This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Film Registry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | National Film Registry is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on November 14, 2014. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel it'd make more sense to list the films by the year of their introduction to the National Film Registry rather than alphabetically the way they are now. - Throw 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Are these little arrows sufficiently noticeable, and their function presumed to be in the average user's knowledge of how to use Wikipedia? If not, perhaps a note should be added near the table in question pointing out the existence of the arrows and their function? MultiScrivner ( talk) 22:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are some film titles in italics and others not? GeorgeMillo ( talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
adding sorting instructions (in small letters) Martin | talk • contribs 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to include a list or chart of superlatives, such as director with most entries, actor/actress in the most, or studio with most —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.230.183 ( talk) 22:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea true .still a really hot scene done reeltime can be found on many channels. The blond sexy ladies are what I look to give best idea of more intertwined picture. Yet my own wife casts image's lonly ND despite boring tv Juliuskemp85 ( talk) 05:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the lead isn't referenced. Eventhough the information is available in the list itself it would be best to have the paragraph referenced since the prior paragraphs are. If you reference something in the lead, then the whole lead has to be referenced to make verifiability easier. It's either not referencing the lead at all ( In the case the info is available in the body text) or referencing the whole lead.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 18:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to suggest that we create a category on commons "Category:National Film Registry" that contains film categories or images of Films that are listed in the National Film Registry. Wouldn't that be beneficial ?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 06:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Feature-length narrative (i.e. fiction) films are currently listed as "feature film", while feature-length films of other genres are ghettoized to more specific categories (e.g. documentary, experimental). This is curious because "feature" refers to the length of the film (typically running over 60 minutes) not its content. Categorizing the films this way effectively reinforces the notion that the only true feature films are narrative films while documentary and experimental works are somehow lesser. Preserving works of all different forms and formats is a key part of the National Film Registry's mission, so it would make sense to keep this list genre-neutral. Perhaps feature-length narrative films could be listed as "feature-length narrative" or "feature-length fiction" while feature-length documentaries could become "feature-length documentary", etc? Peanutbuttertoast ( talk) 16:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Does the National Film Registry only include American films?
Dumoren ( talk) 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
One question: Jane Fonda's Workout (1982) is on the list for some odd reason. Did it had a theatrical release? Espngeek ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the full official titles of the Star Wars films as determined by Lucasfilm should be included on Wikipedia's list regardless of how the National Film Registry states them. The argument for just putting Star Wars is that's how the Registry lists it. But the registry also lists 'Thriller,' while Wikipedia lists it as 'Michael Jackson's Thriller.' By the time Star Wars was inducted to the list in 1989, it had the Episode IV designation, making that its official title. Also, why shouldn't Wikipedia be more precise whenever possible, as in the case of Thriller. After all, Wikipedia isn't presenting the National Film Registry list. It's presenting its list of the films that are on the Registry. There is a difference. If the page was just a reproduction of the graphic of the Registry's list, that's one thing. But it is not. It is a list of links to the pages of the films that are on the Registry, and the link to Episode IV goes to a page that is headed by that full title. That is the film's official name. Vader47000 ( talk) 04:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no mention of what it actually means for a film to be preserved or why preservation is necessary. Seems pretty important for the article. 24.5.175.193 ( talk) 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah couldn't you add how much stuff you have in your collection. Like I don't maybe number the movies and stuff on the list. I don't know you don't really have anything in here which says the exact number of stuff collected. Am I right or just an annoying Wikipedia Critic.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.170.254 ( talk) 04:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Caught a documentary called These Amazing Shadows about the National Film Registry last night, and was surprised to learn the cause→effect relationship between the Registry's creation and Ted Turner's purchase of MGM's entire library and his subsequent decision to colorize older films for television audiences. The criticism from directors such as Woody Allen and Sydney Pollack prompted Turner to respond "They're my movies and I can do what I want with them" or some such similar statement. Finally, Jimmy Stewart spoke out and that seemed to be the decision maker for Congress to create the NFR.
It's just the documentary I saw and I have no other sources, but I was wondering if the maintenance crew for this article knew this info and their thoughts on including it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor already asked last year but got no reply, so I am asking again out of curiosity.
So this list identifies films selected for preservation, is mentioned in the same article as 'National Film Preservation Foundation', 'National Film Preservation Board', 'National Film Preservation Act', and yet there is "not a guarantee of actual preservation" for the selected films.
