495:
474:
505:
1612:
sections, especially because audiences are self-selecting and are driven by marketing and related expectations. In essence, it's been a lazy approach that isn't guideline-supported. There are certain editors under this WikiProject that go around articles of new film releases making updates and applying their cookie-cutter formatting, perpetuating a false standard. That kind of thing happens with the Rotten
Tomatoes wording too, worded under the assumption that people in general understand how RT works.
925:
446:
822:
791:
759:
965:
1413:
routine, and such sections are generally expected to summarize that. Sometimes a film has particular subject matter that draws responses from people other than film critics, and that can be its own section or subsection. A film director saying something about a film can look like a one-off because that kind of thing happens on occasion. So for referencing
Tarantino, I'd rather see him grouped with other non-critics responding to the film, like
1034:
832:
1013:
1123:
316:
977:
222:
195:
677:
650:
604:
579:
232:
21:
687:
164:
1925:
376:
352:
107:
937:
386:
304:
1044:
1421:. An alternative approach is to make "Impact" into a "Legacy" section where Tarantino's opinion could fit. However, I would not mention Tarantino in the lead section at this time because it inflates his individual status over others' collective responses. He's a great director, sure, but it's a little hagiographic to mention him in the lead section.
1937:
1227:
and that filmmaker is as prominent as
Tarantino, then such an honor merits mention. So, in addition to actually critiquing others' works, Tarantino deserves to be mentioned because he's a consequential filmmaker who is singling out this particular film. The man isn't an expert on World War II either, but the fact that he named
1542:
is a film with a major legacy, I'd recommend taking that approach. That way, Tarantino can fit more neatly under the
Reception section. Of course, if you don't want to do that, we can still include Tarantino in the article under Critical Response, because, as I said before, he actually practices film
1311:
was his critiquing of films for customers at the video rental store where he clerked ("such a movie buff. He had so much knowledge of films that he would try to get people to watch really cool movies.") In later years, as a director, many of his published interviews have him commenting and critiquing
1306:
Just a logic thought, no dog-in-this-fight. The phrase "Critical response" does not necessarily mean "a response by a paid film critic such as a Siskel or Ebert", it can mean the same as "critique". As to
Tarantino, he's about as close to an actual paid film critic as one can get without being one.
1691:
For what it's worth, which probably isn't much, I like your approach. I'm going to clean up the Legacy section a bit by streamlining some of the quotes, since it kind of feels like a disorganized collection of plaudits at the moment. I'm also looking back on the Wiki pages for some of the best films
2053:
alternative titles" in the first sentence. From what I've seen, if the official title is stylized but the common name preferred for the article title, we usually show the common name then the stylized official name. In this case, the lowercase presentation does not appear significant (likewise with
1543:
criticism. Sure, every filmmaker expresses his/her thoughts on others' films, but few filmmakers actually write movie reviews. The few who do/did are people like
Scorsese, Schrader, Bogdanovich, Godard, Truffaut, Rohmer, and, yes, Tarantino. His reviews are housed on the New Beverly Cinema website.
1537:
filed under
Critical Response. I'd argue that a director, particularly a director who practices film criticism, merits mention after bestowing a superlative on a particular movie. Now, some film articles, namely those for highly-acclaimed films with legacies, separate the Reception section into two
1512:
When you can provide a basis for your claim that a million articles here include commentary from other filmmakers in ther
Reception sections I'll be more inclined to take your opinions more seriously. Until then, I'm having difficulty believing that you're arguing in good faith. I have to admit the
1226:
I'd like to point out that there's an entire section of the New
Beverly Cinema website that's dedicated to Tarantino's reviews of various films. Regardless, Tarantino is a filmmaker, and filmmakers routinely critique others' works. When a filmmaker bestows a particular superlative on a given film,
1412:
I don't have an issue with referencing
Tarantino in general. It's about referencing him in a way that can fit the article. For all intents and purposes, "Critical response" or "Critical reception" is about how critics responded to the film or how they received it. They review films as a matter of
1207:
I think it depends on the film. For some films, the reception of non-critics could be included. Like here, how tech-industry commentators perceive the film would be relevant. Tarantino doesn't fit that. If a film had a mix of different kinds of non-critics responding to this film, maybe Tarantino
1611:
I find it problematic for CinemaScore to be added to the "Critical reception" section. It is only added as an attempted foil to how critics received it, which is a garbage approach, like putting a film's box-office gross after its production budget. Audience scores belong in "Theatrical release"
1283:
polls both critics and directors. Additionally, it is customary for the "Reception" section to include the opinions of critics AND filmmakers, especially when the filmmakers offer perspectives that are superlative in nature. Including Tarantino's comments would be in keeping with Knowledge (XXG)
2008:
includes no mention of the capitalized 'U' in the lead as an arguable stylization; instead there's a section that discusses the title of the film. Of course, using other articles as a precedent isn't necessarily a good idea either; it could simply indicate that those articles themselves need
1532:
I can assure you that I am arguing in good faith. Here's another argument for Tarantino's inclusion: the Critical Response section routinely includes a film's CinemaScore, which is compiled from grades submitted by everyday audiences. Everyday audience members are not critics, yet that same
1439:
Include him in the legacy section then. There's little doubt the film has spawned commentary in the years after its release. But there are a million Knowledge (XXG) pages about various films that include commentary from other filmmakers in their "Reception" sections. That's a fact.
