Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Core

message: From the discussions above, it is obvious that there is still much debate regarding some of the methodology, particular with regards to both the top box office slots and the task force allocations. From the comments that have been made - as well as what has not been said by anyone - I'd like to propose the following actions for the meantime which appear to have consensus. 
# As there has been no objections regarding the deprecation of the importance parameter, the parameter will be removed from the project banner shortly, in conjunction with some necessary cosmetic restructuring.
# A core parameter will be added which will categorize the Talk pages of core articles into a "Core film articles" category.
# The core list shall - for the moment - only be composed of the top 250 from the TSPDT list, as well as the task force slots which were able to be filled by defaulting to TSPDT.
# The remaining task force slots will be reserved until consensus emerges as to how their content is determined.
# Any additional slots to be allocated must be based on a methodology involving outside lists or polls and not on any editor's personal opinions or any sort of editorial voting for particular articles. (Note that this does not bar attempts to create consensus about which lists may be used.)
This will at least allow us to transition towards commencing the Core department and thus also begin focusing on setting up the core contest. Thoughts? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no objections with 1 and 2; in case I haven't made it clear before, I fully support the introduction of the core article list. 3 is also fine I suppose, though I was never suggesting that we don't use box office stats (though preferably these should international rather than US only figures); having said that, there does perhaps need to be more discussion about which sources are to be used for the list. I'm also happy with 4, and I don't think that this is something that necessarily needs to be resolved prior to the introduction of the core list. About point 5: is this in relation to the task force slots or the list as a whole? PC78 (talk) 17:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, going off of box office has raised some objections (and I must admit to being fairly reluctant to include it myself), so I'm leaving it off for now. It's not a definitive decision at the moment, though. As for point 5, both. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: For later, perhaps: that a waiting list of titles be created for  movies proposed for later inclusion in the Core List, after the current titles have been sufficiently documented, edited etc. That way, all suggested additions will be available for later review and discussion. Also, it seems probable that some non-English language movies may actually have higher box-office ratings than Core List entries, so that we need a variety of criteria. Thank you, Shir-El too 22:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An interim proposal 

message: Would it be okay if I added The Texas Chain Saw Massacre to the list, because it seems to be a pretty important film to me, in terms of it's influence on modern horror films. --EclipseSSD (talk) 12:04, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it would not. If you read the page, you will see that one of the defining concepts of the list is that it was specifically designed to prevent cherry-picking by individual editors; it is a metalist. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All I did was ask about it, but now I know I can't put it in the article. Thanks. --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I would like to see it there though, but based on the community's decision. Will it be possible for it to be there in the future? --EclipseSSD (talk) 17:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's always a possibility. The list is updated once a year I believe. Gary King (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Texas Chain Saw Massacre 

message: I couldn't help but notice that Oldboy and The Host have been added to the core list. I assume they've been taken from this list? PC78 (talk) 09:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's correct. I meant to make a note of that, but evidently I was distracted... Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 16:59, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Korea revisited 

message: As mch of a huge fan of TSPDT as I am (I added every film in the top 100 to my Netflix list, among others on the list), I think it shouldn't be the ONLY factor in deciding whether a film is core or not. For example, Jurassic Park and Titanic were each the best-selling films ever at one point or another, which is arguably enough reason to give them core status. Additionally, because of TSPDT's formuas, films from this millenium are excluded from the top 250 listing for the next few years. Therefore, I suggest some changes be made so that films that are excluded from TSPDTs top 250 be given special exceptions if they meet other requirements:
* Being at one point or another one of the five best-selling films of all time.
* Ranking in the top 25 of TSPDT's 250 greatest films of the new-millenium.
* Having been voted the greatest film of all time, or the greatest film of a country and/or genre.
* Films that aren't in the top 250 or 25 greatest new millenium this year but have been at some point.
This is merely to ensure that highly notable ad praised films that are excluded from the TSPDT list be recognized as important as well. 174.130.11.116 (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There is never going to be a "perfect" method. But turnout does not equal approval necessarily, either - witness The Phantom Menace, for example. In any case, part of the reason for this list is to highlight important articles which may be neglected - recent popular films rarely need project prodding to bring them to at least B-class status. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't bring this up for new films, but for all films not included in the top 250 that are being ignored. Arguably Titanic, the best-selling film of all time, deserves core status over Shane, which most people haven't even heard of. I also feel that films that have made the top 250 once (even if it isn't this year) should be included. Citizen Kane, which is the most critically acclaimed film of all-time right now, might not even make the list at all one year. I even feel some of my favorites that made the list don't deserve core status as much as other films. I'm just saying that results on TSPDT's list shouldn't be the only factor in deciding which articles are core. 98.21.141.119 (talk) 21:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I know I'm commenting directly after myself, but I should mention that there isn't any animation films on the list, either. I suggest that both Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs and Fantasia be included as core articles. 174.130.15.245 (talk) 22:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't add individual titles on suggestion. However, should an Animation task force emerge, it will most certainly get its ten slots, which presumably will include both films and possibly techniques. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some flaws in this method. 

