924:'s pantheon is the most famous one). But since the critics fought over who to include all the time, whatever list you would make would reflect less who was an auteur than the debate over who was an auteur. And that's what makes it better to include in the auteur theory article. (Note that if you make having an article or a monograph on the director the criteria of being an auteur, you would not only end up with an enormous list, but also a lot of people, such as niche B-movie directors, that most would not call an auteur.) If you think that a list would be too bulky to include in the auteur theory article, the only solution I can think of for saving this list would be this: select about 10 historically significant selections of auteurs or great directors (Sarris's pantheon, BFI lists, etc.) and then just list who appears in those lists in alphabetical order, with marks denoting who appears on which list. I still worry about the biases in such a list (it would not include many recent or non-Western auteurs), but as long as it is explained as a collation of historical artifacts, it can be helpful. It would also be finite (as long as one of the sources does not change), and prevent anyone from adding anyone they liked.
830:
a product of a system. Where would I go to if I want to know (and add to) the works of great film directors? b) Is subjectivity totally banned here? I see that there are lists of cultural icons by country, society-related lists, philosophy-related lists, etiquette lists and so on. Can
Knowledge editors define things to exclude or include entries in such lists? c) What are "reliable" sources? That term would also need inclusion/exclusion criteria, would'nt it? I could say that Newton should be considered an alchemist, many reliable sources would not support this view. But it is fairly well-known that he practised alchemy. d) To avoid arguing over the term "Auteur", we could rename it something like "List of great film directors" or introduce a term which does not demand a physics-like definition. d) Lastly, thanks for clarifying that you are not NarasMG, OnlyiwillRemain :-). I share your feelings regarding the value of this list.
1018:
you'll all be kind :-) a) We could change the title to "Award-winning film directors" which would be objective. But it will not be the same level of "greatness" that the current list seems to have. Too many "ordinary" directors can be included under that criterion, since awards are not difficult to get. b) If adding objectivity by citing reliable sources is acceptable/possible, then this list can be improved upon. The baby is kept, and the bathwater removed. c) I continue to feel that there are other lists where there is a good deal of subjectivity, like
Unusual Deaths, Unusual software bugs, miraculous births, eBay listings, etiquette lists (with a skimpy entry for Africa) etc. These are sometimes useful, interesting, valuable etc but not encyclopedic, in my view. d) Perfect Objectivity may be an enemy of the Good.
868:
reporting the information as controversial, citing both the positions and reporting both the sources d) this is definitely a little step towards the right direction. The concept of "auteur" is too much complex and controversial for being so easily treated. It's not enough that a single critic or a single book defines a filmmaker "auteur" to ensure that the director is generally (or just mainly) recognized as auteur. The concept of Great directors is still vague and subjective, but I have any prejudice in constructing a list (or more lists) with the same inner "spirit" if they incorporate something objective in the title, ie "Directors awared in more than a
Festival/Award competition", or "Directors that have been subject of monographies". PS. How many times you want to vote?--
434:
making of the film. I don't believe these things are subjective at all, and purely historical. I think that any professional film critic, or modern director, would agree. 3.) I think the main problem with this article is, as previously mentioned, is lack of criteria. I think that could be easily fixed. 4.) The value of this article cannot be overstated. I found it via a google search looking for a list of auteurs, for my own research into the films that I need to view to refine and define my own cinematic style. I think this article, for all it's flaws, is very valuable, and should be kept. I think that it should be heavily modified, but kept.
