![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I have just discovered that The New Edition Story has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Since it is a miniseries and not a television series, should it be added to list or does it not count? Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 04:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, should Homicide: The Movie be removed from the list since it is considered an episode of the show Homicide: Life on the Street? Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 04:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Are the entries on this list arranged in no particular order? Slightly mad 10:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The Farthest has a 100% rating and 21 reviews from critics. Culloty82 ( talk) 20:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the third time this article is up for deletion. I think it should stay as I find it to be useful. I feel like there should be a rule (maybe there is, I don't know) on repeatedly nominating something for deletion. How many times does it need to be ruled a 'keep' before people stop nominating it? Anyway, I think it should stay. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjf1085 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus was reached for the following inclusion criteria: "only include films that has a Critics Consensus at Rotten Tomatoes". Thank you. Gaioa ( t, c, l) 23:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (3rd nomination) resulting in no consensus and stating to continue discussion regarding the list's scope, I would like to do that here. I think there is enough consensus to implement inclusion criteria to list a film here because many editors, including myself, find the list rather indiscriminate. First, some numbers. There are 1,027 films on this list ranging from having 5 reviews to having 167. The average number of reviews is 16.6, and films with this number of reviews or less do not have any kind of "critics' consensus" as far as I can tell. I'm not sure when exactly a film receives a "critics' consensus" summary, but it seems to be after a sufficient sample of reviews. Maybe 40? Can someone confirm? In any case, here are a few options to limit the list to:
We can also move the article to "List of top films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes" so a limited scope is indicated in the article title. Thoughts on the cutoff and doing the move? If we have too many disparate opinions about the cutoff, we can explore the possibility of a straw poll using the guideline at WP:POLL. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw that this just closed its third Afd exercise with no consensus. I voted keep, and think this is a useful list, but the discussion raised good issues about how to keep it manageable. I'm assuming the people who had strong opinions are watching this page, so I won't bother posting a request for comment. Let's come up with a workable solution.
The main issue I see is that it's hard to maintain the vote count accurately. It's mostly an issue for newer movies less than a year old, because critics don't tend to retroactively review old movies. Per Rotten Tomatoes, they only count movies on their top ranked list [ [1]] with at least 40 reviews, but don't explain why. I think it's to stop the problem of all movies being added to the list by default, and then having to be taken off as soon as the first negative review comes in. By the time you get to 40, you've got good consensus. There's an angry discussion above about making it 20, so the actual cutoff number is worth a discussion.
On a related note, we could discuss whether to grandfather in older movies that are not ever going to get to 40. If we go with 40, we cut off Rio Bravo (film) with 39, Stagecoach (film) with 39 and other classics. The nice thing about the older movies is the vote count is going to be static, and so doesn't present a problem with article maintenance. The problem with this is that there are a lot of obscure movies mixed in with what we'd call known classics, that would have to be addressed.
As far as maintaining the number of reviews, this link will quickly show us if a recent movie is still at 100, and we can quickly eyeball the 100%s to see if the count is right. Maybe checking every week is enough. [ [2]].
Thoughts? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
See above for discussion of voting. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
*Review count of 40 - this is the number Rotten Tomatoes uses. Basing inclusion on whether consensus has been reached would require going to each new entry that was at 100% and constantly checking it. If we use the 40 figure, we can simply glance at the master list to see the review count and the current percentage status. [
[4]]
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
So consensus is to cull the list to those films with at least 20 reviews, plus those with fewer than 20 but which have achieved Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus? I know this will not satisfy everyone, but seems to be the best middle ground. Another out of the box thought I just had is that we can put a note on the talk page with a link to the current pre-culled list in the archives for anyone interested in seeing the original list as it stands today. Film buffs reading the talk page will find everything they want but the mainspace article won't be so long - win win? There will likely no longer be any movie that will hit 100% positive but not get critics consensus at some point, so between the archive and the current list, every 100% film will be available for readers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks much better now! Great job!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
After taking a chunk of classic films out, and seeing that 2017's The New Edition Story and 2008's Boogie (2008 film) both made the cut, while All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film), Babes in Toyland and Wuthering Heights did not, suggests that the cull criteria we're using is one that favors modern films, and many good classics will sadly be left out. I suppose that makes sense; as opposed to Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes exists to make money, and there are probably more opportunities to monetize newer movies than older ones. I do hope that their editor can review the older films, find enough reviews and/or establish consensus so we can add them back. It also suggests that we should look for other best film lists besides List of films considered the best to add to the external links section, for balance. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought I'd post this here since there was a lot of interest updating Black Panther (film) before it got its first bad review. [ [6]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
i remove date from some rotten tomatoes citation because most do not have date in title.
but actual page title has date.
