Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Core

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page 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.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


1) Lacking any key, it would make life much easier if the Core List titles were presented by YEAR.
2) Separate the Award categories into a separate list, please.
3) Some groundbreaking/innovative movies were neither popular (initially) nor critically acclaimed. How do we deal with this?

BTW, now that I've seen the list it'll be easier to get started. Cheers, Shir-El too 14:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

1 - The list is sortable, so you can order it by whichever scheme you wish.
2 - Why? They can already be isolated on the basis of source.
3 - We don't - we're not trying to flag every groundbreaking or innovative film. Additionally, we're trying to be as relatively objective as possible by working off of external metalists, but since the subject is subjective, no list will never be "perfect". However, the core has no function if it is allowed runaway growth - there need to be boundaries and qualifications, and this means that the vast majority of films will be excluded. Most of them probably justifiably so, and certainly a small number unfairly so. That being said, no list will please everyone (myself included). Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 01:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Message(s) received and understood. Thank you, Shir-El too 12:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
P.S. 1 - How do I sort it mechanically? Tks, Shir-El too 12:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Click the small icon next to the column titles. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Regional task forces[edit]

Are the core articles for the regional task forces included in the list, or have they yet to be determined? As a member of the Korean task force, I have to question the inclusion of some of these films. Feathers in the Wind and Marathon appear to be on the list (and correct me if I'm wrong) because of a few hundred user votes on IMDb. But The Host and The King and the Clown don't make the list, despite being the two most successful films at the South Korean box office. PC78 (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is basically correct. The list generally defers to the TSPDT metalist for regional task forces, but in the case of Korea, there were no entries. (I presume this is mainly because the industry really only taken off very recently, and therefore hasn't had time to settle into lists yet.) Box office performance alone is generally a poor measure for long-term encyclopedic usage, and unless one can find a list that accounts for inflation, will not be able to give any insight into the actual number of viewers. However, perhaps the IMDb minimum votes number could be raised? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 12:00, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you're being a little dismissive of box office performance, especially as this list is going to receive regular updates; certainly I think it carries a lot more weight than the opinions of a handfull of users on IMDb. In the case of South Korea, box office performance is determined by the number of tickets sold rather than financial gross, so there is no inflation to account for. I would certainly agree that the minimum number of IMDb votes should be raised, to at least 500 and possibly even 1000 (no film on this list has received less than 4500 votes, so I don't see that being a problem).
If so many places on the list are being allocated to various task forces, shouldn't it be the task forces themselves that decide what goes on the list? PC78 (talk) 13:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
First of all, the list is not going to be receive regular updates - if we're constantly revising the Core list, it has no stability and throws off the entire concept. There is never going to be a "perfect" list for everyone's tastes, but it would be best to avoid constant revision and specific nitpicking on particular choices. Therefore, a "what about film X?" argument shouldn't have any weight. On the other hand, disagreements as to general list parameters, such as your critique of the IMDb bar being set too low, are a good point, and I think that the number of votes required should be raised. The only question is how much. Here are how the IMDb picks for the relevant countries would look if adjusted to either 1000 or 500 votes (disclaimer: I haven't actually checked the links, so they may not direct to the appropriate article):

Argentina (9)[edit]


  1. The Motorcycle Diaries
  2. The Official Story
  3. Nine Queens
  4. Son of the Bride
  5. Intimate Stories
  6. Valentin
  7. The Aura
  8. Carandiru
  9. The Method


  1. Esperando la carroza
  2. Ashes of Paradise
  3. Common Ground
  4. The Motorcycle Diaries
  5. Man Facing Southeast
  6. The Official Story
  7. Nine Queens
  8. Son of the Bride
  9. A Place in the World

Australia (6)[edit]


  1. Breaker Morant
  2. Harvie Krumpet
  3. Moulin Rouge
  4. Dark City
  5. Gallipoli
  6. Mad Max 2


  1. Breaker Morant
  2. Harvie Krumpet
  3. Saw
  4. My Brilliant Career
  5. Moulin Rouge
  6. Dark City

Iran (3)[edit]


  1. Turtles Can Fly
  2. Children of Heaven
  3. Baran


  1. Marmoulak
  2. Turtles Can Fly
  3. Children of Heaven

Korea (10)[edit]


  1. Oldboy
  2. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring
  3. Memories of Murder
  4. My Sassy Girl
  5. Taegukgi
  6. Oasis
  7. A Moment to Remember
  8. 3-Iron
  9. Failan
  10. Christmas in August


