This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
List of films considered the best → List of films topping Best Film polls – The current title has been widely accepted to be 'less than ideal'. It appears subjective and is not self-explanatory. This is a particular issue when it appears as a link in another article. The new proposal describes inclusion criteria and will be more useful to the reader as they will know what the list actually represents. Scribolt ( talk) 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Hi Lugnuts. To address your points:
In any case, thanks for commenting. Scribolt ( talk) 14:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I used to use this article all the time... I've recently come to find it completely stripped-down and bare-bones. Wow. No Akira, Spirited Away, or Ghost in the Shell? It's basically been stripped down to a completely Americentric article, but "oh, look, you can look at the *other stuff*, too. good luck". A metal shard ( talk) 12:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, the article has a globalization template since 2012, so the problem is not new. Dimadick ( talk) 14:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any entry for France (or Spain, for that matter – the homeland of Pedro Almodóvar). -- 90.224.69.229 ( talk) 13:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
(Makes good sense to move the discussion to the end, don't know why the previous discussion was structured the way it was.) I expect to find entrys for France and Spain in the same form as those for Sri Lanka and Sweden:
In general – in my view – any country must deserve an entry on the form
-- 90.224.69.229 ( talk) 07:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This list is bloated with subpar entries, mostly in the subheadings Particular genres or media and Countries. These need to be fixed or removed.
The list also needs a lot of copyediting for spelling, grammar, WP:POV, reference fixes, conforming to the basic guidelines for inclusion and so forth, but I don't think that's something that needs to be discussed here beforehand.
The following is a list of issues I've identified and my proposed solutions. I suggest that a consensus bar (besides the already-present "Basic guidelines for inclusion") be added to the top of this talk page as consensus is reached, for future reference.
Oh, and @ Betty Logan, Mr. Vernon, Newzild, Ribbet32, Scribolt, and Tenebrae: I've notified you because I think this might interest you, and I want to get this discussion going. Feel free to notify anyone I might've overlooked. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Some movies are included on the basis that they are the best in a combination of two genres (e.g. sci-fi action, romantic comedy, or animated fantasy). Filtering the candidates for best movie through two genres reduces the number greatly, making the "winner" the best of a small selection – it gets overly narrow. Moreover, the combinatorics of it all makes the number of possible "bests" enormous – it gets indiscriminate.
I propose that the movies whose only rationale for being on this list is being the best in a combination of genres be removed. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that these are not combination of genres. Romantic comedy films are a genre in their own right, including many films. There are also several sub-genres that could be considered.
And animation is not a genre to begin with. It is a production method. Animated films can belong to any genre. Dimadick ( talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Not many notable polls for genre (or media)-combinations exist. I think there's only one that's worth mentioning. There are several notable "best animated shorts" polls (strangely there are no notable "best shorts" polls). It's a large category, with 37558 animated shorts listed on IMDb. Mjf345 ( talk) 11:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The list of genres is unconventional, to say the least (as of my writing this, there is no entry for Drama). There is a mix of both very broad genres (such as Action and Comedy) and very narrow ones (specifically Christmas, Comic/Superhero, Courtroom, Disaster, Epic, High School, and Propaganda). To my eye, this is a bad case of apples and oranges. I'm generally in favour of fewer, broader categories so that being the best in one of them actually means something.
Also, the Western genre is split in two: Classic and Spaghetti Westerns. As far as I can tell, there is no reason for this. Moreover, it sets a bad precedent.
I propose that the above-mentioned narrow genres be removed along with their entries, and that the Western genre cease being divided into "Classic" and "Spaghetti". TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Definitions of genres can vary in available sources, and we should not add our own judgments about particular genre definitions. That said I am curious, since when are propaganda films considered a genre? A propaganda film typically aims to convince its audience about the truthfulness of its political and ideological messages. They can belong to any genre, but this is the first time I see them described as a genre in their own right.
No particular opposition to merging the Westerns to a single category. Spaghetti Western as a term means Westerns primarily produced by Italian filmmakers. They have some differences in tropes and depiction than other Westerns, but not that distinctive to count as a different genre. Due to their influence, some films from other countries such as Hang 'Em High and Django Unchained follow Spaghetti Western tropes.
On another topic, should a list of Westerns also include examples of the Acid Western, the Florida Western, the Meat pie Western, the Ostern, the Revisionist Western, the Space Western, and the Weird West? They are all subgenres and off-shoots of the Western, but differ in typical setting and style. Dimadick ( talk) 21:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Should I add LGBT to the genre section, or is LGBT too narrow? There was a Sight & Sound poll in which 111 programmers, critics, and filmmakers voted for the best LGBT films of all time. Mjf345 ( talk) 11:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Several of these entries are out of date. Some link to lists that are no longer available, and some have been overtaken by other movies and are therefore no longer #1.
I propose that these entries be replaced with the current #1s on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100 lists wherever possible, and removed in the remaining cases. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This has to do with updating the article to keep it up to date. This does not mean we have to use Rotten Tomatoes as our only source. Dimadick ( talk) 21:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
No one suggested that RT is the only source. However, it is the only source for the specific RT section Scribolt ( talk) 07:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If only #1s are included, then The Adventures of Robin Hood should be removed from the action section. I don't think the "highest ranked film (at #4) with a 100 percent rating" belongs in the article, because Rotten Tomatoes doesn't cite it as the best. Toy Story 2 should be removed from the animation section for the same reason. Mjf345 ( talk) 21:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Some entries have been added on the basis of being the first or only movie from that country to receive or be nominated for an award. I see several issues with this (I'm not sure if the awards are all notable, for one thing), but the main one is that the major ones (e.g. the Academy Award for Best Picture and the Palme d'Or) are awarded annually. This is important for two reasons:
I therefore propose that the movies whose only rationale for being on this list is having received (or been nominated for) such an award be removed. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This might be my own POV speaking, but the Awards that a film has earned mostly indicate its critical success at the time of release or shortly after that. It does not mean that it managed to appeal to its intended audience (several critically-acclaimed films are overlooked by mainstream audiences or bomb at the box office) or that the film continues to have a significant reputation in the decades following its release.
Lets take the Academy Award for Best Picture as an example. 88 different films have been awarded as the best films of their respective year. Some of them, like The Sound of Music and The Godfather, are still very popular and have continued winning various honors. And some are nearly forgotten. When was the last time you read an article or list that praised How Green Was My Valley as one of the best films in film history?
And this remains true for just about any long-running award. Take the Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film. 42 films have won the award as the best film of their respective year. Some are still very popular. And some are relatively obscure, like Rollerball. Dimadick ( talk) 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Some entries have been added because they are ranked higher on a list than any other movies from the same country, even though they do not top the list. This lowers the threshold for inclusion greatly, making the list indiscriminate and therefore a lot less useful. I believe some of these may be valid, however – there's a big difference between being #2 on the most notable poll and being #46 on a semi-notable one.
I suggest that either (A) these entries be removed, and adding them back be discussed on a case-by-case basis, or (B) specific criteria for inclusion (e.g. "only if they're ranked in the top five, and only if it's in one of the three most notable polls") be agreed upon and enforced. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not certain I get your point. So, a film can get mentioned in hundreds of lists of "best films", but if it never gets the #1 spot, it should not be mentioned. This would not improve our own list, it would simply make it more biased. Dimadick ( talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I think "highest ranked from their country" entries should only be allowed for the Sight & Sound poll, because it's widely regarded as the most notable poll. If you consider how many people voted, top 50 in the Sight & Sound poll is often more significant than #1 in a country-specific poll. Some films that I think should be mentioned in the article, based on their rank in the critic poll: Man With a Movie Camera (Soviet Union, #8, 68 votes), 8 1/2 (Italy, #10, 64 votes), In the Mood For Love (Hong Kong, #24, 42 votes), Ordet (Denmark, #24, 42 votes), Jeanne Dielman (Belgium, #36, 34 votes), Close-Up (Iran, #43, 31 votes).
I would make an exception to this rule for countries like Slovakia or Taiwan. I think "highest ranked Slovak film in a Czech-Slovak poll" or "highest ranked Taiwanese film in a Chinese-language poll" is ok, because those countries don't have their own polls. Mjf345 ( talk) 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Some entries have been described as the best within a specified genre from a given country (e.g. best French comedy). I contend that if it's necessary to specify both country and genre, it's really getting too narrow – there's hardly an end to how many such entries could be added.
I propose that these entries be removed and deprecated. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
No opposition there. In some cases, the country only has few films in this genre to begin with. In the Internet Movie Database, only 117 Greek films are currently listed in the list Most Popular Sci-Fi Titles With Country of Origin Greece. Compared to several thousands from other countries. Because science fiction was never a major genre in the Greek film industry. Dimadick ( talk) 22:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Some entries have topped a poll limited to a certain period of time. I'd argue that such a limitation tacitly implies that there are better movies outside of that timespan. Moreover, it's a highly arbitrary restriction.
