Talk:AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition)

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Verifying that the lists are public domain. Specifically excluding the logo.
The VRTS ticket number is 2007041310002766.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Question

so it is the "top 100 movies out of the 400 on the ballot?"

400 movies nominated, AFI will pick out the top 100 out of those.

GHANDI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.105.19 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison?

I don't have the know-how to create a table, but I think we need a table that provides each movie's placement on the list together with its original ranking, where applicable. The whole concept of a 10th-anniversary update invites comparison. (I'm personally amazed some movies rank so low, until I am reminded of the criteria, which are not solely the opinion of those choosing, albeit still subjective.) Lawikitejana 01:15, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have one pounded out, I will wait to post it until the new list is complete. Zholmquist 02:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well done. --71.225.141.62 02:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the old list more prominent than the new one? The article is about the 10th anniversary list.

Good point, I am feeling lazy to reverse it . . . anyone want to take it on? Zholmquist 02:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reversed the list and fixed it, I think we should follow Kitch's suggestion of showing the rise / fall of films.

The List could use some reviewing, and cleaning up! Zholmquist`

vandalism in realtime

Well, it doesn't take all kinds, there just ARE all kinds.

Compared List

When the list is finished, we should work on a tabulated list which shows the original list, compared with the new list, with for movies that rose, for movies that fell, for those that stayed the same, and some sort of star (*) for newcomers to the list. --Kitch ^{(Talk : Contrib)} 02:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like this idea, and a couple users are already going through the list and adding the changes in normal text, and I think that either the + and - or arrows would work fine, but I wish there was a way to format the changes so that they were in a vertical line, but still associated with the 2007 list. Does anyone know how to do that? Paradox7 03:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone should notate films that were on the original list but didn't make it to the new list.

There is a fine balance between interesting facts and just dropping each and every tidbit of info we find into the list. As of this writing, in my opinion, the "Changes from Previous List" section seems satisfactory, though I guess watching it over a few days and pruning it if it gets out of control seems a perfectly viable strategy as well. Paradox7 04:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idiocy in Motion

It's funny refreshing it with seconds in between and seeing it change so radically. Should we try to get it semi-protected for a little bit?

Indeed!!!

Good idea. These vandals are like a pack of rabid hyenas... Ackatsis 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Someone ought to give the Eight Men Out treatment to the fellow who has been putting the racist stuff in this article.

Mercifully some people have been even swifter than I to trash that trash.

Agreed! LOCK it! Too many Morons! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.119.162 (talk) 05:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Insofar as locking the page goes . . .

. . . now would be a great time to reach a consensus. Personally, I think now that the show is over, most of the anonymous users who were watching the show, got bored, and decided to come here to screw around have left, so there's no need for any protection at the moment. Also responsible users are doing a bit of cleanup. Thoughts? Paradox7 03:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that most of the vandals have lost interest for now. However, my guess is that a lot of people are going to be visiting this article in the next day or so; I'm sure that'll mean more vandalism. I say we protect it for a day or so. Ackatsis 03:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am in for locking it. Finding vandalism in such a large article is going to be annoying! Zholmquist`

compliments and thanks to the real arbiters/authors...

I imagine you were more frustrated than I in the face of the puerile and base graffiti we watched.69.153.23.63 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia section

Is that trivia for the 400 film ballot or the top 100 list? Ackatsis 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind. My question was just answered. Ackatsis 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Format and content changed on the fly after list released on air . . .

The flurry of edits to this article seemed to overwhelm the database. May I point out that if the colored arrows are used to show the delta since 1998, the use of plus and minus is redundant? It briefly seemed to me that 14 or 7 should be enough, but +1, with the plus sign, is too much. I was attempting to implement this when the database crashed. Suddenly the history was pocked with entries I hadn't seen before and the list got "transverted". Anyway, just take a long look at the table once all the tabulation is done and see whether a colored arrow, a colored mathematical sign, and a colored number isn't two (sic) much of a good thing. Schweiwikist 04:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

