Jump to content

Talk:List of films voted the best/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9

Requested move 27 September 2016

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

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)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''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.
  • Support For the reasons given above Scribolt (talk) 06:20, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I'm not convinced that the current title causes the average reader any issues. The lead paragraph explains what the inclusion criteria is (IE polls) and is a concise title. The new title is verbose and at odds with a) the rest of the articles titled "...considered the best" b) the sister article of films considered the worst and c) common sense. And is "Best Film" in Best Film polls a proper noun? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 13:24, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose as worded - I'm not especially fond of the current name, but I don't think "topping" is very encyclopedic language either. I might be open to other options, though I'm not immediately coming up with one. I also share Lugnuts' concerns. DonIago (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I understand what DonIago means by being "unencyclopedic", but I think it works better than the current title in a descriptive capacity. I honestly don't think there is a "perfect" title for this page, so rather than voting against it on the basis of holding out for a better one I think we have to make a decision on the basis of which is the best out of the two on offer. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose The current title might not be perfect, but "List of films topping Best Film polls" is not an improvement... Fortdj33 (talk) 16:02, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose Most people are searching for a "Best film(s) ever made" article when they stumble upon this one. "List of films considered the best" isn't perfect but I still think it's better than any of the proposals, it's certainly closer to WP:NATDAB than this particular proposal.LM2000 (talk) 16:22, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose eww, gross. For one thing, Best Films is irregular capitalization. Ribbet32 (talk) 00:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- the new title is not an improvement; both titles are equally bad, so no point in changing. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose I would change the section 'Best Film' but as a film fan I think this article could have better name because the "List of films considered the best" is pretty much confusing. Dr.saze (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Please note that this isn't a discussion on renaming the list in general, though you could add your thoughts on that below. This is a poll on renaming the article based on the specific proposal presented. Based on that, your vote would seem to be an Oppose, not a Support. DonIago (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Hi Lugnuts. To address your points:

  • 'The lead paragraph explains what the inclusion criteria is (IE polls)' - My issue is not the how the article describes its inclusion criteria, and I think its great that its in the lead. Its the title. Its the fact that the you don't see the lead paragraph when it appears at the bottom of a film article. I first encountered the list this at the bottom of Spirited Away which I would posit is how most readers are going to find it. And I thought it looked really weird until I looked at the article itself.
  • '...is a concise title and the new title is verbose' - 6 vs 7 words & 33 vs 37 characters.
  • 'at odds with a) the rest of the articles titled "...considered the best"' - Is there a requirement to be in sync with unrelated articles in different fields? It's currently at odds with 'List of top' articles. This shouldn't be a reason to stop improvements here.
  • 'at odds with b) the sister article of films considered the worst' - This could (should) be changed to something more descriptive and in sync with this one.
  • 'at odds with "common sense"' - I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. That the content of original title is easily understood by those who read it? There have been two rename requests in the last 6 months (and in the summary of the 1st discussion it was agreed that the title was flawed"). The article has been listed for deletion 5 times. I'm glad it wasn't, but I think that indicates that there is at least an issue with the way that the list is perceived by others. Perhaps clarifying what it is about could assist with that. Or do you mean that the proposed title is in some way at odds with common sense?
  • 'Is Best Film" a proper noun?'. Hm. Fair point, although a google search shows that this is common formatting for such content. It's certainly not consistent though.

In any case, thanks for commenting. Scribolt (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

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

Article was much more useful before

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)

Firstly, please note that new talk page discussions should generally be placed at the bottom of the page. I've taken the liberty of moving this for you.
Secondly, I'm sure everyone here would welcome suggestions for improving the article. Do you have any? DonIago (talk) 14:27, 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)

Yeah, and there are still 32 other countries with entries so even if there is some systemic bias I dispute that the article is "completely American-centric". Stuffing the article with crappy lists is a very artificial way of tackling systemic bias anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

French Military Victories

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)

There's a French entry in the Sight & Sound poll section – La Règle du jeu. Since it was voted the best movie in the entire world and not just in France, it wasn't placed in the "France" section (and because there's no other French entry and we don't want empty sections, there is no "France" section). Your observation that there is no entry for Spain is correct.
Oh, and I moved this to the bottom of the page. Sections on talk pages should be placed in the order they were added. TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Did you mean: French Military Defeats

(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:

Sri Lanka
See also: Cinema of Sri Lanka
Pura Handa Kaluwara (1997) by P. Vithanage topped the British Film Institute's critics' poll of "Top 10 Sri Lankan Films" of all time in 2002.[74]
Ananta Rathiriya (1995) by P. Vithanage topped the British Film Institute's user poll of "Top 10 Sri Lankan Films" of all time in 2002.[75]
Sweden
See also: Cinema of Sweden
Persona (1966) by Ingmar Bergman reached the highest position (#5 in 1972) of any Swedish film on any of Sight & Sound's lists of greatest films of all time.[2]
The Phantom Carriage (Körkarlen, 1921) by Victor Sjöström was voted the best Swedish film of all time by 50 film critics and academics in a poll conducted by film magazine FLM in 2012.[76]

In general – in my view – any country must deserve an entry on the form

<Name of country>
<Reference to main article about cinema of the country>
<Presentation of the most highly praised film or films of the country>

--90.224.69.229 (talk) 07:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Major cleanup necessary

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)

Issues specific to the genre list

More than one genre

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)

I agree with this suggestion, and I support this edit where you removed The Incredibles. We have an entry for best comic book/superhero film and an entry for best animated film and that's enough IMO. If we are going to have a best animated this and that I think that would be best left to an article that deals exclusively with animation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree also. Also see below. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 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)

True, its probably more accurate to describe these as sub-genres, but in any case, the proposal is to reduce unnecessary bloat. Scribolt (talk) 07:15, 30 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)

Questionable genres/subgenres

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)

I have mixed views on this. I agree that genre splitting should be avoided (i.e. Spaghetti and classic Westerns) but some of the others like "Christmas films" may be justifiable based on the amount of coverage in reliable sources. I think this would need to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis rather than a blanket cull. Betty Logan (talk) 19:34, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree in principle with trying to retain broad categories where possible, with an onus to remove the narrower ones unless it can be shown that they are significantly covered within the 'best films' critical community. My gut feeling out of the ones listed by TompaDompa would be to keep only Christmas & Comic/Superhero. In addition, I'd like to remove the x/y style wherever possible, when is a gangster film not also a crime film? Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The "/Gangster" bit was added back in 2008, when the only entry was The Godfather topping AFI's Top Ten Gangster Films (which has since been removed as the AFI only considers American films), presumably to justify the presence of a list that specifies "gangster" only. I removed it as it is completely redundant now. TompaDompa (talk) 21:31, 9 December 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)

I'd say it's too narrow. TompaDompa (talk) 15:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes' top lists

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)

Absolutely. These lists are dynamic and do not represent a "finite" poll so they need to be updated if the order has changed. Betty Logan (talk) 19:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 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)

I would not be opposed to removing those. There's also Citizen Kane at #2 overall. TompaDompa (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Issues specific to the country list

Awards

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:

  • Even if only one movie from a particular country has ever received the award, all that says is that it's the only one that was deemed the best of its year of release. It does not mean that it was better than any movies who were released different years; we don't know how it would've fared if it had competed against them directly. Think about it like this: if an editor had claimed that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences deemed The Greatest Show on Earth (film) better than Citizen Kane because the former received the Academy Award for Best Picture and the latter did not, that would've been a flagrant violation of WP:SYNTH.
  • Being the best movie of the year (or even the decade) is not what this list is about. It's about being the best. As the superlatives grow narrower, the threshold for inclusion gets lower, and the list becomes increasingly useless.