I propose that these entries be removed and deprecated. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That a list says "the best films since 2001", does not mean that there are better films out there. It means that this is the only period examined in a certain poll or survey. Or the only period that is remembered by those taking the survey. Older films can be considered "dated" by modern audiences and are often forgotten.
From a personal perspective, I have often come across people dismissing films from the 1990s as "oldies" and older ones as "ancient". In Greece, where I live, several television stations have started broadcasting films from the 1980s as part of their "nostalgia zone", which is aimed at older audiences.
And speaking about centuries, film history so far covers only 3 centuries: the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st. In Category:Films by year, we have a timeline beginning in 1874 (with proto-film Passage de Venus) and continuing to 2019. 19th century films are the ones generally overlooked in modern polls. Because modern audiences are unfamiliar with them. Dimadick ( talk) 22:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
In December 2016, the Yugoslav Film Archive organized a poll in which they asked academics, professors, and critics to vote for the best Serbian films of the 20th century. Should I add it to the article? I think this is the only notable 20th century poll that didn't happen close to 2000, so it's a unique case. I'm not sure why they restricted it like that, but it's unlikely that it changed the winner (because the most critically-acclaimed Serbian films were made before 2000). Mjf345 ( talk) 02:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Some entries contain, besides the movie topping a poll, either other polls that the movie didn't top or other movies that didn't top the poll. I'd argue that all this does is add bloat to the entry and that it goes against the basic guideline for inclusion to "keep entries short"; seeing as it's not enough for inclusion by itself (per the "Basic guidelines for inclusion"), it shouldn't be indiscriminately added to entries that are included for other, valid, reasons.
I suppose it might be relevant if, for instance, movie A was #1 on poll X and #2 on poll Y whereas movie B was #2 on poll X and #1 on poll Y, but I do not think it is relevant across the board.
I propose that these details be removed from the entries, and that exceptions be discussed on a case-by-case basis. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
When a poll was conducted is always highly relevant information; it determines which movies there were to choose from. I'd go so far as to say that when the date is unknown, the poll is useless.
I propose that all polls be accompanied with the year they were conducted, and removed if that information cannot be located. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
These are not one-offs or static, but continuously updated and therefore subject to change. They have a tendency to go out of date without editors noticing.
I propose that the access date for these always accompany the claims in the text itself, rather than just in the footnotes. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Metacritic should be removed from the "Critics and filmmakers" section, due to the low number of reviews. The #1 film, The Godfather, only has 14 reviews. 4 of those reviews are still available (the others are broken links), of which 2 reviews give a rating to the film. The #3 film, Three Colors: Red, has 9 reviews (all still available), of which 4 reviews give a rating to the film. The scores of 100 don't seem very meaningful to me. Metropolis should be removed from the sci-fi section for the same reason (only 1 of the reviews gives a rating to the film). Mjf345 ( talk) 05:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Reader polls have an inherent selection bias in the periodical's readership. That makes them highly dubious for this article's purposes.
I propose that reader polls be officially deprecated. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan, Ribbet32, Scribolt, and Dimadick: If this suggestion were implemented, this is what we would do (at the time I'm writing this):
To my eye, that does not look at all like penalizing marginalized countries or contributing to WP:Systemic bias (Finland would lose its sole entry, but the others have remaining ones that would be left untouched). What say you? TompaDompa ( talk) 03:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that most critics' opinions are unreliable to begin with, and have biases of their own, do you think that you are actually eliminating selection by overemphasizing their views. I think your suggestion would render the Wikipedia list useless. Dimadick ( talk) 22:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with removing reader polls. I think removing them would be arbitrary, because nearly every film poll has selection bias. In an internet poll, there's self-selection bias. In a critic poll, there's both selection bias and participation bias (the critics are typically selected by the poll organizer, and only some of those critics will agree to participate). I would say that because of their biases, it's important to include a variety of polls (as long as the sample size is large enough), to accurately reflect how different polling methods yield different results. Just be sure to indicate what type of poll it is in the article. Mjf345 ( talk) 06:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The "basic guidelines for inclusion" state that:
"Editorial picks by the staff of a periodical or website are usually not sufficiently broad enough in their scope to be included."
I'd argue that that does not go far enough; editorial picks are not much different from a single critic's review, which would obviously not qualify to be on this list.
I propose that editorial picks be categorically deprecated and the "basic guidelines for inclusion" amended to reflect that. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"clear-cut and enforceable". Clear as mud, more likely. How do we ascertain that one source or another has a sufficiently broad scope? By contacting original research? Dimadick ( talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The number of critics/directors/whatever polled varies greatly. Not taking that into account violates WP:UNDUE, in that it approaches a single person's opinion as the number of respondents decreases.
I propose that a minimum number of respondents be set, and that smaller polls be removed. I suggest the lower limit to be 50 respondents. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Instead of removing entries, have you considered indicating in the text of the article what sample did each poll use? Let readers decide on the reliability. Dimadick ( talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I propose deciding on a case-by-case basis, instead of setting an arbitrary limit, because it depends on the type of poll. For example, I think 20 experts is enough for a "best Israeli films" poll or a "best Egyptian films" poll, but for a "best American films" poll, 20 isn't enough. USA is larger than Israel or Egypt, so you need a larger sample to make it representative. Additionally, there would be no reason to mention a small American poll when larger more notable polls exist in the same category, whereas the Israeli and Egyptian polls are the most notable polls of their type. Mjf345 ( talk) 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Chaplin poll that 8½ won only included non-Swedish sound films, as opposed to all non-Swedish films (I didn't notice earlier because it just says "the best films" above the list, but it says "sound films" on the next page). So basically, they divided cinema into two roughly equal halves (silent and sound), and had three polls (non-Swedish sound films, silent films, and Swedish sound films). Do you think the first two polls should both be in the genre section, since each one covers only half of cinema? Mjf345 ( talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There are several entries with dead links. Most aren't tagged.
I propose that these entries be removed wholesale if they cannot be salvaged by the Wayback Machine. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Dead links tend to translate to poorly sourced claims. Dimadick ( talk) 23:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you removed many of the dead links. It looks like most of them were sources that should not have been in the article in the first place. If it's a source for a notable poll, then even if it's not archived by Wayback Machine, there is almost always an alternate source. Notable polls rarely disappear from the internet without a trace. Did you find any dead links for notable polls? If so, I might be able to help you find an alternate source. Mjf345 ( talk) 19:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Mjf345 added Manila in the Claws of Light sourced to Pinoy Rebyu. The problem with this is that the poll is sourced to a Wordpress website which is essentially a blog, and looks to fail WP:BLOGS. Before I remove the entry I would first like to check whether there are any exceptions as outlined at the aforementioned guideline which are applicable to this instance? Betty Logan ( talk) 19:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, it should be removed. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
TompaDompa removed the Korean Film Archive poll because it was a 3-way tie for #1. If a 3-way tie doesn't deserve its own entry, I think it at least deserves a mention as part of another entry, so I added it back, this time with a 2nd poll that Obaltan won. I also added the Korean Film Archive audience poll (which they ran at the same time), and it would look silly to mention the audience poll but not the experts poll. Additionally, this 2014 poll is the only notable poll of experts that has been conducted since 2002, so I think it's important to mention it. Mjf345 ( talk) 03:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I moved this entry from audience polls to United States. For each category, voters chose from a list of 10 English-language films that were selected by film industry experts. [1] In the "Best Film" category, all 10 films were American (including 1 co-production, Lawrence of Arabia). I'm not sure if even this one entry should stay, because 10 films is kind of restrictive, but for now I left it in the article.
I removed all of the "Best in Film" genre entries because English-language excludes most countries, so it's too restrictive.
I think Western is the only "Best in Film" genre entry that maybe deserves to stay, because most westerns are English-language, but there are some non-English language westerns, so it's still a restriction (about 71% of western feature films listed on IMDb are English-language). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was included on the list of 10 because an English-language version was released, but many Spaghetti Westerns (and many Osterns) were never released in English. For now I removed it, but if other editors think it should stay, feel free to add it back. Mjf345 ( talk) 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
So I saw this linked to at the bottom of Spirited Away and did a double take. It just looks horrible imo (Wikipedia says that Spirited Away is considered the best! Wow! The best!), but I accept that is very much my opinion. Looking at the discussions on this page it like the list isn't going anywhere in the near future (and to be fair, it's not a bad concept), but there does seem to be an appetite to make the name more descriptive of its content. I've got no idea how to do any of the RfC or Rename stuff above, but I'm just going to throw out some suggestions in case anyone likes them.