change it again! I think separating the numbers from the arrows would be nice? then even better flipping the list . . . Zholmquist 04:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At last! A discussion begins. Perhaps Miranda would like to join in (he said with his arms politely akimbo)?
- Hand-signed by Schweiwikist • (t) 04:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Miranda is busy adjusting still? When the numbers are all in, what is the next move? Zholmquist 05:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answer: Talking on this page about making the table the most easy to read/use. It might work better to put the change column in the middle, for instance, for 1998 titles that stay on the list, and the delta is lined up with the 1998 slot rather than the 2007 slot.
- Hand-signed by Schweiwikist • (t) 05:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For a lot of entries, this is a lot of work. Plus, this article is pretty popular. I have tried to delete the "+" and "-", but I have been getting too many edit conflicts. By the way Zholmquist, Miranda is a she. Miranda 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<off topic>I'm pretty sure the 'he' Schweiwikist mentioned was himself.</off topic> --Ddawn23 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you know, Bridge on the River Kwai fell 23 spots, not 13.

Someone sent me a message about vandalism....

All I changed was the trivia fact that claimed Citizen Kane was the only movie to keep it's place. I tried to add that there were two others. Godfather part 2 and the best years of our lives. HOw is this vandalism. This is the first time ive edited something so i am now very discouraged.

There were many IPs vandalizing this article. Your warning has been removed since you were assuming good faith. Miranda 06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks alot.

See AFI's table (and ballot): their 2007 table is only slightly better right now

If you register at AFI you can download these docs (see the links at references). The ballot is extensive. Note the differences between their 2007 chart and ours, and let's make the wiki chart better by reworking it if possible. I'm surprised at the similarity. I may have time a few hours from now to tweak it myself. I'd like to add bullets to the thirty-seven (or so) 1998 titles that fell off the list.

Hand-signed by Schweiwikist • (t) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, we worked...WORKED...too hard to format this table. I think it should stay and not be deleted. Miranda 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops! it seems an edit summary I may have attached was taken too seriously. It's a great chart that currently offers plenty of info, but might not be that easy to read in terms of the changes between 1998 and 2007. Any major revision ideas may be rendered/displayed on the discussion page by just copying & pasting the chart code (or just a fraction of it), rather than messing with the published one. As I've already observed, a user can't immediately tell that a 1998 title (in the left column) doesn't appear on the right, so there's more usefuldata ("that's a neo--, I say that's a neologism, son, you missed it") that can be packed into it without a major overhaul. Hand-signed by Schweiwikist • (t) 14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be too much to put a ~~strike-through~~ the 1998 films that were lost? They do have their own page.Zholmquist 14:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See this new talk subpage for a working draft of a revision to "The List"; I hope it's self-explanatory. Schweiwikist 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the About the 400 nominees section necessary?

Now that the final list of 100 films has been released, is it necessary to include trivia about the 400 nominees? It doesn't strike me as terribly relevant that, for example, Henry Fonda was in ten of the 400 nominated films when only two of those ten made the final list.John 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That section is a transcription from the news release. It's permissible to do additional research from the ballot and post it if it proves notable, but it is redundant, unless a user refuses to register with AFI. Schweiwikist 13:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lord of the Rings

During the TV special, The Lord of the Rings was included without qualifiers or a date, which seemed to me a way of representing the entire trilogy. But here (and on the AFI official list), it specifies Fellowship. Which one is right? (I admit that all of the clips shown were from Fellowship.) Brutannica 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes they did put the "Fellowship of the Ring 2001" clearly in the banner. Theyve showed the full title of the movie. It was too long so, so theyve showed "Lord of the Rings" first then faded out then "Fellowship of the Ring 2001" after. Trivially, AFI awarded Fellowship... on its first AFI award show which is now defunct as the best movie in 2001.67.101.149.141 03:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I must've looked away. Brutannica 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clip from the return of the king. How do you explain that? (216.246.148.8 20:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The three movies were nominated separately. Only Fellowship made the list. See the ballot here, note entries 209 thru 211 on page 72. Also note the list of the 100 - only Fellowship. I cannot address what you may or may not have seen on the television, only what's available from the AFI site. --SigPig |^{SEND - OVER} 22:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clip for Return of the King (specifically, Gandalf gazing at the White City of Gondor) but it was at the beginning--where they all randomly shows clips from any movie-- with their theme song at the background. They also show a clip from Little Miss Sunshine and The Departed. During the real countdown it was only Fellowship of the Ring clips. Although, the commentaries sounds like they were all including the trilogy. They did not specifically talked about Fellowship. I think it was Martin Scorsese and Jeff Bridges that did the commentaries. But nevertheless according to the official press release it is clearly "The Fellowship of the Ring" that made the cut and not the whole trilogy67.101.40.231 01:14, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rosenbaum

Don't you think this section is more appropriate in the original AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies article? Brutannica 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. This is a completely different year - it deserves its own article. Ackatsis 06:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Two completely different lists need two different articles.