  1. Oldboy
  2. Marathon
  3. Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter...and Spring
  4. Memories of Murder
  5. My Sassy Girl
  6. Taegukgi
  7. Oasis
  8. Peppermint Candy
  9. A Moment to Remember
  10. 3-Iron

Southeast Asia (10)[edit]


  1. Last Life in the Universe
  2. Beautiful Boxer
  3. Shutter
  4. The Scent of Green Papaya
  5. Ong Bak
  6. Cyclo
  7. Three Seasons
  8. The Protector
  9. Tears of the Black Tiger
  10. The Vertical Ray of the Sun


  1. Last Life in the Universe
  2. Beautiful Boxer
  3. Citizen Dog
  4. Shutter
  5. The Scent of Green Papaya
  6. 6ixtynin9
  7. Ong Bak
  8. Cyclo
  9. Be With Me
  10. Three Seasons

The core list is to be updated once a year (so it says on the project page - note that I said regular, not frequent). Having thought about it some more, I'm not sure that even 1000 votes is enough; let's be honest, in the grand scheme of things, 1000 is not a lot of people. Also, you seem to be going by the average vote given to each film, but wouldn't a greater test of popularity be the total number of votes received? I'm still adamant that box office results need to be factored in, though. Perhaps have the top five from the box office, and top five from IMDb? PC78 (talk) 02:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that would only measure a function of the most seen films. What we're trying to identify is articles central to the subject for an encyclopedia, which would be a mix of critical, public, and industry opinion, and not one to the exclusion of others. Core articles should have long-term relevance, which means that they ideally should be films that will continue to be relevant not only ten years from now, but a hundred.
Frankly, I'm happy with either the 1000 or 500 list, although I do slightly prefer the 1000 one. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but as we all know IMDB is not a reliable source... this isn't article space, but I've read stories of IMDB being gamed a bit (I know they've claimed to fix that but still), its only a single source and there is no evidence that its actually representative of public opinion. in fact most statisticians will tell you that IMDB is not representative of public opinion as things like online polls tend to attract people with strong opinions (the extremes) and can't be used to make any judgement calls on a larger population.--Crossmr (talk) 05:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to comment here, but I'm in the Japan-Korea film projects. About Korea: At first glance, I'm not sure what criteria is being used for inclusion, but it seems extremely recent/blockbuster-centric. True, Korean film has really taken off since the late '90s, but that's because the '70s and '80s were relatively bad decades. There was a "Golden Age" in the 1950s and '60s, which the west barely knows about, and a mini-Golden Age during the silent era. By far the most important Korean film of all time, I would think-- picture Citizen Kane and Birth of a Nation rolled into one-- would have to be Arirang (1926 film). It's a lost film, but almost all pre-Korean War films are lost, as are many before 1970. About the removal of Feathers in the Wind-- Sure, it's a small little film, and I'm not claiming it belongs here either, but Korean critics have claimed it is the best romance filmed in the country. The book 1,000 Films You Must See Before You Die lists only two Korean films-- The Housemaid (1961) which I think definitely belongs on any list of important Korean films, and Attack the Gas Station (1999), which I don't know much about. Every text I've read on "important" Korean films also includes Yu Hyun-mok's Obaltan (1960). HERE is a site which lists 100 important pre-1996 films. Dekkappai (talk) 18:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps delegating task force picks to the task force is worth considering. I'd have to ask, however, that the films be chosen through some sort of methodology and not merely through personal picks. (ie - I would prefer them derived from some sort of list, and preferably one created through at least several people's opinions.) If you have something in mind, it would be good to hear it. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree that personal choices from editors here should not be the criteria for inclusion on any list. Perhaps national task forces would be the best places to make film lists. (But, is there a Japan film task force yet?... If not-- I don't think there is-- I would suspect that many other countries also do not have film task forces.) To draw up a list, I would look at what the critics have chosen as the key films for the country-- both local critics and international critics with a specialization in the national cinema. For (South) Korea especially, going only by box-office or ticket-numbers or by IMDB ranking is going to result in a very recent-centric, fan-mentality list. Lee Young-il is an important Korean critic whose (pre-1988) history of the national cinema has been translated. I'll look at that to see if he has a list of important films. Otherwise films discussed at length would give a clue... Also HERE is a good short history which mentioning key films throughout the history of Korean film. Dekkappai (talk) 21:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
It's a good point and I'm curious, but how exactly are you going to determine the ten with some degree of objectivity? I'm also not 100% convinced that IMDb necessarily equals recentism, although it may be somewhat biased that way. See the Australian list or some of the Argentine picks, both of which go back to the early 80s. Indeed, part of the reason why these particular cinemas are having to defer to the IMDb lists is precisely because their cinemas are relatively newer or have only recently undergone wider recognition. I agree with you that there are noteworthy earlier Korean films, but on the other hand, consider the fact that most westerners had almost no chance to be exposed to Korean films until the last ten years or so. This may explain the recentism as easily.
As for the task forces, it is true that we are still in the process of creating them. Also, I prefer not to initiate unless there is expressed interest from a number of editors, so if you want a Japanese cinema task force, please do feel free to request it and gather several others who are also willing to participate. (I'm making an exception for English-language cinemas, since we are the English Wikipedia, but generally this is how it works...) Task forces which do not yet exist, however, will not be excluded from this list; as the page mentions, each will be allotted another ten slots as the task forces go online. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so...[edit]