1 List of critically acclaimed films
2 List of films publically acclaimed films
3 List of films considered the greatest by audiences and/or critics
4 List of films that were polled as the best / greatest
5 List of films that were polled as the best / greatest ever or of their type
6 List of films that came top of best ever film polls
7 List of films considered greatest in their genre
My preferred option is number 4 (or something like it) for the reason that it most accurately describes the criteria for inclusion (a group of people have voted in a poll that asks them what film is the best/greatest either ever or in a genre or from a country or in a year etc etc and it's not just one film critic or person's personal view on things). Option 5 is even more accurate, but it is a little long. In any case, the reader will know what they are going to be going to when they click on it. Scribolt ( talk) 07:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Trying to move things along. Attempting mass notification in 3,2,1: @ BU Rob13, Betty Logan, TompaDompa, MarnetteD, Steel1943, LM2000, Lugnuts, Anarchyte, and Sock: Don't know whether that worked or not, but let's see. You all voted in the previous RM. As per the initial discussion above, what do you think about Betty's new suggestion List of films topping Best Film polls? Anyone think it's worse than what we have at the moment? I think it reads well and it's certainly more descriptive of what the page is actually about than what we have at the moment. Alternative suggestions are obviously welcomed. If there aren't any howls of protest a new RM will be initiated. Scribolt ( talk) 06:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
How about List of Best Film poll winners? I think that's more concise than List of films topping Best Film polls. Mjf345 ( talk) 18:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
How about List of films voted the best? I think this one sounds a little better than my last suggestion. It's similar to the current title but I think "voted" is more clear than "considered." Mjf345 ( talk) 01:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the WP:LEAD needs to be rewritten. Currently, it reads as a legal disclaimer. I don't think that's entirely appropriate, but even if it were it's not a particularly well written one. It contains five sentences:
1 is arguably inaccurate, due to the inclusion of the Harris Poll. 2 & 3 I have no major issues with. 4 is too vague to be of any use (and at any rate, shouldn't such surveys simply be removed from the article?). 5 is correct (all the picks for best in its genre or best from its country are examples, technically), but may be misleading – if a list of entries is too limited (the AFI's list of nominees was 400 entries, I think), the winning entry should be removed from this article instead of being coupled with a disclaimer.
I don't particularly want to remove the paragraph wholesale, but if it cannot be fixed it would probably be better to remove it than to leave it in its current form. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at rewriting the lead. I removed the "limited list of entries" part, and for each of those polls, I added a comment to the specific entry (but I might have missed some).
This is a list of films voted the best in a notable survey—either by critics or by the public. Some surveys focus on all films, while others focus on a particular genre or country. Both national surveys and worldwide surveys are included.
The winner of a survey may depend on the voting system, which differs from poll to poll. Some surveys suffer from biases such as self-selection or skewed demographics, or may be susceptible to vote-stacking.
TompaDompa and Betty Logan, let me know if that looks good. I don't have much experience writing leads, so I'm posting it here first. Mjf345 ( talk) 03:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it ok to remove this template? If I counted correctly, there are 20 American sources, 15 British sources, and 7 sources from other countries. 11 of the American sources are review aggregators (RT and MRQE). Most of the other American sources and about half of the British sources are international polls. 22 of the 33 entries are American films (including co-production 2001). Removing Christmas/comic/disaster would reduce the number of American films by 4, but other than that, I think not much can be done about the high percentage of American films. Mjf345 ( talk) 08:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Shawshank Redemption used to be mentioned in the article. It was removed on the grounds that IMDb is not an acceptable source, but I think this misses the point of the guideline. IMDb is usually not acceptable because user-submitted content is unreliable. However, IMDb is the primary source of information about the IMDb top 250, so I don't think the guideline applies in this case. It's no less reliable than any other internet poll (and there are several internet polls mentioned in the article). I don't think it makes sense to exclude the largest of all audience polls in a section about audience polls.
I propose adding IMDb, as well as other film databases with a large number of voters (e.g. Douban, Kinopoisk, Filmweb), to the "Audience polls" section (it would only be one entry because The Shawshank Redemption is #1 on all 4 websites). I would not suggest having an IMDb entry for every genre and country (like we once had in the past) because that would be overkill. Mjf345 ( talk) 06:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out that not all internet polls are created equal so they need to be taken case-by-case. For example, there is a world of difference between say a survey that just happens to be carried out over the internet by a pollster (either through email or an online form) that is in communication with a particular person and a "vote button" like you have on IMDB. No voting system is infallible but some are more subsceptible to vote stacking than others. If IMDB had a built-in identity verification system then I would consider that sufficient but I don't really see any preventative measures in place to counter the effects of vote stacking so I agree with TompaDompa online polls conducted in that manner should be excluded. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Basically, guys, I would add one more 1968 Камінний хрест / Stone cross. It`s very good movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golovatio ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 32 external links on List of films considered the best. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This isn't what it purports to be! This is WP:OR - it is the opinion of its principal author. Who says the listed films for Australia (e.g.) or Adventure (e.g.) are the ones "considered the best"? Only the article author. Sure, every movie listed here is considered the best by some organisation, but this collection leaves so many out that essentially this "list of films considered the best" is the list of films the article's author considers the best. Nothing more than that. It therefore needs to be removed from WP as per WP:OR. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 08:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Who says the listed films ... are the ones "considered the best"?These films topped polls of best films. It's not WP:OR and it's not based on editor opinions. As you can see from the notices above, this has survived several AfDs and there have been two RMs in the past year to discuss more accurate titles for this article. LM2000 ( talk) 09:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Every year there are hundreds of lists produced by magazines, newspapers, film appreciation societies, movie makers' guilds, national arts bodies etc etc, lists of the best movies in various categories. The authors of this WP article choose which of these to include and which to exclude. That is where the WP:OR is happening. Who says these 17 or 27 or 47 lists cited here are authoritative? Who says these 12 or 22 or 42 are the one which define those "considered the best"? How dare you leave out the London Time Out's list or the Johannesburg Star's list? Essentially this article reflects the opinion of the article's authors as to whic lists are the important one. This article breaks WP rules. It can't be fixed because it can never be comprehensive and which lists are important is a matter of opinion. Whose opinion? The opinion of the authors of the article. WP:OR Paul Beardsell ( talk) 01:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with the inclusion of films sourced to Metacritic's genre lists, particularly Spirited Away and Ratatouille sourced to http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/genre/metascore/animation. This page only assigns scores and not ranks, so it is WP:Original research to deduce a rank from scores because they do not always correllate. Metacritic does have an explicitly ranked list at http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/all/filtered?sort=desc with Citizen Kane in top place, and it is ranked above several other films with perfect scores. Moonlight is ranked in 6th place with a score of 99 and that is ranked above several films with perfect scores in the Drama category. Clearly Metacritic have a ranking system that goes beyond just the metascores. Since this article is in the business of logging films that explicitly achieve a top ranking in polls/surveys I think the inclusion of films that merely have a perfect score breach the inclusion criteria. If Metacritic had included ranks on their genre pages then that would be a different story, but we shouldn't make assumptions about information they have deliberately decided to withold. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this warrants inclusion. It's basically a non-accomplishment, even if it is the highest placement in its genre. See also this discussion above. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There are currently two films laying claim to be the winner of the Time Out animation poll, namely Pinocchio and Spirited Away. Obviously they can't both be the top pick, but I don't understand the rationale for Spirited Away. If I am reading that right, Spirited Away was voted the top film but Time Out only published their preferred ranking? Is that correct? If so what was the point of polling 112 experts? That doesn't seem to be what Time Out says here: https://www.timeout.com/newyork/movies/the-100-best-animated-movies-animators-and-filmmakers. Maybe they applied some kind of weighting (per rank or maybe industry animators are weighted more than critics etc) which is their prerogative, but it seems to be WP:Original research for Wikipedia to interpret the results differently to Time Out. It is their poll after all. I think Spirited Away should be removed from the list. Betty Logan ( talk) 10:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This list is non-neutral and biased. Many of the entries are fan polls with less than 500 votes. These polls don't represent the views of the 'notable' publications. Someone should fix this. - The Magnificentist 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC) - The Magnificentist 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of the internet, reader, and audience polls mentioned in the article had over 1000 voters. There are some polls where we don't know the number of voters, but most of them are from popular magazines or websites, so they probably had a large number of voters. I don't think any of these polls need to be removed from the article (except for maybe the Christmas poll because it's a small genre, but that's for a different discussion). It might be possible to find more information about these polls by googling, or if someone can find the original magazine articles. Here are the polls that I'm referring to:
StrayBolt moved 3 of the animation entries into a sub-section for animated shorts. This is a little bit misleading because most of the polls were actually "best animation" polls, and the winner happened to be a short film. The only entry that was actually a "best animated shorts" poll was The 50 Greatest Cartoons. Should I leave it the way it is, or move them back?
