This article is within the scope of WikiProject Awards, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
awards and
prizes on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AwardsWikipedia:WikiProject AwardsTemplate:WikiProject Awardsawards articles
This article is part of WikiProject Theatre, a
WikiProject dedicated to coverage of
theatre on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the
project page, or contribute to the
project discussion.TheatreWikipedia:WikiProject TheatreTemplate:WikiProject TheatreTheatre articles
This article, and the one on
EGOT says that the only people who are on both lists are Helen Hayes and Rita Moreno.
However the EGOT page list a number of other people who have won acting Oscars, Emmys and Tonys; e.g. John Gielgud, Audrey Hepburn.
I had a look on the EGOT talk page and
here it makes a distinction between primetime Emmys and other Emmys.
So it seems that to qualify for this Triple Crown the Emmy must be a primetime one, but that is not spelt out.
Without that, the two articles together are rather confusing. One would assume that any actor who has an EGOT also has a Triple Crown as that is an EOT.
John Gielgud never won a Tony for acting, just for directing. Audrey Hepburn's Emmy was for "Outstanding Individual Achievement, Informational Programming". To win the Triple Crown, all the awards have to be acting.
I don't see the talk page argument you referenced on the EGOT page. I don't think a decision has been made here on Primetime vs. Daytime Emmys, mostly because it hasn't come up. Most of the Daytime Emmys aren't for acting. If it does, we'll decide then (I'm in favor of keeping it, but we'll see what everyone else thinks).
Sbb618 (
talk)
15:15, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Hi
FerdinandFrog (
talk·contribs), As Sbb618 said, John Gielgud never won a Tony in a competitive acting category. His 1948 Tony was for Best Foreign Company, which was a shared non-competitive award, his 1959 Tony was a special contribution award, and his 1961 Tony was for directing. As for Audrey Hepburn, her Emmy was for hosting, not acting in Gardens of the World with Audrey Hepburn. Whoopi Goldberg is another example of an actor winning in non-acting categories, her Oscar was for acting but her Tony was for her work as a producer, and her Emmys (daytime) were for her work as a host. The qualification rule is quite clear, it is Oscar, Emmy & Tony wins in a competitive acting category. As Sbb618 also said, the Daytime Emmy situation for the Triple Crown hasn't come up yet.
L1975p (
talk)
15:34, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
Thanks both. I think I was distracted by the discussion on Emmys and did not look at the categories for other awards, hence I did not look at Gielgud's Tonys. Why I did not spot that Hepburn's Emmy was not for acting I do not know.
I didn't see it because I went straight to the talk page myself, and didn't check the archives. I'd say that the Daytime Emmys seem to be included on the quote-unquote "official" EGOT list (or as official as a made-up honor can be) for the moment. Honestly, we're making this up as we go along. The rest of my post still stands.
Sbb618 (
talk)
17:07, 28 December 2016 (UTC)reply
The article seems to state that only two people have achieved a Triple Crown and an EGOT. Whoever, one would think that an EGOT = Triple Crown + Grammy. In what case could someone achieve an EGOT but not a Triple Crown?
Jedney625 (
talk)
03:37, 17 May 2022 (UTC)reply
Hi
Jedney625 (
talk·contribs) It's possible for someone to achieve the EGOT but not the Triple Crown if they have won an Oscar, Emmy or Tony in an non-acting category, as only an acting Oscar/Emmy/Tony would count as a Triple Crown of Acting win. Examples of EGOT winners who haven't got the Triple Crown include Audrey Hepburn, who has Oscar & Tony wins for acting (+ Grammy) but a non-acting Emmy. Another example is Whoopi Goldberg, who in addition to her Grammy, has won Emmys for her work as a host & a 2002 Tony for producing the musical Thoroughly Modern Millie, so only her Oscar win was in an acting category.
86.139.58.169 (
talk)
11:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Why mix American entertainment awards with British ones? Perhaps it would be better to move the British Triple Crown into a separate article dedicated to it and, as a result, remove those awards from this particular article.
LordTort (
talk)
16:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)reply
I concur. I see that the British have their own article already, which is terrific. But they're still here attached at the bottom of this one, which is excessive/unnecessary.
Isn't the proper thing to do, perhaps, to only leave the chart at most, a brief summary, and then a link for further reading--specifically the "Transclusion" hatnote? I think that's what would be best. It provides enough information, and then the redirect to a page with a broader scope.
One could then do the same thing at the bottom of the British page, if agreed upon, to transclude a brief summary regarding the American Triple Crown, leading back to this article..in much the same fashion. (For Futurama fans, this has me thinking of the parallel universe episode, and each universe pulling one another's box from the parallel back into their own universe.)
I don't know if everyone will agree with this portion, but just suggesting it as a sort of fair balance.
The most important notes are definitely covered otherwise, in particular the fact that Dame Helen Mirren is the only person to complete BOTH triple crowns. Anyway, thoughts? --
Cinemaniac86TalkStalk09:16, 12 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Not quite. Her Emmy win was not for acting; it was for hosting a special, non-fiction show about gardening. These particular awards here are only in regards to acting. Therefore, any additional wins they might have for directing, writing, producing, and so forth are irrelevant to tally here.
As you'll notice by the footnote here, it explains quite clearly how Audrey won 2 out of 3 for acting and stipulates the non-acting Emmy win, in the "Two Competitive Awards" section of the page:
The use of † to identify dead people appears to me to be Christian-centric. If we need to identify the dead, we should use a symbol that does not have religious connotations. There are plenty of choices. # would seem to be OK.
76.14.122.5 (
talk)
04:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Dagger (mark) † — This article has some more history on the symbol that highlights its secularity, for what it's worth. But I understand your POV.