Merger

FOR or AGAINST merger:

AGAINST Moreover, I don't understand how AFI can change their minds about film after making such a "prestine" list 10 years ago. There should be a specific criteria that they use to quantitatively rank films. How is Raging Bull 23 spots "better" than it was in 1998!? The damn movie came out in 1980! --Sage Veritas (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FOR: I support the merger of AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies and AFI's 100 Years... 100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition), as long as the table that compares the original 1998 list and the latest list is kept intact. The way things are presented in the original article is too confusing and inadequate. This is the better article, and its contents should be moved. — WiseKwai 10:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST: Would it be more confusing if they are put together? I mean they will going to have a different introduction, trivias/facts/commentaries etc. On AFI website they are separate. I think, it should be kept separate as well, but with proper acknowledgment for the original list-- and vice versa.68.167.207.233 20:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST: I do not support the proposed merger. While they both deal with the same subject matter, the two lists are unique, with unique critera, unique ballots and came from two different unique events on CBS (with differnt hosts, commentartors, ect). As such, each should have its own article (with cross-references). Jvsett 18:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST: Keep it separate. These are two separate lists produce 10 years apart. They are both unique and they both represent the prevailing attitudes regarding the best movies at the time. --DreamsAreMadeOf 04:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST: - Separate But Equal - IP4240207xx 21:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST: - I am in agreement with all of the arguments put forth above. They are two separate, yet related, events / lists. To merge them would create unnecessary confusion. Each list is independent --- distinct criteria, time frames, etc. Keep both separate and let each cross-reference to the other. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:25, 24 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Furthermore, if you merge these two installments ... wouldn't you then have to merge all of the other eight installments as well ... 100 Stars, 100 Laughs, 100 Thrills, etc. ...? It makes more sense to keep all ten as separate and distinct articles, with appropriate cross-references. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

AGAINST: See above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.7.119.162 (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINSTpretty much everything have been said.68.127.158.25 (talk) 08:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOR: I'm for merging the two article. It can simply be explained in two different body paragraphs that they made an original list and updated it. I think it's more confusing seeing the 2 lists on different pages, especially to those unaware of a 2007 update.- January 25, 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.83.131.66 (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOR: I agree 100% with the anon user above. --71.218.199.4 (talk) 16:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST Do you guys think we have enough against to settle this issue?71.104.95.152 (talk) 19:01, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST Because it seems this 100 movies list would be updated every 10 years, In theory, if we decide to merge this two shouldn't we ought to merge the next list too and the lists after that? So I think it should be separated.71.104.94.68 (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST For the above points. People looking up the original list will see on the article that there were updates and there are links to those.Jbmas99 (talk) 03:07, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST They are separate lists, and should remain on two pages. Now, it appears that this "Merger" discussion is nearly a full year old! I think it's obvious that the merger proposal fails. Does anyone know how to officially finalize it so it can be removed from the article pages? --Mtjaws (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AGAINST As time passes, the lists (I'm sure there will be more, and updates) will change. That doesn't mean that the lists should be merged; as AFI makes more and more lists, merging would make our version more and more incomprehensible. Links to the other lists would be appropriate. htom (talk) 13:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FOR Look at the two lists. The overlap significantly and I think that one comprehensive article will do justice to both. The 10th anniversary article is leaps and bounds better than the older one, and it's easier to update one than two. If you're concerned about the quality of these articles, then we just need one article for the list.Snowboarder2713 (talk) 08:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Change column

There should be a change column in the original list. It would be interesting to know which movies have been deleted. -- 71.191.43.139 11:36, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Genres

