Talk:The Criterion Collection

	; Archives (Index) ;
	2012;
	This page is archived by ClueBot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Criterion Collection article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Brands Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Film: Filmmaking

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Companies Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CompaniesWikipedia:WikiProject CompaniesTemplate:WikiProject Companiescompany articles

Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

WikiProject Companies To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

Article requests : Wikipedia:Requested articles/Business and economics/Companies
Assess : Category:Unassessed company articles
Copyedit : Category:Company articles needing attention
Infobox : Category:Company articles needing infoboxes
Maintain : Portal:Companies
Stubs : Help expand stub articles located at Category:Company stubs
Other :
- Tag company articles with the {{portal|Companies}} template
- Tag company talk pages with the {{WikiProject Companies}} project banner
- Answer requests for comments

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

[1]. New York Times article (29 February 2024) on the history and reputation of Criterion Collection.

Criterion list is gone?

Please fix error asap 2600:1700:19E0:FC90:6D55:A714:161D:608D (talk) 20:59, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

List of Criterion Collection releases

Why was this deleted and Eclipse (DVD brand) and Janus Films still exists? conman33 (. . .talk) 00:20, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy that the list is gone. I used that article regularly. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 23:49, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto Espngeek (talk) 03:07, 22 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wtf. Bring it back. Dumb editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.147.18.14 (talk) 08:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Certain Wiki enthusiasts decided that publishing a list like this is too "encyclopedic" and not what the website is for... I'm not so concerned with these political decisions and wish I could keep using what was a very meaningful and helpful resource for me... and I'm sure I'm not alone. At least we have Archive.org... but still. Annoying! signed, some guy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.143.234.59 (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list was deleted because one of the wrong people on Wikipedia saw it and decided to delete it to show everyone else their completely arbitrary power within the community. The change had no real justification behind it and didn't reflect any consistent policy or point of view editorially. As has been pointed out, similar lists exist all over the place and remain untouched. Its usefulness was in fact one of the primary reasons it had to go. 12.203.54.189 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:12, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The logic for deletion was that since the information on it only sourced to various information provided by the criterion site, that the information was of no value. Anything talked about by a single source being considered unfit for an encyclopedia. Various people also made a questionable claim that all of the information contained in the list is available at the criterion site. This was the second attempt to remove the article. The first having failed. This second attempt to remove the article was triggered by one particular person who made a lengthy complaint in another place that the list had too many columns and that disturbed him. A majority of the people supporting deletion made the claim that the list of releases was simply a duplicate of the criterion catalogue. Even though that was far from true. The delete was done rather quickly and in the dark. While it would have been better to have made mention of it in the main article, that was not done. 65.195.243.194 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be reinstated, post haste. ntnon (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If someone doesn’t like content, can’t they just ignore it. Leave it in place for those who find it useful. I was shocked this most useful article was removed when I went looking for it today and even more shocked to read the above “reasons” that make no sense. Plenty of similar pages still exist here. Are they next? I will be questioning my annual contribution to Wikipedia based on what I have read. Just bring it back! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.105.130.231 (talk) 05:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The list was extremely useful for those of us who've used it for easy reference for years, and contained format information NOT included on the Criterion website. I'm more than six months late to writing this post-deletion and don't have a lot of hope for its restoration, but the list absolutely needs to be restored. 76.89.196.3 (talk) 08:05, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree. Who, then, has the power to restore it? And why is there no action on this? So it offended one person. Who the hell are they? Signinstranger (talk) 08:53, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Defacto subsidiary"

What is a defacto subsidiary? CicolasMoon (talk) 21:23, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]