title citation should have date or not? IUpdateRottenTomatoes ( talk) 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
accessdate
then it's the date an editor verified the site and not a date shown on the site. See
Template:Cite web#URL and don't remove accessdate
but update it if you update the number of reviews.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
22:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm I seem to be missing something. above there's a great big section closed staying consensus to "only include films that has a Critics Consensus at Rotten Tomatoes". But I'm being told by two people now that that cc doesn't matter if there are 20 reviews? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fall_of_the_roman_empire/ Nergaal ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/summer_1993 Krakatoa ( talk) 06:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed the list is dominated by documentaries. I don't know exactly how many, but I checked 10 films at random and 9 of them were documentaries. This might be worth discussing in the article if there are sources. Lizard ( talk) 22:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Here I removed the addition of "Av. Rating" and "Audience Score" and "Director" columns. First, I do not find "Av. Rating" to be necessary for the purpose of this list. For "Audience Score", per MOS:FILM#Audience response, we do not include user ratings because they are not a genuine representation of what audiences thought. Lastly, I do not find the "Director" column necessary either. I think it is the most important step to exclude "Audience Score", but considering how much more would need to be maintained with "Av. Rating" and "Director" columns, we should come to a consensus about these two columns. My perspective at this time is that such a list should be fairly simple. If anything, I'd rather see a brief synopsis of each film rather than the average rating or the director. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Could we add formatting (perhaps the film title in bold) for any entry where as well as 100% Critic Rating, they also have an audience rating of 100% too? We could restrict it to those that meet the following criteria, to prevent newly-release films being included:
At the moment, there is only one that meets this criteria:
Name | Year | No. of reviews | Ref |
---|---|---|---|
O.J.: Made in America | 2016 | 53 |
What do you folks think of this?
If so, could someone amend the hatnote to show this, and amend the entry for O.J.: Made in America to show it in bold?
As this is the only one that currently meets the criteria (and I doubt that too many will meet the criteria in the future), it's quite easy to do a check on Rotten Tomatoes from time to time to make sure that it is still 100% for Audience Ratings!
Thanks 193.9.4.15 ( talk) 14:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like because the Rotten Tomatoes staff is adding reviews for some older films, some of them are getting their 100% rating reduced. For example, Rear Window now has 99% with 70 reviews as seen here, where last December, it had 100% with 66 reviews as seen here. I don't see any coverage about this, but it would be a good observation to add to this list article if a source covered this aspect. A similar observation to consider is if 100% is even less likely if there are going to be many more critics qualified to be included, following the recent expansion. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Nardog (
talk)
00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is Citizen Kane missing on this list? Taddah ( talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this article could benefit from some more perspective. For instance, a visual statistic for years up to 2005 with an unusual high amount of 100% films (maybe make it a run chart or line graph for all the years, akin to what they use for the stock exchange or inflation rates?). Also, are there external sources we could use to point out the system's blatant recentism starting around the time of 2005-2010? From that point on, years are increasingly bloated with more and more 100% listings, where I would doubt many professional critics would say that this phenomenon would be indicative somehow of a trend of rising excellency of film releases overall. -- 2003:EF:170E:7F46:E8A1:8329:2F1F:12F7 ( talk) 15:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
We know that Kael was not kind to the 9 hour epic, but RT won't open submissions until next month. Does that count? Espngeek ( talk) 18:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Mary Poppins (1964) and The Railway Children (1970) also have 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. SECREngineNo592 ( talk) 06:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems like there is a misunderstanding of the criteria for this list, and it depends on if the language is about including, or if it is about excluding.
