Talk:List of films considered the best/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Rotten Tomatoes updates

We have some potential new entries coming up. If the current RT standings remain the same, we will need to make the following changes:

• Animation – Inside Out replaced by Paddington 2. This seems a bit counter-intuitive to me as Paddington 2 is basically a live-action movie with a CGI character, but ultimately Rotten Tomatoes makes the decision, not us.
• Documentary – Man on a Wire replaced by I Am Not Your Negro.
• Romance – Singin' in the Rain replaced by Call Me by Your Name.

We should probably add I Am Not Your Negro straight away because the dust has settled there. In the case of the other two they are still playing and accumulating reviews so they may drop down the rankings. I think we should wait for Paddington 2 and Call Me by Your Name to close before adding them to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I changed them all (updated all the RT entries). We should have the most up-to-date rankings on our list. We can always change it back if and when they drop. TompaDompa (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

The rotten tomatoes lists are hideously biased for recency as well as being on a binary yes/no system, thus making the films that get 100% inoffensive instead of those who are amazing but some don't get.. Were it up to me I wouldn't have them up on this page. 96.42.192.69 (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not particularly impressed by them either, but we don't appraise these polls for quality, just source reliability if they meet the inclusion criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 03:50, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's a joke that Rotten Tomatoes is even taken seriously. Just scrolling through the page of 'films considered the best' OF ALL TIME, I get presented with 4 films made in the past year all with a very apparent SJW agenda to push. All from Rotten Tomatoes. Should come as no shock that they're given any credence on Wikipedia. I get that anybody can edit Wikipedia but if only sources with far-left bias are accepted as 'reliable' it means nothing, everything just gets reverted.2A00:23C4:E084:6100:A109:9EC0:39D7:8363 (talk) 12:08, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes doesn't have a far left bias. It is an aggregator and it simply reflects the sensibilities of critics who qualify to submit reviews to it. Films such as The Birth of a Nation (a film acknowledged for reviving the Ku Klux Klan) has a 100% rating, and the famous Nazi propaganda film Triumph of the Will has a 87% rating. If films with a liberal agenda are doing well in its ratings it is because these are the films that are currently favored by film critics, and there isn't much Rotten Tomatoes can do about that. It is a litmus test for the state of current film journalism, which is often just a symptom of the kind of films being made. There is a clear bias towards recent movies, but that is mainly because Rotten Tomatoes has only existed for around 20 years, and therefore it principally aggregates reviews for current movies. Now, I agree that is a systemic flaw in the aggregation process, and it's certainly true that not all lists are created equal (the Sight & Sound lists are far more credible IMO) but that in itself does not preclude a source from being notable and reliable. I would say that the main strength of this article is that we have a real diversity in the methodologies used to create these lists, and that ultimately leads to good and bad lists. Betty Logan (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Your are misinterpreting what you think you are refuting. The claim wasn't that Rotten Tomatoes had a "far left bias"; it's that their (largely) unbiased interpretation of (largely) biased reviews has the outcome of favoring recent films, especially those appealing to a certain mindset. But politics is a red herring here:

• The way the site is clearly weighed toward recent films runs counter to the "best," politics or no politics. I'm sure many people would consider Paddington 2 the best animated film, Black Panther the best action film and superhero film, I Am Not Your Negro the best documentary, Call Me by Your Name the best romance, Get Out the best comedy and horror film ... of the last 13 months. But I challenge you to find a single movie critic in all of existence who thinks that these are the best films of their genre since the invention of filmmaking. Any critic would find such a summary a mockery of their profession.
• The site is very clearly not about what's best, but what's most agreeable. It ranks films by the number of reviewers who like them, not the number who think they're high art or otherwise worthy of special acclaim. This page is supposed to represent "films considered the best," not "films considered the least offensive."

As you state, part of the bias is that Rotten Tomatoes has been around for only 20 years; if that were the only problem (1) it would be worth stating in the article and (2) we wouldn't be seeing primarily films that came out in the last year or so. The are many other explanations for that - a dying print journalism industry; grade (approval) inflation; a refusal to go against the grain, especially on movies addressing hot-button issues - but can anyone defend these as being "the best"? Go to https://www.rottentomatoes.com/about/ and you'll repeatedly see the phrase "percentage of positive reviews" or variants thereof. Again, different from "the best." Rotten Tomatoes has no place here. I could see an argument for Metacritic; it at least measures the average level of approval, e.g., Rear Window's 100 or Moonlight's 99 versus Get Out, Black Panther, Paddington 2, all of which have scores in the 80s. But Rotten Tomatoes, which only records approval versus disapproval, does not belong here; it either claims to nor tries to measure what this page is trying to. What's the argument to the contrary? It seems it's only here because it offers easy answers (via questionable genre classification and false precision) and folks don't seem to care that different questions are being asked than here. Calbaer (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll add that Get Out at 99% somehow "beats" several films at 100% just because RT has more reviews of it on its site, something that's clearly independent of the quality of Get Out. In fact, although the movie's "Tomatometer score" is 99%, RT gives it a "rating" of 8.3/10. By comparison, Singin' in the Rain, All About Eve, Dr. Strangelove, and Modern Times are all at least 9.0 (with Toy Story 3 close behind at 8.9). So even by RT's own rating system, their "highest ranked" aren't "best." So how is it still on this page? (I offer Get Out as just the example from comedy; you could easily substitute whatever genre you prefer and find similar discrepancies.) Calbaer (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

I think the problem with the Rotten Tomatoes genre lists is that the genres are chosen by the website staff, not chosen by the critics. If a critic thinks Get Out is great, it doesn't mean the critic thinks Get Out is a great comedy. If critics think it's great, and Rotten Tomatoes thinks it's a comedy, I think it's original research to say that critics think it's a great comedy. Another problem is that too many films are close to 100%, so the number of reviews is usually the deciding factor of which film is on top. This gives recent films a big advantage, as Calbaer said.

I think all of the Rotten Tomatoes genre entries should be removed, but I think The Wizard of Oz should remain (in the Review Aggregators section) because it's #1 overall, and it's a notable list. I think the article should cover a variety of ranking methods, even if some of those methods have problems.

The removed genre entries would be Black Panther (2017), Paddington 2 (2017), Get Out (2017), I Am Not Your Negro (2017), Call Me by Your Name (2017), Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), Murderball (2005), and The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948). Five of these films are recent. It looks like Rotten Tomatoes removed Black Panther, Paddington 2, and Call Me by Your Name from the genre lists even though they still have good scores, so I'm not sure what happened. Murderball is #1 because they forgot to put The Wrestler in the Sports category. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre is the only one that maybe deserves its entry, but it would be arbitrary to keep it and not the others. Citizen Kane would still be in the article because it won other polls. Mjf345 (talk) 02:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, though I'm not convinced even the all-time entry should be there. It has the problems of the other entries (well, every problem that's not genre-related), e.g., the fact that it's most-accepted not best. Leaving it on not only opens the door to others being reintroduced, it opens the door to the pick's instability. In 2011, it was 2008's Man on Wire, now ranked #99. In 2014, it was 1999's Toy Story 2, which is now #44. Now, it's The Wizard of Oz, which has a 99% Tomatometer score and a 9.4 Average Rating. #2, Citizen Kane, has 100% and the same Average Rating. It only has a worse ranking because Rotten Tomatoes has fewer reviews for it. And that's not a reflection on anything the movie did; it's a reflection of what Rotten Tomatoes did. IMDb actually has more external reviews for Citizen Kane (249) than for The Wizard of Oz (218)! For all these reasons, I think it's best we not include it, much as it might subjectively feel wrong to exclude The Wizard of Oz. It's not like we should expect that it'll be The Wizard of Oz by year end anyway. Calbaer (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll note that https://www.rottentomatoes.com/top/ does call the top 100 movies of all time list "best movies of all time". I also would like to point out that we could make similar arguments against most other polls' methods – the Sight & Sound poll, for instance, counts the number of critics' who think a particular movie is one of the ten best of all time, which is also not the same thing as measuring which movie is the best. Furthermore, I don't think pick instability is necessarily a problem – using the same Sight & Sound poll as example, their first #1 pick was released only four years prior, and it was ranked #33 in the most recent poll. As a side note, I think they removed all 2018 movies from all the top lists (and for some reason Paddington 2 and Call Me by Your Name are counted as 2018 movies). TompaDompa (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Man on Wire had a big drop in the top 100 list in 2014 when they changed the formula. Before the change, it was just 100% films sorted by number of reviews. Now they allow films with lower scores, and they use a Bayesian formula but I don't know how they calculate it. I noticed that Laura is ranked higher than North by Northwest, but they have the same score and North by Northwest has more reviews. Mjf345 (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Care to weigh in? TompaDompa (talk) 12:34, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes' methodology is their own business. I suspect Laura may be ranked higher than North By Northwest simply because 50s/60s films are more represented than 1940s films, so Laura has had a more advantageous Bayesian correction, or conversely North by Northwest has been penalised more harshly for being part of a more "popular" decade. If it were me I would have a separate Bayesian prior for each decade and country, which would not just correct for the difference in votes, but also for age and nationality. Ultimately every poll has to have a methodology because they have to compile all of these individual votes into a list and RT is no different in this regard.