1874:
This film was released in a festival on September 24, 2010 and in theaters on October 1, 2010. It looks like there is coverage about the film's 10th anniversary that could be added to the "Legacy" section (which may need subsections by now). Here are some available sources:
1826:
Is there something you want to change in the article as a result? Tarantino is quoted under the "Post-2010s assessment" subsection based on a reference that quoted his thoughts (not an actual review). I think that coverage is sufficient.
1517:
and your argument is poorly-founded. As Erik notes, there may be an appropriate way to incorporate Tarantino's views into the article, but I don't believe integrating them into the Reception section is one of those ways.
329:
205:
2102:
1100:
1278:
My point is that Tarantino's opinion is superlative in nature. Limiting the issue of reception to critics is myopic, especially when filmmakers often play the same role as critics. There's a reason why
1983:
2212:
1171:
Put simply: Are Quentin Tarantino's views on this film appropriate for inclusion? As far as I know, he's not known for being a film critic, nor does he have any connection with this film.
1366:
Tarantino's reviews of a number of films are available on the New Beverly Cinema website. He's undoubtedly more well-versed in cinema than a number of paid critics, especially the guy at
862:
950:
801:
455:
362:
2122:
334:
1972:
Hello, I would like to bring up the stylization of The Social Network. In just about every movie poster, the title is always in lowercase. Therefore, I had hoped to add (stylized as
768:
660:
1190:
unless the opinion is remarkable for some other reason worthy of noting (ie, the person came out of hiding to make a remark, or the film is about them and they hated it, etc) --
879:
115:
2127:
1312:
the films that influence him or his current projects. As one of the more celebrated directors, and known for his critiquing, his opinion may count more? But perhaps as
2117:
915:
2217:
955:
1852:
I added this info for the editor's discussing it, including yourself. I thought it was relevant to the conversation. Personally I don't care if it's included or not.
2227:
2207:
995:
905:
869:
294:
2147:
1615:
In any case, here is another possible solution. I've changed "Impact" to "Legacy", and doing a little more research, I am seeing some periodicals talk about
1243:, etc. When an important filmmaker praises another director's work using superlative language, then that praise ought to be included in that film's article.
749:
561:
2237:
2232:
2112:
284:
874:
132:
2187:
2142:
773:
610:
584:
32:
2177:
2162:
1639:. It's also possible when the 10-year anniversary of the film arrives later this year, there will be additional commentary looking back on this film.
739:
551:
2222:
2202:
2132:
1620:
260:
2247:
2197:
2192:
2167:
2097:
1090:
1231:
his second favorite film of the decade is mentioned in the article for that page (and rightfully so). The same goes for David Lynch's love of
990:
845:
805:
796:
715:
527:
50:
2107:
1548:
1503:
1445:
1375:
1289:
1248:
2182:
1945:
2252:
2172:
2157:
1349:
1346:
2092:
1987:
1066:
245:
200:
2152:
1884:
1513:
fact that your account is less than a day old also doesn't fill me with confidence. Of course, even if you are arguing in good faith,
857:
404:
38:
1139:
1284:
tradition. And if you find other prominent filmmakers who've commented on the film or spoken highly of it, then include them, too.