Should the animated shorts poll be removed because because it's a genre combination, or should we make an exception? I mentioned somewhere else on the talk page that animated shorts are a unique case because it's such a large category (almost 40,000 listed on IMDb, and probably millions not listed on IMDb). Mjf345 ( talk) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Maestro2016's repeated efforts to insert Spirited Away (sourced to Metacritic's genre list) are becoming an increasing problem. He has done it on several occasions now: July 13 ( first edit, second edit & third edit) and again on July 19. It is starting to look like he is conducting a slow-burn edit war. Please remember that the purpose of this list is to record top ranked films i.e. films that were ranked #1 in some poll or suvery or were the highest ranked according to some criteria.
Metacritic's animated genre list does not assign an explict ranking. Ratatouille and Spirited Away may share a highscore but it is WP:Original research to assume they share a ranking. In fact there is demonstrable evidence on Metacritic that films can have a higher score and be ranked lower (see the previous discussion at #Metacritic placings). Indeed, Metacritic rank Ratatouille at #21 on their Best Movies of All-time chart, while Spirited Away is ranked three places below at #24. Therefore it is easily demonstrable that Metacritic rank Ratatouille above Spirited Away. That is a case for including Ratatouille in the chart (using both lists in conjunction with each other) but it is equally a compelling case for not adding Spirited Away to the list.
So I would like to settle this. Do we agree that Spirited Away does not belong on the list, at least attributed to Metacritic's genre list? And secondly, should we permit Ratatouille on the basis that it heads the animated genre list and it places ahead of other animated films on Metacritic's best films list, or should we just keep this simple and say that the only film that Metacritic explicitly actually ranks #1 is Citizen Kane so that is the only film we should permit on a Metacritic basis? Betty Logan ( talk) 21:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa and Mjf345: As two other editors heavily involved in this page I would appreciate your input at this discussion. It is pretty obvious Maestro2016 isn't going to accept my decision alone in rgeards to Metacritic's genre lists, and to be fair he does have a point that I should not be unilaterally preventing their use. If I am the only editor to who holds this view then I will withdraw my objections, but since the Metacritic genre lists could feasibly result in up to half a dozen films being added to each genre section then we do need a firm position on these lists, and that position should be a community decision either way. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I just looked more closely at the Metacritic lists to try to figure out how they work.
This discussion seems to have stalled, so I think we should establish where everyone stands. These are the options as I see them:
Betty Logan ( talk) 07:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't Logan be added to the superhero section? - Theironminer ( talk) 00:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
While I certainly don't object to the inclusion of the images in the article I am slightly concerned at the American—particularly Hollywood—centric nature of the selection. Of the eight images in the article six of them come from Hollywood films. While I understand why Hollywood features heavily we have to make sure that the images are representative, so I am going to make a suggestion: there are nine films listed in the "critics and filmmakers" section of which four are Hollywood films (including the Rotten Tomatoes survey), so perhaps we should limit images to these nine films and ensure they are strategically placed throughout the article. This would ensure that the balance of images reflects the most prominent polls rather than editorial whim, and it also gives us a defence against anyone who wants to add an image for their country or their favorite superhero movie. At the moment they are are all cramped into the top section of the article but there is nothing to prevent The Godfather image going in the gangster film section for example, or the Battleship Potemkin image going in the Russia entry, so that the images are evenly spaced throughout the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 07:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Get out (2017) is erroneously listed in both comedy and horror sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1218:E200:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 ( talk) 22:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Maestro2016 has been altering the location of the images. Prior to his engagement with this issue the images were spaced through the article and aligned with the approrpiate sections. He has twice now moved the Tokyo Story image to the top. The problem with this is the Sight & Sound section only has enough space to accommodate a single image, so for obvious reasons the incumbent #1 of the critics polls (Vertigo) is assigned to this section. Adding more images to this section causes the images to be scrunched up on wide displays (see [4]). Moving it to the " other notable polls section" is also a problem because the film is not actually mentioned in the section. In short Vertigo is selected to represent Sight & Sound and 8½ is selected to represent "other notable polls". The Tokyo Story image is moved to the Japan section because it is the only other place it is mentioned. There are many genres and countries that are not represented at all by the images because space is limited and placement is important so will Maestro2016 please stop disregarding the aesthetic and structure of the article just to promote the images of his favorite films. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
MaccyXpert has twice now tried to incorporate his own WP:Original research into the article, once with Wonder Woman and now with Raging Bull. This list has very clear criteria: the film must top a notable poll or survey, and "in house" periodicals are not sufficient in scope to qualify. Neither do we add films on the basis that a Wikipedia article claims something is "Scorsese's best film" per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The criteria is spelt out in the lead; the inclusion criteria is also explained at the top of this page and in an edit notice on the edit page. I do not know what else we can do. Let me spell it out clearly: what you, as an editor, thinks, is irrelevant. This article does what it says on the box. It simply documents films that have topped notable polls. We do not rig the results or make judgment calls:
Will editors please respect the list criteria and the list structure and stop trying to impose their own views on the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 03:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we need a few basic rules for images, so I am outlining here what I think the criteria should be:
The first criterion is non-negotiable and backed up by policy; the second two are what I consider sensible suggestions wihin the context of the article aesthetic. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Bedivere.cs has recently added some films to the list. No real problem with this, but there are some issues I feel we need to sort out (which incidentally are not caused by Bedivere.cs but he has brought them to my attention):
Betty Logan ( talk) 13:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
So basically, I agree with what Betty Logan said. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I was going through the list, and I noticed multiple "Highest ranked in rotten tomatoes" sections, just wondering why there isn't any representation from other aggregate sites like Metacritic, IMDB, Cinesift, etc., if you believe that Rotten Tomatoes is the most accurate site, than that's just your opinion and not fact... I could say Metacritic is the most accurate site... what I am driving at is there is an obvious bias towards Rotten Tomatoes.
Jetfighterace212 ( talk) 23:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
BettyLogan removed No Country For Old Men on the grounds that Metacritic doesn't implicitly have genre ranking pages. which they do, see here: http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/genre/metascore/western?view=condensed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetfighterace212 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There have been some recent additions to the article, restoring entries that were removed as part of a major cleanup at the beginning of the year. The full discussion can be read at #Major_cleanup_necessary but I am going to summarise the basic conclusions, which should explain why some entries were removed and some sources are not eligible:
The point of these restrictions is to ensure that the list complies with WP:Verifiability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:FILM#Audience response. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
So I was going through the list, and I noticed that there are a lot of major genres missing, including:
Adventure Biography Crime Drama Family Film-Noir History Music Thriller War
For titles under these genres, I suggest moving Lawrence of Arabia to Biography or History, the Godfather to Crime, the Shawshank Redemption to Drama, It's A Wonderful Life to Family, The Third Man to Film-Noir, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Jetfighterace212 ( talk) 19:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of films considered the best has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the United Kingdom section, please add the following links: ''[[Hotdog (magazine)|Hotdog]]''
& [[Vue Cinemas|Vue Entertainment]]
(or, for the latter — there should be a redirect:
Vue Entertainment→
Vue Cinemas).
107.15.152.93 (
talk)
01:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of films considered the best has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Comedy, the film "Get Out" directed by Jordan Peele is not actually a comedy. Jordan Peele previously worked in comedy, but Get Out is a horror film. 79.75.97.203 ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: The accompanying source classifies it as a comedy. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Once Upon a Time in the West was ranked #1 in the "Top 10 movie westerns" list by The Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/nov/08/top-10-movie-westerns), why don't insert it? -- Howard "Dib" Montjio, 5 February 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, why not? It is so well recieved the number of awards it has in turn has its own Wikipedia page. 2A02:C7D:9B9E:9E00:B846:B1E5:3DDC:DA56 ( talk) 11:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't add movies based on having won awards. ( link)TompaDompa ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 |
The result of the move request was: Not moved ( non-admin closure) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 00:48, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
List of films considered the best → List of films topping Best Film polls – The current title has been widely accepted to be 'less than ideal'. It appears subjective and is not self-explanatory. This is a particular issue when it appears as a link in another article. The new proposal describes inclusion criteria and will be more useful to the reader as they will know what the list actually represents. Scribolt ( talk) 06:18, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
*'''Support'''
or *'''Oppose'''
, then sign your comment with ~~~~
. Since
polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account
Wikipedia's policy on article titles.Hi Lugnuts. To address your points:
In any case, thanks for commenting. Scribolt ( talk) 14:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I used to use this article all the time... I've recently come to find it completely stripped-down and bare-bones. Wow. No Akira, Spirited Away, or Ghost in the Shell? It's basically been stripped down to a completely Americentric article, but "oh, look, you can look at the *other stuff*, too. good luck". A metal shard ( talk) 12:40, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, the article has a globalization template since 2012, so the problem is not new. Dimadick ( talk) 14:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
I can't find any entry for France (or Spain, for that matter – the homeland of Pedro Almodóvar). -- 90.224.69.229 ( talk) 13:38, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
(Makes good sense to move the discussion to the end, don't know why the previous discussion was structured the way it was.) I expect to find entrys for France and Spain in the same form as those for Sri Lanka and Sweden:
In general – in my view – any country must deserve an entry on the form
-- 90.224.69.229 ( talk) 07:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This list is bloated with subpar entries, mostly in the subheadings Particular genres or media and Countries. These need to be fixed or removed.