So aside from the publicity (and prestige even) of inclusion, isn't it just a list of culturally important films? Not trying to be disrespectful here, but without actually preserving a copy of the film for future generations, it's just a list of films that grows bigger each year depending on criteria. We've had those sorts of "best of" lists for decades. What sets THIS list apart from (for example) IMDB's top 100 of all time? What is the actual point of this list? MrZoolook ( talk) 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Must we have a lynching scene as the still accompanying the mention of Birth of a Nation? While the film is infamous for its racism and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, that's surely not why it's in the Registry. To quote the last paragraph of the article's lede,
Somebody please replace that image with something less horrible.
Please
{{ping}} me to discuss. --
Thnidu (
talk)
01:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It may have been different when we last had a conversation about this, but the article about the 1977 Star Wars film is currently at Star Wars (film). It seems to me that if both the Registry and Wikipedia use the original name, this article should as well. Changed to reflect that.— Chowbok ☠ 01:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
See the discussion at Talk:Zapruder film#Requested move, regaring whether films such as " Zapruder film" should be titled as proper names ( Zapruder Film), in this article and elsewhere. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There have been a couple of recent additions of non-free images to this article which have been reverted because the the use of these files does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, but there usage is highly restricted, unlike freely licensed or public domain files. Each use of a non-free image is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria without exception and those that do not can be removed. Moreover, non-free use typically requires more than just a desire to have a reader "see" the file in question, but a strong contextual connection between the article content and the image itself so that removing the file in question would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of said content. Most of the article is just an embedded list of films, all of which seem to have their own stand-alone articles. None of these entries really require that a reader see an image from the film in question, and in many cases most of these images can also be found in the stand-alone articles for the films. For freely-licensed and PD files, this is not such a big deal; for non-free images, however, it is almost never allowed per WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFLISTS). If someone feel that they can justify the non-free use these files in this article, then they are welcomed to try by providing a valid non-free use rationale for each image they want to use which clearly shows how the use satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria per WP:NFCCE. I am pretty skeptical that this can be done given the type of article this is, but anyone is welcome to try. For reference, simply adding a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean it's a valid rationale, so it might be best those wanting to use these files in this article to nominate them for discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on National Film Registry. 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) 09:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Film Registry. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6TEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y14DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4800,2630781When 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) 07:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to start a discussion regarding the length of the Films table on this page... Considering the Registry is likely going to continue growing for a number of years to come, it’s really going to get overwhelming - even moreso than it is now. As this page is meant to be specifically about the Registry itself, it seems as though the films on it should be moved elsewhere and accessible via a link. My recent edit to solve this problem was undone - out of a concern that it would hinder the ability for those seeking to find films by year (despite the function to sort by year still possible on the new pages on which I’d broken the films up onto, albeit not quite as easy as it is now) - but I’ve got to imagine there are others concerned about this issue and that there must be some sort of solution that could be agreed upon. Sorry, but it just seems a little silly to have such a massive list when the information can be presented just as well broken up into more manageable pages. Bradforce28 ( talk) 04:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
My original thought was to do it by Induction year, but alphabetical ended up making the most sense, in my opinion - List of National Film Registry films (A–D) - but as I said, there’s probably other ways to go about this as well. Bradforce28 ( talk) 05:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this section needs some work done on it Bob3458 ( talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to follow up on this (I know it's been a while, but it's still an issue). The superlatives section seems to be mostly original research, which is deeply problematic for any page, but especially one that is a featured list. Many citations are either incorrectly formatted or use poor sources (IMDb is not a valid source), and the sources only seem to indicate that the film is in the registry, not that it meets the superlative. I think the entire section should be removed immediately or this list may need to be reexamined for FL status. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 23:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I support removing the section as OR. Pichpich ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem with removing the superlatives section is that it's now very difficult to find the oldest and most recent titles on the Registry, as well as other statistics and information of note and relevance. WikiIndustrialComplex ( talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Saul Bass-10 Espngeek ( talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
On the National Film Registry's website, it details that "foreign productions" are not specifically prohibited, just that American produced films are given first consideration. I bring this up as I believe Lawrence of Arabia is a wholly British production, though it was nominated in 1991 for it's significance to American film. Should we make a list of completely foreign productions on the registry, with Lawrence of Arabia, as far as I'm aware, being the only one currently? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 06:03, 4 November 2019 (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) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This past year, footnotes denoting the following appeared in the article:
± Indicates that the film's soundtrack or a significant piece of music featured in the film (even in variations) is also a National Recording Registry inductee.