700:
655:
518:
479:
1619:
as among the best of the 2010s, in the same vein that Tarantino did. So such references could be combined into a solid paragraph.
2242:
1857:
1816:
1799:
1781:
1756:
1662:
1544:
1499:
1441:
1371:
1327:
1285:
1244:
853:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
2137:
175:
1057:
1018:
2028:
416:
408:
321:
1514:
412:
399:
357:
1889:
1853:
1812:
1795:
1777:
90:
2054:
uppercase). We would need to see at least some reliable sources write the title that way. This logic should apply to
2073:
1909:
1836:
1682:
1648:
1430:
1217:
1894:
1624:
1151:
1879:
1636:
181:
1632:
1414:
1353:
615:
589:
1261:
to include Tarantino's comments. We don't want to suggest than any filmmaker's opinion is worth noting. --
1997:
I don't currently have an opinion on when discussing a stylized title is merited, but I would note that
1065:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
714:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
526:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
259:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
125:
20:
504:
494:
473:
2036:
1723:
1709:
1661:
that combines several different sources discussing the film as part of the decade. Thoughts? Pinging
982:
837:
42:
2024:
1978:) in the article. The person who reverted me said it was because there was no reliable source, but
1957:
1470:
924:
445:
106:
1765:
1928:
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between
1476:
1407:
1157:
144:
821:
790:
2014:
1998:
1769:
1523:
1459:
1308:
1176:
758:
237:
1187:
2046:
1153:
1122:
2023:
In general we don't say a film's name is stylized based on how it appears on a poster. See
1809:
1628:
964:
2032:
1773:
1762:
1753:
1719:
1705:
1670:
1482:
1389:
1313:
1262:
1191:
692:
510:
1385:
2069:
1953:
1941:
1905:
1832:
1678:
1644:
1426:
1213:
1033:
1012:
2086:
2005:
1488:
850:
1794:
as I misspelled the name on my first response. Please see above comment. Thank you.
1704:, in the hopes of figuring out how they went about discussing end-of-decade praise.
2010:
1791:
1666:
1519:
1455:
1335:
1323:
1172:
1049:
1538:
new sections: (1) Box Office and Distribution and (2) Reception and Legacy. Since
221:
194:
1919:
Wiki Education assignment: University Writing 1020 Communicating Feminism MW 1 pm
1885:
Ten Years Later, Mark Zuckerberg Is Still Trying to Overcome ‘The Social Network’
1418:
403:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
2061:
1924:
942:
391:
676:
649:
603:
578:
1155:
1039:
972:
932:
827:
705:
682:
500:
381:
375:
351:
311:
255:
250:
227:
2077:
2065:
2040:
2018:
1991:
1961:
1913:
1901:
1861:
1849:
1840:
1828:
1820:
1803:
1785:
1759:
1727:
1713:
1686:
1674:
1652:
1640:
1584:
1552:
1527:
1507:
1494:
1463:
1449:
1434:
1422:
1400:
1379:
1357:
1293:
1273:
1252:
1221:
1209:
1202:
1180:
119:
849:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
2045:
While I don't believe WikiProject Film has any guidelines on stylization,
1880:
What 'The Social Network' Got Right About Our Relationship to Social Media
1890:‘The Social Network’ at 10: Fincher, Facebook and the Faking of an Empire
1331:
710:
523:
420:
1320:
opinion, or one with detail, rather than just one singing praises? Eg.
303:
1658:
1468:
I did so above. But feel free to peruse the Knowledge (XXG) pages for
2056:
1979:
1043:
2004:
include a source supporting its stylized title. On the other hand,
1388:
about whether Tarantino is "more well-versed" than paid critics. --
1062:
1257:"filmmakers routinely critique others' works" is all the reason
1208:
could be in that mix. To just include him would seem misplaced.
1718:
I really hope it isn't too late for me to jump in, by the way.
1657:
I added content to "Legacy" as seen in the last two paragraphs
1158:
1116:
157:
2103:
Knowledge (XXG) Did you know articles that are good articles
963:
923:
757:
444:
302:
1186:
I'm sure many directors have opinions about other films.
1810:
https://thenewbev.com/quentin-news/tomatometer-approved/
704:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
522:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
249:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
141:
Did you know ... that the first scene of the 2010 film
83:
1061:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
2213:GA-Class United States articles of Low-importance
1982:doesn’t have one! Is this change I propose good?