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 is an issue I was intending to bring up at some point. We would bar films ranked #1 in a top 10 of the year list and this is essentially no different. Betty Logan (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup again.Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 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)

Highest on the list from its country, but not #1 on the list

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)

Part of the problem with the English Wikipedia is that we are naturally dependent on English-language sources, which favor English language films. This does have a huge discriminatory effect against foreign language films, which is why we have this little fudge to level the game somewhat. Do you have point, yes, but if we are going to cull these types of entries then we really need a way to compensate for that beforehand otherwise we may as well just rename the article the List of English-language films considered the best. Also, I think it is worth taking the reputation of the poll into account: Tokyo Story coming third in the Sight & Sound poll is a pretty big deal IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I did not consider the discriminatory effect of the language barrier, but I'm not sure if this is the proper way to compensate for it; this method would also apply to Australia, Canada, Ireland, and other countries with a mostly English-language film industry. Perhaps there is a better way?
The Tokyo Story example is precisely the kind of thing I was referring to with "being #2 on the most notable poll". TompaDompa (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Things like the extremely notable Sights and Sounds polls explicitly do look for the best of all time, and films top other films from their countries on them. Mindful of Wikipedia:Systemic bias, I feel very strongly about including these. Ribbet32 (talk) 21:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Ugh. Tough one. I don't like the idea of restricting it to an arbitrary number in a notable list. Why 5, 10 15 or 20? And if we're worried about the threshold for inclusion going down (which I assume to mean the critically perceived quality) we shouldn't really introduce genre categories at all. If we're going to have a country list, and we have a source that says that the best film in Latvia is 'A Limousine The Colour Of Midsummer's Eve' who are we to say that it shouldn't be in the article, even if it might be generally accepted in the film community that it isn't as well considered as say, Casablanca? If we're going to do anything, we should possibly try and tighten up on the sources used to provide them. Alternatively, remove or move the country lists entirely. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to removing both the country list and the genre list from this article entirely. It may or may not be appropriate to create separate articles for them. TompaDompa (talk) 12:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd support such a removal if it came to it Scribolt (talk) 12:57, 28 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)

Exactly. If its never come top of a poll, no sources have considered it to be the best. Scribolt (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, those sources have. The best from that country. The section deals with the best per country. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Indirectly, at best. Deciding to take the qualifier into account is done not by the source, but by the Wikipedia editor adding the entry. TompaDompa (talk) 08:57, 5 December 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)

Best in its genre from its country

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)

Agree. If you have a best in the genre for each country then the article is going to become indiscrimnate. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree, as per earlier. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 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)

General issues

Best since X/Best in the last Y years

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)

Mostly agree. The only exception I would be prepared to tolerate would be one of those "best of the 20th century" lists which appeared at the time of the millenium celebrations, which pretty much accounted for most films made up to that point. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm disgusted by the bias against the fine films of the 17th century. (Yes, as per User:Betty Logan). Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 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)

Runner-ups and beyond

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)

Depends of the circumstances. If the entry is justing listing films for the sake of listing other films then I agree but sometimes they provide context i.e. in the Rotten Tomatoes section at the top we list the top two films, the second one having a perfect 100 percent rating. I am ok with that sort of thing. Betty Logan (talk) 20:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Only in exceptionally exceptional cases. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "exceptionally exceptional". Trying to limit the contents of the lists by setting artificial criteria, we are basically editorializing and trivializing a complex subject. Dimadick (talk) 22:46, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Clarification one. I meant that only in exceptionally exceptional cases should additional information as described by TompaDompa be added to the entry. Clarification two. I am well aware that there is no such thing as exceptionally exceptional. Editorialising is what everyone here does, and it is, with all due respect, a trivial subject, albeit an interesting oneScribolt (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
With all due respect, art and the arts are not trivial subjects. They are not fluffy little articles on trivial subjects such as religion. They define cultures around the planet. Dimadick (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
The arts are not trivial. Art reviews are not trivial. An attempt to actually decide the best film ever is not trivial (but that doesn't belong on WP because its OR). An article which analyses the results of critical and public reception of films when it appears in the format of a 'best film ever' type poll in order to reach conclusions about what characteristics the 'best film ever' might have would not be trivial (but that also doesn't belong on WP unless someone else has done it and we decide to paraphrase it). This article lists the results of critical and public reception of films when it appears in the sources that we accept in the format of a 'best film ever' type poll. Its useful and interesting and I support its existence (with the proviso that its cleaned up as TompaDompa is attempting to do, and the scope clarified). But imo such a list is pretty trivial. I'm here because I like this particular trivia. Scribolt (talk) 12:18, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Source issues

Date

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)

I would be against removing a poll just because we can't provide a date. If it's an online poll then it is most likely from the last decade or two. If it's a print source then it should be possible to track down with a bit of digging. I agree that it is important to give the year though. Betty Logan (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Hm, I'd argue that this issue is best considered as part of an inclusion criteria discussion, if its a very old poll we should not be using it imho, unless its to source a more obscure genre that may not attract regularly produced polls. The assumption for the reader would be that we're using the most recent sources possible, I don't think there's a huge amount of value add in adding in lots of sourcing dates inside the article text. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
What value does using "the most recent sources" give to the article? This is not a field where more research is being contacted. We should not be promoting the latest fad. Dimadick (talk) 22:49, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not about more research. It's about more movies. Polls (well, their relevance and applicability) do have an expiration date, although using only the most recent sources would indeed be overkill.
Consider the superhero genre: the results of polls conducted in 1990 and 2000 might look basically the same, but those from 2000 and 2010 most certainly would not. The reason is that a large number of highly-regarded movies in that genre was made during the latter ten-year timespan. The same thing can be said for the Brussels World's Fair's international poll – the poll itself is of historical interest to us now, but its results aren't; they don't correspond to the best movies ever, but rather the best movies up until 1958 – a much smaller sample. Basically, it's the "#Best since X/Best in the last Y years" issue, but in reverse. TompaDompa (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The Expo 58 poll is severely out of date because it omits many films that are contenders on later polls, such as Vertigo. However this poll is significant for two reasons: i) it is still the biggest poll of its kind undertaken ii) it is probably still the definitive silent film poll. Due to it covering the whole of the silent era perhaps an entry could be created under the "genre" section for "silent film" and the poll moved there? The top film is a silent film and I still believe it is relevant for silent film. Betty Logan (talk) 04:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
I see your point, but I think it's better to keep it the way it is now. For one thing, I'm not convinced there should be a "silent film" section any more than there should be a "black and white" section. For another, I think the Expo 58 poll section should be left where it is, due to the historical significance of being the first universal film poll. TompaDompa (talk) 01:31, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough, you're doing the work so I'm happy to let you make the call. BTW, the article is looking in much better shape now (i.e. it is actually a functional list) so good job! Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
The Expo 58 poll is neither the biggest poll of its kind nor the first. 117 experts voted, which was the biggest at the time, but there have been several bigger critic polls since then. Before the Expo 58 poll, there were two major polls in 1952, first the Brussels Referendum poll, followed by the Sight & Sound poll. I'm not sure what "first universal" means, because the Sight & Sound poll also involved critics from several countries. It wasn't exactly a silent film poll (only 9 of the top 12 were silent), but there was a silent film poll in the 70s, in which 63 critics and experts voted (Battleship Potemkin won). Mjf345 (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you proposing that the poll be removed? TompaDompa (talk) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
I would propose keeping it, in order to show the history of changing critical consensus (it was the biggest at the time, after all). Maybe the section could be converted to a timeline, with all of the polls in chronological order. There are several more notable polls that could be added. Mjf345 (talk) 03:24, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic

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)

The {{as of}} template should be used. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
You're going beyond my technical knowledge at this point, but agree entirely with making the access date of a dynamic poll visible. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 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)

That's a good point. If there are no objections or other reasons that they should remain, I'll remove those entries in the coming days. TompaDompa (talk) 01:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Reader polls

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)

Generally I support this suggestion but with a caveat. Some of the polls may be statistically sampled i.e. Harris Interactive correct their polls for demographic skew using legitimate statistical methods. I think polls/surveys undertaken by professional pollsters should be permitted, but polls where Total Film or their ilk simply poll their readership probably should be removed. Betty Logan (talk) 20:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I fear with this one, as with the "Highest List from its Country" thread above, will penalize marginalized countries. One of the readers' polls cited, under Canada, is "Voted the best Canadian film ever by readers of Playback in 2002." That publication is aimed specifically at the country's small industry, and is read by those with an interest in the national industry as a whole. Ribbet32 (talk) 01:33, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but it does change the entire purpose of the article. I'd be fine with it becoming a 'films that critics consider the best' (because the public are generally awful, myself excluded) but I that is deserving of a separate discussion. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Ribbet32: I'm not so sure it would penalize those countries; a glance at the country list shows that there are quite a few critics' polls from various countries, and I suspect that there are several more we have simply not found and added to the list yet. Moreover, I think the drawbacks of risking penalizing them is outweighed by the benefits of not using dubious sources for the article. TompaDompa (talk) 00:10, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Many of these sources are not dubious. What's dubious about Playback? Ribbet32 (talk) 03:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
That's the wrong question to ask. The right question is "What's dubious about Playback's readership poll?", and my answer is that it is only indicative of the views of that particular readership and therefore cannot be used to make inferences of generality. If it were a poll on politics this would be an entirely uncontroversial statement, and this is fundamentally no different. TompaDompa (talk) 09:45, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Scribolt: That could perhaps be the subject of a future RfC. TompaDompa (talk) 00:10, 29 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)

Well, that would be precisely the discussion to be had at the RfC. Scribolt (talk) 07:38, 30 November 2016 (UTC)
@Dimadick: I'd like to clarify something: I'm not proposing to get rid of all audience polls. I'm proposing to specifically get rid of those limited to the readership of a particular periodical. That's where the selection bias I'm referring to is located. I don't think that would be overemphasizing critics' views; the analogous case with critics (all of them being selected from the same periodical) would be #Editorial picks, which you'll notice I also propose removing – it's not about critics vs. the public, but a non-representative subset of each. TompaDompa (talk) 23:25, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't support this. Again, some of those "particular periodical"s cover very small industries, and it's not like many periodicals cover very small industries. The results are published and notable. It doesn't change the scope of the article; "considered the best" is a broad concept. Ribbet32 (talk) 03:10, 23 December 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)

Editorial picks

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)

I'm on board with that. Most of my cleanup work on this article has been removing this type of list. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I see what your concern is, but I'm a little worried that we'll end up excluding some usable lists and retaining those thrown together by an intern somewhere that appears doesn't appear to be the work of one individual. Could you give an example of what this would mean in practice? Would this be excluded? https://www.theguardian.com/film/filmblog/2013/nov/25/top-10-sports-movies When does something cease to be an 'editorial pick'? In addition, aren't we again getting closer to changing the definition of the article? One of my motivations for renaming the article was to resolve some of these issues, changing the inclusion criteria to exclude all opinion pieces (so everything except polls?) seems like scope change. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
That would be excluded, yes. I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "When does something cease to be an 'editorial pick'?" – there doesn't seem to be much room for ambiguity to me. I wouldn't say that it'd be getting closer to changing the definition, but rather that it'd be tightening up the guidelines to be clear-cut and enforceable. TompaDompa (talk) 23:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
OK, I see where you meant (and read in conjunction with your reply below). My comprehension skills, not your communication. So, agree. Scribolt (talk) 06:54, 29 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)

@Dimadick: My point exactly. The current phrasing is vague and subjective. Disallowing editorial picks entirely would solve that problem. TompaDompa (talk) 06:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Polls of critics and filmmakers

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)

I don't think we should set arbitrary limits. If we permit 50 then why shouldn't we allow 40? Also, I imagine a poll of 20 directors which include people like Scorsese and Spielberg might be pretty notable. I think with industry polls we would need to look at the wider context of the poll, but I think this list has far more immediate problems than sample sizes. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't see how this would work in practice Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
The way it would work in practice is that the polls state how many people were polled (e.g. "160 Italian film critics"), and if that number is too low or missing, the entry is removed. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 28 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)

Yes, I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. That being said, I don't think a poll with a sample of five people should be added even with that caveat. While that's a pretty extreme example that we're not likely to encounter, there are polls with few enough respondents that I think their inclusion is questionable. TompaDompa (talk) 06:24, 30 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)

Honestly, I think it would be better to remove the sound entry. I'm not sure if it's better to leave it as it is or to remove it, but adding a "sound" genre seems silly to me. TompaDompa (talk) 08:24, 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)

I support this with a caveat. Some online entries may have hardcopy counterparts (I know Total Film existed as a magazine) so if entries are removed purely on the grounds that the link has died we really need to make sure that the list does not exist in a different format. Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
I guess. If they've died though, I'd question how recent and therefore relevant they would actually be. Scribolt (talk) 08:28, 28 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)

I looked through those of my edits on this article which had the word "dead" in the edit summary, and it seems like everything worth salvaging was salvaged. Feel free to double check that. TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

50 Greatest Pinoy Films of All Time

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)

Based on who voted (81 critics, filmmakers, and experts), the poll itself is clearly notable. Pinoy Rebyu is the blog of the people who ran the poll, so it's the primary source. If a second source is needed, Noel Vera wrote about the poll on his own blog. Noel Vera's blog would be an exception to the rule because he's one of the most famous Philippine film critics who has written for several reliable third-party publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjf345 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry but it does not work like that. I could delve into the Sight & Sound archives and mash up the individual lists into my own poll, or write to critics myself for their lists. The notability of a poll isn't just determined by its participants, it is also determined by who runs it because they are responsible for selection and ranking. So the question is who are Pinoy Rebyu and what evidence can you provide of their notability? Betty Logan (talk) 20:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
The editor of Pinoy Rebyu (and the person who ran the poll), Skilty Labastilla, is a staff member of the Institute of Philippine Culture, a member of the Young Critics Circle, and a professor. Is that sufficient? Mjf345 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
IMO it is not a notable poll. The author is not qualified in film media and does not appear to have a career in film journalism. This blog appears to be a hobby site. If I were reviewing the page for FL status I would not pass it with this poll present. However, TompaDompa has recently undertaken a huge effort to bring this list up to scratch so I will defer to him on this issue. If he supports its inclusion I will drop the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I did remove that source before, but that was because it accompanied a claim it didn't verify. However, I decided to remove it altogether instead of correcting the claim because it seemed to violate WP:BLOGS. That hasn't changed. Unless it can be demonstrated that this is covered by the possible exception 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)
Skilty Labastilla has written multiple film reviews for the Young Critics Circle. Here's an example (page 21). He also wrote a film review for the University of the Philippines Diliman Journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjf345 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
That may justify citing him in a reviews section, it does not make the poll notable. The poll has not being undertaken by a notable organization and has not been subject to any editorial oversight as far as I can see. Betty Logan (talk) 13:18, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Korean Film Archive

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)

That's a good solution. The problem with a tie is that we can't pick which movie to make an entry for. TompaDompa (talk) 13:55, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time

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)

That name....