However, I think Calbaer makes a valid point in that Rotten Tomatoes aggregates from critics who have never considered the question of which film is "best" i.e. Rotten Tomatoes is essentially a film recommendation service: it simply lists films that have been recommended the most (offset by some form of Bayesian correction). For instance, it seems every critic and his teddy bear has recommended Paddington 2 (and I would highly recommend it too) but quite honestly it wouldn't trouble my top ten. I doubt it would even trouble my top ten of "children's films" if were minded to draw one up. In other words, notionally, these films on the RT lists have never been considered the "best" in any capacity at any point of the process. At least with Metacritic and IMDB scores the lists are drawn up according to qualitative assessments (i.e. if you score a film 9/10 you obviously think it is better than a film you gave 8/10) but this isn't the case. I suppose most of the critics that recommend Paddington 2 would recommend Citizen Kane, but if you were to ask them for a qualitative assessment of the two films then I suspect one of those films would end up being rated much higher than the other.

I think this discussion has taken the long route (i.e. methodology, liberal bias and recentism doesn't really matter to us) but the fact that these RT lists consider a fundamentally different question to the one that they we pose in the lead of the article is significant. If Rotten Tomtoes ranked by its ratings I would be in favor of keeping it despite its flaws, but as things stand the lists are not ranking films by how good they are, so I am going to add my voice to those calling to remove the lists. Betty Logan (talk) 14:47, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I think completely removing Rotten Tomatoes from the article violates WP:DUE because the Rotten Tomatoes top 100 has received a lot of attention from third-party sources [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], and some of these sources refer to it as a method of ranking the best movies. Maybe the article can just explain what a review aggregator is without mentioning specific films. Mjf345 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

The first link you cite, although using "best" in the headline, includes the following quote: "Rotten Tomatoes’ scores are determined based on a simple liked it/disliked it grading, not the actual scores determined by critics. It’s worth noting when it comes to defining the highest-rated films." Yes, Rotten Tomatoes is much-discussed, notable, and useful. But notability isn't the question here; it's appropriateness. Of course, one of the reasons it's covered in media is that there's nothing juicier or easier to write than an article with a headline line, "Film from last month topples 1939 fave for top spot!" But top spot doesn't mean "best" (even if some news pieces might portray it as such). I'm not sure how I feel about adding a comment like "Black Panther is the top-rated film on Rotten Tomatoes, though this measures not films considered best, but films with the highest proportion of positive reviews" (or a version leaving a specific film out, since who here really thinks that it'll be Black Panther, in, say, 2020?). That would help dissuade people from re-adding Rotten Tomatoes, unaware of why it's not appropriate - something that already happened in the last few hours. But I'm not sure whether such prophylactic content is really that appropriate. Calbaer (talk) 01:10, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It can be worded differently so it doesn't sound prophylactic, for example in a section called "Other ranking methods", "Rotten Tomatoes ranks films by the percentage of positive critic reviews, collected from a variety of sources." Mjf345 (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that Rotten Tomatoes' rating is equivalent to using a numeric scale with only two options, giving a movie 0 or 1 stars out of 1 for instance. Is it really a fundamentally different question, or just a very nonintuitive way of going about it? TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

A 1-bit scale is fundamentally different, as witnessed by the fact that there are different outcomes in using it. (Is the top Tomatometer-scoring film even in the top 100 according to its Average Rating? Right now, it's #234 at Metacritic.) On a related note, I just stumbled across an article from The Verge discussing how RT scores - "they measure consensus instead of passion" - might be influencing the Oscars for Best Picture, moving from picking what's safe with the public to what's safe among critics. RT is a measurement of safety/consensus, not quality/passion. Calbaer (talk) 06:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

That it produces different outcomes is beside the point. If the Sight & Sound poll had asked each critic to list 1, 3, 5, or 20 films instead of 10, the results would almost certainly be different. The question is whether it answers the same question, and I would say it does. It answers it differently from how everyone else does it, sure, but it's not like all the others do it the same way as each other. I don't see a fundamental difference between using a 2-point, 5-point, 8-point, 10-point, or 21-point rating system – even though they would all probably produce different results. The precision of the rating scale is completely arbitrary either way. TompaDompa (talk) 07:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

This isn't just a matter of two methodologies slightly reordering the top 10. This is #1 in one being #234 in the other. How is that not fundamentally different? To put it another way, how many critics do you think would put Black Panther on their "top ten of all time"? If the answer is "none," how can we say it's "considered to be the best" film? Saying the measures are not fundamentally different is like saying that an L0 norm is not fundamentally different than an L1 norm because they're both norms. To put it yet another way, say this were indeed a mathematical optimization problem, where making a "better movie" had some marginal cost. Then an optimizing production would make a movie that every critic would just barely like rather than one that most people would love, getting to 100% while being among no one's top movie list. Of course, movies aren't made that way, but it does illustrate the difference.

And that's ignoring the issue that number of critics - something having nothing to do with the film itself - plays a critical role in the ordering of the "top" RT rankings. I believe that others see this distinction. If I've not convinced you, we can agree to disagree, but there's certainly no consensus for including Tomatometer scores at this point. Calbaer (talk) 15:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

It is not our place to question methodology, but it is our place to question whether the survey/poll produces a list that qualifies under the scope of this article. If Sight & Sound just requested that each critic submitted their favourite/best film then that would be a unary choice, but one that does address the central question posed in this article. That might be a slightly erratic way of approaching the list, but ultimately that is a question of methodology and not scope, so not our concern. I would say that any poll/survey that is based on ordered lists legitimately comes under our scope. With polls that rely on critics "grading" a film it becomes more problematic and we enter a grey area in terms of scope. In one sense Rotten Tomatoes' binary choice could be simply considered a 2-star grading. On the other hand, Metacritic could be considered a 100-star system, so is one more within our scope than the other, if for the sake of argument we accept that compiling film scores into a ranking is a legitimate form of producing a ranked list of "best" films? After all, would we argue that the top film on the IMDB list is not the "best film" according to their methodology? I honestly don't think anyone would.

In the case of Metacritic they simply transpose the critic's star rating to their scale, and because it uses a 100-point scale it can accommodate any nuance or comparative assessment that the critic uses when grading films. For example, if a critic grades Citizen Kane 5-stars and Paddington 2 3-stars then Metacritic is able to retain the qualitative distinction that the critics being polled created. They might weight the film according to the eminence of the critics, they might issue a Bayesian correction for the number of votes (these are all questions of methodology) but the complete information value of the rating is retained by the poll. Conversely, Rotten Tomatoes loses the distinction through its binary system. Since most critics use a 4/5 star rating system, with the odd one using a 10-point scale, I think any survey/poll that qualifies as a "best film" list must retain that qualitiative distinction that the critics themselves created, if we are to accept that such an ordered list respesents the critical consensus of how "good" a film is. The Metascore does this, and the Rotten Tomatoes average rating does this, but the Tomatometer does not, and as such I find the argument for removing the lists compelling. Betty Logan (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I think any survey/poll that qualifies as a "best film" list must retain that qualitiative distinction that the critics themselves created, if we are to accept that such an ordered list respesents the critical consensus of how "good" a film is. This is the part where we disagree. I think one that does is a better representation than one that does not, but I would not go so far as to say that one that does not retain that distinction does not represent it at all. TompaDompa (talk) 20:40, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

There is something Rotten with Tomatoes. None of the other polls require updates that would remove past listings or stat changes. Once a movie is listed, it should stay listed. Maybe you could set it at the end of the year, but I think a better requirement is the movie has to be out for at least a year. That delay/filter would remove much of the recentism, spikes, noise, work,…. Also, if a film gets listed, it stays and the first (or last) date would put an edge on it. StrayBolt (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

We've had other sources that require updating (but I recently removed all MRQE entries because it's very unclear if it's still being updated or when they stopped). I'm not sure that's a problem. We've also removed entries because the lists they topped were superseded by more recent ones multiple times[9][10][11][12]. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Film Noir

There should be a film noir section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:A8BD:2E00:DCC4:4FF6:A168:840E (talk) 00:38, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