I won't question the relevancy of the notation in general, but based on several of the titles noted, I think this cross-referencing of the two national registries requires stricter standards.
Shrek, for example, is footnoted, according to the edit history, because of the inclusion of John Cale's rendition of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" in the film. However, it is not Cale's version of "Hallelujah" in the Recording Registry, nor even Cohen's, but that of Jeff Buckley. When the Registry board makes a selection, it is not the song but the particular recording of the song that is inducted. If a film does not feature this precise recording, in my opinion, it should not be cross-referenced with the Recording Registry. By extending the footnote's criteria to "variations" of recordings, not only is the specificity of the Registry misrepresented, but the number of films eligible for notation may become unwieldy.
The same standard should be applied across the board. The musicals Oklahoma!, Porgy and Bess, Show Boat and West Side Story appear on both registries, but as performed by different casts. Concert films such as Jazz On a Summer's Day, Monterey Pop, The TAMI Show and Woodstock contain several songs that are in the Recording Registry, but although performed by the same artists, they're not the specific recordings inducted. Platoon made extensive use of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings", but as conducted by Georges Delerue rather than Arturo Tuscanini. 2001: A Space Odyssey famously uses "Also Sprach Zarathustra", but not as performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Manhattan uses "Rhapsody In Blue", but not as performed by Gershwin. Perhaps many in the public would not recognize a distinction between these recordings, but an encyclopedia should aspire to greater accuracy than conventional thought.
I suggest that the footnote's scope be limited to films with an actual soundtrack on the Recording Registry, such as Shaft and The Sound of Music, and films in which a registry-inducted recording appears prominently, such as American Graffiti and Bonnie and Clyde. -- 2600:1008:B045:39D8:7139:5F42:1EE5:64A8 ( talk) 01:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In its current state, I'm wondering how this article is an FA. Aside from having a lead that's no joke only one sentence long, the article uses a rather large amount of primary sources. Although everything in the main table is sourced, both "Number of films by release year" is hardly sourced and "Filmmakers with multiple entries (3 or more)" is entirely unsourced. There are also numerous dead links. If something isn't done soon this article definitely no longer deserves the star. – zmbro ( talk) 21:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I skimmed the Bambi article to see why it merited inclusion in the list. I stopped and examined the content referring to the NFR as well as nearby content.
I found nothing in the article sufficiently related to the National Film Registry to recommend it as a Related Article. It does mention Bambi's inclusion in the NFR, but not with any other information about the NFR or Bambi that suggests that this inclusion was particularly interesting, unusual, or noteworty.
Thus I think Bambi should be removed from Related Articles. Unless someone can point out something I'm missing. MultiScrivner ( talk) 22:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I felt it necessary to make small rewrites in both the very first paragraph and in several subsequent sections for clarity.
If I scan the rest of the article and conclude this is a pervasive problem, how would I tag the article for proofreading and copyediting? MultiScrivner ( talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Use Template:Proofreader needed. Dimadick ( talk) 10:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
On the list of films included in the registry, multiple films have ± next to their name. However, the page does not explain what this sign means. So, I suggest that a key be included above the list of films - that explains what the sign means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 16:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
National film registry" and it has been listed
for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § National film registry" until a consensus is reached.