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

message: The 2008 version of the 1,000 greatest films is here. Entering the top 250 are The Great Dictator, Zero for Conduct, La Samourai, Johnny Guitar, Shoot the Piano Player, and West Side Story. Falling out of the top 250 are To Kill a Mockingbird, Meshes of the Afternoon, The Life of Oharu, Floating Clouds, and Crimes and Misdemeanors. Also, in case you want to know, the detailed listing of the top 250 on the website has been expanded to include numbers 251-300, and TSPDT plans to bring the entire list under the same format throughout 2009. 71.61.225.71 (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the heads up! Many of the titles no longer in the 250 will still be selected for the task forces' 10, so the overall change may not necessarily be major. I'll try to update this before the new year. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:38, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Forgot to mention that Ninotchka also fell out of the top 250. 71.61.225.71 (talk) 20:15, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New version 

message: I would like to know if there was any particular reason why The Texas Chain Saw Massacre was removed from the list without so much as notifying the appropriate article and/or editors in question. --EclipseSSD (talk) 19:49, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The update was noted above by GS on January 2.  I assume that with the centralized notification of the update, he didn't seek to explain thoroughly on the ex-core articles' talk pages. —Erik (talk • contrib) 19:56, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is correct - our Core is based off of a metalist which updates annually. Based on the current metalist, TCM no longer is ranked high enough to appear on the Core list. It's not a sign of endorsement or lack thereof - simply an attempt to bring editors' attention to these articles through incentives. I know that you're already very advanced in your work towards FA-status for the article, which is really the more important thing, so please don't be discouraged and continue to keep up the good work! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 02:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  TCM removed? 

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

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

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

message: The current inclusion formula uses They Shoot Pictures as the key resource for identifying core topics. It lists the Top 250 from that website's list of 1,000 films, and based on the existing national cinema task forces, it also lists core topics that were not in the Top 250. Based on genre task forces (e.g., war films), the formula uses IMDb.
The website's list was updated in January 2011, but WikiProject Film's list was not updated accordingly. Here is what I suggest. I do not think we should list core articles just based on the existence of national cinema task forces. In most cases, a task force is started but never actually used, and we shouldn't list articles in expectancy of that DOA task force to improve them. We should also avoid using IMDb for genre additions; IMDb voters are not exactly the finest purveyors of films, and such lists may suffer from recentism (e.g., Inglourious Basterds being at the top of a list of all possible war films). I think we should reference the They Shoot Pictures list more fully. Should we do the Top 500 instead of the Top 250? Perhaps Top 1,000? Let's figure out a new inclusion formula before we update our list. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I support basing it fully on TSPDT, it's probably the closest thing we have to an official movie canon. There are currently 419 film articles in the list (449 minus awards and filmmaking). So top 400-500 seems good to me. Smetanahue (talk) 17:56, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good comparison and will keep the list reasonably consistent in length. I would support the Top 500. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:14, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Might as well leave it at 500 because that alone would be a huge workload.  If only in just undoing the regular vandalism the articles will receive. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:46, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd support using their top 500 as well. We could still group the articles according to their relevant task force but only if they're already included in the TSPDT top 500 list. GRAPPLE X 20:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer to leave out the IMDB voted-in list as well as not giving the task forces a set batch of articles just to have them (are any task forces active?). The sole update from TSP makes sense as well as going with the 500. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:07, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The list of core articles has been updated to include the Top 500 of the meta-list but maintained the non-film articles like festivals and filmmaking topics. Grapple X did the grunt work to add the mostly-new 250 in their proper wiki-links and assessment scores; thank you very much! I think that before we put on any bars, I need to review the Top 250 again and update the assessment scores. For example, Star Wars is no longer a Featured Article but is still marked as such. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:27, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