A section will only be created if there is a film to go in it, and for that we need sources. If you know of any then we will gladly consider them. Betty Logan (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a notable film noir poll in the Fall 2000 issue of Nickel Odeon magazine [13], but I don't have a copy of that issue, so I don't know which film won. Mjf345 (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

re add the wizard of oz, psycho, and pulp fiction

The wizard of oz, psycho, and pulp fiction need to be on this article because they are important to this list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deezbuttz (talk • contribs) 21:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

If they topped polls meeting the inclusion criteria (see the top of the talk page), feel free to add them (along with references). If not, they don't belong on the list. TompaDompa (talk) 21:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The Good, The Bad and The Ugly

I cannot believe that this this film is not referenced on this page and I'm sure there must be some critical and public consensus for that being one of the best ever films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.60.38.226 (talk) 10:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

There are probably many sources citing it as one of the best Westerns, but the criteria for this list is that it should be cited as the best, and it's up against some pretty stiff competition. If you were going to pick a spaghetti western I suspect most critics would opt for Once Upon a Time in the West over TGTBATG. Betty Logan (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

best indian films and best world film

bahubali the beganing and bahubali 2:the conclusion also the biggest film.And also infinity war is a grand favourite film of 21st century. Ranjitjena130400 (talk) 17:45, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Films are not added based on commercial success and neither do they qualify over arbitrary time periods. "Best film of the 20th century" is probably the minimum epoch we would consider. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 June 2018

Comic/Superhero Superman (1978) was voted the greatest superhero movie in a poll of 1000 British adults conducted by Virgin Media in 2018.[47] The Dark Knight (2008) was voted the greatest superhero movie in a reader's poll conducted by American magazine Rolling Stone in 2014.[48] Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) was voted best superhero movie of all time by resetera, geeks and cbr. Avengers: Infinity War (2018) is the most grossing superhero film of all time, crushing the box office records. Sebastian evans (talk) 00:05, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. TompaDompa (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Is Spirited Away allowed in the animated film section?

It was voted the fourth best film of the 21st century by 177 film critics around the world, according to BBC and numerous other sources. Is it possible to have it in there? If not, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NowIsntItTime (talk • contribs) 02:14, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Fourth best is not enough to be on this list. It has to have been voted the best to be eligible. TompaDompa (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018

I want to add something to it 109.145.176.163 (talk) 18:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Please explain what you would like to add, and then set the "answered" parameter to "no" to reopen this edit request. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:43, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Argentina

I'm from Argentina and I'm not sure about what is needed to change the Wikipedia page but I can assure you Chronicle of a Boy Alone (1965) is not by any chance considered the best Argentinian film ever, not even remembered by anybody. Here in Argentina, nobody barely remembers it, or even likes it that much.

I want to request if someone who is kind enough to make the research to change it to Secret in Their Eyes (2009), an instant classic masterpiece, well-known, important film for our country. There are other options that are way more important than Chronicle of a Boy Alone (1965): Son of the Bride (2001), The Truce (1974), Wild Tales (2014), The Official Story (1985), Man Facing Southeast (1986), The Clan (2015), Night of the Pencils (1986), The Distinguished Citizen (2016), Nine Queens (2000).

None of the films I just listed, I believe, are important enough to be considered for the actual article. But the point I'm making is that Chronicle of a Boy Alone (1965) listed as the ultimate Argentinian film is a joke, when you have all of those films being better.

The best Argentinian film (and one of the best ever made) is hands down Secret in Their Eyes (2009), and I want for that film to be in the article, at least next to Chronicle of a Boy Alone (1965). I don't understand what is needed to list it and maybe someone that knows better than me how to do it can make me this favor, but I can assure you that it is a unanimous call in Argentina's film industry and I'm stunned that it isn't in here, and it's replaced by Chronicle of a Boy Alone (1965). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.205.109 (talk) 05:24, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion used by this list is having topped a notable poll. The current entry meets that requirement. If we are to add another entry, we need to find a reliable source that says that it has topped such a poll. TompaDompa (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of any polls won by Secret in Their Eyes. There was a poll published by Diario Perfil newspaper, won by El Dependiente, but I didn't add it because I can't find a reliable source. There was a Latin American poll published by Arcadia magazine, and La ciénaga was the highest ranked film from Argentina (ranked 5th with 21 votes). Secret in Their Eyes got 20 votes. In the Latin American poll published by Noticine, The Official Story was the highest ranked film from Argentina (ranked 9th).Mjf345 (talk) 10:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Akira in Animated section

Akira is widely considered to be the greatest anime film of all time, there is more information on Akira's Wikipedia article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.202.13 (talk) 01:31, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

The criterion for inclusion used by this list is having topped a notable poll. I don't see any such poll on Akira (1988 film) that doesn't run afoul of the restrictions in the #Consensus headbar. TompaDompa (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Even if you can find a notable poll where Akira was voted the best anime film, it wouldn't be eligible because both country and genre were specified. You would have to find a poll where Akira was voted the best animated film. Mjf345 (talk) 06:31, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Best Israeli films by Haaretz

Sorry but the chapter on Israel is incomplete unless the best film by Israel's quality newspaper is also listed. The listing was already twice removed under edit summaries that did not hold water. gidonb (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

The objections hold plenty of water. Polls larger than this have in the past been removed for not being authoritative enough. The poll you keep adding is a poll of seven critics and 100 "surfers". Such a small poll is in no way meaningful and does not belong on this list. In statistical terms a sample size of under 30 is statistically unsafe. I agree with Tompa Dompa that the poll is not notable enough to be included. If polls if this size were permitted we would end up adding hundreds of polls to this list and it would quickly become WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Betty Logan (talk) 20:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

In the poll of 7 critics, 7 films tied for first place, each with 2 votes. 2 votes is not notable enough to mention in the article. Mjf345 (talk) 05:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Schindler's List

Considering something like The Dark Knight can get on this list, should Schindler's List be added?★Trekker (talk) 14:31, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@*Treker: If it meets the guidelines listed at the top. "The film MUST be cited as THE BEST in the category where it is being listed." If you have a WP:RS that satisfies all the criteria on the top, than it could be listed. The Dark Knight is in the Comic/Superhero category, a significant category in today's market. Perhaps a new category needs to be added. StrayBolt (talk) 15:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

I feel like this is an odd way to have this article. Shouldn't it be called List of films ranked as the best instead, since many films are widely considered the best of all time but might not have been ranked as number one specifically in some list, in part because they don't belong to an easy to define genre? The title of the page is a little vague based on the guidlines.★Trekker (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Relaxing the criteria would make the list WP:INDISCRIMINATE. We used to allow 2nd and 3rd place ranked films but the list became bloated. The fact is there are so many polls, genres and countries that the list has the potential to become very unwieldy. I don't think the title is misleading: if Schinder's List has only finished near the top without ever actually bagging the top spot then it is merely regarded as "one of the best", not "the best". Betty Logan (talk) 14:17, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

I guess we could include the genre of Holocaust drama. But note that Schindler's List is generally not considered that high for a Holocaust drama, especially outside of the US. Roger Ebert called the Oscars for Schindler's List a "rebuke" for the fact that in 1991, the Germans had refused to let Agnieszka Holland's Europa Europa run for the Oscars for Best Foreign Language Film. It's similar with Holocaust: The Technicolor Musical aka Benigni's Life is Beautiful, which simply was lucky that Benigni had pumped enough money into US distribution and marketing so that it hit the US first before Train of Life did, even though Train of Life had been first in production and Benigni had been offered the role of village idiot in it, but he said no and went and wrote Life is Beautiful instead. And when Train of Life was eventually seen in but a few shoeboxes in the US, people accused Mihaileanu of ripping off Benigni, when in fact it had been the other way around. Plus, I'd be afraid that the genre of Holocaust drama could be overrun with suggestions such as Come and See, which is not a Holocaust film but a film about WWII and the German war crimes in the Soviet Union. --2003:EF:13C6:DC12:914B:881:CAE6:BFD3 (talk) 02:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Schindler's List was included in this Wikipedia article for over a decade until it was systematically removed in late 2017. It was included based on being listed as #1 on the following list for Best Political/Historical Film: https://web.archive.org/web/20170419103617/http://abcnewsradioonline.com/entertainment-news/best-in-film-the-greatest-movies-of-our-time.html. Please note that this same source is still used as the justification for the inclusion of the film Gone With The Wind in the current iteration of the Wikipedia article (citation number 205 in the current Wikipedia article. The 2017 version of this article stated, "Schindler's List (1993) was chosen as the best political/historical film for Best in Film: The Greatest Movies of Our Time.[7]" It is clear that someone specifically targeted removing Schindler's List from this article in 2017, and the methodology was applied inconsistently since Gone With the Wind was not also tarted. During this same user's targeted edit in late 2017, Schindler's List was also removed from the Audience polls section of the article. The previous version of the article stated "Schindler's List (1993) was voted the best film ever made by the German film magazine Cinema.[20]" I suggest re-instating Schindler's List for inclusion. Specifically, for the category "Political/Historical" (which was itself removed in 2017 by the same user).