I've revised the list to bring the IMDb minimum votes threshold up to 1000, and have added the New Zealand task force slots as per the current schemata. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but it's still not enough. You're placing far too much importance on the opinions of IMDb users (and in some cases, not an awful lot of IMDb users). And you still haven't satisfactorily explained to me why box office performance can't be factored in, especially when there are other films on the list based on their box office results alone.
In the absence of any better suggestions, I don't see why task force members can't choose ten films through an informed concensus. It can't be that hard, and it would almost certainly provide a more relevant selection of films. PC78 (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Because box office is not indicative of the legacy of the film - and it can't even be used as a model for audience approval of the content, since they are "voting for" the film prior to watching it by purchasing a ticket. The least you can say for the IMDb is that users are making informed ratings from having seen the films. I'd also like the strongly emphasize the fact that the Core list is not meant as a popularity contest in any ways - it's meant to reflect the films which have been indicated by the consensus of reliable sources - or at least unbiased ones - to have long-term encyclopedic merit and influence. While it is certainly true that the IMDb may not be the most eminent of lists, it at least meets the bar that the core list should be formed at the least from outside sources with no investment in the picks. I am happy to look at other sources if you have a better ideas for where the films should be drawn from. If you're asking for a user vote here, that basically destroys the entire concept of the Core, and I cannot in good conscience support that. Understand the IMDb method was simply chosen out of a poverty of other options known to me - while it's certainly not bulletproof, I don't think it's automatically worthless either. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a poll that seems to have been taken in the Korean film industry for the top Korean films. I can't read Korean, and the Google translation is (unsurprisingly) rather poor, although somewhat decipherable. Perhaps this could be used for the Korean task force? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
IMDB is not indicative of the legacy of the film either as I pointed out above. We don't choose a method that is poor simply because a better one hasn't been put forth. Instead we should not be currently choosing one until an acceptable method is found. There is absolutely NO evidence that people rating films on IMBD are making informed ratings having seen the film. Last I checked IMDB didn't employ someone whose job it was to interview each person who left a rating to ascertain that they did indeed view the film and chose an appropriate rating. I don't remotely support using IMDB to establish a list here. However in the same vein I also don't support using box office. Hype generating a big opening weekend box office (which can carry a film to a big take) doesn't denote quality. The only thing useful in establishing a ranking is an aggregate of critical acclaim for movies, similar to metacritic. Anything else is unreliable.--Crossmr (talk) 02:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
And as I pointed out to you, 25 films on the list are there solely because of their box office performance in the US. Will you be removing those for the same reasons you give above? I understand that you don't have much to go on besides IMDb, and unfortunately I can't offer you anything better (besides those sources mentioned above by Dekkappai), but it simply isn't sufficient (certainly not by itself), and undermines what you are trying to achieve here. Also, while I'm not too familiar with TSPDT and have no wish to question its veracity, I am somewhat concerned that the list as a whole relies heavily on a single source.
What I'm advocating is an informed discussion and concensus, not a popularity contest. I don't see how this would "destroy the entire concept of the Core"; as far as I can tell, the Biography Project drew up their list of 200 core articles by discussion and concensus alone, and it seems to have worked for them. PC78 (talk) 11:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, since you seem so keen on using IMDb and since I don't believe that it is entirely "worthless", why not incorporate the top 25 or so films from the IMDb top 250? If nothing else it would get The Shawshank Redemption on the list, a glaring omission since it reguarly polls as one of the greatest films of all time. PC78 (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
As regards the TSPDT link, it is a gigantic critical metalist, and therefore cannot be regarded as a single source. As for the rest of the comments, it seems that consensus is against using the IMDb entirely, while inclusion based on box office has been both advocated and criticized. I must admit that I myself was ambivalent about using box office as a criterion, but I am also aware that there are differing opinions as to what should be on the Core list, so it seems best (to me) to allow some degree of plurality of interests, and surely the comments both for and against box-office being used indicate that a compromise may need to be made. That is why all-time inflation-adjusted box office winners are included, as well as why they are only a small proportion instead of a share equal to the TSPDT critical list. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
The metalist looks good and is really the only way we can objectively pick these. Not all taskforces may have this luxury, but perhaps they can find multiple opinions from critics in their respective areas and create a list based on that.--Crossmr (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
With regards to the Korean list, I've done a bit of digging and managed to find a top 50 list of films between 1948 and 1998. Perhaps it could be of some use? PC78 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a start. My concern would be the fact that its written in 1998 and it was really shortly after that that Korean cinema really took off in to full flight. We can use it as a starting point if we begin to combine it with the opinions of other reliable critics.--Crossmr (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Following a comment I made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Assessment, I'd like to add my voice to those who think this proposal is a welcome change. In particular, choosing core articles from the film history of various nations is a great way to counter systemic bias and encourage a wider perspective on film history. Pichpich (talk) 14:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

