Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/National Film Registry/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Matthewedwards 17:52, 18 August 2009 [1].

National Film Registry

Nominator(s): Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/National Film Registry/archive1

I have been working on this list for the last two weeks and believe that it meets the FL criteria. The list has 500 entries, and there are a few red links in there. The list does not have an image, but if one is needed, I can add one of the film screenshots for one of the early films since they are free images. I prefer the quote, but it's up to the reviewers. I have looked to similar lists for formatting and made some modifications to make it a little different. I look forward to addressing all suggestions for improvement. Thank you for taking a look and happy reviewing! Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I like this alot! After a quick glance at the list, I only have one style-based comment: the overall width of the table is a little problematic, specifically since it may get squished in smaller monitors, but also because there's just alot of wasted space. It seems as if the column widths haven't really been specifically addressed code-wise, since they seem to default to the width of the longest entry per column, resulting in a single line for every entry no matter how long. A look at the code verifies this. What I would recommend is to specify and standardize column widths to make things a little bit more consistent. So in other words, base the column widths on the average width of most entries, and force a line break for longer entries. A few other minor things: the column headers aren't proper nouns, so words after the first shouldn't be capitalized (ie "Film title" as opposed to "Film Title"). The same goes for the entries for Film type: they aren't proper nouns or titles, so they shouldn't be capitalized at all. I also think abbreviating years for time spans should be avoided (ie "1916–1917" versus "1916–17"). That's all I have for now. Drewcifer (talk) 07:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your helpful comments. I addressed all of them (along with Seegoon). Let me know if the table columns should be re-sized further or if you spot anything else. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to Support. All of my concerns and comments have been addressed. An excellent list, with a topic I like very much. Drewcifer (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I found the list to be interesting and figured it should be a FL. Fortunately updating will be easy as it only occurs once a year. This list may get quite long in several years, so splitting may be something to be considered down the line. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:28, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Chrishomingtang

Comment - This is a nice list. But I think the note on top is kind of unnecessary. Also an image would be nice. Lastly, maybe it is a good idea to note films that have won the Academy Award although this is extra info that isn't related to the topic.—Chris! _ct 19:30, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the note. I considered adding the image File:BlacksmithScene.jpg (a screenshot from the oldest film on the list) but placing it on top of the quote looked a little awkward. If you still think it should be added, I can add it. Concerning the Academy-Award mention, I don't think it would be beneficial to mention just one type of award. In addition, some of the films are not eligible for a nomination of the award so it doesn't appear that it would be relevant to showcase some films when not all were considered. If they were all feature films, then I would probably have included mention of various awards. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any image is fine as long as they are free.—Chris! _ct 01:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot added. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Link jargons such as feature film, short subject, film serial—Chris! _ct 02:06, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to each term in the lead so that readers can learn more about them before going to the table. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support —Chris! _ct 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

Is this article relevant (found it on Google News)?

I saw that too, but wasn't sure if it was a reliable source. However, it does link to the Library of Congress's page. I couldn't find specific details saying that the films are all kept at the center, so I e-mailed them for clarification. Their site also had some update issues (for example, listed 450 films in the Registry when there are 500) so I pointed that out to them (almost wish it was a wiki, so I could fix it!). When I find out for sure if that is where the films are kept I'll add details to the lead. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there was no information about how the films are originally nominated for selection. I read an article that said for the 1989 nominations, the board considered nearly 1000 films nominated by the public. If it so interests you, I can email you the article.

I added details about the selection process (started new paragraph), along with the ability for the public to nominate films for inclusion. Let me know if any further clarification is needed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link to United States is unneeded. I do think that a see also link to Cinema of the United States would be helpful.

Changed to the cinema link. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"while affiliated with the National Film Preservation Board" Use "although" instead of "while" here to make the contrast more evident.

Sounds better. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"in order to" Two of these words are redundant.

Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The earliest listed film is Blacksmith Scene (1893), while the most recent is Fargo (1996)." "while"-->and

Not a fan of the "while"? I'll keep an eye out for future articles. Changed as suggested. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The year with the most films selected is 1939, as seventeen films were chosen for preservation." "seventeen"-->17 per WP:MOSNUM

I always thought it was 20 and above, but I changed it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The range for the time a film debuts and is selected varies greatly." A bit awkward. Maybe "The time between film's debut and its selection varies greatly."

Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The shortest range is the minimum ten years and this span is shared by Do the Right Thing, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Toy Story, and Fargo."-->The shortest range is the minimum 10 years; this span is shared by Do the Right Thing, Raging Bull, Goodfellas, Toy Story, and Fargo.

Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Among current entries" Unnecessary phrase.

Removed. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Year of creation" column should be "Year(s) of creation" because some films had ranges instead of single years.

Good catch. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The presentation of the inline citations in the table is a little strange because it makes it seem as if only the years of selection were sourced. Perhaps create a separate ref column (I could easily do it with WikiEd)?

The citations are for the year the film was added to the registry. Most of the sources include the title and date of creation as well (although not the film type). Should another column be added in this case? If so, if there is a tool that could do it, that would be great. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason that "Dickson Experimental Sound Film" is not italicized?