Dsuke1998AEOS (
talk)
19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
hey, i tried to remove Morbius because it isn't an actual movie on the Film Registry but it appears I accidentally deleted every movie. I have no idea how to fix this, i'm really sorry. Can someone fix this and then just remove Morbius? Morbiusisnotagoodmovie ( talk) 13:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to add a column to the film section saying who the production company was on each film (or individual producers if applicable). 2601:681:4500:1830:294D:D7E5:6305:17A1 ( talk) 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
National Film Registry article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | National Film Registry is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on November 14, 2014. | |||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I feel it'd make more sense to list the films by the year of their introduction to the National Film Registry rather than alphabetically the way they are now. - Throw 01:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
Are these little arrows sufficiently noticeable, and their function presumed to be in the average user's knowledge of how to use Wikipedia? If not, perhaps a note should be added near the table in question pointing out the existence of the arrows and their function? MultiScrivner ( talk) 22:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Why are some film titles in italics and others not? GeorgeMillo ( talk) 22:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
adding sorting instructions (in small letters) Martin | talk • contribs 18:36, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I think it would make sense to include a list or chart of superlatives, such as director with most entries, actor/actress in the most, or studio with most —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.123.230.183 ( talk) 22:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
Yea true .still a really hot scene done reeltime can be found on many channels. The blond sexy ladies are what I look to give best idea of more intertwined picture. Yet my own wife casts image's lonly ND despite boring tv Juliuskemp85 ( talk) 05:55, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
The last paragraph in the lead isn't referenced. Eventhough the information is available in the list itself it would be best to have the paragraph referenced since the prior paragraphs are. If you reference something in the lead, then the whole lead has to be referenced to make verifiability easier. It's either not referencing the lead at all ( In the case the info is available in the body text) or referencing the whole lead.-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 18:33, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to suggest that we create a category on commons "Category:National Film Registry" that contains film categories or images of Films that are listed in the National Film Registry. Wouldn't that be beneficial ?-- Diaa abdelmoneim ( talk) 06:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Feature-length narrative (i.e. fiction) films are currently listed as "feature film", while feature-length films of other genres are ghettoized to more specific categories (e.g. documentary, experimental). This is curious because "feature" refers to the length of the film (typically running over 60 minutes) not its content. Categorizing the films this way effectively reinforces the notion that the only true feature films are narrative films while documentary and experimental works are somehow lesser. Preserving works of all different forms and formats is a key part of the National Film Registry's mission, so it would make sense to keep this list genre-neutral. Perhaps feature-length narrative films could be listed as "feature-length narrative" or "feature-length fiction" while feature-length documentaries could become "feature-length documentary", etc? Peanutbuttertoast ( talk) 16:55, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
Does the National Film Registry only include American films?
Dumoren ( talk) 02:32, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
One question: Jane Fonda's Workout (1982) is on the list for some odd reason. Did it had a theatrical release? Espngeek ( talk) 20:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I think the full official titles of the Star Wars films as determined by Lucasfilm should be included on Wikipedia's list regardless of how the National Film Registry states them. The argument for just putting Star Wars is that's how the Registry lists it. But the registry also lists 'Thriller,' while Wikipedia lists it as 'Michael Jackson's Thriller.' By the time Star Wars was inducted to the list in 1989, it had the Episode IV designation, making that its official title. Also, why shouldn't Wikipedia be more precise whenever possible, as in the case of Thriller. After all, Wikipedia isn't presenting the National Film Registry list. It's presenting its list of the films that are on the Registry. There is a difference. If the page was just a reproduction of the graphic of the Registry's list, that's one thing. But it is not. It is a list of links to the pages of the films that are on the Registry, and the link to Episode IV goes to a page that is headed by that full title. That is the film's official name. Vader47000 ( talk) 04:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
There's no mention of what it actually means for a film to be preserved or why preservation is necessary. Seems pretty important for the article. 24.5.175.193 ( talk) 04:53, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
Yeah couldn't you add how much stuff you have in your collection. Like I don't maybe number the movies and stuff on the list. I don't know you don't really have anything in here which says the exact number of stuff collected. Am I right or just an annoying Wikipedia Critic.-James Pandora Adams —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.176.170.254 ( talk) 04:53, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
Caught a documentary called These Amazing Shadows about the National Film Registry last night, and was surprised to learn the cause→effect relationship between the Registry's creation and Ted Turner's purchase of MGM's entire library and his subsequent decision to colorize older films for television audiences. The criticism from directors such as Woody Allen and Sydney Pollack prompted Turner to respond "They're my movies and I can do what I want with them" or some such similar statement. Finally, Jimmy Stewart spoke out and that seemed to be the decision maker for Congress to create the NFR.
It's just the documentary I saw and I have no other sources, but I was wondering if the maintenance crew for this article knew this info and their thoughts on including it. -- Moni3 ( talk) 23:01, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
An IP editor already asked last year but got no reply, so I am asking again out of curiosity.
So this list identifies films selected for preservation, is mentioned in the same article as 'National Film Preservation Foundation', 'National Film Preservation Board', 'National Film Preservation Act', and yet there is "not a guarantee of actual preservation" for the selected films.
So aside from the publicity (and prestige even) of inclusion, isn't it just a list of culturally important films? Not trying to be disrespectful here, but without actually preserving a copy of the film for future generations, it's just a list of films that grows bigger each year depending on criteria. We've had those sorts of "best of" lists for decades. What sets THIS list apart from (for example) IMDB's top 100 of all time? What is the actual point of this list? MrZoolook ( talk) 00:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Must we have a lynching scene as the still accompanying the mention of Birth of a Nation? While the film is infamous for its racism and glorification of the Ku Klux Klan, that's surely not why it's in the Registry. To quote the last paragraph of the article's lede,
Somebody please replace that image with something less horrible.