554:? If we can cite to respected film critics and scholars going into substantive discussions about why a director is an auteur as that term is used in film theory, then we can include them in the list. Even if there is disagreement between sources, lists can annotate that. If we can only find mere use of the label in a magazine puff piece about someone, then maybe they're not worth including. I don't see any hint here that anyone has done such research about anyone, nor is there any recent discussion on the talk page about how to develop the list. Nor is there even any discussion here about the sources that
1126:", but saying an article that explicitly does not consider him an auteur. It's remarkably simple finding an article that consider x an author, is equally simple find one another that find him just a good "artisan", or mediocre, decent, overrated, underrated, an "unfulfilled promise", a bluff, a good "metteur en scène"... and so on. Who is responsible for determining who is right? WP is not made to make judgments, otherwise we could start, with the same arguments, lists of "good restaurants", "most talented chefs", "most talented singers" or "smartest politicians"--
785:" (I agree) I don't think that is reasonable to keep an article that is for - at least - 90% unsourced, at least partially original research, and that consider only these sources that are "convenient" not properly meeting WP:NPOV. Verifiability, No original research and Neutral point of view are the principal policies of WP and this article actually does not really respects any of them (with the partial exception of some elements), nor consequently respect WP:Source list.--
502:
any understanding of the medium. I've edited my comment/vote to change the language to indicate as such. I will also state that I am not the person you have suggest that I am; and that I find your assumption to be a bit paranoid. I am new to wikipedia (in regards to editing) and copied the format of others here because I thought it was the standard for discourse. I have no investment in the matter other than thinking this article has value and not wanting it to be deleted.
346:* - a) Any view or review of artists' body of work is always subjective. For any set of people who find Stanley Kubrick is objectively an auteur, you might find others who don't think so. And vice versa with John Hughes. b) The list is helpful for people who are interested in the work of great film directors, which an alphabetical list will not indicate. c) How would anyone decide objective evaluations of the works of film directors in other languages and cultures?
889:- your suggestion of changing it to "great" film directors is a good illustration at how subjective this list is, and your argument of "There is no way for any expert to decide whether something is a director's personal vision, a collective effort of the team, or even just a product of a system." supports my reasoning for nominating it in the first place. Would also suggest you have a look at
740:
pinpoint page cites. All that is required of a reference, at a minimum, is enough information that a reader can locate the source themselves to verify where the information came from, which a book title and author readily provide (particularly when the book has an index, as the
Biskind book does). Having more specific page cites is a goal that we work towards. See also
244:: Per nom, the inclusion (or exclusion) to this category does not respond to objective criteria, it is absolutely subjective. Taking a look at the specific list, names as Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa could be widely recognized as "auteur", John Hughes or Tony Scott probably not, James Marcus Haney and Steven HAuse (?) surely not.--
920:. A list of auteurs makes sense, but since the notion of auteur is a subjective creation of critical discourse, it makes more sense to include such a list in the discussion of the critics and their theory. One can easily get citations for a list of auteurs because the auteurist critics, especially in the 1960s, loved to make lists (
709:
your own words confirm that the article is mainly unsourced: 30 acceptable sources for more than 400 names of directors... is that acceptable? P.S. I said "vague titles" related to the objective fact that the citations are vague, not the book-contents. I'm
Italian so it could happen something I write is not so clear, I apologize. --
593:
may have a differing opinion as to what constitutes an "auteur". Like I said, subjective. Inclusion on this list would be based on an editor's judgement looking at all available sources and weighing up an answer to the question: "Is XX an auteur?" The answer will always be: "Maybe". Again - too subjective. --
660:"What sources"? Even disregarding all of the web cites, I count well over thirty cites to what appear to be academic books. So you're rather losing credibility here by disregarding those out of hand, when you simply seem to be unfamiliar with the topic and references ("BFI World Directors" is a series by the
781:
required on a
Neutral Point of View and here basically lacks, as the inclusion in the list is based on individual opinions(=point of views) of some authors/critics/people (the authors of the books/articles referenced) and not consider these authors/critics/people have different and opposing ideas. If "