Black Panther

Since Black Panther tops the list of comic book movies in both Rotten tomatoes and Metacritic, can we include it in that category. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

"Don't add movies based on topping Rotten Tomatoes' lists." it's written at the top of the talk page. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• DiCaprio and Winslet in Titanic (1997 film).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Sequels

What about adding the genre of best sequels to the list? Notable sourcable entries would include Aliens (1986), Back to the Future Part II (1989), and Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991). --2003:EF:13C6:DC12:914B:881:CAE6:BFD3 (talk) 02:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Are there any notable polls for best sequels? I'm sure there are editorial lists, but are there actual polls? TompaDompa (talk) 12:01, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Found poll for best sequels in rolling stones. https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/readers-poll-the-25-greatest-movie-sequels-10408/25-sister-act-2-back-in-the-habit-207178/. But not sure adding this would be good idea. Also it's quite odd that only No.1 movie makes into the list. What if movies like Schindler's List was found at No.2 in most of the list but not in No.1, I am pretty sure many people would consider Schindler's list better than most of the movies here especially in genres like The Dark Knight, etc.,

Ashokkumar47 (talk) 06:24, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I think most people would find it strange if we listed films that came second but not films that came top. Neither Schindler's List or The Dark Knight have been picked as "greatest film" in any notable poll; The Dark Knight only tops a poll within its genre. Even if we removed the genre lists Schindler's List still wouldn't make the cut. Betty Logan (talk) 07:25, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Do we even need a section for comic/superhero genre, can't those movies come under Action genre. Superhero section is the sole reason for removing Rotten Tomatoes best movies because Black Panther is best superhero movie in Rotten Tomatoes and even professionals went fanboy. So can we add back Rotten Tomatoes best movies and remove Superhero section. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 10:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

These films were not ranked as "action" movies, they were ranked as "superhero/comic book movies", that is why we have a section for them. The Rotten Tomatoes entries were removed because the films were never voted the "best" in any meaningful capacity. Betty Logan (talk) 10:46, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Aren't these clearly mention as the best movies based on the reviews collected professional critics.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-computer-animated-movies-of-all-time/

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/ Ashokkumar47 (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ashokkumar47: The current consensus is "don't add movies based on topping Rotten Tomatoes' lists" (link). --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay. May I know why? I am pretty sure Rotten Tomatoes is more reliable than the likes of Rolling stones. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

@Ashokkumar47: I didn't take part of the discussion, but here you can see why. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 10:50, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Well, I stopped reading them once I saw that people complained about Rotten Tomatoes biased towards SJW agenda. I don't know how the officials approved this, but this doesn't make any sense at all. Maybe you can re-evaluate them. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 11:57, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Url broken

Url source seems to be broken in best Christmas movies poll.

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/features/empire-30-best-christmas-movies/ Ashokkumar47 (talk) 17:41, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes Updates

Hi, I had a discussion about Rotten Tomatoes best movies in other section and would like to make official section for it.

It was mentioned to look in the following link for more details about Rotten Tomatoes updates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_films_considered_the_best/Archive_9#Rotten_Tomatoes_updates

All I see in this link people complaining that Rotten tomatoes is biased to SJW agenda, which doesn't make any sense at all. And I don't know how the official members approved this. This is Wikipedia, right and not some random public user reviews/ratings.

And then there is a mention of Rotten Tomatoes doesn't list as best movies but well here are few which clearly mentioned as "the best".

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-computer-animated-movies-of-all-time/

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/

We used to have list of Rotten Tomatoes best movies and now suddenly how could the officials change it based on one or few people's opinion about Rotten Tomatoes being biased. Everybody know Rotten tomatoes is the one of the most popular and respected.

So, please don't alter any thing just based on one or few people opinions. Get actual fact with reliable source and then update. And I request you to do something useful for the whole community by giving actual facts and restore the Rotten tomatoes updates. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

I took part in the previous discussion, and I actually agree with you that we should include Rotten Tomatoes entries. However, WP:CONSENSUS is against it (at least for now). The main reason is that the methodology they use to rank films simply considers the number of positive reviews vs. the number of negative reviews (regardless of how positive or how negative they are), and the argument was made that this does not actually fall under the scope of this article (because, the argument goes, it does not measure which film is the best, but rather which is the most universally liked). I think this is a valid objection, even if I personally disagree. TompaDompa (talk) 22:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

But the Rotten Tomatoes Score is the one that tells how many people liked the movie (Eg: Toy story 2 has 100% score which means it is universally liked).

But there is an adjusted score you can find in the above links which is calculated by the Bayesian formula with score, average rating, number of reviews,etc., And you can clearly see the adjusted score doesn't rate movies in the order of universally liked.

So, please let me know if I am wrong but I am still not able to understand why it got removed. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

This list is not about which film is the most liked, it is for films regarded as the best. For example, both Paddington 2 and Citizen Kane have 100% ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. If Citizen Kane picked up an solitary bad review then it would rank below Paddington 2, despite the fact that critics scored Citizen Kane 9.47/10 and Paddington 2 8.76/10. Critics clearly think Citizen Kane is the better movie but that is not evidenced in the Tomatometer, because all the critics who reviewed these two movies liked them. Betty Logan (talk) 03:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan I think you didn't understand what I said.

Rotten Tomatoes Score is the one that tells about how much the movie is liked and not the adjusted score.

Please look into it. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The adjusted score uses weighting by the number of reviews. As far as I can tell, it does not take the average rating into account. TompaDompa (talk) 05:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@TompaDompa In the below link, you can see it clearly mention "the number of reviews, the year of release, and the average Tomatometer scores"

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/faq

Can't believe you are just saying something without even checking properly. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 15:01, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Think I am wasting time here and not sure what the senior editors doing.

Altering without checking and verifying properly.

Hope you people remember it's Wikipedia. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The full sentence is The Adjusted Tomatometer Score, which often appears in editorial lists, takes into account the number of reviews, the year of release, and the average Tomatometer scores of other films released contemporaneously. That last part—the average Tomatometer scores of other films released contemporaneously—refers to Tomatometer scores (i.e. XX% positive reviews), not the average rating (i.e. X.X/10). You seem to be confusing the two. TompaDompa (talk) 18:28, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The term "the average Tomatometer scores" clearly indicates it considers both tomatoscore and avarage rating.

If you ask anybody or research yourself, you will come to know. But why you people come and making same mistake one by one. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 02:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

No it doesn't. The adjusted Tomatometer score is simply a Bayesian correction to compensate for population variations; it does not factor in the average critics rating. There is no connection between the two because they are qualifiably different metrics. The purpose of this list is to document films that critics thought were BEST. The Tomatometer does not do this; it simply ranks films by how many people liked them, using a Bayesian adjustment. Case in point: according to this Rotten Tomatoes chart more critics LIKED Black Panther than any other superhero film, but they do not think it is the BEST superhero film. Black Panther got an average critics rating of 8.3/10, but they rated Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse 8.8/10 and The Dark Knight 8.6/10, hence they don't actually think Black Panther is the best superhero film i.e. more critics like Black Panther, but on the whole gave it a lower score than the other two films. Unless you have a counter-argument to that particular interpretation there is no point in us continuing this discussion with you. Betty Logan (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan yes seriously there is no point in continuing the discussion with you. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 08:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I noticed one more thing just now. Rotten Tomatoes weights more values to the Top Critics Average ratings. The Dark Knight has 8.1/10, Into the spider-verse has 8.7/10 while Black Panther has 8.8/10.

If you calculate everything based on Bayesian formula, you would surely get the right list. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Since everything seems fine, can I add them? Ashokkumar47 (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you there is a consensus against adding them and none of the contributors here have accepted your arguments. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

@Betty Logan I just explained the Top Critics Average ratings up there.

