not be the most venerable award show, but they proved again Sunday night that they're the most entertaining, surprising and all-around jaw-dropping. While some jokes by host Ricky Gervais hit a new low (much like some of those necklines on the evening gowns), a number of presenters were so funny that their 2016 remarks could double as their 2017 hosting audition." -- AstroU (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2016 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

---

Gary Oldman's Criticisms

A user with two different IPs is not convinced that Gary Oldman is notable enough and has tampered with the section on his criticisms about the ceremony. My attempts to persuade the user that Gary Oldman is notable have been unsuccessful. What should I do to settle this dispute? Crboyer (talk) 23:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The user has to be a Globes proponent. Oldman has been recognised by the Oscars, Emmys, BAFTAs and SAGs, and has had lead/central roles in massive films (JFK, Dracula, The Fifth Element, Air Force One, Harry Potter series, Dark Knight series, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) as well as cult hits (Sid & Nancy, True Romance, Leon: The Professional, Tinker Tailor). Anyone who watches film knows who Gary Oldman is, and his take on the Globes is absolutely notable. Malcum J (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Heard of a few of those, guy must have had 10th billing or something because I would have remembered him. I have trimmed down the paragraph about him and added an tag, because "Gary Oldman" is simply not notable. 2.217.214.1 (talk) 05:33, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Obvious trolling. Oswald in JFK, Count Dracula in Dracula, Stansfield in The Professional, James Gordon in The Dark Knight etc. Not Tom Cruise, no, but big time nonetheless. 82.132.246.242 (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

OK, apparently he has had like 3rd/4th billing in a few things, but he has been consistently outshone by co-stars and as such, has failed to become part of public consciousness. I guarantee if you ask 100 people on the street who "Gary Oldman" is, none of them will have a clue. I like the article the way it is now, but still have doubts about giving any mention at all to this non-notable actor. Re-added tag, and again noted that he is not a major actor. 2.217.214.1 (talk) 13:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see you've added "small-time" again. Referring to an Oscar-nominated actor with grosses topping $10.6 billion as "small-time" makes it difficult for me to see you as anything other than a troll. And a resounding "LOL" at Count Dracula, in Dracula, being "like 3rd/4th billing". Give up. Malcum J (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Robin Williams missing in the list of record winners?

When I read the articel about Robin Williams, I read that Robin Williams won six Golden Globe Awards -> https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Robin_Williams#Awards

Is there any reason, why he isn't in the list of record winners?2003:87:4A56:FC00:C16B:5433:3CFC:9D4B (talk) 22:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

He is listed as winning three film awards. It might be worth adding a note that he has won two awards for TV wor and the Cecil B DeMille special award. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.80.20 (talk) 22:50, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No links to Golden Globe Awards main article

I arrived at 37th Golden Globe Awards from some Apocalypse_Now#Awards_and_honors. At 37th Golden Globe Awards, I wanted to visit Golden Globe Award. No link on the entire page except for the navbox heading. I think visitors would like a link to Golden Globe Award in the lead. Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:30, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

If nobody objects, I may add the link in the lead of each article concerned. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done Anna Frodesiak (talk) 20:35, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 10 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: move (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

---

Golden Globe Award → Golden Globe Awards – Per WP:NCPLURAL, the awards are a "group of specific things". "The Golden Globe Awards"/"The Golden Globes" is also the common name of the award ceremony. A 2014 mass RM of award articles to plural forms found "clear consensus that these moves are appropriate in most cases", but that they should be discussed individually to allow for exceptions. Colin M (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

• Support. per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NATURALNESS. Rreagan007 (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Drafting issue

I don't understand the second part of the sentence, just before the number marker for footnote #4. I don't know what the celebrity parents were continuing to contest. Eemstewart (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Two Acting Awards Winner

Bette Midler also won two acting Awards for the Rose, New Rising Star and Best Actress Comedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:CD:EF3F:C000:83F:7355:3E08:A2E0 (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Math Issues With GLAAD Media Award

In the wiki page GLAAD Media Award, there is a math issue and I am posting it here rather than on its talk page because in the talk page on GLAAD Media Award it asks us to post discussions here. In the categories of award section, it says that there are 27 English language categories and 12 Spanish categories (total of 39), it then goes on to say that there are 38 awards in total witch doesn't add up. Also when you count the categories listed they give 28 English language categories and 12 Spanish language categories witch means a total of 40. Which one is correct? Thanks! --Stary114 (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

@Stary114: If you refer to Talk:GLAAD_Media_Award#Move_discussion_in_progress, that is just for the move discussion above. You can still use that talk page to ask them about it. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 21:04, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Infobox image

I have questioned the fair use rationale of the infobox photo. Please see the discussion at File talk:Golden Globe Trophy.jpg. Schwede66 02:11, 19 June 2023 (UTC)