613:, a project which is currently considered to be
419:. To improve this article, please refer to the
2123:Mid-importance San Francisco Bay Area articles
1768:You should all be aware that since June 2020,
48:If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
951:WikiProject Film - American cinema task force
625:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Justin Timberlake
8:
1772:has been an officially recognized critic on
2128:San Francisco Bay Area task force articles
2027:(which likewise appears in lowercase) and
1007:
785:
644:
573:
468:
415:. To use this banner, please refer to the
346:
189:
62:
15:
1585:https://thenewbev.com/tarantinos-reviews/
890:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
2118:GA-Class San Francisco Bay Area articles
1454:Plese cite your source for that "fact".
1343:
2218:Mid-importance American cinema articles
1984:2603:8080:B8F0:5360:59D2:E9F7:3A39:F618
1577:
1370:(who I'm sure is probably a nice guy).
1009:
787:
646:
575:
470:
348:
191:
2060:too. (EDIT: I started a discussion at
628:Template:WikiProject Justin Timberlake
269:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject California
2228:Low-importance Massachusetts articles
2208:Low-importance United States articles
1895:'The Social Network' Tried to Warn Us
7:
1498:, and about a million other titles.
1188:I don't see the need to report them,
1055:This article is within the scope of
843:This article is within the scope of
724:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Maryland
698:This article is within the scope of
609:This article is within the scope of
536:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Internet
516:This article is within the scope of
397:This article is within the scope of
243:This article is within the scope of
163:
161:
2148:American cinema task force articles
180:It is of interest to the following
2238:WikiProject United States articles
2233:WikiProject Massachusetts articles
2113:Low-importance California articles
1933:
1929:
893:Template:WikiProject United States
14:
2188:Low-importance Baltimore articles
2143:GA-Class American cinema articles
1075:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject 2010s
453:This article is supported by the
330:San Francisco Bay Area task force
41:. If you can improve it further,
2178:Low-importance Maryland articles
2163:Mid-importance Internet articles
2031:(which appears in all caps). ~~
1936:. Further details are available
1923:
1121:
1042:
1032:
1011:
975:
935:
830:
820:
789:
685:
675:
648:
602:
577:
503:
493:
472:
429:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film
413:regional and topical task forces
384:
374:
350:
314:
230:
220:
193:
162:
105:
19:
2223:GA-Class Massachusetts articles
2203:GA-Class United States articles
2133:WikiProject California articles
1095:This article has been rated as
910:This article has been rated as
744:This article has been rated as
556:This article has been rated as
289:This article has been rated as
272:Template:WikiProject California
1316:states, it would have to be a
118:appeared on Knowledge (XXG)'s
29:has been listed as one of the
1:
2248:Low-importance 2010s articles
2198:WikiProject Maryland articles
2193:Baltimore task force articles
2168:WikiProject Internet articles
2098:Media and drama good articles
2093:Knowledge (XXG) good articles
2029:Star Trek: The Motion Picture
1952:— Assignment last updated by
1069:and see a list of open tasks.
988:This article is supported by
948:This article is supported by
766:This article is supported by
727:Template:WikiProject Maryland
718:and see a list of open tasks.
611:WikiProject Justin Timberlake
539:Template:WikiProject Internet
530:and see a list of open tasks.
327:This article is supported by
322:San Francisco Bay Area portal
263:and see a list of open tasks.
33:Media and drama good articles
2108:GA-Class California articles
2062:Talk:Mid90s § Stylized title
1962:16:22, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
1235:, Terrence Malick's love of
2183:GA-Class Baltimore articles
1914:20:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
1757:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
1663:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
1545:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
1500:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
1442:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
1372:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
1326:stated, "...in my opinion,
1286:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
1245:PresidentSquidwardTentacles
139:The text of the entry was:
2269:
2253:WikiProject 2010s articles
2173:GA-Class Maryland articles
2158:GA-Class Internet articles
1862:21:32, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
1808:Here's a link to a source
1078:Template:WikiProject 2010s
916:project's importance scale
750:project's importance scale
631:Justin Timberlake articles
562:project's importance scale
456:American cinema task force
295:project's importance scale
2153:WikiProject Film articles
1841:19:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
1821:02:46, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
1804:02:39, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
1786:02:37, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
1094:
1027:
991:WikiProject Massachusetts
971:
931:
909:
846:WikiProject United States
815:
765:
743:
670:
597:
555:
488:
452:
432:Template:WikiProject Film
369:
310:
288:
215:
188:
65:
61:
2078:18:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2041:18:06, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
2019:18:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
1992:17:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
1728:20:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1714:20:47, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1687:15:15, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1653:14:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1553:06:48, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1528:05:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1508:04:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1464:02:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1450:01:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1435:00:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1401:00:50, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1380:00:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1358:23:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
1294:01:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1274:00:51, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1253:00:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
1222:21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
1203:21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
1181:20:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
851:United States of America
769:the Baltimore Task Force
149:took 99 takes to finish?