Seems everything is fine now, let's add them. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

You haven't explained anything. You have talked about something completely irrelevant. TompanDompa explained to you what the adjusted score is. The FAQ explains that the only factors that affect the adjusted score are "the number of reviews, the year of release, and the average Tomatometer scores of other films released contemporaneously". If you start edit-warring against the consensus you will simply be reported and blocked. Betty Logan (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. Wonder how you become Senior editor. Couldn't even understand simple logic. Keep it whatever the majority of contributors want. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I sincerely apologise @Betty Logan and @TompaDompa for using unkind words. It's just that everybody is fine with Rotten Tomatoes until Black Panther despite having 96% score and 8.8 Top Critics Average rating tops it. People gone crazy over it which made me anger and frustrated that I tried hard to bring it back. In the process I have said some harsh words. So again apologies. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

There are numerous problems with RT. The hideously awful system they use for "scoring" a balanced piece of text into a raw number needs to be phrased properly, not just the equally crass "an overall score of 96%" is one; the peacock hyperbole in the language reviewers use nowadays in comparison with earlier writers; the entire screw up of trying to use RT to "judge" anything prior to 2000 (when RT was set up). It's a crass and awful site for people too lazy to read reviews and should not be used to "rate" historical films. – SchroCat (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Ashokkumar47 mentioned Rotten Tomatoes' lists of the best movies ever made by genre and type. These ratings of the "best" movies of "all time" seem to fall within the scope of this article. Apparently Rotten Tomatoes considers the most liked movies to be the "best" movies. I think we should include their selections and clarify how Rotten Tomatoes judges films differently than others. Kolya Butternut (talk) 23:44, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't work well enough for inclusion, as every pre-2000 film is judged on very different characteristics to post-2000 films (and that's before you take on board the mind-numbingly crass way of turning finely honed and balanced prose into some form of percentage score). - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it's a poor system, but we go by what the notable sources say?  Kolya Butternut (talk) 10:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. And it should be included since it includes the whole professional critics. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

No, because the aim of RT is not to produce a list of films considered the best (like the BFI/AFI 'best films/top 100 films'. They don't have a level playing field for judging something made in 1926 with something from 1947 with a 2010 film. If the same criteria are not used for measuring all works (which is what happens with RT 'scores' for pre-2000 films), then it's useless to try and falsely work out a list. - SchroCat (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

What do you mean by that? Clearly, one of their aims is to produce such a list since they have a list called "best movies of all time", as seen here. Looking at the list itself, it contains both pre-2000 films and post-2000 films, as seen here. Now, what can be said is that none of the pre-2000 films have more than 200 reviews (the closest is a 1999 film with 169 reviews, and in second place is a 1982 film with 129 reviews) and none of the post-2000 films have fewer than 200 reviews (the one with the highest number of reviews has 485). A scatter plot with release year on one axis and number of reviews on the other shows the discrepancy in number of reviews very clearly. TompaDompa (talk) 23:35, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Isn't that why they're using the adjusted score?  They're judging movies to be the best based on the adjusted tomatometer score.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• One of my prior objections to RT was the list was too dynamic. Also, looking at RT Top, there seems to be some unstable(?) orders. Looking at 2018 and Top, what happen to Mission Impossible: Fallout, Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, Roma, and A Star is Born from not appearing in Top? Eighth Grade is #14 on the Top list, but is lower than the prior ones on 2018 list. StrayBolt (talk) 00:34, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, noticed too.

The best movies of genre and best movies of each year are stable and rightly based on adjusted score.

Only unstable list is the Top 100 movies of all time list which seems to be excluding some.

And since we are only considering the #1 movie, I don't think there is any problem with adding them. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 05:53, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

So you want to include information from an unstable list cobbled together with information from flawed rating 'system' from a site who focuses on post-2000 films? I can't see what the problem might be.... 🤦‍♂️ Perhaps just leaving the awful thing out of the page is the best thing that can be done. - SchroCat (talk) 08:51, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Notes

User:Ashokkumar47 - If you don't know enough English to know what pronoun to use for User:Betty Logan or another editor, don't report the editor at WP:ANI, because it looks ignorant. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Awful thing?

Perhaps can anyone request a Wikipedia expert for this talk section.

SchroCat doesn't seem to resolve here. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 09:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

If you mean that I don't agree with you, then you're right: I don't, just like several other people in the thread above. Just because you keep hammering the same point over and over, it does not mean people will agree with you. Perhaps, and you may just want to think about this for a bit before hammering at the same point again, it's because what you're suggesting is not a good idea. People are giving you very good reasons why RT has not been included in the list. It may be time for you to take on board that it is not a great resource for an article of this type. Re-raising the same point over and pver has a very short shelf life until it becomes disruptive: please don't keep pushing it when the consensus is very clearly against you. - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• Ashokkumar47, Please don't try to WP:CANVASS support from others, as you have done here, here, here, here and here. So far in this matter, you've been incredibly uncivil to Betty Logan, (and tried to open an ANI case against her), not listened to the various arguments against you or advice given to you, continued to disruptively push the same point, regardless of the consensus, and canvassing other users. You are not far away from being blocked for your behaviour, and I advise you, most strongly, to rein in your approach or move on. - SchroCat (talk) 09:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

It clearly seems in below link that TompaDompa and Kolya Butternut are supporting for Rotten Tomatoes list.

I can't see why not to add them. Requesting someone expert to look into this one please.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best#/talk/6 Ashokkumar47 (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

• I have requested additional comments from the film project. Ashokkumar47, please note that Wikipedia does not have "experts" who make judgements on content. That is determined by the consensus of editors. - SchroCat (talk) 11:07, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

SchroCat with what you have said earlier in this conversation, it clearly shows that you don't care about this and it's a waste of time.

That's why I would like to know can I start discussion in the below link

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_administrator_attention Ashokkumar47 (talk) 12:23, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Ashokkumar47, you have been asked by people previously not comment on other editors, I am going to repeat that again, and point out that it includes casting aspersions about their motivation in commenting on a page. As I have said in the comment just above yours, I have requested comments from members of the film project. If you wish to request Administrator attention, you are free to do so, but I sincerely doubt they will make a judgement on the content aspect: that is not what their role is all about. - SchroCat (talk) 12:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC) (and, by the way, this is on entirely the wrong page). - SchroCat (talk) 12:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Could everyone please deescalate?  We don't need administrators or any more editors.  There is no consensus for or against adding Rotten Tomatoes top films, but in that case we leave the status quo as is.  The only real concern I see against adding RT is the "instability" argument.  I've contacted RT to ask why the second best film of 2018 is left off the all time best film list while the third best of 2018 did make the all time list.  If there's no good reason then I'd say their ratings are not worth adding unless cited by a secondary source.  Let's just take a break and come back to this.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reopened this discussion as I consider it to have been closed prematurely – there seems to still be some productive discussion to be had. There isn't exactly an overwhelming consensus (nor was there the first time), and since this is such a conspicuous omission, it would be prudent to get a clearer mandate for exclusion (or inclusion) before ending the discussion. Starting an RfC would of course be an option, but since the discussion seems to be moving at least somewhat forward (not only in circles), I think we can allow the discussion to go on for a little while longer before considering doing so.

Anyway, I don't think the reasons given for excluding Rotten Tomatoes are strong enough for omitting such a high-profile source given that this is a list with an otherwise fairly low threshold for inclusion. We need to decide if this list is meant to be inclusive and have a large variety of different sources, or if it should be restricted to high-quality sources. I wouldn't be opposed to the latter, personally – the cleanup in late 2016 definitely improved the article – but singling out Rotten Tomatoes like this seems like an inconsistent approach to me. TompaDompa (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

• I am okay with adding only the first RT Best Movie of All Time (Black Panther), but we should also add Metacritic (Citizen Kane) and IMDb (The Shawshank Redemption). The sites all have their flaws, as others, but are worthy of inclusion. For now, I would not include any subcategories (genre, country, year,…). Also, I would require the movie to have been in "wide" release for at least a year to smooth out any (hype) spikes. The links could be added to External links. StrayBolt (talk) 19:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The IMDb lists the "top rated" films, not the "best" films.  That difference warrants discussion.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

"Best" definition (Cambridge): "of the highest quality, to the greatest degree, in the most effective way, or being the most suitable or pleasing". The "greatest degree" would cover "top rated". Is there a specific definition used for this list? I think the survey results of most of these polls use either "highest quality" or "most pleasing" as well as "greatest degree". Individuals on IMDb might use a personal mix. StrayBolt (talk) 02:55, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

IMDb uses user ratings; I believe all the others use critics' ratings.  IMDb is not making its own judgement of the best films; it is reporting how users rate films.  It also may be synthesis to equate "top rated" with "best".  Kolya Butternut (talk) 03:37, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

It's kind of a moot point. IMDb's ratings are WP:USERGENERATED content and thus not appropriate for Wikipedia. See also WP:RS/IMDb and WP:Citing IMDb. TompaDompa (talk) 06:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

IMDb's ratings are a weighted aggregate of submitted user ratings. That is not like an individual changing "who did what" in a movie. As an audience poll, it requires at least 25K ratings (more than most we've included) it is like 10x bigger than the next largest audience poll listed and is (probably) the largest published poll for movies on the planet. Is there a Chinese or Indian system? There were some discussion about removing all audience polls. Perhaps we can keep the ones that were scientific polls, "We'll call you." For IMDb, we are just stating what IMDb gets, like the others, and not stating definitively "THE BEST" movie. StrayBolt (talk) 17:43, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

But it's not an audience poll of best or even favorite film; it merely aggregates user ratings of all films. Kolya Butternut (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is Roger Ebert's 2002 take on S&S and IMDb: "What does this mean? Well, it might mean that if you have labored for a lifetime watching films and know a lot about them, you believe the cinema has gone to hell since about 1980. Or it may mean that the IMDb's voters are mostly voting on recent titles (they rate each film individually with a point system, instead of composing lists of 10), and "Citizen Kane" has done amazingly well. Or it might mean absolutely nothing at all. That's the thing about these polls."[14] StrayBolt (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think aggregating ratings (or reviews, for that matter) is less valid as a method of determining "the best" than tallying votes is. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/movie-lists/40-greatest-animated-movies-ever-19817/miyazaki-spirited-away-2001-208738/

Can we update this. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 12:50, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Removing Section

Can we remove some stupid sections like Christmas and LGBT. It's ridiculous to have section like these but there is no crime or drama. We can have drame section to fill those. https://www.businessinsider.in/entertainment/movies/the-100-best-drama-movies-of-all-time-according-to-critics/articleshow/65026585.cms

Also superhero movies will come under action and drama as well so there is no point in having that section as well.