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)

A little background: The issue of the title has been brought up previously, including earlier this year (see #Rename & #Requested move 6 June 2016). No definitive action was taken at that time. The current one was chosen so as to be in line with List of films considered the worst (see Talk:Films considered the greatest ever/Archive 6#Requested move (fixed)).
For the record, I agree that the current title is not exactly ideal. While I understand the reasoning behind it, I find the similarities between this article and List of films considered the worst to be mostly superficial. If a new title is chosen, I'd prefer the word "poll" to be somewhere in it, if for no other reason than it makes for a clear exclusion criterion ("That's not a poll, just one person's opinion"). I do think that the current title should be kept as a redirect in the event of a rename, though. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The title is less than ideal but nothing better has ever been proposed.LM2000 (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
The one thing every single editor agrees on is that the title needs to change. The last RFC failed, but did throw up some alternatives. I proposed List of films that have topped Best Film polls and another editor revised this suggestion to List of top films in polls which was acceptable to me. I like the idea of having "polls" in the title since the aim is to reflect critical/industry consensus rather than individual opinions. Betty Logan (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree totally, TompaDompa & Betty Logan. That's why nearly all of mine included either the word polls or referenced that the fact that the reason they were in the list was because a group of people has considered them the 'best'. And that's what's missing in the title at the moment. I liked your original suggestion more than the proposed alternative because it clearly describes the inclusion criteria, unlike the other (it's still better than what we have, but a 'the top film in polls' just doesn't read as nicely, I'd be happy to support it. And if it's a major issue, we can always make a similar change for the worst films page.
So, what happens next? There seems to be agreement that the current name is unacceptable and at least the three of us think that polls should be referenced in the title. I don't know how the mechanics of an RM work, can there only be one proposal in an RM or several? If anyone wants to explain to me how to do it, I'd be happy to start it myself...Scribolt (talk) 05:53, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
There is no limit on options in an RM, but if you gets lots of editors selecting different options then you invariably end up with a "no consensus" close because the spread of opinion is too wide. I say we get a single cast iron suggestion in this discussion and then throw our collective weight behind it. Here is another suggestion which combines my previous two: List of films topping Best Film polls. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Sold. I'd support List of films topping Best Film polls Scribolt (talk) 13:39, 12 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)

It worked. I think that suggestion is a definite improvement, compared to the current title. TompaDompa (talk) 06:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
Give it a couple of days. If nobody shoots it down then launch the RM. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Discussion after failed RM

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)

I hope you don't mind my adding a subheading to this part of the discussion (I figured it'd be less confusing in the future). In order to get this discussion going again, I'll ping the same users that were notified in September. @BU Rob13, Betty Logan, Scribolt, MarnetteD, Steel1943, LM2000, Lugnuts, Anarchyte, and Sock: That would be you. TompaDompa (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't mind it but it's not much different to the last proposal and that was comprehensively defeated so I don't fancy its chances. Also, I suggest restarting this at the bottom of the page. It took me quite a long time to locate the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 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 disclaimer at the top

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. None of the surveys that produced these citations should be viewed as a scientific measurement of the opinions of film viewers.
  2. Each may suffer the effects of vote stacking or skewed demographics.
  3. Internet-based surveys have a self-selected audience of unknown participants.
  4. The methodology of some surveys may be questionable.
  5. Sometimes (as in the case of the American Film Institute) voters were asked to select films from a limited list of entries.

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)

Your points are all valid but we obviously still need a lead. I don't mind you taking a bash at re-writing it. If you don't I might have a go in the next week or two. Betty Logan (talk) 12:57, 26 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)

I can't claim to be particularly good at writing leads, but that looks like an improvement to me. TompaDompa (talk) 14:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Removing the Globalize/US template from the genre section

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)

For the record, this is what the page looked like when the template was added.
I don't have any issue with removing the template. TompaDompa (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Highest rated films in film databases

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)

I'd really rather not; IMDb has an incredibly poor reputation with regards to vote stacking and bias in favour of newer releases, among other things. TompaDompa (talk) 08:20, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The Shawshank Redemption has been #1 continuously since August 2008, so at least the #1 spot doesn't seem to be affected very much by recency bias. The audience polls "My Favourite Film" and "Die besten Filme aller Zeiten" seem to have more recency bias than IMDb. Is there evidence that IMDb has more vote stacking than other polls? Mjf345 (talk) 09:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Before that, The Godfather was #1 for almost ten years (except for a short while right after the release of The Fellowship of the Ring). The Shawshank Redemption overtaking it is generally considered to be a side-effect of vote stacking at the release of The Dark Knight. Like I said, IMDb's reputation is that it's kind of rubbish.
It's also worth noting that the IMDb top 250 is qualitatively different from the online polls mentioned in the article in two major ways. One is that it doesn't ask respondents to select the best film, only to rate films on a scale from 1 to 10. The other is that it's ongoing since at least 1996. TompaDompa (talk) 10:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't doubt that IMDb has vote stacking, but I'm not convinced that its effect near the top of the chart is large, or that other audience polls have less vote stacking. When The Dark Knight was released, the ratings of The Shawshank Redemption and The Godfather changed by less than 0.1 each. Were there any measures in place to prevent vote stacking in the internet polls "Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time" and "My Favourite Film"? I think IMDb gets more criticism than other polls mainly because it's more well-known. Mjf345 (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
IMDb probably gets more criticism partly because it's more well-known (as a comparison, the audience ratings on Rotten Tomatoes are absolutely ludicrous—Shrek 2 went from 228,151 votes in December 2010 to 32,633,709 votes in September 2011 for example—but since not many people pay attention to those they don't get criticized), but also because it's continuously updated (every hour, I believe) which makes it easy for anyone to see the effects. To put it bluntly, "IMDb's user ratings are garbage" is not a controversial statement.
Anyway, I wouldn't know about the other polls, but we shouldn't include stuff we know to be unreliable just because some of the stuff already included may also be unreliable. If anything, we should remove the stuff we're not sure about. TompaDompa (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Every internet poll and most audience polls are known to be unreliable, but unlike most, IMDb uses various methods to reduce the effect of vote stacking (see this page). I think removing all of those polls would just make the article more biased.
Another issue is that excluding the IMDb top 250 violates WP:DUE. "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." The IMDb top 250 is referred to as an example of popular movie taste in many reliable sources. Some of those sources also point out its flaws, but it still gets mentioned much more than any other audience poll. Mjf345 (talk) 01:32, 16 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)

I think IMDB Top 250 should be included. That list seems stable and more resistive to vote stuffing. Probably the only larger sample size than IMDB (Netflix/Amazon/RT next?) is using box office receipts (some producers would say the highest ROI is "best"). More info on IMDB ratings: IMDB top 250 voting FAQ, IMDB ratings over the years, Combined IMDB & RT & MC No one gave any bad IMDB citations so here are two: 538 on Gunday and Wired on Indies. StrayBolt (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm typically against any mention of audience tallies, especially IMDB, per MOS:FILM#Audience_response. I think there is an exception to be made for listing Shawshank Redemption in this article though, given that its spot at the top has been mention in secondary sources, making it notable, and it has been stable for almost a decade.LM2000 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
I posted something, with a few details and a caveat.StrayBolt (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
I think that was kind of jumping the gun a bit. There's WP:NOCONSENSUS to add it. Since only a handful of people seem to be posting on this talk page, it would probably be necessary to start a WP:RfC to reach any consensus at all (considering how the above discussion went back in January). I reverted the addition pending consensus . TompaDompa (talk) 23:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a proposition to add "Earth" to the list of ukrainian movies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_(1930_film)

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)

That would necessitate citing a notable poll ranking it as the best. If such a poll is cited, there is no reason not to add it. TompaDompa (talk) 17:13, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any polls where Stone Cross was #1 (it was #4 in the already-cited Ukranian poll). Earth was #2 in the Ukranian poll, and it made the Sight & Sound top 20 in both 1952 and 1962, making it the highest ranked Ukranian film (although it only got 7 votes in 1952 and 8 votes in 1962, so I'm not sure if that's notable enough). Mjf345 (talk) 03:51, 30 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).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Delete this article!