An interim proposal[edit]

From the discussions above, it is obvious that there is still much debate regarding some of the methodology, particular with regards to both the top box office slots and the task force allocations. From the comments that have been made - as well as what has not been said by anyone - I'd like to propose the following actions for the meantime which appear to have consensus.

  1. As there has been no objections regarding the deprecation of the importance parameter, the parameter will be removed from the project banner shortly, in conjunction with some necessary cosmetic restructuring.
  2. A core parameter will be added which will categorize the Talk pages of core articles into a "Core film articles" category.
  3. The core list shall - for the moment - only be composed of the top 250 from the TSPDT list, as well as the task force slots which were able to be filled by defaulting to TSPDT.
  4. The remaining task force slots will be reserved until consensus emerges as to how their content is determined.
  5. Any additional slots to be allocated must be based on a methodology involving outside lists or polls and not on any editor's personal opinions or any sort of editorial voting for particular articles. (Note that this does not bar attempts to create consensus about which lists may be used.)

This will at least allow us to transition towards commencing the Core department and thus also begin focusing on setting up the core contest. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no objections with 1 and 2; in case I haven't made it clear before, I fully support the introduction of the core article list. 3 is also fine I suppose, though I was never suggesting that we don't use box office stats (though preferably these should international rather than US only figures); having said that, there does perhaps need to be more discussion about which sources are to be used for the list. I'm also happy with 4, and I don't think that this is something that necessarily needs to be resolved prior to the introduction of the core list. About point 5: is this in relation to the task force slots or the list as a whole? PC78 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, going off of box office has raised some objections (and I must admit to being fairly reluctant to include it myself), so I'm leaving it off for now. It's not a definitive decision at the moment, though. As for point 5, both. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
For later, perhaps: that a waiting list of titles be created for movies proposed for later inclusion in the Core List, after the current titles have been sufficiently documented, edited etc. That way, all suggested additions will be available for later review and discussion. Also, it seems probable that some non-English language movies may actually have higher box-office ratings than Core List entries, so that we need a variety of criteria. Thank you, Shir-El too 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The Texas Chain Saw Massacre[edit]

Would it be okay if I added The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to the list, because it seems to be a pretty important film to me, in terms of it's influence on modern horror films. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it would not. If you read the page, you will see that one of the defining concepts of the list is that it was specifically designed to prevent cherry-picking by individual editors; it is a metalist. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
All I did was ask about it, but now I know I can't put it in the article. Thanks. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like to see it there though, but based on the community's decision. Will it be possible for it to be there in the future? --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
There's always a possibility. The list is updated once a year I believe. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Korea revisited[edit]

I couldn't help but notice that Oldboy and The Host have been added to the core list. I assume they've been taken from this list? PC78 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. I meant to make a note of that, but evidently I was distracted... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Some flaws in this method.[edit]