2243:GA-Class 2010s articles
1419:Harvard Business Review
2138:GA-Class film articles
1854:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy
1813:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy
1796:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy
1778:Samurai Kung fu Cowboy
968:
928:
896:United States articles
762:
449:
307:
246:WikiProject California
206:San Francisco Bay Area
170:This article is rated
116:fact from this article
1940:. Student editor(s):
1692:of the 2000s, namely
1328:The Rise of Skywalker
967:
927:
761:
448:
306:
174:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
39:good article criteria
1702:In the Mood for Love
983:Massachusetts portal
838:United States portal
701:WikiProject Maryland
519:WikiProject Internet
91:Good article nominee
2025:Saving Private Ryan
1698:There Will Be Blood
1515:WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
1309:early claim to fame
864:Articles Requested!
405:join the discussion
275:California articles
1975:the social network
1938:on the course page
1617:The Social Network
1540:The Social Network
969:
929:
763:
450:
308:
176:content assessment
145:The Social Network
66:Article milestones
27:The Social Network
1999:Seven (1995 film)
1770:Quentin Tarantino
1411:
1338:in comparison..."
1334:effort look like
1281:Sight & Sound
1164:
1163:
1145:
1144:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1110:
1107:
1106:
1058:WikiProject 2010s
1006:
1005:
1002:
1001:
784:
783:
780:
779:
730:Maryland articles
643:
642:
639:
638:
622:Justin Timberlake
585:Justin Timberlake
572:
571:
568:
567:
542:Internet articles
467:
466:
463:
462:
407:and see lists of
345:
344:
341:
340:
238:California portal
156:
155:
100:
99:
84:December 22, 2020
57:
2260:
2047:MOS:BOLDALTNAMES
1964:
1946:article contribs
1935:
1931:
1927:
1870:10th anniversary
1694:Mulholland Drive
1587:
1582:
1415:The New Republic
1405:
1398:
1392:
1363:
1361:
1271:
1265:
1200:
1194:
1159:
1136:
1135:
1125:
1117:
1101:importance scale
1083:
1082:
1079:
1076:
1073:
1052:
1047:
1046:
1036:
1029:
1028:
1023:
1015:
1008:
985:
980:
979:
978:
945:
940:
939:
938:
898:
897:
894:
891:
888:
840:
835:
834:
833:
824:
817:
816:
811:
808:
793:
786:
732:
731:
728:
725:
722:
695:
690:
689:
688:
679:
672:
671:
666:
663:
652:
645:
633:
632:
629:
626:
623:
606:
599:
598:
593:
581:
574:
544:
543:
540:
537:
534:
513:
508:
507:
497:
490:
489:
484:
476:
469:
437:
436:
433:
430:
427:
400:WikiProject Film
394:
389:
388:
387:
378:
371:
370:
365:
354:
347:
324:
319:
318:
317:
277:
276:
273:
270:
267:
240:
235:
234:
233:
224:
217:
216:
211:
208:
197:
190:
173:
167:
166:
165:
158:
133:February 6, 2021
109:
86:
63:
46:
23:
16:
2268:
2267:
2263:
2262:
2261:
2259:
2258:
2257:
2083:
2082:
1970:
1951:
1930:15 January 2024
1921:
1872:
1774:Rotten Tomatoes
1592:
1591:
1590:
1583:
1579:
1533:information is
1396:
1390:
1362:
1344:
1341:
1269:
1263:
1198:
1192:
1169:
1160:
1154:
1130:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1071:
1070:
1048:
1041:
1021:
981:
976:
974:
941:
936:
934:
895:
892:
889:
886:
885:
884:
870:Become a Member
836:
831:
829:
809:
799:
729:
726:
723:
720:
719:
693:Maryland portal
691:
686:
684:
664:
658:
630:
627:
624:
621:
620:
587:
541:
538:
535:
532:
531:
511:Internet portal
509:
502:
482:
434:
431:
428:
425:
424:
390:
385:
383:
360:
320:
315:
313:
274:
271:
268:
265:
264:
236:
231:
229:
209:
203:
171:
152:
151:
137:
82:
12:
11:
5:
2266:
2264:
2256:
2255:
2250:
2245:
2240:
2235:
2230:
2225:
2220:
2215:
2210:
2205:
2200:
2195:
2190:
2185:
2180:
2175:
2170:
2165:
2160:
2155:
2150:
2145:
2140:
2135:
2130:
2125:
2120:
2115:
2110:
2105:
2100:
2095:
2085:
2084:
2081:
2080:
2043:
2021:
1969:
1966:
1920:
1917:
1898:
1897:
1892:
1887:
1882:
1871:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1844:
1843:
1751:
1750:
1749:
1748:
1747:
1746:
1745:
1744:
1743:
1742:
1741:
1740:
1739:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1735:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1731:
1730:
1655:
1613:
1589:
1588:
1576:
1575:
1571:
1570:
1569:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1565:
1564:
1563:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1559:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1555:
1403:
1304:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1296:
1168:
1165:
1162:
1161:
1156:
1152:
1150:
1147:
1146:
1143:
1142:
1132:
1131:
1126:
1120:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1104:
1097:Low-importance
1093:
1087:
1086:
1084:
1081:2010s articles
1067:the discussion
1054:
1053:
1037:
1025:
1024:
1022:Low‑importance
1016:
1004:
1003:
1000:
999:
996:Low-importance
987:
986:
970:
960:
959:
956:Mid-importance
947:
946:
930:
920:
919:
912:Low-importance
908:
902:
901:
899:
883:
882:
877:
872:
867:
860:
858:Template Usage
854:
842:
841:
825:
813:
812:
810:Low‑importance
794:
782:
781:
778:
777:
774:Low-importance
764:
754:
753:
746:Low-importance
742:
736:
735:
733:
716:the discussion
697:
696:
680:
668:
667:
665:Low‑importance
653:
641:
640:
637:
636:
634:
607:
595:
594:
582:
570:
569:
566:
565:
558:Mid-importance
554:
548:
547:
545:
528:the discussion
515:
514:
498:
486:
485:
483:Mid‑importance
477:
465:
464:
461:
460:
451:
441:
440:
438:
396:
395:
379:
367:
366:
355:
343:
342:
339:
338:
335:Mid-importance
326:
325:
309:
299:
298:
291:Low-importance
287:
281:
280:
278:
261:the discussion
242:
241:
225:
213:
212:
210:Low‑importance
198:
186:
185:
179:
168:
154:
153:
138:
113:
112:
110:
102:
101:
98:
97:
94:
87:
79:
78:
75:
72:
68:
67:
59:
58:
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2265:
2254:
2251:
2249:
2246:
2244:
2241:
2239:
2236:
2234:
2231:
2229:
2226:
2224:
2221:
2219:
2216:
2214:
2211:
2209:
2206:
2204:
2201:
2199:
2196:
2194:
2191:
2189:
2186:
2184:
2181:
2179:
2176:
2174:
2171:
2169:
2166:
2164:
2161:
2159:
2156:
2154:
2151:
2149:
2146:
2144:
2141:
2139:
2136:
2134:
2131:
2129:
2126:
2124:
2121:
2119:
2116:
2114:
2111:
2109:
2106:
2104:
2101:
2099:
2096:
2094:
2091:
2090:
2088:
2079:
2075:
2071:
2067:
2063:
2059:
2058:
2052:
2049:says to put "
2048:
2044:
2042:
2038:
2034:
2030:
2026:
2022:
2020:
2016:
2012:
2009:improvement.