The article for some reason didn't do it, but I changed it within the article and here in the list. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise with a few other items, such as "President McKinley Inauguration Footage" and "Tacoma Narrows Bridge Collapse", the latter of which, according to the main article, has a "The" before "Tacoma"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all titles have now been fixed. I did a search on some of the listings of the NFR for the Bridge Collapse film and none used "the" in front of it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ref 6, guardian.co.uk shouldn't be italicized.~~ Dabomb87 (talk) 22:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beat you to it, sorry I checked your contributions when you fixed the website's article formatting. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 01:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

The list is currently arranged according to title. Wouldn't it be better if the year of inclusion was the first column then the year of creation and then the film title? Making the list chronological...--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that would be somewhat arbitrary because the year of selection is somewhat arbitrary. I thought it looked much better with the title on the left, especially if it's alphabetized by title. I prefer this over this. This is partly because the Title and type are left-aligned but the years and refs are center-aligned, which is how they should be. And the default sorting should generally be on the left of the table. Reywas92^Talk 00:33, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Agree that the film titles, which are most important and the default sort column, should be on the left. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Dang, where were you guys earlier (it took me an hour to re-format the 500 films)! No worries, if it is best to include the title at the left, I'll change it back now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - With the below mostly done, I support. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing would be images. Many of the films are Public domain works. Why not add some images along the list?--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 14:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a variety of the earlier films that had free images. More can be added later as new images are found (and as the years pass by). --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:52, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 17:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Checks out on all the quick FLC tools (dab link, external link, and alt text checkers), and it looks great and nicely sourced. Staxringold _talk^contribs 15:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Crzy cheetah

Comments The list is really long, but what can we do...I have two problems:
- The "quote box" is overlapping the lead text on my screen, any idea on what to do?
  What browser are you using? I have Firefox and I formatted the quote box to appear as the same size as the 300px screenshot and it looks fine on my monitor. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  IE8 at 1024x765. --Crzy cheetah 06:52, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I'm at 1280x1024. I also opened it with IE8 and although it sticks out further, it doesn't intersect with the text. Do you know how to fix it at your resolution? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I tried several ways and the only way that worked was when I put the box right before the third paragraph of the lead. I guess that way will mess up the page for you/anyone who uses bigger resolution. I don't mind it really, it's just two words(Librarian of Congress) that are covered by the box. --Crzy cheetah 07:12, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Just so you know, I just used Firefox and there's an opposite reaction: the words overlay the box.--Crzy cheetah 07:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  When I move it to the third paragraph, in preview it doesn't affect the text at my resolution. If it solves the problem at your resolution, feel free to move it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ~~I find sorting the "refs" column unnecessary.~~
  The column is now set as unsorted. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than that, the list looks good!--Crzy cheetah 06:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support--Crzy cheetah 19:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note FLC is currently short of reviewers; please consider reviewing one or more on the nomination list if you have not already (this message is being posted to all running FLCs). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose
- You could expand the size of that lead image up a bit, if the resolution supports it, up to 300px per MOS#Images if I recall correctly.
  I currently have my preferences set at thumbnail sizes of 300px so it is already rendering at that size for me. All of the images in the article currently use the thumb format so that the images can be viewed at the reader's preference. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That quote could be incorporated into the lead rather than as it currently stands, but it's a personal thing. I think if the lead was a bit heftier, it'd support that textbox better...
  I think that for the length of the quote, it stands out better by not including it in the text of the lead itself. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Is it 100% that the act will be reauthorized in late 2009 or is that a touch of crystal-balling?
  After further research, it looks like it actually took place in October 2008, and I added a new source reflecting that. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 1 looks like "Time" rather than "Millimeter" as the publisher/work. In fact, is that the reference you mean at all? It's by Richard Corliss, published June 24, 2001. Nothing like what the current ref says...
  I had copied and pasted that reference from another list when first starting to work on this list. I must have forgot to change the information. I fixed it now. As a side note, at the time that I reviewed the site the whole article was visible, but now it requires registration. Could you verify if the whole article is visible to you? If not, I'll add a "registration needed" note. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...is meant to preserve ..." reads a little odd. By "meant to" I guess you mean it's their "mission statement" or whatever. Just a bit oddly phrased right now...
  Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "...and Librarian..." who is the Librarian?
  I had left it blank as I thought several librarians had taken part in the NFR, but it looks like Billington has been there the entire time. I clarified, and it will have to be updated in the future when he is replaced. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "to so-called orphan films" - well, they're either "orphan films" or they're not. I'm not sure if "so-called" is needed, particularly as you link the term.
  Reworded. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "significant amateur footage" - what does this mean? It's clearly significant if it's included in the Registry... Isn't a home movie amateur footage too?
  I believe it's separate. For example, amateur footage could be people that were recording the planes crashing into the World Trade Center, and a home movie could be like Disneyland Dream. Since they are similar, but not the same, I linked them together in the listing of the variety of films included in the Registry. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Perhaps you could clarify the difference between "home movie" and "amateur footage" then... The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Notes which are complete sentences should have a full stop.
  I think only one qualifies, and I added a period for it. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you assure me that the image caption claims (e.g. "first known film with live-recorded sound.", "one of the first films shown commercially to the public.", " a variety of editing techniques that were becoming popular at the time of its release." etc) are referenced somewhere?
  I pulled them from their respective articles. I believe most were cited, do they need references here as well? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I checked several, many of which were not cited in their article. For example, The Phantom of the Opera and the makeup claim, and Rebel Without a Cause and James Dean's crash. Best to be safe and cite them all. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  There's nothing I like more than citing (man, that's pathetic), so I'll get to those now. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 19:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  I cited the ones that I thought were necessary, the others seem pretty straightforward. Let me know if you disagree. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Ref 8 - you could use work=The Guardian, rather than publisher=guardian.co.uk.
  This was actually pulled from the website, and since there is an article on the website, wouldn't it be better to link to that? Or do work=The Guardian and publisher=guardian.co.uk? --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 18:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  It's from The Guardian newspaper's online version. So I'd use work=. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Changed to The Guardian. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 20:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.