The list also needs a lot of copyediting for spelling, grammar, WP:POV, reference fixes, conforming to the basic guidelines for inclusion and so forth, but I don't think that's something that needs to be discussed here beforehand.
The following is a list of issues I've identified and my proposed solutions. I suggest that a consensus bar (besides the already-present "Basic guidelines for inclusion") be added to the top of this talk page as consensus is reached, for future reference.
Oh, and @ Betty Logan, Mr. Vernon, Newzild, Ribbet32, Scribolt, and Tenebrae: I've notified you because I think this might interest you, and I want to get this discussion going. Feel free to notify anyone I might've overlooked. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Some movies are included on the basis that they are the best in a combination of two genres (e.g. sci-fi action, romantic comedy, or animated fantasy). Filtering the candidates for best movie through two genres reduces the number greatly, making the "winner" the best of a small selection – it gets overly narrow. Moreover, the combinatorics of it all makes the number of possible "bests" enormous – it gets indiscriminate.
I propose that the movies whose only rationale for being on this list is being the best in a combination of genres be removed. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that these are not combination of genres. Romantic comedy films are a genre in their own right, including many films. There are also several sub-genres that could be considered.
And animation is not a genre to begin with. It is a production method. Animated films can belong to any genre. Dimadick ( talk) 21:11, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Not many notable polls for genre (or media)-combinations exist. I think there's only one that's worth mentioning. There are several notable "best animated shorts" polls (strangely there are no notable "best shorts" polls). It's a large category, with 37558 animated shorts listed on IMDb. Mjf345 ( talk) 11:36, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
The list of genres is unconventional, to say the least (as of my writing this, there is no entry for Drama). There is a mix of both very broad genres (such as Action and Comedy) and very narrow ones (specifically Christmas, Comic/Superhero, Courtroom, Disaster, Epic, High School, and Propaganda). To my eye, this is a bad case of apples and oranges. I'm generally in favour of fewer, broader categories so that being the best in one of them actually means something.
Also, the Western genre is split in two: Classic and Spaghetti Westerns. As far as I can tell, there is no reason for this. Moreover, it sets a bad precedent.
I propose that the above-mentioned narrow genres be removed along with their entries, and that the Western genre cease being divided into "Classic" and "Spaghetti". TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Definitions of genres can vary in available sources, and we should not add our own judgments about particular genre definitions. That said I am curious, since when are propaganda films considered a genre? A propaganda film typically aims to convince its audience about the truthfulness of its political and ideological messages. They can belong to any genre, but this is the first time I see them described as a genre in their own right.
No particular opposition to merging the Westerns to a single category. Spaghetti Western as a term means Westerns primarily produced by Italian filmmakers. They have some differences in tropes and depiction than other Westerns, but not that distinctive to count as a different genre. Due to their influence, some films from other countries such as Hang 'Em High and Django Unchained follow Spaghetti Western tropes.
On another topic, should a list of Westerns also include examples of the Acid Western, the Florida Western, the Meat pie Western, the Ostern, the Revisionist Western, the Space Western, and the Weird West? They are all subgenres and off-shoots of the Western, but differ in typical setting and style. Dimadick ( talk) 21:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Should I add LGBT to the genre section, or is LGBT too narrow? There was a Sight & Sound poll in which 111 programmers, critics, and filmmakers voted for the best LGBT films of all time. Mjf345 ( talk) 11:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Several of these entries are out of date. Some link to lists that are no longer available, and some have been overtaken by other movies and are therefore no longer #1.
I propose that these entries be replaced with the current #1s on Rotten Tomatoes' Top 100 lists wherever possible, and removed in the remaining cases. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This has to do with updating the article to keep it up to date. This does not mean we have to use Rotten Tomatoes as our only source. Dimadick ( talk) 21:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
No one suggested that RT is the only source. However, it is the only source for the specific RT section Scribolt ( talk) 07:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
If only #1s are included, then The Adventures of Robin Hood should be removed from the action section. I don't think the "highest ranked film (at #4) with a 100 percent rating" belongs in the article, because Rotten Tomatoes doesn't cite it as the best. Toy Story 2 should be removed from the animation section for the same reason. Mjf345 ( talk) 21:49, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Some entries have been added on the basis of being the first or only movie from that country to receive or be nominated for an award. I see several issues with this (I'm not sure if the awards are all notable, for one thing), but the main one is that the major ones (e.g. the Academy Award for Best Picture and the Palme d'Or) are awarded annually. This is important for two reasons:
I therefore propose that the movies whose only rationale for being on this list is having received (or been nominated for) such an award be removed. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
This might be my own POV speaking, but the Awards that a film has earned mostly indicate its critical success at the time of release or shortly after that. It does not mean that it managed to appeal to its intended audience (several critically-acclaimed films are overlooked by mainstream audiences or bomb at the box office) or that the film continues to have a significant reputation in the decades following its release.
Lets take the Academy Award for Best Picture as an example. 88 different films have been awarded as the best films of their respective year. Some of them, like The Sound of Music and The Godfather, are still very popular and have continued winning various honors. And some are nearly forgotten. When was the last time you read an article or list that praised How Green Was My Valley as one of the best films in film history?
And this remains true for just about any long-running award. Take the Saturn Award for Best Science Fiction Film. 42 films have won the award as the best film of their respective year. Some are still very popular. And some are relatively obscure, like Rollerball. Dimadick ( talk) 22:09, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Some entries have been added because they are ranked higher on a list than any other movies from the same country, even though they do not top the list. This lowers the threshold for inclusion greatly, making the list indiscriminate and therefore a lot less useful. I believe some of these may be valid, however – there's a big difference between being #2 on the most notable poll and being #46 on a semi-notable one.
I suggest that either (A) these entries be removed, and adding them back be discussed on a case-by-case basis, or (B) specific criteria for inclusion (e.g. "only if they're ranked in the top five, and only if it's in one of the three most notable polls") be agreed upon and enforced. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not certain I get your point. So, a film can get mentioned in hundreds of lists of "best films", but if it never gets the #1 spot, it should not be mentioned. This would not improve our own list, it would simply make it more biased. Dimadick ( talk) 22:15, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I think "highest ranked from their country" entries should only be allowed for the Sight & Sound poll, because it's widely regarded as the most notable poll. If you consider how many people voted, top 50 in the Sight & Sound poll is often more significant than #1 in a country-specific poll. Some films that I think should be mentioned in the article, based on their rank in the critic poll: Man With a Movie Camera (Soviet Union, #8, 68 votes), 8 1/2 (Italy, #10, 64 votes), In the Mood For Love (Hong Kong, #24, 42 votes), Ordet (Denmark, #24, 42 votes), Jeanne Dielman (Belgium, #36, 34 votes), Close-Up (Iran, #43, 31 votes).
I would make an exception to this rule for countries like Slovakia or Taiwan. I think "highest ranked Slovak film in a Czech-Slovak poll" or "highest ranked Taiwanese film in a Chinese-language poll" is ok, because those countries don't have their own polls. Mjf345 ( talk) 01:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Some entries have been described as the best within a specified genre from a given country (e.g. best French comedy). I contend that if it's necessary to specify both country and genre, it's really getting too narrow – there's hardly an end to how many such entries could be added.
I propose that these entries be removed and deprecated. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
No opposition there. In some cases, the country only has few films in this genre to begin with. In the Internet Movie Database, only 117 Greek films are currently listed in the list Most Popular Sci-Fi Titles With Country of Origin Greece. Compared to several thousands from other countries. Because science fiction was never a major genre in the Greek film industry. Dimadick ( talk) 22:26, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Some entries have topped a poll limited to a certain period of time. I'd argue that such a limitation tacitly implies that there are better movies outside of that timespan. Moreover, it's a highly arbitrary restriction.