2007:
2006:BUtterfield 8
2003:
2000:
1996:
1995:
1994:
1993:
1989:
1985:
1981:
1977:
1976:
1967:
1965:
1963:
1959:
1955:
1949:
1947:
1943:
1939:
1926:
1918:
1916:
1915:
1911:
1907:
1903:
1896:
1893:
1891:
1888:
1886:
1883:
1881:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1869:
1863:
1859:
1855:
1851:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1842:
1838:
1834:
1830:
1825:
1824:
1823:
1822:
1818:
1814:
1811:
1806:
1805:
1801:
1797:
1793:
1788:
1787:
1783:
1779:
1775:
1771:
1767:
1764:
1761:
1758:
1755:
1729:
1725:
1721:
1717:
1716:
1715:
1711:
1707:
1703:
1699:
1695:
1690:
1689:
1688:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1668:
1664:
1660:
1656:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1626:
1622:
1621:Rolling Stone
1618:
1614:
1610:
1609:
1608:
1607:
1606:
1605:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1586:
1581:
1578:
1574:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1541:
1536:
1531:
1530:
1529:
1525:
1521:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1509:
1505:
1501:
1497:
1496:
1491:
1490:
1485:
1484:
1479:
1478:
1473:
1472:
1467:
1466:
1465:
1461:
1457:
1453:
1452:
1451:
1447:
1443:
1438:
1437:
1436:
1432:
1428:
1424:
1420:
1416:
1409:
1408:edit conflict
1404:
1402:
1399:
1395:
1387:
1383:
1382:
1381:
1377:
1373:
1369:
1365:
1364:
1359:
1355:
1351:
1350:72.234.220.38
1348:
1339:
1337:
1333:
1329:
1325:
1319:
1315:
1310:
1305:
1295:
1291:
1287:
1282:
1277:
1276:
1275:
1272:
1268:
1260:
1256:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1246:
1242:
1238:
1234:
1230:
1225:
1224:
1223:
1219:
1215:
1211:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1201:
1197:
1189:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1166:
1149:
1148:
1141:
1138:
1137:
1134:
1133:
1129:
1124:
1119:
1118:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1089:
1088:
1085:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1059:
1051:
1045:
1040:
1038:
1035:
1031:
1030:
1026:
1020:
1017:
1014:
1010:
997:
994:(assessed as
993:
992:
984:
973:
966:
962:
961:
957:
954:(assessed as
953:
952:
944:
933:
926:
922:
921:
917:
913:
907:
904:
903:
900:
887:United States
881:
878:
876:
873:
871:
868:
866:
865:
861:
859:
856:
855:
852:
848:
847:
839:
828:
826:
823:
819:
818:
814:
807:
806:Massachusetts
803:
798:
797:United States
795:
792:
788:
775:
772:(assessed as
771:
770:
760:
756:
755:
751:
747:
741:
738:
737:
734:
717:
713:
712:
707:
703:
702:
694:
683:
681:
678:
674:
673:
669:
662:
657:
654:
651:
647:
635:
618:
617:
612:
608:
605:
601:
600:
596:
591:
586:
583:
580:
576:
563:
559:
553:
550:
549:
546:
529:
525:
521:
520:
512:
506:
501:
499:
496:
492:
491:
487:
481:
478:
475:
471:
458:
457:
447:
443:
442:
439:
435:film articles
422:
418:
417:documentation
414:
410:
406:
402:
401:
393:
382:
380:
377:
373:
372:
368:
364:
359:
356:
353:
349:
336:
333:(assessed as
332:
331:
323:
312:
305:
301:
300:
296:
292:
286:
283:
282:
279:
262:
258:
257:
252:
248:
247:
239:
228:
226:
223:
219:
218:
214:
207:
202:
199:
196:
192:
187:
183:
177:
169:
160:
159:
150:
147:
146:
142:
135:
134:
129:
127:
126:Did you know?
121:
117:
111:
108:
104:
103:
95:
93:
92:
88:
85:
81:
80:
76:
73:
70:
69:
64:
60:
55:
53:
52:
44:
40:
36:
35:
34:
28:
25:
22:
18:
17:
2055:
2050:
2001:
1974:
1973:
1971:
1950:
1922:
1899:
1873:
1807:
1789:
1752:
1701:
1697:
1693:
1616:
1580:
1572:
1539:
1534:
1493:
1489:Smokin' Aces
1487:
1481:
1475:
1469:
1393:
1386:your opinion
1367:
1340:😉 Regards.