It's ludicrously rudimentary to see genre like this. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I think those sections are just as valid as, say, the "Western" section. The reason we don't have a "Crime" or "Drama" section is that we haven't yet found any notable polls for films in those specific genres (the link above does not meet the requirements for inclusion on this list). TompaDompa (talk) 17:17, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Bare bones

Years ago this page was accused of having to many entries now it seems the reaction to that has been far too severe and there are barely enough entries to justify its existence it barely has any content and has pretty much become a wast of space 2601:405:4A80:B950:9D73:3003:ECF3:365C (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 December 2019

references 41 after " Voters chose from a reminder list of more than 350 films.[41]" is a dead link, it goes to some spammy "survey" page 83.151.229.56 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Reference 41 is a dead link but it also provides a link to an archived copy. Therefore verification is still possible. The original link must be retained to maintain source integrity. Betty Logan (talk) 13:39, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

“LGBT” section but no “crime / gangster / noir” section(s) ?!

I came on this page after reading the introduction to the article on Once upon a time in America, which doesn't have a link to this page even though it's described as frequently appearing in lists of the greatest gangster films of all time – and I'm astonished by the fact that not only that movie is not cited once in this page, but there isn't even a “gangster movie” category either (or “crime movie”, or “noir movie” for that matter), while there is a conspicuous “LGBT” category, as if it were an actual genre, between “Horror” and “Musical”... (And the only genre which is named after an acronym, which makes it all the more conspicuous.) Considering the number of critically acclaimed movies revolving around gangsters, organized crime, the mob, the mafia and assorted themes, and the tiny number of halfway decent and memorable so-called “LGBT” movies (which, to be halfway decent and memorable, have to tell a deeper story than mere “LGBT” shenanigans, and therefore belong to another, genuine genre, just like, for instance, a memorable “Christmas movie” has to be about more than Christmas – as a matter of fact Die Hard is cited as the best in the “Christmas movie” genre which is hilarious), this is utterly ludicrous. Shouldn't there be also an “AIDS movie” genre ? (Philadelphia) A “dwarves, bearded women and conjoined twins” or DBWCT genre ? (Freaks) A “domestic female voiced robot serving fresh beer to a lazy bald bum” or DFVRSFBTALBB genre ? (Rocky IV) A “freakishly muscular future politicians getting chased in the jungle by a warrior from outer space” or FMFPGCITJBAWFOS genre ? (Predator)--Abolibibelot (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

The editors on this page don't determine which genres or categories of films are represented. If there are legitimate polls for some kind of grouping such as LGBT or crime films that satisfy the polling criteria and WP:V then it will gain entry to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

So, there is no poll on Crime, Gangster movies but there is poll on LGBT?

Even though we are counting only polls, I think Abolibibelot has a point here. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

I did a quick Google search which did not turn up any polls for the crime/gangster genre. Plenty of editorials, though. Feel free to locate one and add it to the list. TompaDompa (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Did you search for a poll on best Noir movies? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 07:51, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, with the same result. If there is a poll I'm not aware of, feel free to add it. TompaDompa (talk) 05:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we also include African-American cinema, too? Espngeek (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If there is a notable poll for that category, I'd say that is an indication that we could. Did you have one in mind? TompaDompa (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Article suggestion - List of television shows considered the best

I was wondering what people thought of creating this article and if anyone would like to start it? It seems very odd and out of place that we have an article for List of television shows considered the worst, List of films considered the best and List of films considered the worst, but not one for List of television shows considered the best. Personally, I probably don't have time to create such an article and I'm sure people here will know better sources than myself. Helper201 (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Helper201: WP:BEBOLD. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Are there any box office bombs considered the best listed here?

Has anybody available seen any kinds of box office bombs under the Wikipedia "list of films considered the best" here? Thomas Wiencek (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Why do we assume that polls are the way to determine what gets listed here?

I don't understand why there are no references to critical essays where individual published critics have made their cases for "best film". Do we really consider polls to be more valid than arguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlingjones (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Polls are empirical, critical essays are not. A poll of 100 or so critics carry more weight than a single critic's opinion, at least in terms of how widespread that opinion is: a single, eminent, critic regarding a particular film as the "greatest" doesn't make it so; however, if a film tops a critics poll then the claim is at least verifiable, even if the conclusion is reached through a lower order of critical rigor. Relaxing the inclusion criteria would see the page become [WP:INDISCRIMINATE]] and mushroom in size, and the talk page would be taken over by debates over whether a particular critic's opinion is noteworthy. Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Either way, an article with “considered the best” in its title is bound to fall prey to subjectivity and POV issues on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Morganfitzp (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Clearly so: if quality were something you could objectively measure then these polls would simply not exist. But being subjective does not necessarily make something indiscriminate, and by limiting the inclusion criteria to empirical polls we avoid the worst excesses of indiscriminate listing. Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

As is noted at the top of this talk page, clarifying the scope by changing the title was proposed a few years ago, but no consensus to move the page was reached. TompaDompa (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Superhero

Logan has been cited as a great film, one of the greatest. Do not remove it from the list because personal reasons. I have multiple citations. If you remove it, you must have a valid, very valid reason Theniommusmamu (talk) 08:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

• I have removed the entry because its inclusion was attributed to a mish-mash of synthesis:

1. None of the sources indicate that it topped any polls or surveys, as required by the inclusion criteria.
2. The National Board of Review and the Oscars pertain to one particular year. Hardly the "best ever".
3. A film's earnings are not relevant to the question asked at this article.

The inclusion criteria are clearly spelled out at the top of this page should you require further guidance. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2021

105.112.38.131 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I want to add my film

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Music videos

Should I add music videos to the article, or is it too narrow a category? There are two polls that I'm considering adding, a reader poll from Rolling Stone [15] and an expert poll from VH1 [16]. Mjf345 (talk) 06:24, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I say no, but not because it's too narrow a category. Rather, I think music videos are out of scope. TompaDompa (talk) 14:49, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Russian Guild of Film Critics

There's a pair of polls from the Russian Guild of Film Critics, and I'm not sure if I should add it to the article. In one poll 50 critics voted for the best Russian films of 1908-1957. [17] In another poll 60 critics voted for the best Russian films of 1958-2000. [18] They published two separate lists (at the same time). Mjf345 (talk) 02:04, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Greatest Pinoy Films (Pinoy Rebyu)

There was a discussion about the Pinoy Rebyu poll on this talk page in 2017 (see Archive 8). It was removed because it wasn't considered a notable poll. In 2017, an interview about the poll was published in Plaridel, a peer-reviewed journal. The journal article includes the full poll results. Now that it was published in a reliable source, can I add it back to the Wikipedia article and cite the journal? Mjf345 (talk) 17:45, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I think an academic journal establishes the notability of the poll so I withdraw my objection. Betty Logan (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Bollywood

Should I add Bollywood polls to the article, or is Bollywood too narrow? Bollywood is the Hindi-language film industry, so it's not all of Indian cinema, but it's a big part of it. About 44% of Indians speak Hindi as their first language, but I don't know what percent of Indian films are Hindi. Mjf345 (talk) 03:33, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

I found some numbers on this page. [19] In 2016, Bollywood produced 340/1902 Indian films. In 2017, 364/1986. In 2018, 305/1813. In 2019, 495/2446. So it's only about 17-20% Bollywood, even though Hindi is the most common language, but in terms of box office revenue it's more than that. "Best Bollywood movie" polls are actually more common than "best Indian movie" polls. India is a unique case, because it's one of the few countries that has both a large film industry and many widely spoken languages. Mjf345 (talk) 04:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Bollywood is a self-sustained industry in its own right and one that is larger than the British film industry, so I recognize the merits of its inclusion, and would not object to it. There is already a precedent with Hong Kong, and Chinese editors would also contest that we do it with Taiwan too. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

