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

message: so it is the "top 100 movies out of the 400 on the ballot?"
: 400 movies nominated, AFI will pick out the top 100 out of those.
GHANDI  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.105.19 (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question 

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

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

message: It's funny refreshing it with seconds in between and seeing it change so radically. Should we try to get it semi-protected for a little bit?
Indeed!!!
* Good idea. These vandals are like a pack of rabid hyenas... Ackatsis 02:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idiocy in Motion 

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

message: I imagine you were more frustrated than I in the face of the puerile and base graffiti we watched.69.153.23.63 03:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  compliments and thanks to the real arbiters/authors... 

message: Is that trivia for the 400 film ballot or the top 100 list? Ackatsis 03:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia section

message: The flurry of edits to this article seemed to overwhelm the database. May I point out that if the colored arrows are used to show the delta since 1998, the use of plus and minus is redundant? It briefly seemed to me that  14 or  7  should be enough, but  +1, with the plus sign, is too much. I was attempting to implement this when the database crashed. Suddenly the history was pocked with entries I hadn't seen before and the list got "transverted". Anyway, just take a long look at the table once all the tabulation is done and see whether a colored arrow, a colored mathematical sign, and a colored number isn't two (sic) much of a good thing.
Schweiwikist 04:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For a lot of entries, this is a lot of work.  Plus, this article is pretty popular.  I have tried to delete the "+" and "-", but I have been getting too many edit conflicts.  By the way Zholmquist, Miranda is a she. Miranda 06:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: <off topic>I'm pretty sure the 'he' Schweiwikist mentioned was himself.</off topic> --Ddawn23 07:57, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Format ''and'' content changed on the fly after list released on air . . . 

message: All I changed was the trivia fact that claimed Citizen Kane was the only movie to keep it's place. I tried to add that there were two others. Godfather part 2 and the best years of our lives. HOw is this vandalism. This is the first time ive edited something so i am now very discouraged.
:There were many IPs vandalizing this article.  Your warning has been removed since you were assuming good faith. Miranda 06:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Someone sent me a message about vandalism.... 

message: If you register at AFI you can download these docs (see the links at references). The ballot is extensive. Note the differences between their 2007 chart and ours, and let's make the wiki chart better by reworking it if possible. I'm surprised at the similarity. I may have time a few hours from now to tweak it myself. I'd like to add bullets to the thirty-seven (or so) 1998 titles that fell off the list.
Hand-signed by  Schweiwikist • (t)  13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we worked...WORKED...too hard to format this table.  I think it should stay and not be deleted. Miranda 13:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! it seems an edit summary I may have attached was taken too seriously. It's a great chart that currently offers plenty of info, but might not be that easy to read in terms of the changes between 1998 and 2007. Any major revision ideas may be rendered/displayed on the discussion page by just copying & pasting the chart code (or just a fraction of it), rather than messing with the published one. As I've already observed, a user can't immediately tell that a 1998 title (in the left column) doesn't appear on the right, so there's more usefuldata ("that's a neo--, I say that's a neologism, son, you missed it") that can be packed into it without a major overhaul. Hand-signed by  Schweiwikist • (t)  14:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

text:  See this new talk subpage for a working draft of a revision to "The List"; I hope it's self-explanatory. Schweiwikist 19:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See AFI's table (and ballot): their 2007 table is only slightly better right now 

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

message: During the TV special, The Lord of the Rings was included without qualifiers or a date, which seemed to me a way of representing the entire trilogy. But here (and on the AFI official list), it specifies Fellowship. Which one is right? (I admit that all of the clips shown were from Fellowship.) Brutannica 23:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh. I must've looked away. Brutannica 04:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

message: FOR or AGAINST merger:
AGAINST Moreover, I don't understand how AFI can change their minds about film after making such a "prestine" list 10 years ago. There should be a specific criteria that they use to quantitatively rank films. How is Raging Bull 23 spots "better" than it was in 1998!? The damn movie came out in 1980! --Sage Veritas (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Furthermore, if you merge these two installments ... wouldn't you then have to merge all of the other eight installments as well ... 100 Stars, 100 Laughs, 100 Thrills, etc. ...?  It makes more sense to keep all ten as separate and distinct articles, with appropriate cross-references.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 15:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

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

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

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

message: side-by-side with both lists? I loved that! was that this article or AFI's 100 Years…100 Movies? can some one point me to about how far back that old version was? thanks, Skakkle (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've restored the side-by-side lists from 22 August 2009. May have to go back to redo any improvements from recent edits. Goustien (talk) 05:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  where is that 

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

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

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

message: The entire list had already been merged into the list section of AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies, showing both the 1998 rank and the 2007 rank. The Notes section of the redirect page also shows which films were removed/added from the list. Sottolacqua (talk) 13:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As these are two different lists and there was never any consensus to merge, the change has been reverted. Ribbet32 (talk) 23:05, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged 

message: Is this really the " 10th Anniversary" edition? 10th anniversary of what? The previous list was 19 years earlier in 1998. Perhaps a better title would be AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (2007 Edition). Cheers, Markhh (talk) 21:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: 1998 + 19 = 2017. We're not there quite yet... --Fru1tbat (talk) 02:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: lol, nevermind!  Markhh (talk) 07:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article title