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)

If you think it should be deleted then nominate it at AfD. The article talk page is for maintaining the article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:28, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Metacritic placings

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)

It looks like they don't include "re-releases" in their "all" list. That appears to be most of the missing movies in "all", whether they got "100" or not. They may have some other criteria for exclusion, but I think it is only for a few others. So Lawrence of Arabia (re-release) ranks top for many genre, but it isn't on the "all" list. The rank is based on the weighted score although they have noticed a shift when movies are released on video. StrayBolt (talk) 06:51, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Number 154 in the 2012 Sight & Sound critics' poll

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)

As far as Sight & Sound is concerned it is the top 10 that is historically noteworthy; the other films are essentially the runners-up so I agree with not including a film ranked 154. Any foreign films that make the top 10 should be included in teh relevant country sections IMO. If you go down far enough you end up with films that are only backed by personal preference rather than critical consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The same logic applies to Rotten Tomatoes' genre listings. The films topping the genre listings are runner-ups, many not making the top 10 of the main list and some not even in the top 100. So why include Rotten Tomatoes runner-ups and not Sight & Sound runner-ups? Sight & Sound polls are far more prestigious and representative of the critical consensus on greatest films than Rotten Tomatoes aggregates are. And in the case of animation, BFI themselves have cited My Neighbor Totoro as the best-ranking animated film, so it's not original research and it clearly represents critical consensus on the best animated film. If you think that's a non-accomplishment, then nearly all the Rotten Tomatoes genre listings are also non-accomplishments by that logic. Maestro2016 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I don't think S&S is more representative in this case. S&S only mention My Neighbor Totoro by way of pointing out how few critics had actually voted for animated films. In the S&S poll 11 critics and 3 directors voted for My Neighbor Totoro whereas 323 critics voted Inside Out the top animated film on Rotten Tomatoes. It is very difficult to make the case that 11 people constitute a consensus. In the case of the top films in each survey, 191 critics voted for Vertigo in the S&S poll while 110 critics promoted The Wizard of Oz to the top of Rotten Tomatoes. The fact is while S&S may be more "prestigious" representation tails off very fast. By 10th place you are down to about 60 votes on the critics poll and 30 votes on the directors poll. Sight & Sound cut off the main critics poll at #50 and the main directors poll at #10, both at around 30 votes. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
You can't directly compare the number of critics on S&S and RT like that. The RT critics were not asked what they think is the best film of all time, but only give a thumbs-up or thumbs-down to the films they review. You cannot determine the best film of all time merely on the basis of how many critics give it a thumbs-up. If you asked those same critics what the best films of all time are, most of those films getting the most thumbs-up wouldn't be anywhere on the radar of the best films of all time. This is why critics' polls like S&S are far more reliable than aggregate sites like RT, which is a terrible way to determine the best films of all time. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Case in point: The Wizard of Oz is the highest-ranking film on the RT top 100, with 110 critics giving it a 99% score. And yet on the S&S poll, it didn't even make the top 100 on either the critics' or directors' polls. In fact, The Wizard of Oz was only voted by 12 critics and 2 directors, the same number of people as My Neighbor Totoro. It only goes to show that RT is a poor way of determining the best films of all time. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:15, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The whole point of having a list of polls is because no single poll has a monopoly on being right. They poll different people and have different methodologies. The only criteria here is that the poll or survey is noteworthy and the picks we include should represent the consensus of those polled. Rotten Tomatoes explicitly sets the threshold for this consensus at 40 critics. Sight & Sound don't have an explicit threshold but both the main critics poll and the main directors poll break away at around 30 votes, so it seems sensible to follow their lead on this. Either way I think we can be reasonably sure that we can't extrapolate a consensus from just 11 critics. Betty Logan (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
On S&S, each critic can only pick their 10 best films of all time. On RT, each critic can give a thumbs-up to hundreds of different films. So of course each film on RT is going to have a much higher number of critics. Like The Wizard of Oz example shows, despite getting 110 critics on RT, it only got 12 critics on S&S (just one more than My Neighbor Totoro). Also, the point isn't about the best films of all time, but the best films of each genre. You're questioning the inclusion of the best-ranked animated film on S&S, yet have no qualms about including the best-ranked animated film on RT, despite its methodology being vastly inferior to S&S. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Besides, RT is not even a poll. It's an aggregator. It did not go around polling critics on what are the best films of all time. All it does is aggregate reviews and tell us which films got the most thumbs-up. What S&S does is actual polling. What RT does is aggregating reviews. S&S may not have a monopoly on being right, but it is vastly preferable to the flawed methodology of RT. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Rotten Tomatoes is a survey that simply asks the question in a different way. It is not particularly relevant anyway: the criterion for a poll/survey being included is its noteworthyness, not its perceived quality by Wikipedia editors. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Time Out animation poll

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)