In addition to what Betty Logan said, this is an instance where I think WP:WORLDWIDE considerations outweigh the need for a consistent approach based on nation states. I would also not have a problem with including a poll of the "best non-Bollywood Indian films", if such a poll exists. As long as the distinction is made by the poll and not by Wikipedia's editors, I see no problem with it. TompaDompa (talk) 14:28, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

• Given Rizhbergs's challenge to the Bollywood section I have restored it under the India entry for now. I think Rizhbergs possible has a point here, and it would make more sense to group the India polls together. However, we can't just ignore the reality of how the India film industry is structured. India has multiple industries (some of them bigger than national film industries in the West) for its multiple languages, and the onus is on Wikipedia to respect the WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

It's Right Betty Logan that Indian Film Industry Is The Largest Film And Bollywood Sells For More Tickets Than Other Film Industry.But If You Including Bollywood.Then You Also Should Include Hollywood Because Hollywood Is That Film Industry Where American And Non American Both Works There And There Are Many Hollywood films which are not American Film. These May Be British Film,French Film,Italian Film As Well As Indian Films Also Produced There. So You Also Include Hollywood There. These Indians Changed His Name Film Industry In The Name Of Bollywood Where Only Indian Hindi Films Released. Bollywood Should Be Called As Indian Cinema. They named it under name as Hollywood. There is Bollywood Tollywood Kollywood Jollywood and Whatever Wood In India. Then It Means Other Two Films Under Category India Should Named Under Any ...Wood In Indian Industry Rizhbergs (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think you are using the wrong analogy. India's industries are characterized by their language and India's film industries are usually discussed within this context. For example, the Outlook source does not select the best Indian film, it selects the best Bollywood/Hindi film. Nobody really talks about the best Hollywood films. Another way of looking at it would be to regard "Bollywood" as a genre, which is treated as such in English-speaking countries, but this might be perceived as adopting a Western-centric perspective. A list like this shouldn't be trying to a force a square peg into a round hole, it should to some extent be flexible and recognise that national identities vary across the world. The UK itself has four national identities (five if you include the encompassing British one); if a major body of critics drew up a list of best Scottish films we would probably accept it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

The Searchers and other genre "toppers"

I have moved The Searchers to the Westerns section, since this is nominally what the claim relates to. It has been added to the list on the basis that it is the highest ranked Western in three of the Sight & Sound polls. I notice that TompaDompa had reverted this addition so I would like to discuss this further. I appreciate both sides of the argument here. By admitting genre entries on the basis that they had the highest ranked placement, we are teetering on the edge of a slippery slope.

In favor of their inclusion, The Searchers garnered votes from 78 critics in the 2012 S&S poll, a vote count that dwarfs the poll numbers in the other two specialist polls in the section. On the other hand, if we permit inclusion on this basis we could end up admitting films that garner just a handful of votes if they ranked near the bottom of a list. I am of the view that we could permit this provided inclusion is regulated rigorously. By this I mean that "genre toppers" in general lists have vote counts comparable to films that top the specialist lists i.e. we would admit the highest placing genre film with say 40 votes but refuse a film with just 10 votes. I am relatively open-minded on this issue so I would like to know what other editors think. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

For films that are the highest ranked in their category, I think top 50 (29 votes) in the 2012 S&S critics poll would be a good cutoff. Maybe also top 10s in earlier S&S polls. I definitely support including these films in the country section. The genre section is trickier, especially genres like comedy or horror. "Best comedy" implies that the film is funny, but the critics are voting for the best films, not the funniest films. The Rules of the Game is the highest ranked comedy, but that doesn't mean they think it's funny. Similarly, "best horror" implies that the film is scary. Western is easier because it's a more clearly defined genre, and "best western" basically means the same thing as "best film that is a western". Mjf345 (talk) 00:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much all of that. Genre is highly subjective; it is clear for some (science-fiction, westerns etc) but not for others, and any criteria we apply ourselves has to be objective. I am going to remove The Searchers for now pending more feedback. Betty Logan (talk) 03:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I favour taking a rather conservative/restrictive approach to this. The only poll I think we should even begin to consider is the Sight & Sound one. As a rule of thumb, I would expect a film that we consider for inclusion to fulfil three criteria:

1. It should have reached the top ten.
2. It should have done so in three separate S&S lists.
3. It should be the only film from its country/genre to have done so.

That's just a rule of thumb, however—each entry should be discussed on its own merits, and exceptions can be made in both directions. For instance: if Who Killed Captain Alex? were to come in at number 15 in the next Sight & Sound poll, I would definitely be in favour of adding it to the list as the best film from Uganda. TompaDompa (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think the 2012 poll should have more weight because it was a much larger poll. Top 50 in the 2012 poll is more significant than top 10 in any of the earlier S&S polls. In 2012, #50 received 29 votes. In earlier polls, #10 received 17 votes in 2002, 14 votes in 1992, 11 votes in 1982, 9 votes in 1972, 13 votes in 1962, and 10 votes in 1952. I think 2012 top 50 should be enough for inclusion in the article. For example, in the 2012 S&S poll, Close-Up was #42 with 31 votes (the only Iranian film in the top 100). In Film Magazine's "best Iranian films" poll, The Deer was #1 with 33 votes. It's almost the same number of votes, so I don't think it makes sense to include one but not the other.

The "three separate" rule sounds reasonable for older S&S polls. Ugetsu made the top 10 twice (and was the top Japanese film). L'Avventura was #2 in 1962, but it was never again the top Italian film. I'm ok with leaving out both of them. Persona only made the top 10 once, but it was also #17 in 2012 (with 48 votes), so I think it should be included.

For general film polls, I agree with only considering S&S, but I also favor including continent or regional polls, if the number of votes is high enough. For example, the DIFF poll of "best Arab films" voted by 475 experts. Chronique des années de braise was the highest ranked Algerian film at #3, with 152 votes. Or the Cinemateca Portuguesa poll of "best European films" voted by 70 experts. Ivan Grozny was the highest ranked Soviet film at #5, with 42 votes. Mjf345 (talk) 20:12, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I think what this boils down to is that we are prepared to consider placements in large polls where the lower ranks are statistically significant. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

African American films?

We got LGBT as a genre and the top film made by a female director, then why can't we have something for the people? (And don't just tell me that I need reliable sources as I tried to find them as possible; AFI has Spike Lee's magnum opus Do the Right Thing on its' updated version of 100 Years, 100 Movies). You can't leave them out of the dust even in this day of age. Espngeek (talk) 13:01, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

LGBT is included in the article because there are two notable LGBT polls. I'm not aware of a notable poll for best African American films. If you find one, you can add it to the article. Mjf345 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

It is worth noting that women account for over half of the population of the planet and LGBT is a genre categorization recognized by a substantial number of sources. African Americans are a minority in just one country and the genre equivalent would probably be Blaxploitation. That said I appreciate the sentiment; African film industries appear to be completely absent from the list and it would be nice if we could find some polls/surveys to represent them. Betty Logan (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I found this, a "Top Black Films of All Times" poll from a 1998 edition of Ebony which Boyz n the Hood topped. It's a bit unclear how many people were polled in total, but it seems to have been at least 13 (John Singleton, Maya Angelou, Debbie Allen, Kenneth Edmonds, Tracey Edmonds, Thomas Cripps, Albert Johnson, Geoffrey Holder, Sandra Evers-Manley, Mary Perry Smith, Jim Taylor, Whitney Houston, and Kasi Lemmons). I think that might be too small a poll to include, but I'm interested in what the rest of you think. TompaDompa (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

13 experts is good enough for me, if it's the only poll for a specific type of film. Mjf345 (talk) 23:26, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Put it on the article. Thanks :) Espngeek (talk) 10:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Slate published a list, "The 50 greatest movies by black directors". [20] "Slate asked more than 20 prominent filmmakers, critics, and scholars ... and used their picks to shape our list of the 50 greatest films by black directors." It's not clear if the list is purely based on number of votes, but it's similar to the wording that Time Out used in their animation list: "Then we used their choices to inform our own final countdown of the 100 best animated movies." Slate's list is unranked, but if you click Do the Right Thing it says "We didn’t rank the movies on this list because figuring out Nos. 2 through 50 would be too difficult. But there was never any question what movie was No. 1." Does this mean that Do the Right Thing received the most votes? Maybe, but it's hard to be sure. Mjf345 (talk) 02:12, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I came across that one too, but dismissed it as an editorial pick rather than a poll. TompaDompa (talk) 08:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Channel 4

In the "other polls" section it says "Apocalypse Now (1979) was voted number 1 by a group of 3,760 film critics and personalities on the Channel 4 program 50 Films to See Before You Die." I checked the source, [21] and it doesn't say anything about 3,760 film critics. It says the list was chosen by an expert panel, and only 5 names are mentioned (Lord David Puttnam, Jason Solomons, Karen Krizanovich, Tessa Ross, Menhaj Huda). I found another source [22] that mentions a 6th name, Jonathan Rutter. I think 6 experts is too small a poll, so I'll remove it. Mjf345 (talk) 17:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Odessastepsbaby.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Stanley Kubrick The Exhibition - LACMA - 2001 A Space Odyssey - Tycho moon crater model (8999724648).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 September 2021

2601:84:8700:34A0:B45B:579F:4263:E3F5 (talk) 13:13, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Serenity is not a must-see. So I want to replace it with WALL-E (2008).