Better to say:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The list shows the 100% rating of 2022 documentary "Attica" as being based on 56 reviews. But the wiki article about "Attica" states that "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 98% of 48 critics' reviews are positive". Therefore FIRSTLY either the listing or the article sentence is wrong. But SECONDLY, it is simply impossible for 98% positivity (when 48) to become 100% positivity (when 56). This can make one start to wonder just how accurate is the whole listing? and so I recommend that the "Attica" entry (and/or article) should be resolved by a Rotten Tomatoes expert asap. Pete Hobbs ( talk) 02:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
WAAAAY TOOO MUCH films from 2005 on. How so? 2A00:20:D048:1308:A120:11F:B866:38CA ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sharing this reliable source to further establish the notability of this list. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article was nominated for
deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
I have just discovered that The New Edition Story has a 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. Since it is a miniseries and not a television series, should it be added to list or does it not count? Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 04:52, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, should Homicide: The Movie be removed from the list since it is considered an episode of the show Homicide: Life on the Street? Hitcher vs. Candyman ( talk) 04:57, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Are the entries on this list arranged in no particular order? Slightly mad 10:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The Farthest has a 100% rating and 21 reviews from critics. Culloty82 ( talk) 20:19, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
This is the third time this article is up for deletion. I think it should stay as I find it to be useful. I feel like there should be a rule (maybe there is, I don't know) on repeatedly nominating something for deletion. How many times does it need to be ruled a 'keep' before people stop nominating it? Anyway, I think it should stay. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fjf1085 ( talk • contribs) 15:21, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Consensus was reached for the following inclusion criteria: "only include films that has a Critics Consensus at Rotten Tomatoes". Thank you. Gaioa ( t, c, l) 23:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
With Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes (3rd nomination) resulting in no consensus and stating to continue discussion regarding the list's scope, I would like to do that here. I think there is enough consensus to implement inclusion criteria to list a film here because many editors, including myself, find the list rather indiscriminate. First, some numbers. There are 1,027 films on this list ranging from having 5 reviews to having 167. The average number of reviews is 16.6, and films with this number of reviews or less do not have any kind of "critics' consensus" as far as I can tell. I'm not sure when exactly a film receives a "critics' consensus" summary, but it seems to be after a sufficient sample of reviews. Maybe 40? Can someone confirm? In any case, here are a few options to limit the list to:
We can also move the article to "List of top films with a 100% rating on Rotten Tomatoes" so a limited scope is indicated in the article title. Thoughts on the cutoff and doing the move? If we have too many disparate opinions about the cutoff, we can explore the possibility of a straw poll using the guideline at WP:POLL. Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
I saw that this just closed its third Afd exercise with no consensus. I voted keep, and think this is a useful list, but the discussion raised good issues about how to keep it manageable. I'm assuming the people who had strong opinions are watching this page, so I won't bother posting a request for comment. Let's come up with a workable solution.
The main issue I see is that it's hard to maintain the vote count accurately. It's mostly an issue for newer movies less than a year old, because critics don't tend to retroactively review old movies. Per Rotten Tomatoes, they only count movies on their top ranked list [ [1]] with at least 40 reviews, but don't explain why. I think it's to stop the problem of all movies being added to the list by default, and then having to be taken off as soon as the first negative review comes in. By the time you get to 40, you've got good consensus. There's an angry discussion above about making it 20, so the actual cutoff number is worth a discussion.
On a related note, we could discuss whether to grandfather in older movies that are not ever going to get to 40. If we go with 40, we cut off Rio Bravo (film) with 39, Stagecoach (film) with 39 and other classics. The nice thing about the older movies is the vote count is going to be static, and so doesn't present a problem with article maintenance. The problem with this is that there are a lot of obscure movies mixed in with what we'd call known classics, that would have to be addressed.
As far as maintaining the number of reviews, this link will quickly show us if a recent movie is still at 100, and we can quickly eyeball the 100%s to see if the count is right. Maybe checking every week is enough. [ [2]].
Thoughts? TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 21:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
See above for discussion of voting. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:55, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
*Review count of 40 - this is the number Rotten Tomatoes uses. Basing inclusion on whether consensus has been reached would require going to each new entry that was at 100% and constantly checking it. If we use the 40 figure, we can simply glance at the master list to see the review count and the current percentage status. [
[4]]
TimTempleton
(talk)
(cont)
00:53, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
So consensus is to cull the list to those films with at least 20 reviews, plus those with fewer than 20 but which have achieved Rotten Tomatoes Critics Consensus? I know this will not satisfy everyone, but seems to be the best middle ground. Another out of the box thought I just had is that we can put a note on the talk page with a link to the current pre-culled list in the archives for anyone interested in seeing the original list as it stands today. Film buffs reading the talk page will find everything they want but the mainspace article won't be so long - win win? There will likely no longer be any movie that will hit 100% positive but not get critics consensus at some point, so between the archive and the current list, every 100% film will be available for readers. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 17:37, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Looks much better now! Great job!.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
After taking a chunk of classic films out, and seeing that 2017's The New Edition Story and 2008's Boogie (2008 film) both made the cut, while All Quiet on the Western Front (1930 film), Babes in Toyland and Wuthering Heights did not, suggests that the cull criteria we're using is one that favors modern films, and many good classics will sadly be left out. I suppose that makes sense; as opposed to Wikipedia, Rotten Tomatoes exists to make money, and there are probably more opportunities to monetize newer movies than older ones. I do hope that their editor can review the older films, find enough reviews and/or establish consensus so we can add them back. It also suggests that we should look for other best film lists besides List of films considered the best to add to the external links section, for balance. TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 19:11, 1 February 2018 (UTC)
I thought I'd post this here since there was a lot of interest updating Black Panther (film) before it got its first bad review. [ [6]] TimTempleton (talk) (cont) 00:10, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
i remove date from some rotten tomatoes citation because most do not have date in title.
but actual page title has date.
title citation should have date or not? IUpdateRottenTomatoes ( talk) 20:57, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
accessdate
then it's the date an editor verified the site and not a date shown on the site. See
Template:Cite web#URL and don't remove accessdate
but update it if you update the number of reviews.