I propose that these entries be removed and deprecated. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
That a list says "the best films since 2001", does not mean that there are better films out there. It means that this is the only period examined in a certain poll or survey. Or the only period that is remembered by those taking the survey. Older films can be considered "dated" by modern audiences and are often forgotten.
From a personal perspective, I have often come across people dismissing films from the 1990s as "oldies" and older ones as "ancient". In Greece, where I live, several television stations have started broadcasting films from the 1980s as part of their "nostalgia zone", which is aimed at older audiences.
And speaking about centuries, film history so far covers only 3 centuries: the 19th, the 20th, and the 21st. In Category:Films by year, we have a timeline beginning in 1874 (with proto-film Passage de Venus) and continuing to 2019. 19th century films are the ones generally overlooked in modern polls. Because modern audiences are unfamiliar with them. Dimadick ( talk) 22:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
In December 2016, the Yugoslav Film Archive organized a poll in which they asked academics, professors, and critics to vote for the best Serbian films of the 20th century. Should I add it to the article? I think this is the only notable 20th century poll that didn't happen close to 2000, so it's a unique case. I'm not sure why they restricted it like that, but it's unlikely that it changed the winner (because the most critically-acclaimed Serbian films were made before 2000). Mjf345 ( talk) 02:20, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Some entries contain, besides the movie topping a poll, either other polls that the movie didn't top or other movies that didn't top the poll. I'd argue that all this does is add bloat to the entry and that it goes against the basic guideline for inclusion to "keep entries short"; seeing as it's not enough for inclusion by itself (per the "Basic guidelines for inclusion"), it shouldn't be indiscriminately added to entries that are included for other, valid, reasons.
I suppose it might be relevant if, for instance, movie A was #1 on poll X and #2 on poll Y whereas movie B was #2 on poll X and #1 on poll Y, but I do not think it is relevant across the board.
I propose that these details be removed from the entries, and that exceptions be discussed on a case-by-case basis. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
When a poll was conducted is always highly relevant information; it determines which movies there were to choose from. I'd go so far as to say that when the date is unknown, the poll is useless.
I propose that all polls be accompanied with the year they were conducted, and removed if that information cannot be located. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
These are not one-offs or static, but continuously updated and therefore subject to change. They have a tendency to go out of date without editors noticing.
I propose that the access date for these always accompany the claims in the text itself, rather than just in the footnotes. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I think Metacritic should be removed from the "Critics and filmmakers" section, due to the low number of reviews. The #1 film, The Godfather, only has 14 reviews. 4 of those reviews are still available (the others are broken links), of which 2 reviews give a rating to the film. The #3 film, Three Colors: Red, has 9 reviews (all still available), of which 4 reviews give a rating to the film. The scores of 100 don't seem very meaningful to me. Metropolis should be removed from the sci-fi section for the same reason (only 1 of the reviews gives a rating to the film). Mjf345 ( talk) 05:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Reader polls have an inherent selection bias in the periodical's readership. That makes them highly dubious for this article's purposes.
I propose that reader polls be officially deprecated. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Betty Logan, Ribbet32, Scribolt, and Dimadick: If this suggestion were implemented, this is what we would do (at the time I'm writing this):
To my eye, that does not look at all like penalizing marginalized countries or contributing to WP:Systemic bias (Finland would lose its sole entry, but the others have remaining ones that would be left untouched). What say you? TompaDompa ( talk) 03:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Given that most critics' opinions are unreliable to begin with, and have biases of their own, do you think that you are actually eliminating selection by overemphasizing their views. I think your suggestion would render the Wikipedia list useless. Dimadick ( talk) 22:53, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with removing reader polls. I think removing them would be arbitrary, because nearly every film poll has selection bias. In an internet poll, there's self-selection bias. In a critic poll, there's both selection bias and participation bias (the critics are typically selected by the poll organizer, and only some of those critics will agree to participate). I would say that because of their biases, it's important to include a variety of polls (as long as the sample size is large enough), to accurately reflect how different polling methods yield different results. Just be sure to indicate what type of poll it is in the article. Mjf345 ( talk) 06:29, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The "basic guidelines for inclusion" state that:
"Editorial picks by the staff of a periodical or website are usually not sufficiently broad enough in their scope to be included."
I'd argue that that does not go far enough; editorial picks are not much different from a single critic's review, which would obviously not qualify to be on this list.
I propose that editorial picks be categorically deprecated and the "basic guidelines for inclusion" amended to reflect that. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
"clear-cut and enforceable". Clear as mud, more likely. How do we ascertain that one source or another has a sufficiently broad scope? By contacting original research? Dimadick ( talk) 22:57, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The number of critics/directors/whatever polled varies greatly. Not taking that into account violates WP:UNDUE, in that it approaches a single person's opinion as the number of respondents decreases.
I propose that a minimum number of respondents be set, and that smaller polls be removed. I suggest the lower limit to be 50 respondents. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Instead of removing entries, have you considered indicating in the text of the article what sample did each poll use? Let readers decide on the reliability. Dimadick ( talk) 22:59, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I propose deciding on a case-by-case basis, instead of setting an arbitrary limit, because it depends on the type of poll. For example, I think 20 experts is enough for a "best Israeli films" poll or a "best Egyptian films" poll, but for a "best American films" poll, 20 isn't enough. USA is larger than Israel or Egypt, so you need a larger sample to make it representative. Additionally, there would be no reason to mention a small American poll when larger more notable polls exist in the same category, whereas the Israeli and Egyptian polls are the most notable polls of their type. Mjf345 ( talk) 18:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I just noticed that the Chaplin poll that 8½ won only included non-Swedish sound films, as opposed to all non-Swedish films (I didn't notice earlier because it just says "the best films" above the list, but it says "sound films" on the next page). So basically, they divided cinema into two roughly equal halves (silent and sound), and had three polls (non-Swedish sound films, silent films, and Swedish sound films). Do you think the first two polls should both be in the genre section, since each one covers only half of cinema? Mjf345 ( talk) 03:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
There are several entries with dead links. Most aren't tagged.
I propose that these entries be removed wholesale if they cannot be salvaged by the Wayback Machine. TompaDompa ( talk) 18:43, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. Dead links tend to translate to poorly sourced claims. Dimadick ( talk) 23:00, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed you removed many of the dead links. It looks like most of them were sources that should not have been in the article in the first place. If it's a source for a notable poll, then even if it's not archived by Wayback Machine, there is almost always an alternate source. Notable polls rarely disappear from the internet without a trace. Did you find any dead links for notable polls? If so, I might be able to help you find an alternate source. Mjf345 ( talk) 19:31, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Mjf345 added Manila in the Claws of Light sourced to Pinoy Rebyu. The problem with this is that the poll is sourced to a Wordpress website which is essentially a blog, and looks to fail WP:BLOGS. Before I remove the entry I would first like to check whether there are any exceptions as outlined at the aforementioned guideline which are applicable to this instance? Betty Logan ( talk) 19:19, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications, it should be removed. TompaDompa ( talk) 13:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
TompaDompa removed the Korean Film Archive poll because it was a 3-way tie for #1. If a 3-way tie doesn't deserve its own entry, I think it at least deserves a mention as part of another entry, so I added it back, this time with a 2nd poll that Obaltan won. I also added the Korean Film Archive audience poll (which they ran at the same time), and it would look silly to mention the audience poll but not the experts poll. Additionally, this 2014 poll is the only notable poll of experts that has been conducted since 2002, so I think it's important to mention it. Mjf345 ( talk) 03:43, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
I moved this entry from audience polls to United States. For each category, voters chose from a list of 10 English-language films that were selected by film industry experts. [1] In the "Best Film" category, all 10 films were American (including 1 co-production, Lawrence of Arabia). I'm not sure if even this one entry should stay, because 10 films is kind of restrictive, but for now I left it in the article.
I removed all of the "Best in Film" genre entries because English-language excludes most countries, so it's too restrictive.
I think Western is the only "Best in Film" genre entry that maybe deserves to stay, because most westerns are English-language, but there are some non-English language westerns, so it's still a restriction (about 71% of western feature films listed on IMDb are English-language). The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was included on the list of 10 because an English-language version was released, but many Spaghetti Westerns (and many Osterns) were never released in English. For now I removed it, but if other editors think it should stay, feel free to add it back. Mjf345 ( talk) 22:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
So I saw this linked to at the bottom of Spirited Away and did a double take. It just looks horrible imo (Wikipedia says that Spirited Away is considered the best! Wow! The best!), but I accept that is very much my opinion. Looking at the discussions on this page it like the list isn't going anywhere in the near future (and to be fair, it's not a bad concept), but there does seem to be an appetite to make the name more descriptive of its content. I've got no idea how to do any of the RfC or Rename stuff above, but I'm just going to throw out some suggestions in case anyone likes them.