Agreed. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 15:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
At the source, on the "who voted" page, it says "Then we used their choices to inform our own final countdown of the 100 best animated movies." This means that Pinocchio is an editorial pick, so it shouldn't be included in the article. Spirited Away got 39 votes and Pinocchio got 29 votes, and there was no category where Pinocchio got more votes. If they used the most common scoring system (#1 = 10 points ... #10 = 1 point, unranked = 5.5 points), Spirited Away still wins. I think the Time Out editors just didn't like the results, so they changed the list to fit their own taste. I think either Spirited Away or neither film should be mentioned in the article (or perhaps both, with an explanation, but that might be too much information to put in the article).
They did the same thing with other polls (ran a poll, then published their own version of the list), but usually they only reorder the lower-ranked films. This is the only Time Out poll where they changed the winner. Mjf345 (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Very well. I removed it. TompaDompa (talk) 11:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I am not entirely convinced that Time Out have fudged their results here; they could be weighting some contributors according to their expertise, or weighting each contributor so that each group has equal weight. I don't think we should be chucking out polls simply because we don't understand or agree with their methodology. Betty Logan (talk) 12:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
I agree in principle, but I don't know any other way to interpret "We spoke to animators, directors, curators, academics and film critics. [...] Then we used their choices to inform our own final countdown of the 100 best animated movies." than that this is an editorial pick situation. TompaDompa (talk) 12:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Isn't that what every poll and survey does though? Every data set has to be assembled into some kind of order. For example, every poll needs to decide whether it is going to simply count mentions or whether it will prescribe a scoring system; and if you are going to prescribe a scoring system you have to determine what sort of increments or weightings you are going to have. I don't really see how you can separate the Time Out poll from say the Sight & Sound poll. They both survey critics and industry experts and then produce an ordered list from the data collated. Personally I think this is setting a dangerous precedent. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Unusual scoring systems are ok with me. I'm just suspicious because of the "our own" quote that I posted above (but maybe I'm misinterpreting the quote). I don't know if they used a real system, or if they estimated the ranks in their head, or if they purposely fudged it. I just looked at the results more closely, and it looks similar to a rank-based point system, but I can't think of any formula that comes close to matching their results. I also noticed a few obvious mistakes, but I don't know if they're calculation errors or intentional fudging. For example, Peter Pan (#3, #7) made the top 100 and Charlotte's Web (#2, #6) didn't make the top 100. James and the Giant Peach (#4, #8, #10) is ranked higher than Kirikou and the Sorceress (#4, #7, #8).
I think it's unlikely that some contributors have more weight than others. I can't think of any other movie poll that has done that. Mjf345 (talk) 06:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Metacritic use a weighted score (which seems a good idea to me because internet reviews vastly outnumber press published reviews these days). The Harris polls use weighting to normalize demographic skew as well (which is necessary to get your sample to match the population). In the case of the Time Out poll weighting would be useful if you wanted critics, filmmakers and animation experts to have equal influence but you didn't have an equal number of voters in each category (i.e. you wanted each category to exert precisely one third control on the outcome but had twice as many critics as any other expert). I'm not saying that's what they have done—the problem here is we don't know what they have done—but we can't look under the curtain for any of these polls. Betty Logan (talk) 13:25, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Dave Calhoun and Joshua Rothkopf (the article editors) are on Twitter, in case anyone wants to ask them about the scoring system (I'd do it myself if I could send a private message, but I don't really want to post a public tweet). Mjf345 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Non-neutral entries

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. - TheMagnificentist 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC) - TheMagnificentist 05:03, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that fan polls with fewer than 500 votes should not be included. Perhaps you could tag the entries with {{lopsided}} so we can take a closer look at the problem. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
I'll do. - TheMagnificentist 12:42, 15 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:

  • Audience polls: Entertainment Weekly (popular magazine), Time Out (popular magazine). For the Time Out poll, "more than 1,000 films were nominated," but we don't know the number of voters. Although I can't find the number of voters for the My Favourite Film poll, they had a guestbook with over 1000 comments, so the number of voters was probably much more than that.
  • Genres
    • Action: Rolling Stone (popular magazine)
    • Christmas: Empire (popular magazine)
    • Comedy: Total Film (popular magazine), The Guardian (popular magazine)
    • Comic/superhero: Rolling Stone (popular magazine)
    • Horror: Total Film (popular magazine)
    • Musical: The Observer (popular magazine)
    • Sports: Digital Spy (internet poll on popular website). We know that the winner got 18.7% of the votes, and voters chose from a list of 25 films, but we don't know the number of voters.
  • Countries
    • Australia: Australian Film Institute and Australia Post (internet poll conducted by film institute)
    • Chile: Municipality of Santiago (I'm not sure what type of poll it was, but if it was organized by the municipality, it might have been a big poll)
    • BFI South Asian user polls (Bangladesh, India, Pakistan, Sri Lanka) (poll conducted by film institute) Mjf345 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Animation shorts sub-section

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)

Any short that competed against feature length animation should be included in the main animation category. It only makes sense to have an animated-short sub-section if the poll/survey was specifically limited to animated shorts. I am ok with keeping the sub-section. As you say it is a combination category but the reason why we prohibit combinations is because the pool of films is generally too small and could lead to indiscriminate selections; on the other hand animated shorts as a "group" is more prolific than most other genres so there isn't any danger of it being indiscriminate. Betty Logan (talk) 22:50, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Spirited Away and Maestro2016

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)

The only reason I added back Spirited Away is because I saw Ratatouille added back there, even though Metacritic does not explicitly rank it the #1 animation, but gives both the same user rating. My stance is, either add both of them, or don't add either of them. Anyway, it seems like you've removed both, so I'm fine with that too. Maestro2016 (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
It is not about my stance or your stance, it is about Metacritic's stance. Metacritic's stance is that they explicitly rank Ratatouille above Spirited Away despite an equal score, so regardless of whether Ratatouille is listed here or not you shouldn't be adding Spirited Away.Citizen Kane, The Godfather and Casablanca all have the same score on Metacritic's all-time chart yet they only rank one of those films #1. There is a clear precedent on Metacritic for films having the same score but different rankings so it is WP:Original research to assume that films with the same score have an equal rank. Betty Logan (talk) 22:18, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
I'm assuming they have more digits of precision other than the integer value from their calculated weighted score. I also saw the intervening film in the "all" list, but that doesn't prove it still isn't in a tie. I feel it is worth having the top one and include the ref to the list to explore further, than not including at all. I haven't noticed any differences of order between the all and genre lists, but I haven't looked in careful detail. We should only list the highest film that appear both in "all" and the genre. StrayBolt (talk) 22:45, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Metacritic don't make it clear how their genre lists are to be interpreted, which is the main problem for us. Their genre lists simply list each film on each score. On the other hand their "Best Films" list assign an explicit ranking so it's clear how that list should be interpreted. That's why I think it is acceptable to draw from their main list but not their genre lists. Just as an example there are seven original (i.e. non-rereleased) films that scored 100 in the drama genre, so if we accepted score draws from Metacritic we would end up adding literally dozens of films to the list because we would be compelled to list all films that shared the top score. I think that casts the net too wide open and it's not really what this article is about. Betty Logan (talk) 21:37, 20 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)

I'm a bit torn on this. There are two components to this issue: what to do with ties, and whether this is one.
  • On the general subject of ties, I think two-way ties should sometimes be included, but always discussed first. Three-way ties may be appropriate in extremely rare cases. Anything beyond that is right out.
  • In this particular case, I'm unsure. On the one hand, there are no explicit numerical rankings. On the other, the movies are listed in a particular order, and Metacritic doesn't do ties on the lists where there are explicit numeral rankings. I'm leaning towards interpreting this as Ratatouille being ranked ahead of Spirited Away, and thus there being no tie in this case.
I'll fall back on my general view here: When in doubt, exclude. It's far more important that the information on Wikipedia is correct than exhaustive. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
Everything on this list is very subjective and arbitrary, from the "voters" opinions to the criteria for inclusion in the list, so I am in favor of diversity and inclusion (in general). Look what happened with the 2012 Sight and Sound when it quadrupled its size. With that being said, I still think unless they indicate a tie, we should just list the top/first one (unless they say it is unordered). We can say "Topped the list", but not "Beat out all others" if it is unclear. I think they are sorted with more precision than is displayed, but it is likely statistically insignificant in most cases. For this case, Ratatouille should be listed and not Spirited Away.StrayBolt (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
My personal preference would be to use a "double lock" system. By this I mean we would only accept a film if it gets the highest score (solely or jointly) on a genre list, and if it gets ranked higher than the other films on the list at Metacritic's All-time list. IMO that would qualify its genre and chart topping credentials. In this capacity that would see Ratatouille admitted to the list on the basis it jointly holds the genre hi-score and ranks above all other films on the all-time list. Conversely Spirited Away does not, so it would not be included. Citizen Kane would be added to Drama because it shares the drama hi-score and it tops the all-time list, while The Godfather would not because it is ranked below Citizen Kane. However, The Godfather shares the crime hi-score and is above all other crime movies on the all-time list, so would qualify as the top crime movie. I don't know if that is clear, but that is how I would prefer to approach the Metacritic lists. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 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.