As mch of a huge fan of TSPDT as I am (I added every film in the top 100 to my Netflix list, among others on the list), I think it shouldn't be the ONLY factor in deciding whether a film is core or not. For example, Jurassic Park and Titanic were each the best-selling films ever at one point or another, which is arguably enough reason to give them core status. Additionally, because of TSPDT's formuas, films from this millenium are excluded from the top 250 listing for the next few years. Therefore, I suggest some changes be made so that films that are excluded from TSPDTs top 250 be given special exceptions if they meet other requirements:

  • Being at one point or another one of the five best-selling films of all time.
  • Ranking in the top 25 of TSPDT's 250 greatest films of the new-millenium.
  • Having been voted the greatest film of all time, or the greatest film of a country and/or genre.
  • Films that aren't in the top 250 or 25 greatest new millenium this year but have been at some point.

This is merely to ensure that highly notable ad praised films that are excluded from the TSPDT list be recognized as important as well. (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

There is never going to be a "perfect" method. But turnout does not equal approval necessarily, either - witness The Phantom Menace, for example. In any case, part of the reason for this list is to highlight important articles which may be neglected - recent popular films rarely need project prodding to bring them to at least B-class status. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't bring this up for new films, but for all films not included in the top 250 that are being ignored. Arguably Titanic, the best-selling film of all time, deserves core status over Shane, which most people haven't even heard of. I also feel that films that have made the top 250 once (even if it isn't this year) should be included. Citizen Kane, which is the most critically acclaimed film of all-time right now, might not even make the list at all one year. I even feel some of my favorites that made the list don't deserve core status as much as other films. I'm just saying that results on TSPDT's list shouldn't be the only factor in deciding which articles are core. (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm commenting directly after myself, but I should mention that there isn't any animation films on the list, either. I suggest that both Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Fantasia be included as core articles. (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
We don't add individual titles on suggestion. However, should an Animation task force emerge, it will most certainly get its ten slots, which presumably will include both films and possibly techniques. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Criterion and other comments[edit]

  • Is it me or does your core list look a lot like the catalog of the Criterion Collection, what is the level of overlap > 60 % ? Lack of animated movie, no early Disney, no Pixar, no anime, no Grimault ? is also a concern. Hektor (talk) 10:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
The methodology is laid out on the page - it's not a perfect method, but it is relatively free from most biases. If we had an animated task force (which was proposed earlier, albeit without sufficient support), then there would be ten more animated films guaranteed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 17:44, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

New version[edit]

The 2008 version of the 1,000 greatest films is here. Entering the top 250 are The Great Dictator, Zero for Conduct, La Samourai, Johnny Guitar, Shoot the Piano Player, and West Side Story. Falling out of the top 250 are To Kill a Mockingbird, Meshes of the Afternoon, The Life of Oharu, Floating Clouds, and Crimes and Misdemeanors. Also, in case you want to know, the detailed listing of the top 250 on the website has been expanded to include numbers 251-300, and TSPDT plans to bring the entire list under the same format throughout 2009. (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up! Many of the titles no longer in the 250 will still be selected for the task forces' 10, so the overall change may not necessarily be major. I'll try to update this before the new year. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
Forgot to mention that Ninotchka also fell out of the top 250. (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so I've updated most of the list now to reflect the new December 2008 list. One notable thing I'm waiting on, though, is the imminent release of the 21st century list, which I started using to fill up task forces' allocation when they couldn't do so with the TSPDT 1000 list. Anything still left hanging is currently commented out at the bottom of the list, but still is temporarily retaining a core=yes parameter on its talk page. Once the new 21C list is released, most of these will resolve one way or the other. Any remaining blank spaces can be allocated to films formerly on the TSPDT lists, perhaps... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

TCM removed?[edit]

I would like to know if there was any particular reason why The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was removed from the list without so much as notifying the appropriate article and/or editors in question. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The update was noted above by GS on January 2. I assume that with the centralized notification of the update, he didn't seek to explain thoroughly on the ex-core articles' talk pages. —Erik (talkcontrib) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is correct - our Core is based off of a metalist which updates annually. Based on the current metalist, TCM no longer is ranked high enough to appear on the Core list. It's not a sign of endorsement or lack thereof - simply an attempt to bring editors' attention to these articles through incentives. I know that you're already very advanced in your work towards FA-status for the article, which is really the more important thing, so please don't be discouraged and continue to keep up the good work! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