I'd have to say that A Night at the Opera is a musical, as well as a comedy (as is Singin' in the Rain). The categorization in the trivia part seems arbitrary at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.142.198.22 (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia & Comparison

These two sections seem to be more or less direct copies from [1], even down to mistakes (such as the number of westerns). I'm pretty sure this is against Wikipedia policy. Can't quote a specific policy, though. --62.142.198.22 18:42, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long there is a citation. Yes they can put it.68.127.145.214 06:47, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't that simple. Obviously the source needs to be cited, but in this case, they are using most of the page from where it is quoted. That is hardly "fair use". --62.142.197.179 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting doesn't work

Sorting doesn't work properly on the two columns that show how the ranks changed. Notice that up 11 comes before down 2 when sorted ascending, and down 9 comes before down 48 when sorting descending. Whats the point of the sort function if it doesn't work? Is there a way to fix that? Maybe put a leading 0 for single digits? ..but then that would be a little messy...--Descartes1979 (talk) 10:23, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have modified the table to improve its sortability. Film titles and directors' names were treated in the usual way, following the rules for DEFAULTSORT. The changes in list position were done as shown in this table:

Movement	Index	Resulting range	Normalised (+200)
OFF	old - 200	-199 … -100	+1 … +100
Down	old - new	-99 … -1	+101 … +199
Steady	0	0	+200
Up	old - new	+1 … +99	+201 … +199
NEW	200 - new	+100 … +199	+300 … +399

There are two reasons for this scheme: first, the movement of a title leaving or entering the list deserves greater weight than movement within the table; second, the normalisation is required because the Wikipedia table sort mechanism doesn't work for alphanumeric terms which include negative values. This somewhat complicated scheme makes it rather difficult to utilise this table if a further anniversary edition should come out; it will require some text-processing where the normalisation is undone.

A remaining slight shortcoming of the side-by-side tables is that the column "Studio" exists only for the right-hand table (10th anniversary); I think that column should be dropped or such a column should be added to the left-hand table (the original 1998 list). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

where is that

side-by-side with both lists? I loved that! was that this article or AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies? can some one point me to about how far back that old version was? thanks, Skakkle (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored the side-by-side lists from 22 August 2009. May have to go back to redo any improvements from recent edits. Goustien (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merger with the original list

It's been almost four years ago since the last person spoke about merger. But looking at this list, I have to say it turned out pretty damn good. I can't see any reason not to merge it together with the original list. The way it is right now, is nothing but confusing. Robster1983 (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

very confusing

The way this list is currently presented is far too confusing, and there's far too much redundant information. If I were to re-write it from scratch, the first column would be the 2007 list (and there would only be 1 set of columns with film listings), and the only "change" column would be the 2007 rank relative to the 1998 rank. The movies that were removed from the 1998 list would be listed separately, below, maybe in another table, maybe just as a bulleted list. But in an article about the 2007 list, having the 1998 list be the "lead" column is a very disorienting, and seemingly inappropriate perspective. --Fru1tbat (talk) 18:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for cleaning this up

Whoever cleaned this page up in the last few weeks thank you, it is so much easier to look at and understand!Sedna1000 (talk) 00:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000[reply]

WAIT!! Why is it back to the confusing way? This article is about the 2007 list, if I want the original 1998 list I can go to that page, it's not needed here.74.240.148.42 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2011 (UTC)Sedna1000[reply]

The "as edited by Fru1tbat at 16:58, 23 August 2011" is a much better version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.240.148.42 (talk)

Merged

The entire list had already been merged into the list section of AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, showing both the 1998 rank and the 2007 rank. The Notes section of the redirect page also shows which films were removed/added from the list. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As these are two different lists and there was never any consensus to merge, the change has been reverted. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

Is this really the " 10th Anniversary" edition? 10th anniversary of what? The previous list was 19 years earlier in 1998. Perhaps a better title would be AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (2007 Edition). Cheers, Markhh (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1998 + 19 = 2017. We're not there quite yet... --Fru1tbat (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

lol, nevermind! Markhh (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How much time do you set aside to read each day?

Tell how you have arranged to read each day? 172.114.95.232 (talk) 22:05, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]