Talk:Filmsite

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

Film C‑class

	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
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Non notable

WP:WEB doesn't seem to fit with this. Chris M. 05:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Style

This article helps to make Template:Filmsite be uniform with other "external link" templates such as Template:imdb_title . -- Pinktulip 01:34, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable?

How is this notable? --Ronz (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever actually read the site? It is one of the most comprehensive resources on many movies. This is not only a matter of popularity, but of usefulness. Many great sites stood in the obscurity (either because they hadn't reached the critical mass of word-of-mouth, such as google and wikipedia, or because they inherently attract only a niche of the population, such as filmsite or madsci.org). With all this, and being a site recommended by Roger Ebert (see the previous deletion debate), I would support the removal of the notability template. Waldir ^talk 11:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need more than personal opinion to determine notability. --Ronz (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then what do you think would do? An alexa rank over X? Who determines X? Two personal opinions? More? How much? And more importantly, from who? how notable should be the people emitting these personal opinions? Or do you have other suggestions? Waldir ^talk 21:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't we require some independent, reliable sources per WP:N and WP:WEB? I'm assuming we could use Roger Ebert's column as one. --Ronz (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Roger Ebert's endorsement doesnt need more thank this link to talk for itself: [1]
«Filmsite.org was voted in October, 2007 by the popular movie magazine Fade In (both virtual and online) as one of the "100 Coolest Film Sites on the Net" with "every conceivable 'best of' list for film".» from [2]
«According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, this site has a "rich collection of commentary and information about masterpieces of American cinema."» from [3]
«In mid-2003, Variety featured the site in an article titled: "Filmsite has unique spin on top pix."» from [4]
«Filmsite.org is prominently displayed as one of the main reviewers/critics and sources of film material for hundreds of films in the Internet Movie Database (under "External Reviews" for specific titles), the Movie Review Query Engine, and Rotten Tomatoes.» from [5]
«The site has been reviewed very favorably by a number of Web magazines, sites or books (see this site References section), and the author has been quoted in numerous sources for DVD commentary, AP press releases, radio broadcasts, magazine articles, etc.» from [6]
«Filmsite.org is very easily in the Top 1% of all active websites.» from [7]
«Greatest Films is recommended as a resource website in some of the Rough Guide Reference Titles» from [8]
«Greatest Films is recommended as a resource in the Classic Movie Companion» from [9]
«Amazon.com has included The Greatest Films in its family of associates.» from [10]
«The Greatest Films is cited in The Complete Idiot's Guide to Classic Movies's web bibliography as: "A well-researched site that provides analysis of classic movies including breakdowns by genre and insightful reviews."» from [11]
«Greatest Films is mentioned as a reference source in American Film Institute Desk Reference: The Complete Guide to Everything You Need to Know About the Movies.» from [12]
«"Filmsite.org" rates a half-page description in "The Best of the Rest" section in a chapter on "Resource Sites" from The iFilm Internet Movie Guide» from [13]

Waldir ^talk 00:16, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site plainly meets WP:WEB as the above and any web search would demonstrate. It's also referenced under the greatestfilms.org URL. 2005 (talk) 00:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to do two things though: get some independent, reliable sources out of these references, and put them in the article. --Ronz (talk) 00:39, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the article whould benefit from being de-stubbed to the degree a couple of decent refs are added. 2005 (talk) 00:53, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The site might be notable, but the article does not establish that at all. If it's such a big, well known site, the article should say that. --Conti|✉ 01:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, let's see.

Roger Ebert's multiple mentiones of the site should certainly be mentioned in the article.
We don't seem to have an article on the Fade magazine (at least Fade isn't showing anything), and I couldn't find anything with a quick Google search, either. Which is odd, assuming that is indeed a popular movie magazine. Does anyone have a link to their home page? Anyways, being on a list of the ""100 Coolest Film Sites on the Net" doesn't really say much. It could've just as well been #100.
It would be helpful to find out where exactly Encyclopedia Britannica has said that. In its print version? In its online version? I couldn't find that quote or any reference to filmsite.org on their website.
Once again, it would be useful to have more details. Was the Variety article about filmsite.org, or did it just mention the website somewhere?
I'm not sure if being mentioned in IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is much of a proof of notability.
Again, all these reviews in books, magazines and those references in various DVD commentaries and press releases would make great additions to the article.
You get to be in the top 1% of all active websites with 50.000 page visits a day? Seriously, I don't know. :)
Sounds like a nice reference for the article, although a cursory glance makes it look like that's not a terribly notable book.
Same here.
What exactly does it mean if amazon.com includes you in its "family of associates"? Does it do that for just a selected few, or for thousands of sites?
It's not even mentioned in the book, but in the website of the book? So a website about a book links to filmsite.org?
Looks like a good reference for the article. Details would be helpful, once again.
According to Amazon, the book is "the first-ever comprehensive look at the best films, film sites, review sites, fan sites, celeb sites and movie gossip available on the Internet." And in that book this site is mentioned in the "The Best of the Rest" section? Yikes. :)

--Conti|✉ 01:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to any of the books mentioned. Should we contact tim dirks directy asking for details? Waldir ^talk 20:38, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that might be of help, if no one else can find all these books, magazines and so on mentioned on his site. --Conti|✉ 15:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 11 March 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Page moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Jerm (talk) 02:06, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Filmsite.org → Filmsite – Mentioned as only "Filmsite" without the TLD in cited sources in the article; per WP:COMMONNAME. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 20:01, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Calidum 16:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.