How about...[edit]

Perhaps this is a question asked by many authors, and I'm bothering you with this, but I still wonder why Airplane! and Trainspotting are absent from the list. Is there a way to include these films, maybe people could vote?--Music26/11 14:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement[edit]

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:11, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 update[edit]

...has been completed. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

2011 update[edit]

The current inclusion formula uses They Shoot Pictures as the key resource for identifying core topics. It lists the Top 250 from that website's list of 1,000 films, and based on the existing national cinema task forces, it also lists core topics that were not in the Top 250. Based on genre task forces (e.g., war films), the formula uses IMDb.

The website's list was updated in January 2011, but WikiProject Film's list was not updated accordingly. Here is what I suggest. I do not think we should list core articles just based on the existence of national cinema task forces. In most cases, a task force is started but never actually used, and we shouldn't list articles in expectancy of that DOA task force to improve them. We should also avoid using IMDb for genre additions; IMDb voters are not exactly the finest purveyors of films, and such lists may suffer from recentism (e.g., Inglourious Basterds being at the top of a list of all possible war films). I think we should reference the They Shoot Pictures list more fully. Should we do the Top 500 instead of the Top 250? Perhaps Top 1,000? Let's figure out a new inclusion formula before we update our list. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I support basing it fully on TSPDT, it's probably the closest thing we have to an official movie canon. There are currently 419 film articles in the list (449 minus awards and filmmaking). So top 400-500 seems good to me. Smetanahue (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
That's a good comparison and will keep the list reasonably consistent in length. I would support the Top 500. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
Might as well leave it at 500 because that alone would be a huge workload. If only in just undoing the regular vandalism the articles will receive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I'd support using their top 500 as well. We could still group the articles according to their relevant task force but only if they're already included in the TSPDT top 500 list. GRAPPLE X 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

It seems like we're keen on the Top 500 of the meta-list. Let's give this discussion a few more days of exposure (basically a week's worth) before going ahead with the list update. Erik (talk | contribs) 17:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

I'd prefer to leave out the IMDB voted-in list as well as not giving the task forces a set batch of articles just to have them (are any task forces active?). The sole update from TSP makes sense as well as going with the 500. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talkcontrib) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
The list of core articles has been updated to include the Top 500 of the meta-list but maintained the non-film articles like festivals and filmmaking topics. Grapple X did the grunt work to add the mostly-new 250 in their proper wiki-links and assessment scores; thank you very much! I think that before we put on any bars, I need to review the Top 250 again and update the assessment scores. For example, Star Wars is no longer a Featured Article but is still marked as such. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Note: We also need to see which films (especially ones listed because of related task forces) were removed from the list and update their assessments accordingly. I won't be able to do it tonight; hopefully sometime this weekend. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Have re-checked the first 120 films, a handful of assessments were different. Will get the rest tonight. Not re-assessing, just changing the list to reflect what the current assessments are. GRAPPLE X 22:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
Done. Maybe a few dozen changes, the vast majority of which were moving up a step or two. GRAPPLE X 00:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
I'm now just working through the assessment categories to weed out any previously-listed core articles that aren't listed now, to remove the core=yes parameter from their film templates. When that's done we'll still have to wait a day or two for the table on the main FILMCORE page to reflect the accurate numbers, but the categories will give the right numbers instantly. GRAPPLE X 01:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
Right, I think I've got it all straightened out. By the time the summary table updates there should be 528 entries in it - one film is a red link (for now) and there's another article which is listed twice (Ivan the Terrible (film) covers both Ivan the Terrible, Part One and Part Two, which TSPDT lists separately). If there's anything different showing up, I must have missed something. GRAPPLE X 23:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

History of film[edit]

Why is History of film not a core article?--Cattus talk 10:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Good question! The recent revision of the list focused on individual films. The closest set of topics to history of film would be those grouped under the filmmaking task force, which is technical in nature. We have not had a discussion of such high-level topics that are not technical. Other topics include film theory, film criticism, and film genre. I think it helps to go with some kind of preexisting list of such topics to use as guidance. Maybe a table of contents in a textbook about film? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Might not be a bad idea to round up another 20 overview or technical articles (histories, genres, etc) to bring the 530-article list up to 550 instead. GRAPPLE X 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Some friendly suggestions[edit]