PrimeHunter (
talk)
22:01, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
Hmm I seem to be missing something. above there's a great big section closed staying consensus to "only include films that has a Critics Consensus at Rotten Tomatoes". But I'm being told by two people now that that cc doesn't matter if there are 20 reviews? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fall_of_the_roman_empire/ Nergaal ( talk) 17:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/summer_1993 Krakatoa ( talk) 06:03, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
I noticed the list is dominated by documentaries. I don't know exactly how many, but I checked 10 films at random and 9 of them were documentaries. This might be worth discussing in the article if there are sources. Lizard ( talk) 22:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
Here I removed the addition of "Av. Rating" and "Audience Score" and "Director" columns. First, I do not find "Av. Rating" to be necessary for the purpose of this list. For "Audience Score", per MOS:FILM#Audience response, we do not include user ratings because they are not a genuine representation of what audiences thought. Lastly, I do not find the "Director" column necessary either. I think it is the most important step to exclude "Audience Score", but considering how much more would need to be maintained with "Av. Rating" and "Director" columns, we should come to a consensus about these two columns. My perspective at this time is that such a list should be fairly simple. If anything, I'd rather see a brief synopsis of each film rather than the average rating or the director. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 20:13, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Could we add formatting (perhaps the film title in bold) for any entry where as well as 100% Critic Rating, they also have an audience rating of 100% too? We could restrict it to those that meet the following criteria, to prevent newly-release films being included:
At the moment, there is only one that meets this criteria:
Name | Year | No. of reviews | Ref |
---|---|---|---|
O.J.: Made in America | 2016 | 53 |
What do you folks think of this?
If so, could someone amend the hatnote to show this, and amend the entry for O.J.: Made in America to show it in bold?
As this is the only one that currently meets the criteria (and I doubt that too many will meet the criteria in the future), it's quite easy to do a check on Rotten Tomatoes from time to time to make sure that it is still 100% for Audience Ratings!
Thanks 193.9.4.15 ( talk) 14:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
It looks like because the Rotten Tomatoes staff is adding reviews for some older films, some of them are getting their 100% rating reduced. For example, Rear Window now has 99% with 70 reviews as seen here, where last December, it had 100% with 66 reviews as seen here. I don't see any coverage about this, but it would be a good observation to add to this list article if a source covered this aspect. A similar observation to consider is if 100% is even less likely if there are going to be many more critics qualified to be included, following the recent expansion. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 22:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 22:05, 10 May 2020 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect
Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound. The discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Making Waves: The Art of Cinematic Sound until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Nardog (
talk)
00:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is Citizen Kane missing on this list? Taddah ( talk) 19:54, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I think this article could benefit from some more perspective. For instance, a visual statistic for years up to 2005 with an unusual high amount of 100% films (maybe make it a run chart or line graph for all the years, akin to what they use for the stock exchange or inflation rates?). Also, are there external sources we could use to point out the system's blatant recentism starting around the time of 2005-2010? From that point on, years are increasingly bloated with more and more 100% listings, where I would doubt many professional critics would say that this phenomenon would be indicative somehow of a trend of rising excellency of film releases overall. -- 2003:EF:170E:7F46:E8A1:8329:2F1F:12F7 ( talk) 15:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
We know that Kael was not kind to the 9 hour epic, but RT won't open submissions until next month. Does that count? Espngeek ( talk) 18:29, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Mary Poppins (1964) and The Railway Children (1970) also have 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. SECREngineNo592 ( talk) 06:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
It seems like there is a misunderstanding of the criteria for this list, and it depends on if the language is about including, or if it is about excluding.
Better to say:
Thanks, Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 13:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The list shows the 100% rating of 2022 documentary "Attica" as being based on 56 reviews. But the wiki article about "Attica" states that "On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 98% of 48 critics' reviews are positive". Therefore FIRSTLY either the listing or the article sentence is wrong. But SECONDLY, it is simply impossible for 98% positivity (when 48) to become 100% positivity (when 56). This can make one start to wonder just how accurate is the whole listing? and so I recommend that the "Attica" entry (and/or article) should be resolved by a Rotten Tomatoes expert asap. Pete Hobbs ( talk) 02:40, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
WAAAAY TOOO MUCH films from 2005 on. How so? 2A00:20:D048:1308:A120:11F:B866:38CA ( talk) 00:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Sharing this reliable source to further establish the notability of this list. Erik ( talk | contrib) ( ping me) 14:55, 20 April 2024 (UTC)