 Not done Be that as it may, inclusion on this list is determined by topping "best film" polls. TompaDompa (talk) 13:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorting by Decade?

Several wiki pages reference this page as containing information on the best film by decade. That is also how the page List of films considered the worst is organized. I'm not suggesting a total reorganization, but a new section with best films by decade should be easy to research and add. Does anyone have a reason it should not be added to this page? I think it is a helpful way of viewing "best" films over time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasianpower (talk • contribs) 06:23, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

It would not make any sense to do that. In fact I'm not sure I fully understand what you are proposing. Are you suggesting that we scrap the national and genre categorizations? If we did that the list would lose its meaning. The list is organized by country to reflect the fact that these films have been voted the best American films, the best Russian films, the best French films etc. The genre lists reflect the best films voted in those genres e.g. the best action films, the best comedy films etc. The list is organized to match what the films have been voted best of. Since we don't admit decennial polls on the list (e.g. best films of the 80s, best films of the 90s) there is little value in organizing the list by decade or even having a section organized by decade. Betty Logan (talk) 09:24, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Most recent

Resolved

 – Fixed by TompaDompa

Please remember that this is supposed to be an encyclopedia and vague indications of time are best avoided. WP:RELTIME.

The article contains an image caption "Vertigo (1958) was ranked number one in the most recent Sight & Sound critics' poll." which instead of "most recent" should specify the exact year in question. That text may technically be accurate or it may already be years out of date, readers should not need to guess. (This is not as bad as other cases I've seen and the case of Sight and Sound the poll was probably conducted as recently as 2020 but this is still poor writing that shouldn't be added to an encyclopedia in the first place and in the second place should not have been allowed to stay in encyclopedia.) -- 109.76.203.218 (talk) 20:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You are correct but the years for all the polls are explicitly given in each film entry. The reader might be inconvenienced for several seconds, but they would not have to guess. Betty Logan (talk) 04:38, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Addition of Who framed Roger rabbit to this page

A lot of people consider Who framed Roger rabbit to be one of the best films of all time, so I think it should be added here 2A02:C7E:323B:A00:56A:C91D:F48A:BF6E (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you have a source for this claim? Jalen Folf (talk) 16:11, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Logan (2017)

The third paragraph at the top of the page for the film Logan states "it became the best-reviewed film in the X-Men franchise, with many critics calling it one of the greatest superhero films ever made, and it was selected by the National Board of Review as one of the top ten films of 2017." with references such as "https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/guide/50-best-superhero-movies-of-all-time/5/". Rotten Tomatoes. June 9, 2017. Retrieved June 9, 2017. (Wikipedia is giving me trouble copy/pasting all the references used in proper formatting). I have yet to make an account to edit with, and don't know how to format in the references, so I thought I'd post here. 2A02:8108:1380:23C4:88C5:FD0E:70A3:24DA (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like it meets the criteria for this list. Please refer to the inclusion criteria at the top of this page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In the Mood For Love - 2022 Sight and Sound poll

Given that the justification for In The Mood For Love's inclusion on this page is based on its placement in the 2012 Sight and Sound poll, someone with editing permission should probably update its entry under "Hong Kong" to note its much higher (#5) placement in the 2022 Sight and Sound poll. Might also be worth mentioning its #2 spot on the BBC's "100 Greatest Films of the 21st Century" list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.189.160.129 (talk) 21:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)

Potential additions to "National Polls" section

There seems to be a lack of African and Southeast Asian countries represented in this section, probably due to difficulty finding good sources. Sections covering, say, Nigerian or South African cinema would be worth looking into. I also found a poll of Indonesian film critics conducted in 2006 by Tabloid Bintang that listed Tjoah Nja' Dhien as the best Indonesian film. Scdsco23 (talk) 21:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

We are always happy to consider new polls, especially in the case of countries that are currently unrepresented. Betty Logan (talk) 00:14, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Variety Magazine top 100

Variety Magazine has conducted a top 100 poll amongst critics for the first time in its run (which is pre-Hollywood, mind you) in December 2022. Psycho (1960, Alfred Hitchcock) will be added to the list. https://variety.com/lists/best-movies-of-all-time/ Alena 33 (talk) 18:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

It's an "in-house" list and therefore ineligible. It's not even clear if it's a straight poll. The article states that 30 Variety critics and writers "suggested" films for the list but does not explain the system for choosing and ordering the films on the list. Presumably that task was undertaken by the seven authors of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Pulp Fiction

Isn't Pulp Fiction considered one of the best movies of all time? I think it is almost perfect, minus a few pacing problems with the Gold Watch. I remember that it used to be listed here but it was removed. Like roughly 90-95% of people think it's a great movie. When it premiered at Cannes in 1994, not only did critics say it was "possibly the best movie ever," but it won the Palmes d'Or as well. I know I'm not a critic, but I think it deserves an honourable mention. 68.147.188.141 (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the best, but has it polled as the best? Ultimately it's not about what we think, see the eligibility criteria at the top of this page. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Silent- The General

WP:BLOCKEVASION by User:Oatsandcream
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why is the section so small? The General should be added. His Majesty Chuck (talk) 04:16, 13 April 2023 (UTC) Sections are only as big as they need to be. On what basis should The General be added to this article? Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2023 (UTC) There are so many people who say it is the greatest film of the Silent Era. https://slate.com/culture/2008/11/why-you-really-do-need-to-see-buster-keaton-s-the-general.html His Majesty Chuck (talk) 04:26, 14 April 2023 (UTC) Please see the guidelines for adding films to the list at the top of this page. Betty Logan (talk) 06:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Psycho

@Daedrich JJ flfmjg: you have added Psycho on three occasions now, despite being told that it does not qualify for the list under the sources you have added. You can view the inclusion criteria at the top of this page. In short, films must be voted the top film in the appropriate category in a nationally recognized poll. The following are not acceptable:

• Periodical listings
• Charts that rank films by Rotten Tomato score.

Therefore this chart published by Business Insider that ranks horror films by Rotten Tomato scores fails to meet the inclusion criteria. The Forbes source you keep adding is even more problematic because it also uses Rotten Tomato scores to create a ranked order, but only considers American films.

If Psycho has topped a legitimate film poll then we'd gladly add it, but your constant reverting is coming very close to edit-warring. To be added to the list a film must be VOTED THE BEST in a national or internationally recognized poll, and the sources you keep adding do not meet this criteria. Betty Logan (talk) 19:49, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Denmark

Is there a good reason for deleting the Denmark section from the list of National polls? It is gone even though there were sources to an actual conducted poll. 2A02:AA7:4604:325C:1:1:714C:E880 (talk) 15:57, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

What sources are those? TompaDompa (talk) 19:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Will you please provide the link to the edit that removed the section so it can be reviewed. Betty Logan (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

I've tried to find the edit on this pages history, but it was pretty extensive. I've found an old article before that edit. https://www.scribd.com/document/191662251/List-of-Films-Considered-the-Best-Wikipedia-The-Free-Encyclopedia 2A02:AA7:4003:BDF2:1:1:7543:6FE4 (talk) 18:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I have found the deletions. They were both deleted by TompaDompa 7 years ago, during an overhaul of the page:

• Day of Wrath – deleted on the grounds of not meeting the inclusion criteria
• Flickering Lights – deleted on the grounds that the poll appeared in a tabloid.

TompaDompa is correct about Day of Wrath not meeting the inclusion criteria. I have mixed feelings about the second deletion: the poll appeared in a low-quality source which selected a very recent film; on the other hand we have permitted other newspaper polls (such as The Guardian and China Daily), and the deletion of the film effectively eliminated Denmark from the list. So it is very much a borderline case in my opinion. TompaDompa simply made a judgement call at the time, but this would be an opportune time to re-evaluate our approach to newspaper polls. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure I would have made the same call today. Do we have access to the source itself? I think it makes a fair bit of difference if it was a poll of 100 readers or 20,000. TompaDompa (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2023 (UTC)