text: Note: We also need to see which films (especially ones listed because of related task forces) were removed from the list and update their assessments accordingly. I won't be able to do it tonight; hopefully sometime this weekend. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Have re-checked the first 120 films, a handful of assessments were different. Will get the rest tonight. Not re-assessing, just changing the list to reflect what the current assessments are. GRAPPLE X 22:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Maybe a few dozen changes, the vast majority of which were moving up a step or two. GRAPPLE X 00:10, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm now just working through the assessment categories to weed out any previously-listed core articles that aren't listed now, to remove the core=yes parameter from their film templates. When that's done we'll still have to wait a day or two for the table on the main FILMCORE page to reflect the accurate numbers, but the categories will give the right numbers instantly. GRAPPLE X 01:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Right, I think I've got it all straightened out. By the time the summary table updates there should be 528 entries in it - one film is a red link (for now) and there's another article which is listed twice (Ivan the Terrible (film) covers both Ivan the Terrible, Part One and Part Two, which TSPDT lists separately). If there's anything different showing up, I must have missed something. GRAPPLE X 23:50, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  2011 update 

message: Why is History of film not a core article?--Cattus talk 10:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Good question! The recent revision of the list focused on individual films. The closest set of topics to history of film would be those grouped under the filmmaking task force, which is technical in nature. We have not had a discussion of such high-level topics that are not technical. Other topics include film theory, film criticism, and film genre. I think it helps to go with some kind of preexisting list of such topics to use as guidance. Maybe a table of contents in a textbook about film? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:24, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Might not be a bad idea to round up another 20 overview or technical articles (histories, genres, etc) to bring the 530-article list up to 550 instead. GRAPPLE X 14:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of film 

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

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

message: When was the last time that the core list was updated? Per this discussion, it's clear that the list of core films should be updated to include at least 10 films from each task force, specifically newer ones such as the Documentary films and Silent films task forces. This needs to be done, before the classification of any articles on the list can be reassessed. Is there someone who is in charge of maintaining the list, or can it be updated by anyone? And once it is updated, who is responsible for making sure that the parameter  is only used on the talk pages for articles in the list? Fortdj33 (talk) 20:05, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: used to update it every year when the new TSPDT list was released. This year's list was released a couple of months ago and I don't think our list has been updated accordingly. I don't see an immediate need for an expansion related to the task forces, since no task force really is active and the concept seems to have been a failure in general. There are perhaps a few informal task forces of editors who work on similar articles, but I don't think they need their own core list to keep doing that. Smetanahue (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't necessarily suggestion an expansion, just a reorganization under the current criteria. As I understand it, the list should include the top 250 films from the TSPDT list, plus up to 10 more from that list for each regional task force. Then, each genre task force also includes the next 10 films as ranked by IMDb that are not already on the list. There are 25 regional and genre task forces, so if we include 10 films from each one, that is another 250 films, giving us 500 films on the list. Adding 10 core articles from the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces, gives us the current number of 530. If that criteria is still acceptable, I will start working on updating the list accordingly. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, yes, you're right. Well, then I have nothing to object about. Smetanahue (talk) 12:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Update - I've gone through the TSPDT list, and come up with 440 films that should be on the core list. Most of them are already on the list, but there are some additions, because each regional task force can have up to 10 additional films after the first 250. I'm working on the genre task forces now, which are based on the top 10 films on IMDb in each genre that aren't already on the list, but so far I've only found information for the Animated, Documentary, Silent and War films task forces. Should I just skip the other genre task forces (Christian, Comic book, and Avant-garde), and keep 10 core articles from the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces? If so, that will give us 510 articles on the core list instead of the current number of 530. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:50, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

text: Another approach is to use the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 tables for each genre task force, and include the top 10 films on each table that are not already on the list. This seems to be the same method used for the top 10 lists in the film awards, film festivals and filmmaking task forces, and would allow for all the genre task forces to be included in the core list. Any objections? Fortdj33 (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea. I trust you on this, just go ahead. Smetanahue (talk) 09:31, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

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

message: The core list doesn't appear to have been updated since the above discussion four years ago. To that end I have prepared a new top 250 based on the current TSPDT metalist, which can be viewed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Core/update. I still need to do the various task forces, but if there are no objections I will keep going and implement the revised list.
It's worth asking the question though, is this method of selecting "core" articles something we want to continue with going forward? Are there other thing we ought to consider (e.g. Vital articles?) or do we even need a core list at all? PC78 (talk) 19:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Revised list posted, now with task forces included. Rather than use IMDb for the genre task forces I've stuck with the top 1000 list on TSPDT. PC78 (talk) 20:39, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Final revision at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Core/update; all task forces included, most have these have been filled out by using the full list of 2000 films on TSPDT (though the Baltic and Pakistani task forces still don't have any on the list), and film awards, film festivals and filmmaking have been left as they are. PC78 (talk) 08:31, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update 2019 

message: Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.
We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for information on WP1.0 web tool