  • On the all-time list, I calculated the average ratings of the first 13 films on the list (the number in parentheses is the Metacritic score): 99.44 (100), 98.67 (100), 98.22 (100), 97.48 (100), 95.56 (100), 96.36 (99), 96.45 (98), 95.86 (98), 95.61 (98), 95.47 (97), 94.89 (97), 94.22 (97), 94 (97)
  • There definitely seems to be a correlation between average rating and rank, even among films with the same Metacritic score. Only 2 films are out of place, but this is probably because some critics are given more weight than others.
  • The genre lists are in exactly the same order as the all-time lists, so I think we can assume that they are ranked. The only difference is the exclusions.
    • A film must have at least 7 reviews to be on the all-time list, and at least 4 reviews to be on a genre list. Best Kept Secret only has 4 reviews, so it's not on the all-time list.
    • Re-releases are excluded from the all-time list but not from the genre lists. Army of Shadows is excluded even though it's not listed as a re-release, but it actually is a re-release.
    • Dekalog may have been excluded from the all-time list because it's a TV series, but I don't know why it's the only TV series on the drama list.Mjf345 (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Straw poll

This discussion seems to have stalled, so I think we should establish where everyone stands. These are the options as I see them:

  1. Accept every film that shares a high-score in its genre catgeory at Metacritic (would result in accepting both Ratatouille and Spirited Away)
  2. Reject the Metacritic polls outright
  3. Limit selection to the film that shares a high-score in Metacritic's genre categories and is ranked the highest out of its category on the all-time list (this would result in retaining Ratatouille).
  4. Just use Metacritic's all-time list, limiting selection to the highest ranked film that appears in a particular genre (this would also result in retaining Ratatouille in this case).

Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

  • Support option 3 or 4; can live with option 2 but reject option 1 for the reasons stated above. Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support option 2; I don't quite understand the difference between options 3 and 4, but in general I don't think Metacritic is a good source because their threshold for inclusion in lists is so low (as of my writing this, the top 5 movies—all with perfect scores of 100—have 18, 15, 18, 50, and 9 reviews, respectively). I reject option 1 altogether. TompaDompa (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Some films in the genre categories that have lower scores have a higher placement on the all-time list. For example, Moonlight only has a score of 99 but on the all-time list appears above films that have 100. So option #3 imposes an extra restriction on option #4 in that a film has the highest score as well as the highest ranking out of its genre. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    I haven't see that happen. What is your counterexample, Moonlight and what? I think many movies are excluded from the all-time list (rereleases, few reviews,...) and that is why I think they need to be on both lists. I have not seen movies in different order between the two lists. If they were, my only explanation is some update delay. StrayBolt (talk) 19:13, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
    Ignoring the reissues, both Dekalog and Best Kept Secret scored 100 but are not included on the all-time list while Moonlight is. In this particular case Citizen Kane is the top drama film so it is academic in this instance, but there may be cases where the top film on the all-time list does not have the highest score on the genre lists. Option 3 is basically just a "cover all bases" suggestion. In many cases option 3 will default to option 4 (as it does with animation) and it may well do that in all cases, but having not been through every list I couldn't say for sure. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
  • Support option 4; Highest rank and on both all/genre lists, ignore scores, Ratatouille but no Spirited Away. StrayBolt (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Logan to Superhero Films

Shouldn't Logan be added to the superhero section? - Theironminer (talk) 00:08, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

It definitely should be. There's a pretty extensive list of sources calling one of the best superhero movies ever made on the page for it, no idea why it's not added here. 2601:681:5280:3CE7:B168:D856:3513:D0ED (talk) 03:42, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
"One of the best" is not enough. It was added back in June, and after removing all the sources that didn't meet this list's criteria, only the Rotten Tomatoes list remained. Since then, the movie has been overtaken by Wonder Woman on that list. TompaDompa (talk) 08:53, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Possible neutrality issues with images in the article

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)

My "biases", known to me, are: multiple polls, availability of images, time to add, space per section, and knowledge of the movie. I was starting with ones that had "won" multiple major polls to add. Then, I found out the difficulty in finding usable images in the commons; there are very few. I was adding one when I had the interest and time. Because the pictures are large, even when they are small, they can overflow any section with only a few lines (thought about placing it before the section line, but that would add complications). And I wanted to know that the image could represent the movie well. That restriction has fallen away. Today, I was looking to add more non-American/Hollywood images today, but didn't find any on top. Please add more images. I was keeping them all to the right making it easier to scan the article. The "Kane" image is large and one could select another when there are more to add to that section (although "Kane" might object to making it smaller). StrayBolt (talk) 08:46, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
There certainly is room for more images in the body of the article. Can we just add more or is there some general limit to images in articles? Mr. Magoo (talk) 21:37, 31 August 2017 (UTC)
I don't think there is a limit (the restrictions apply more to what type of material we can use) although we need to take care to ensure the article isn't overwhelmed with images scrunched up against each other. But my concern is more about the neutrality i.e. fair representation for other countries and making sure it isn't turned into a Hollywood showreel. It would also be wise to select films that feature prominently if free material is available i.e. films that appear more than once. Betty Logan (talk) 10:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Get Out (2017)

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)

Can you clarify what you mean? I have just checked both entries on Rotten Tomatoes and it is listed in the #1 position on both lists: [2] and [3]. Betty Logan (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
  • There have been more recent removals of Get Out from the comedy section. It is clear many editors disagree that Get Out is a comedy, and many sources appear to agree with them; on the other hand there are plenty of sources that regard it is a satire, which is a sub-genre of comedy, so there is a clear rationale for why it makes Rotten Tomatoes' list of comedies. Ultimately though, it is not our place as editors to challenge a genre designation or a ranking, because the sole aim of the list is to record films that have topped various reliable and notables polls. No doubt we would accept this list if a Charlie Chaplin film was in top place, in which case we should accept the list in its current form. Betty Logan (talk) 19:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree entirely. I see that you added a note to that effect, which should hopefully keep this from happening again. TompaDompa (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Image alignment

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 and original research

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:

  • 'Wonder Woman is not disqualified because you have found a film with a higher rating. It qualifies because Rotten Tomatoes ranks it #1 on their list of greatest superhero films.
  • Raging Bull does not qualify because our Raging Bull article claims it is Scorsese's best film
  • Raging Bull does not qualify on the basis that the AF ranks it higher than Rocky.
  • Raging Bull does not qualify on the basis that the AFI rank it top of their list because they only list American sport films; it would need to top a poll of top sport films or top American films, as that is how the list is structured. There obviously isn't enough space for every genre in every country.

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)

Images

I think we need a few basic rules for images, so I am outlining here what I think the criteria should be:

  1. Images must be in the public domain hosted on the Commons. Non-free images require a fair use and I cannot envisage any scenario where we could manufacture a fair use rationale for a list entry. Non-free images must basically identify the topic of the article or they must support sourced-commentary; neither of which are applicable to list entries.
  2. Images should be spaced out sufficiently to not cause any alignment problems. This should should be true of all standard resolutions i.e. any display between 1000 and 2000 pixels wide.
  3. Images added to sections should represent a film in that section.