1 List of critically acclaimed films
2 List of films publically acclaimed films
3 List of films considered the greatest by audiences and/or critics
4 List of films that were polled as the best / greatest
5 List of films that were polled as the best / greatest ever or of their type
6 List of films that came top of best ever film polls
7 List of films considered greatest in their genre
My preferred option is number 4 (or something like it) for the reason that it most accurately describes the criteria for inclusion (a group of people have voted in a poll that asks them what film is the best/greatest either ever or in a genre or from a country or in a year etc etc and it's not just one film critic or person's personal view on things). Option 5 is even more accurate, but it is a little long. In any case, the reader will know what they are going to be going to when they click on it. Scribolt ( talk) 07:57, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
Trying to move things along. Attempting mass notification in 3,2,1: @ BU Rob13, Betty Logan, TompaDompa, MarnetteD, Steel1943, LM2000, Lugnuts, Anarchyte, and Sock: Don't know whether that worked or not, but let's see. You all voted in the previous RM. As per the initial discussion above, what do you think about Betty's new suggestion List of films topping Best Film polls? Anyone think it's worse than what we have at the moment? I think it reads well and it's certainly more descriptive of what the page is actually about than what we have at the moment. Alternative suggestions are obviously welcomed. If there aren't any howls of protest a new RM will be initiated. Scribolt ( talk) 06:28, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
How about List of Best Film poll winners? I think that's more concise than List of films topping Best Film polls. Mjf345 ( talk) 18:28, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
How about List of films voted the best? I think this one sounds a little better than my last suggestion. It's similar to the current title but I think "voted" is more clear than "considered." Mjf345 ( talk) 01:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
The second paragraph in the WP:LEAD needs to be rewritten. Currently, it reads as a legal disclaimer. I don't think that's entirely appropriate, but even if it were it's not a particularly well written one. It contains five sentences:
1 is arguably inaccurate, due to the inclusion of the Harris Poll. 2 & 3 I have no major issues with. 4 is too vague to be of any use (and at any rate, shouldn't such surveys simply be removed from the article?). 5 is correct (all the picks for best in its genre or best from its country are examples, technically), but may be misleading – if a list of entries is too limited (the AFI's list of nominees was 400 entries, I think), the winning entry should be removed from this article instead of being coupled with a disclaimer.
I don't particularly want to remove the paragraph wholesale, but if it cannot be fixed it would probably be better to remove it than to leave it in its current form. TompaDompa ( talk) 02:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Here's my attempt at rewriting the lead. I removed the "limited list of entries" part, and for each of those polls, I added a comment to the specific entry (but I might have missed some).
This is a list of films voted the best in a notable survey—either by critics or by the public. Some surveys focus on all films, while others focus on a particular genre or country. Both national surveys and worldwide surveys are included.
The winner of a survey may depend on the voting system, which differs from poll to poll. Some surveys suffer from biases such as self-selection or skewed demographics, or may be susceptible to vote-stacking.
TompaDompa and Betty Logan, let me know if that looks good. I don't have much experience writing leads, so I'm posting it here first. Mjf345 ( talk) 03:43, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Is it ok to remove this template? If I counted correctly, there are 20 American sources, 15 British sources, and 7 sources from other countries. 11 of the American sources are review aggregators (RT and MRQE). Most of the other American sources and about half of the British sources are international polls. 22 of the 33 entries are American films (including co-production 2001). Removing Christmas/comic/disaster would reduce the number of American films by 4, but other than that, I think not much can be done about the high percentage of American films. Mjf345 ( talk) 08:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
The Shawshank Redemption used to be mentioned in the article. It was removed on the grounds that IMDb is not an acceptable source, but I think this misses the point of the guideline. IMDb is usually not acceptable because user-submitted content is unreliable. However, IMDb is the primary source of information about the IMDb top 250, so I don't think the guideline applies in this case. It's no less reliable than any other internet poll (and there are several internet polls mentioned in the article). I don't think it makes sense to exclude the largest of all audience polls in a section about audience polls.
I propose adding IMDb, as well as other film databases with a large number of voters (e.g. Douban, Kinopoisk, Filmweb), to the "Audience polls" section (it would only be one entry because The Shawshank Redemption is #1 on all 4 websites). I would not suggest having an IMDb entry for every genre and country (like we once had in the past) because that would be overkill. Mjf345 ( talk) 06:18, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Comment I would like to point out that not all internet polls are created equal so they need to be taken case-by-case. For example, there is a world of difference between say a survey that just happens to be carried out over the internet by a pollster (either through email or an online form) that is in communication with a particular person and a "vote button" like you have on IMDB. No voting system is infallible but some are more subsceptible to vote stacking than others. If IMDB had a built-in identity verification system then I would consider that sufficient but I don't really see any preventative measures in place to counter the effects of vote stacking so I agree with TompaDompa online polls conducted in that manner should be excluded. Betty Logan ( talk) 11:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Basically, guys, I would add one more 1968 Камінний хрест / Stone cross. It`s very good movie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golovatio ( talk • contribs) 15:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 32 external links on List of films considered the best. 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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
This isn't what it purports to be! This is WP:OR - it is the opinion of its principal author. Who says the listed films for Australia (e.g.) or Adventure (e.g.) are the ones "considered the best"? Only the article author. Sure, every movie listed here is considered the best by some organisation, but this collection leaves so many out that essentially this "list of films considered the best" is the list of films the article's author considers the best. Nothing more than that. It therefore needs to be removed from WP as per WP:OR. Paul Beardsell ( talk) 08:37, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Who says the listed films ... are the ones "considered the best"?These films topped polls of best films. It's not WP:OR and it's not based on editor opinions. As you can see from the notices above, this has survived several AfDs and there have been two RMs in the past year to discuss more accurate titles for this article. LM2000 ( talk) 09:18, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Every year there are hundreds of lists produced by magazines, newspapers, film appreciation societies, movie makers' guilds, national arts bodies etc etc, lists of the best movies in various categories. The authors of this WP article choose which of these to include and which to exclude. That is where the WP:OR is happening. Who says these 17 or 27 or 47 lists cited here are authoritative? Who says these 12 or 22 or 42 are the one which define those "considered the best"? How dare you leave out the London Time Out's list or the Johannesburg Star's list? Essentially this article reflects the opinion of the article's authors as to whic lists are the important one. This article breaks WP rules. It can't be fixed because it can never be comprehensive and which lists are important is a matter of opinion. Whose opinion? The opinion of the authors of the article. WP:OR Paul Beardsell ( talk) 01:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree with the inclusion of films sourced to Metacritic's genre lists, particularly Spirited Away and Ratatouille sourced to http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/genre/metascore/animation. This page only assigns scores and not ranks, so it is WP:Original research to deduce a rank from scores because they do not always correllate. Metacritic does have an explicitly ranked list at http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/score/metascore/all/filtered?sort=desc with Citizen Kane in top place, and it is ranked above several other films with perfect scores. Moonlight is ranked in 6th place with a score of 99 and that is ranked above several films with perfect scores in the Drama category. Clearly Metacritic have a ranking system that goes beyond just the metascores. Since this article is in the business of logging films that explicitly achieve a top ranking in polls/surveys I think the inclusion of films that merely have a perfect score breach the inclusion criteria. If Metacritic had included ranks on their genre pages then that would be a different story, but we shouldn't make assumptions about information they have deliberately decided to withold. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think this warrants inclusion. It's basically a non-accomplishment, even if it is the highest placement in its genre. See also this discussion above. TompaDompa ( talk) 15:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
There are currently two films laying claim to be the winner of the Time Out animation poll, namely Pinocchio and Spirited Away. Obviously they can't both be the top pick, but I don't understand the rationale for Spirited Away. If I am reading that right, Spirited Away was voted the top film but Time Out only published their preferred ranking? Is that correct? If so what was the point of polling 112 experts? That doesn't seem to be what Time Out says here: https://www.timeout.com/newyork/movies/the-100-best-animated-movies-animators-and-filmmakers. Maybe they applied some kind of weighting (per rank or maybe industry animators are weighted more than critics etc) which is their prerogative, but it seems to be WP:Original research for Wikipedia to interpret the results differently to Time Out. It is their poll after all. I think Spirited Away should be removed from the list. Betty Logan ( talk) 10:07, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
This list is non-neutral and biased. Many of the entries are fan polls with less than 500 votes. These polls don't represent the views of the 'notable' publications. Someone should fix this. - The Magnificentist 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC) - The Magnificentist 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Most of the internet, reader, and audience polls mentioned in the article had over 1000 voters. There are some polls where we don't know the number of voters, but most of them are from popular magazines or websites, so they probably had a large number of voters. I don't think any of these polls need to be removed from the article (except for maybe the Christmas poll because it's a small genre, but that's for a different discussion). It might be possible to find more information about these polls by googling, or if someone can find the original magazine articles. Here are the polls that I'm referring to:
StrayBolt moved 3 of the animation entries into a sub-section for animated shorts. This is a little bit misleading because most of the polls were actually "best animation" polls, and the winner happened to be a short film. The only entry that was actually a "best animated shorts" poll was The 50 Greatest Cartoons. Should I leave it the way it is, or move them back?