1336:Citizen Kane
1324:George Lucas
1321:
1317:
1280:
1266:
1258:
1241:Smokin' Aces
1240:
1236:
1232:
1228:
1195:
1170:
1127:
1096:
1056:
1050:2010s portal
989:
949:
911:
875:Project Talk
863:
844:
767:
745:
709:
699:
614:
557:
517:
454:
398:
328:
290:
254:
244:
182:WikiProjects
148:
143:
140:
131:
123:
89:
49:
47:
43:please do so
31:
30:
26:
2051:significant
1968:Stylization
1934:15 May 2024
1790:Re tagging
943:Film portal
392:Film portal
2087:Categories
2033:Jessintime
1763:ZimZalaBim
1754:JakeDapper
1720:JakeDapper
1706:JakeDapper
1671:ZimZalaBim
1573:References
1322:Filmmaker
1318:remarkable
1314:ZimZalaBim
706:U.S. state
421:guidelines
409:open tasks
266:California
256:California
251:U.S. state
201:California
130:column on
37:under the
1954:Laeismann
1942:Laeismann
1495:Zoolander
1330:makes my
1237:Zoolander
1167:Tarantino
1140:Archive 1
661:Baltimore
120:Main Page
1900:Thanks,
1629:Mashable
1483:Mandingo
1332:THX 1138
1128:Archives
721:Maryland
711:Maryland
656:Maryland
616:inactive
590:inactive
533:Internet
524:Internet
480:Internet
363:American
172:GA-class
51:reassess
2074:contrib
2011:DonIago
1910:contrib
1837:contrib
1792:Doniago
1766:Donlago
1683:contrib
1667:Doniago
1649:contrib
1637:Vulture
1633:Polygon
1625:Inverse
1520:DonIago
1471:Dunkirk
1456:DonIago
1431:contrib
1384:That's
1368:Esquire
1229:Dunkirk
1218:contrib
1173:DonIago
1099:on the
914:on the
748:on the
560:on the
293:on the
122:in the
74:Process
2057:Mid90s
1980:mid90s
1700:, and
1535:always
1477:Lolita
1233:Lolita
880:Alerts
802:Cinema
178:scale.
96:Listed
77:Result
1072:2010s
1063:2010s
1019:2010s
2070:talk
2066:Erik
2037:talk
2015:talk
2002:does
1988:talk
1958:talk
1932:and
1906:talk
1902:Erik
1858:talk
1850:Erik
1833:talk
1829:Erik
1817:talk
1800:talk
1782:talk
1760:Erik
1724:talk
1710:talk
1679:talk
1675:Erik
1659:here
1645:talk
1641:Erik
1549:talk
1524:talk
1504:talk
1460:talk
1446:talk
1427:talk
1423:Erik
1417:and
1394:Zala
1376:talk
1354:talk
1345:░▒▓
1307:An
1290:talk
1267:Zala
1249:talk
1239:and
1214:talk
1210:Erik
1196:Zala
1177:talk
426:Film
411:and
358:Film
71:Date
2076:)
2064:.)
1948:).
1912:)
1839:)
1685:)
1651:)
1433:)
1397:Bim
1391:Zim
1360:▓▒░
1270:Bim
1264:Zim
1259:not
1220:)
1199:Bim
1193:Zim
1091:Low
906:Low
740:Low
708:of
552:Mid
285:Low
253:of
2089::
2072:|
2039:)
2017:)
1990:)
1960:)
1908:|
1860:)
1835:|
1819:)
1802:)
1784:)
1776:.
1726:)
1712:)
1696:,
1681:|
1673:.
1669:,
1665:,
1647:|
1635:,
1631:,
1627:,
1623:,
1551:)
1526:)
1506:)
1492:,
1486:,
1480:,
1474:,
1462:)
1448:)
1429:|
1378:)
1356:)
1347:№∶
1342:–
1292:)
1251:)
1216:|
1179:)
998:).
958:).
804:/
800::
776:).
659::
361::
337:).
204::
114:A
54:it
45:.
2068:(
2035:(
2013:(
1986:(
1956:(
1944:(
1904:(
1856:(
1831:(
1815:(
1798:(
1780:(
1722:(
1708:(
1677:(
1643:(
1547:(
1522:(
1502:(
1458:(
1444:(
1425:(
1410:)
1406:(
1374:(
1352:(
1288:(
1247:(
1212:(
1175:(
1103:.
918:.
752:.
619:.
592:)
588:(
564:.
459:.
423:.
297:.
184::
136:.
128:"
124:"
56:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