Please
{{ping}} me to discuss. --
Thnidu (
talk)
01:33, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
It may have been different when we last had a conversation about this, but the article about the 1977 Star Wars film is currently at Star Wars (film). It seems to me that if both the Registry and Wikipedia use the original name, this article should as well. Changed to reflect that.— Chowbok ☠ 01:15, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
See the discussion at Talk:Zapruder film#Requested move, regaring whether films such as " Zapruder film" should be titled as proper names ( Zapruder Film), in this article and elsewhere. wbm1058 ( talk) 21:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
There have been a couple of recent additions of non-free images to this article which have been reverted because the the use of these files does not comply with Wikipedia's non-free content use policy. Non-free images may be used on Wikipedia, but there usage is highly restricted, unlike freely licensed or public domain files. Each use of a non-free image is required to satisfy all 10 non-free content criteria without exception and those that do not can be removed. Moreover, non-free use typically requires more than just a desire to have a reader "see" the file in question, but a strong contextual connection between the article content and the image itself so that removing the file in question would be detrimental to the reader's understanding of said content. Most of the article is just an embedded list of films, all of which seem to have their own stand-alone articles. None of these entries really require that a reader see an image from the film in question, and in many cases most of these images can also be found in the stand-alone articles for the films. For freely-licensed and PD files, this is not such a big deal; for non-free images, however, it is almost never allowed per WP:NFCC#8 ( WP:NFLISTS). If someone feel that they can justify the non-free use these files in this article, then they are welcomed to try by providing a valid non-free use rationale for each image they want to use which clearly shows how the use satisfies all 10 non-free content criteria per WP:NFCCE. I am pretty skeptical that this can be done given the type of article this is, but anyone is welcome to try. For reference, simply adding a non-free use rationale does not automatically mean it's a valid rationale, so it might be best those wanting to use these files in this article to nominate them for discussion at WP:FFD. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 03:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on National Film Registry. 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) 09:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on National Film Registry. 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=6TEMAAAAIBAJ&sjid=y14DAAAAIBAJ&pg=4800,2630781When 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) 07:02, 6 October 2017 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:21, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I just wanted to start a discussion regarding the length of the Films table on this page... Considering the Registry is likely going to continue growing for a number of years to come, it’s really going to get overwhelming - even moreso than it is now. As this page is meant to be specifically about the Registry itself, it seems as though the films on it should be moved elsewhere and accessible via a link. My recent edit to solve this problem was undone - out of a concern that it would hinder the ability for those seeking to find films by year (despite the function to sort by year still possible on the new pages on which I’d broken the films up onto, albeit not quite as easy as it is now) - but I’ve got to imagine there are others concerned about this issue and that there must be some sort of solution that could be agreed upon. Sorry, but it just seems a little silly to have such a massive list when the information can be presented just as well broken up into more manageable pages. Bradforce28 ( talk) 04:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
My original thought was to do it by Induction year, but alphabetical ended up making the most sense, in my opinion - List of National Film Registry films (A–D) - but as I said, there’s probably other ways to go about this as well. Bradforce28 ( talk) 05:02, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this section needs some work done on it Bob3458 ( talk) 16:44, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
I'd like to follow up on this (I know it's been a while, but it's still an issue). The superlatives section seems to be mostly original research, which is deeply problematic for any page, but especially one that is a featured list. Many citations are either incorrectly formatted or use poor sources (IMDb is not a valid source), and the sources only seem to indicate that the film is in the registry, not that it meets the superlative. I think the entire section should be removed immediately or this list may need to be reexamined for FL status. RunningTiger123 ( talk) 23:04, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I support removing the section as OR. Pichpich ( talk) 00:33, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
The problem with removing the superlatives section is that it's now very difficult to find the oldest and most recent titles on the Registry, as well as other statistics and information of note and relevance. WikiIndustrialComplex ( talk) 02:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Saul Bass-10 Espngeek ( talk) 12:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
On the National Film Registry's website, it details that "foreign productions" are not specifically prohibited, just that American produced films are given first consideration. I bring this up as I believe Lawrence of Arabia is a wholly British production, though it was nominated in 1991 for it's significance to American film. Should we make a list of completely foreign productions on the registry, with Lawrence of Arabia, as far as I'm aware, being the only one currently? MyPreferredUsernameWasTaken ( talk) 06:03, 4 November 2019 (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) 19:08, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
This past year, footnotes denoting the following appeared in the article:
± Indicates that the film's soundtrack or a significant piece of music featured in the film (even in variations) is also a National Recording Registry inductee.