Should the animated shorts poll be removed because because it's a genre combination, or should we make an exception? I mentioned somewhere else on the talk page that animated shorts are a unique case because it's such a large category (almost 40,000 listed on IMDb, and probably millions not listed on IMDb). Mjf345 ( talk) 22:07, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Maestro2016's repeated efforts to insert Spirited Away (sourced to Metacritic's genre list) are becoming an increasing problem. He has done it on several occasions now: July 13 ( first edit, second edit & third edit) and again on July 19. It is starting to look like he is conducting a slow-burn edit war. Please remember that the purpose of this list is to record top ranked films i.e. films that were ranked #1 in some poll or suvery or were the highest ranked according to some criteria.
Metacritic's animated genre list does not assign an explict ranking. Ratatouille and Spirited Away may share a highscore but it is WP:Original research to assume they share a ranking. In fact there is demonstrable evidence on Metacritic that films can have a higher score and be ranked lower (see the previous discussion at #Metacritic placings). Indeed, Metacritic rank Ratatouille at #21 on their Best Movies of All-time chart, while Spirited Away is ranked three places below at #24. Therefore it is easily demonstrable that Metacritic rank Ratatouille above Spirited Away. That is a case for including Ratatouille in the chart (using both lists in conjunction with each other) but it is equally a compelling case for not adding Spirited Away to the list.
So I would like to settle this. Do we agree that Spirited Away does not belong on the list, at least attributed to Metacritic's genre list? And secondly, should we permit Ratatouille on the basis that it heads the animated genre list and it places ahead of other animated films on Metacritic's best films list, or should we just keep this simple and say that the only film that Metacritic explicitly actually ranks #1 is Citizen Kane so that is the only film we should permit on a Metacritic basis? Betty Logan ( talk) 21:30, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
@ TompaDompa and Mjf345: As two other editors heavily involved in this page I would appreciate your input at this discussion. It is pretty obvious Maestro2016 isn't going to accept my decision alone in rgeards to Metacritic's genre lists, and to be fair he does have a point that I should not be unilaterally preventing their use. If I am the only editor to who holds this view then I will withdraw my objections, but since the Metacritic genre lists could feasibly result in up to half a dozen films being added to each genre section then we do need a firm position on these lists, and that position should be a community decision either way. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:44, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I just looked more closely at the Metacritic lists to try to figure out how they work.
This discussion seems to have stalled, so I think we should establish where everyone stands. These are the options as I see them:
Betty Logan ( talk) 07:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Shouldn't Logan be added to the superhero section? - Theironminer ( talk) 00:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
While I certainly don't object to the inclusion of the images in the article I am slightly concerned at the American—particularly Hollywood—centric nature of the selection. Of the eight images in the article six of them come from Hollywood films. While I understand why Hollywood features heavily we have to make sure that the images are representative, so I am going to make a suggestion: there are nine films listed in the "critics and filmmakers" section of which four are Hollywood films (including the Rotten Tomatoes survey), so perhaps we should limit images to these nine films and ensure they are strategically placed throughout the article. This would ensure that the balance of images reflects the most prominent polls rather than editorial whim, and it also gives us a defence against anyone who wants to add an image for their country or their favorite superhero movie. At the moment they are are all cramped into the top section of the article but there is nothing to prevent The Godfather image going in the gangster film section for example, or the Battleship Potemkin image going in the Russia entry, so that the images are evenly spaced throughout the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 07:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Get out (2017) is erroneously listed in both comedy and horror sections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:1218:E200:A855:7C26:E78A:7169 ( talk) 22:53, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Maestro2016 has been altering the location of the images. Prior to his engagement with this issue the images were spaced through the article and aligned with the approrpiate sections. He has twice now moved the Tokyo Story image to the top. The problem with this is the Sight & Sound section only has enough space to accommodate a single image, so for obvious reasons the incumbent #1 of the critics polls (Vertigo) is assigned to this section. Adding more images to this section causes the images to be scrunched up on wide displays (see [4]). Moving it to the " other notable polls section" is also a problem because the film is not actually mentioned in the section. In short Vertigo is selected to represent Sight & Sound and 8½ is selected to represent "other notable polls". The Tokyo Story image is moved to the Japan section because it is the only other place it is mentioned. There are many genres and countries that are not represented at all by the images because space is limited and placement is important so will Maestro2016 please stop disregarding the aesthetic and structure of the article just to promote the images of his favorite films. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:10, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
MaccyXpert has twice now tried to incorporate his own WP:Original research into the article, once with Wonder Woman and now with Raging Bull. This list has very clear criteria: the film must top a notable poll or survey, and "in house" periodicals are not sufficient in scope to qualify. Neither do we add films on the basis that a Wikipedia article claims something is "Scorsese's best film" per WP:CIRCULAR and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The criteria is spelt out in the lead; the inclusion criteria is also explained at the top of this page and in an edit notice on the edit page. I do not know what else we can do. Let me spell it out clearly: what you, as an editor, thinks, is irrelevant. This article does what it says on the box. It simply documents films that have topped notable polls. We do not rig the results or make judgment calls:
Will editors please respect the list criteria and the list structure and stop trying to impose their own views on the article. Betty Logan ( talk) 03:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I think we need a few basic rules for images, so I am outlining here what I think the criteria should be:
The first criterion is non-negotiable and backed up by policy; the second two are what I consider sensible suggestions wihin the context of the article aesthetic. Betty Logan ( talk) 15:54, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
Bedivere.cs has recently added some films to the list. No real problem with this, but there are some issues I feel we need to sort out (which incidentally are not caused by Bedivere.cs but he has brought them to my attention):
Betty Logan ( talk) 13:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
So basically, I agree with what Betty Logan said. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
I was going through the list, and I noticed multiple "Highest ranked in rotten tomatoes" sections, just wondering why there isn't any representation from other aggregate sites like Metacritic, IMDB, Cinesift, etc., if you believe that Rotten Tomatoes is the most accurate site, than that's just your opinion and not fact... I could say Metacritic is the most accurate site... what I am driving at is there is an obvious bias towards Rotten Tomatoes.
Jetfighterace212 ( talk) 23:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
BettyLogan removed No Country For Old Men on the grounds that Metacritic doesn't implicitly have genre ranking pages. which they do, see here: http://www.metacritic.com/browse/movies/genre/metascore/western?view=condensed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetfighterace212 ( talk • contribs) 23:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
There have been some recent additions to the article, restoring entries that were removed as part of a major cleanup at the beginning of the year. The full discussion can be read at #Major_cleanup_necessary but I am going to summarise the basic conclusions, which should explain why some entries were removed and some sources are not eligible:
The point of these restrictions is to ensure that the list complies with WP:Verifiability, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and MOS:FILM#Audience response. Betty Logan ( talk) 20:24, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
So I was going through the list, and I noticed that there are a lot of major genres missing, including:
Adventure Biography Crime Drama Family Film-Noir History Music Thriller War
For titles under these genres, I suggest moving Lawrence of Arabia to Biography or History, the Godfather to Crime, the Shawshank Redemption to Drama, It's A Wonderful Life to Family, The Third Man to Film-Noir, etc.
Just some thoughts.
Jetfighterace212 ( talk) 19:09, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of films considered the best has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the United Kingdom section, please add the following links: ''[[Hotdog (magazine)|Hotdog]]''
& [[Vue Cinemas|Vue Entertainment]]
(or, for the latter — there should be a redirect:
Vue Entertainment→
Vue Cinemas).
107.15.152.93 (
talk)
01:29, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
This
edit request to
List of films considered the best has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Under Comedy, the film "Get Out" directed by Jordan Peele is not actually a comedy. Jordan Peele previously worked in comedy, but Get Out is a horror film. 79.75.97.203 ( talk) 20:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Not done: The accompanying source classifies it as a comedy. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)
Once Upon a Time in the West was ranked #1 in the "Top 10 movie westerns" list by The Guardian ( https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/nov/08/top-10-movie-westerns), why don't insert it? -- Howard "Dib" Montjio, 5 February 2018 —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Well, why not? It is so well recieved the number of awards it has in turn has its own Wikipedia page. 2A02:C7D:9B9E:9E00:B846:B1E5:3DDC:DA56 ( talk) 11:47, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Don't add movies based on having won awards. ( link)TompaDompa ( talk) 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)