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)

I was using "thumb" for the width and the default "right" for position since this is a "list". Also, here is a prior discussion about image neutrality (US bias). Also, some images in the Commons have expired copyrights for the US, but not elsewhere in the world. Are they allowed? StrayBolt (talk) 03:09, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
I think thumb and right alignment is the best way to go. If we have images of different sizes and all other place it will start to look untidy. The way I understand it is that we can add anything that is on Commons because we don't need a FUR for that. If you do add more images it may be worth using a display simulator to check alignment on wide displays. This is what I use because I'm only on a 1366x768 laptop: http://www.infobyip.com/testwebsiteresolution.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FList_of_films_considered_the_best&width=1920&height=1200&in_browser=false. Betty Logan (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Country classifications

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):

  1. Soviet Union – I notice there are some films that were produced within the Soviet Union but have been assigned to their constituent countries. If a film is voted "best Russian" or "best Ukrainian" film then that is fine, but I think there is an WP:OR issue when these films are plucked from non-national polls and assigned to various countries. For example, both The Mirror (1975 film) and Man with a Movie Camera were added to the Russian and Ukrianian entries respectively. It is not especially clear to me how this is determined, since both articles give the country as "Soviet Union". I think we should create a separate Soviet Union entry for Soviet era films of this era.
  2. Czech/Slovak – This is relatively simple for recent films, but there are Czech-Slovak films listed under the Czech-Republic entry which are excluded from the Slovakia entry and vice versa and it is not clear to me why. Given the the history of these two countries I think it would be best if we combined the two countries into a single Czech-Slovak entry which catalogs films from the union era. We could create two separate sub-entries for the Czech Republic and Slovakia for recent films, but it makes sense to group all the films from these two countries together.
  3. My third point also relates to the Czech entry too. Bedivere.cs also expanded the Marketa Lazarova enrty to state that it was voted the best "Czech" film by the 2012 Sight & Sound poll. I am not disputing this but I find it impossible to verify. First of all the BFI count it as Czechoslovakian which relates to my point above, but second of all they rank it 154th on the critics' poll. There is a verification issue here because the BFI only provide an explicit list of the top 100, unless I am missing something. How can we be sure there are no other Czech films between 101 and 153? Unless this can be corroborated in some trivial way I propose removing it. If the BFI can only be bothered to list the top 100 then it is a stretch to call any film outside of that threshold as the best of anything.

Betty Logan (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

  1. It was determined by production company. If a film was produced by company or studio based in Russia, then it is listed under Russia. The same applies to other coutries.
  2. Practically the same. If it was produced by company or studio based in the Czech Republic then it is listed under the Czech republic. It should be noted that Czech Republic and Slovak Republic existed prior 1993 as federal republic of Czechoslovakia. Controversial part might be The Shop on Main Street which was produced in Barrandov Studio and thus is considered a Czech film but Slovaks tend to diagree and call it a Slovak film because it was filmed by Slovak crew and in Slovak language. It seemed to me as fair to list it under Slovakia along with the mention of conflict over whether the film is Slovak or Czech. But this film is a sole conflict most films produced in Czechoslovakia can be listed to one of those 2 vountries without problem.
  3. I added 2 sources and one of them clearly states that Marketa Lazarová is The best Czech film ever made – according to the Sight and Sound Poll 2012 so there shouldn't be another Czech film beetween 101-153. --Bedivere.cs (talk) 14:40, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
It is WP:Original research to extrapolate a nationality from the production companies when sources classify a film differently. If a film is classifed as "Soviet" by sources then ideally that is how they should be classified on Wikipedia. Also, I see nothing at http://international.famu.cz/page.php?page=198 (the other source you added) that indicates that Marketa Lazarova was voted the top Czech film by Sight & Sound. Betty Logan (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
About the nationality, if the film was produced in Soviet Union they are usually classified as Russian, Ukrainian or etg by recent sources eventhough it might be problematic in non-national polls but it could be supported by some other source that would show they were produced in Russia or Ukraine. About the source for Marketa - The information is under November part. --Bedivere.cs (talk) 17:16, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
  1. A Soviet Union entry makes sense to me. I do however think that if a poll sets out to determine the best Russian film, and the top entry is from the Soviet Union, it belongs in the Russia entry.
  2. The best solution in my mind would be to make a joint entry and keep the separate ones.
  3. I thought #154 was a stretch for My Neighbor Totoro, and I think it is for Marketa Lazarova as well. Let's just remove that part.

So basically, I agree with what Betty Logan said. TompaDompa (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I think Russia and Soviet Union should stay together. All of the films in the Russia section are Soviet. Putting some in a Soviet section and some in a Russia section will make the article more confusing. There should be an explanation in the article of why Man with a Movie Camera is in the Ukraine section.
Marketa Lazarova is the highest-ranked Czech film in the S&S critics poll with 11 votes (followed by Daisies with 8 votes). The top 250 was available on BFI's website in the past. It's still available on other websites, but if you need a primary source, all of the individual ballots are available on BFI's website (and in the September 2012 magazine issue). However, #154 is a bit of a stretch, so I wouldn't mind removing it. Mjf345 (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Why does Rotten Tomatoes have so much weight?

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)

IMDB is user-edited and subject to vote-stacking, therefore it does not count as a reliable source by Wikipedia standards. You can find a more in depth explanation at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Audience_response. As for Metacritic its genre lists do not explicitly rank films. For example, both Ratatouille and Spirited Away share a metascore on Metacritic's animation list, but Ratatouille is ranked above Spirited Away on Metacritic's all-time list. Therefore it is WP:Original research to assume that a film's metascore constitutes a ranking. The consensus at #Straw poll is to not use Metacritic's genre lists, although using Metacritic's ranked all-time list has some support. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

No Country For Old Men was wrongfully removed.

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)

No they don't. See the response above. Betty Logan (talk) 00:08, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Recent additions to the list

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 article must rely on polls and surveys that extend beyond the confines of the periodical itself. For example, the Guardian poll of its own critics is not eligible because it is "in house" i.e. the poll isn't sufficiently broad enough to represent any form of critical consensus.
  • The film must top the poll, or be the highest ranked film in a particular poll according to some specific criteria (for example the highest placed sci-fi film in the Sight and Sound poll)
  • The scope of the survey must be sufficiently broad as well. For example, you can have the best British film of all-time, or the best comedy film of all-time, but not the best British film of the last ten years, or the best British horror film. Once you start crossing criteria with each other the number of lists increases exponentially when you consider how many different countries, time periods and genres there are. Bearing this in mind the AFI genre lists are not broad enough in scope, apart from the general top 100 movies (which is currently listed in the United States section).

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)

Genres

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)

You have to be careful to not introduce WP:Original research. For example, Lawrence of Arabia topped a poll of British films, so it would be wrong to movie it to "History" section on the basis it topped a list of British films. On the other hand, if it is the highest ranked historical film in something like the Sight & Sound poll there is a legitimate argument for adding it to the "Historical" genre section, provided it received enough support in the poll to represent a critical consensus. As for something like film noir it is questionable if it is even a genre (they tend to be crime/thriller/mystery films); admittedly I haven't looked that carefully at it and if film noir polls/surveys exist then I would be fine with a film noir section. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2018

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)

Done. You can request the creation of the redirect on Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Redirects Gulumeemee (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2018

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

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)

Per the inclusion criteria listed at the top of the this page: Editorial picks by the staff of a periodical or website are not sufficiently broad in their scope to be included. This is simply an "in house" list compiled by Guardian and Observer critics and is not a legitimate survey or a poll, which is what this article documents. Betty Logan (talk) 20:20, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Add The Shape of Water

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)

It is far from unique in that regard, see Category:Lists of accolades by film. See also the #Consensus headbar, which says Don't add movies based on having won awards. (link) TompaDompa (talk) 17:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_films_voted_the_best/Archive_8&oldid=1230530116"