I won't question the relevancy of the notation in general, but based on several of the titles noted, I think this cross-referencing of the two national registries requires stricter standards.
Shrek, for example, is footnoted, according to the edit history, because of the inclusion of John Cale's rendition of Leonard Cohen's "Hallelujah" in the film. However, it is not Cale's version of "Hallelujah" in the Recording Registry, nor even Cohen's, but that of Jeff Buckley. When the Registry board makes a selection, it is not the song but the particular recording of the song that is inducted. If a film does not feature this precise recording, in my opinion, it should not be cross-referenced with the Recording Registry. By extending the footnote's criteria to "variations" of recordings, not only is the specificity of the Registry misrepresented, but the number of films eligible for notation may become unwieldy.
The same standard should be applied across the board. The musicals Oklahoma!, Porgy and Bess, Show Boat and West Side Story appear on both registries, but as performed by different casts. Concert films such as Jazz On a Summer's Day, Monterey Pop, The TAMI Show and Woodstock contain several songs that are in the Recording Registry, but although performed by the same artists, they're not the specific recordings inducted. Platoon made extensive use of Samuel Barber's "Adagio For Strings", but as conducted by Georges Delerue rather than Arturo Tuscanini. 2001: A Space Odyssey famously uses "Also Sprach Zarathustra", but not as performed by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra. Manhattan uses "Rhapsody In Blue", but not as performed by Gershwin. Perhaps many in the public would not recognize a distinction between these recordings, but an encyclopedia should aspire to greater accuracy than conventional thought.
I suggest that the footnote's scope be limited to films with an actual soundtrack on the Recording Registry, such as Shaft and The Sound of Music, and films in which a registry-inducted recording appears prominently, such as American Graffiti and Bonnie and Clyde. -- 2600:1008:B045:39D8:7139:5F42:1EE5:64A8 ( talk) 01:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
In its current state, I'm wondering how this article is an FA. Aside from having a lead that's no joke only one sentence long, the article uses a rather large amount of primary sources. Although everything in the main table is sourced, both "Number of films by release year" is hardly sourced and "Filmmakers with multiple entries (3 or more)" is entirely unsourced. There are also numerous dead links. If something isn't done soon this article definitely no longer deserves the star. – zmbro ( talk) 21:11, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I skimmed the Bambi article to see why it merited inclusion in the list. I stopped and examined the content referring to the NFR as well as nearby content.
I found nothing in the article sufficiently related to the National Film Registry to recommend it as a Related Article. It does mention Bambi's inclusion in the NFR, but not with any other information about the NFR or Bambi that suggests that this inclusion was particularly interesting, unusual, or noteworty.
Thus I think Bambi should be removed from Related Articles. Unless someone can point out something I'm missing. MultiScrivner ( talk) 22:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I felt it necessary to make small rewrites in both the very first paragraph and in several subsequent sections for clarity.
If I scan the rest of the article and conclude this is a pervasive problem, how would I tag the article for proofreading and copyediting? MultiScrivner ( talk) 22:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Use Template:Proofreader needed. Dimadick ( talk) 10:28, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
On the list of films included in the registry, multiple films have ± next to their name. However, the page does not explain what this sign means. So, I suggest that a key be included above the list of films - that explains what the sign means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.35.8 ( talk) 16:34, 27 April 2022 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place to address a potential problem with the redirect
National film registry" and it has been listed
for discussion. Readers of this page are welcome to participate at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 February 8 § National film registry" until a consensus is reached.
Dsuke1998AEOS (
talk)
19:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
hey, i tried to remove Morbius because it isn't an actual movie on the Film Registry but it appears I accidentally deleted every movie. I have no idea how to fix this, i'm really sorry. Can someone fix this and then just remove Morbius? Morbiusisnotagoodmovie ( talk) 13:39, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it would be beneficial to add a column to the film section saying who the production company was on each film (or individual producers if applicable). 2601:681:4500:1830:294D:D7E5:6305:17A1 ( talk) 16:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)