Hello, I have 5 suggestions for films to add to the core list, all of which come from the earliest years of film. This era, or pre-era, to film history is barely covered in the current core list and I think that it should be. Chronologically: 1) Sallie Gardner at a Gallop 2) Roundhay Garden Scene 3) Monkeyshines 4) L'Arrivée d'un train en gare de La Ciotat 5) The Great Train Robbery (film) I doubt that any of these films would make it on a list of the Greatest Films Ever Made and most of them are actually raw footage or science experiments, but they are objectively 5 of the most historically important films ever made. --Deoliveirafan (talk) 23:43, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Out with the old...[edit]

For 2014: Wishing you a Healthy, Happy and Fulfilling NEW YEAR! Shir-El too 19:35, 23 December 2013 (UTC) (image: NASA Mars Rover, sunset)


Hey everyone. There's a relevant discussion at Talk:Blowup#Requested_move_2014 if any of you want to chime in. I just wrote a comment about how I (and evidently the Wikiproject) believe the film to be one of the core (most vital and significant) film articles for an encyclopedia, but I think a lot of you are probably more knowledgable on the subject than I am so if you get a chance please feel free to tell me that I am overstating my point. Thanks!--Yaksar (let's chat) 16:07, 4 November 2014 (UTC)


When was the last time that the core list was updated? Per this discussion, it's clear that the list of core films should be updated to include at least 10 films from each task force, specifically newer ones such as the Documentary films and Silent films task forces. This needs to be done, before the classification of any articles on the list can be reassessed. Is there someone who is in charge of maintaining the list, or can it be updated by anyone? And once it is updated, who is responsible for making sure that the parameter |core=yes is only used on the talk pages for articles in the list? Fortdj33 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Girolamo Savonarola (talk · contribs) used to update it every year when the new TSPDT list was released. This year's list was released a couple of months ago and I don't think our list has been updated accordingly. I don't see an immediate need for an expansion related to the task forces, since no task force really is active and the concept seems to have been a failure in general. There are perhaps a few informal task forces of editors who work on similar articles, but I don't think they need their own core list to keep doing that. Smetanahue (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
I wasn't necessarily suggestion an expansion, just a reorganization under the current criteria. As I understand it, the list should include the top 250 films from the TSPDT list, plus up to 10 more from that list for each regional task force. Then, each genre task force also includes the next 10 films as ranked by IMDb that are not already on the list. There are 25 regional and genre task forces, so if we include 10 films from each one, that is another 250 films, giving us 500 films on the list. Adding 10 core articles from the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces, gives us the current number of 530. If that criteria is still acceptable, I will start working on updating the list accordingly. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Oh, yes, you're right. Well, then I have nothing to object about. Smetanahue (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
Update - I've gone through the TSPDT list, and come up with 440 films that should be on the core list. Most of them are already on the list, but there are some additions, because each regional task force can have up to 10 additional films after the first 250. I'm working on the genre task forces now, which are based on the top 10 films on IMDb in each genre that aren't already on the list, but so far I've only found information for the Animated, Documentary, Silent and War films task forces. Should I just skip the other genre task forces (Christian, Comic book, and Avant-garde), and keep 10 core articles from the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces? If so, that will give us 510 articles on the core list instead of the current number of 530. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Another approach is to use the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 tables for each genre task force, and include the top 10 films on each table that are not already on the list. This seems to be the same method used for the top 10 lists in the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces, and would allow for all the genre task forces to be included in the core list. Any objections? Fortdj33 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea. I trust you on this, just go ahead. Smetanahue (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────OK, based on this criteria, here is the revised core list [1], including films for all of the existing task forces. 135 films would need to be removed from the core list, due to additions from the TSPDT list. Please let me know if you have any questions, otherwise I will work on updating the page and all of the related films. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:03, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

As a followup to the latest Core list update, the core list for the film award section is very much centered around American awards (with 7 out of the 10 being American, and 1 being a film/festival hybrid). Now while those might be the most popular (even though I don't believe Young Artist Award is that popular), that doesn't serve the best goals of this project. What i purpose is that instead of selection 10 awards that are based on whatever list was created, the film award core list will include the major film award of each country (the Academy Awards equivalent). This will cause the list to grow in size, yes, but will make the list much more universal. Its even possible for the regional task force to lose 1 film in favor of this, if its deemed to many films. --Gonnym (talk) 09:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)