829:
Keep - a) The list per se is a treasure-trove and needs to be kept. I don't have a strong view on who or who is not an auteur. The definition itself is subjective. There is no way for any expert to decide whether something is a director's personal vision, a collective effort of the team, or even just
196:
To define which director meets the criteria of "auter" is subjective, and can never be definitive. By the article's own admission it "is supposed to be a list of directors whose status as an auteur is supported by published studies of their body of work. However, most entries on the list do not cite
592:
film directors are, to some extent or other, "auteurs". This is another reason why this list is so problematic. It's not an exact science. The fact that a critic has or hasn't called a director an auteur, doesn't meen that they should or shouldn't be included when another critic of equal standing
385:
Your A and C arguments are strong arguments for a Delete vote, not for a Keep... how could be considered encyclopedic a list compiled without any criteria of inclusion/exclusion? And the criteria B is contradicted by criteria A and C: who established that these film directors are great, and that are
867:
a) WP is an encyclopedia, not a forum or a blog. Being that a list, the correct procedure for building such a list is described is WP:Source list b) you are true, but however those lists still are less problematic than this one c) The correct way of insert such a controversial information in WP is
807:
While I think it would be appropriate on each individual film-maker's article to note the opinion and esteem by which they are regarded by critics, I just don't think this is appropriate for a list, which could be seen by readers to be something approacing definitive. Look at some of the arguments
780:
1) Sorry, I wrote a silly thing about WP:V. I don't remember in what discussion I had heard that sort of argument, and I was convinced it was so. Still, in WP:NLIST and WP:Sourcelist is explicitly said that
Veriafibility and adequate references are required for every element of the list. It is also
708:
are "auteurs" and that my source is "Il
Mereghetti: dizionario dei film 2011" by Paolo Mereghetti... 2) your assumption that any director that is the subject of a monography is automatically an auteur is clearly a POV 3) even theoretically accepting monographies as "automatic" proof of auteur-ship,
607:
Again, you're just speculating without actually doing any research. I don't believe for a second that all film directors are equally likely of being called auteurs by film critics and scholars, particularly if you're contrasting film history before and after the French New Wave and New
Hollywood.
501:
2) *I originally used the word 'preclude' incorrectly, because I was half-asleep when I responded to this. It should be further stated, I guess, that I believe Orson Welles WAS an auteur. I think that he is a classic case of auteurism, and I think to say so is a matter of historical accuracy, given
471:
isn't an auteur is a perfect example of how subjective this list is, when he has been described as "the ultimate auteur"! The problem is that this list will always remain unencyclopedic because of its subjectivity. It is not historical at all, as different people would have different criteria for
1017:
I'll try NOT begging for mercy here, since I saw that in the list of arguments not to use ;-) I thought that each discussion entry needed a Keep or Delete starting phrase. A discussion is not a vote, but apparently these words indicate voting. As I am a
Knowledge:Newbie, I take it for granted that
739:
be referenced fails WP:V; an article that has references without pages is verifiable, just not cited as well as it could be. So...yes, you need to check the book cited to see what it says; many articles in fact just have a general list of references at the bottom rather than inline citations with
1187:
Well we differ on this point. An argument could be made that any film-maker could be considered an "auteur" to a greater or lesser degree. Hence the subjectivity of the topic. However, most of the arguments for "keep" (not yours) are along the lines of "how else am I going to find out who the
433:
technical aspects film-making at the time indicate to me that the director of Citizen Cane is an auteur, merely because of the circumstances of the films creation and the nature of other films at the time, in addition to the history associated with the film and the known facts involved with the
989:
and improve. My initial feeling was that this was an obvious delete, but I've changed my mind. It does need a lot of work and trimming, but I think it's viable. References would be needed which don't just describe x is an auteur (I've seen it used sarcastically!), but explain
748:
that tells us to tag statements as needing citations or to do the research ourselves rather than deleting content that can be fixed. 2) I never made that assumption. 3) As I said, 30 good sources (there are more, that's just a quick estimate) is a good
197:
any published studies and reflect little more than the opinions of the individual editors who added them." In view of the problematic nature of this article, original research, and point of view issues, it should be deleted, or at best redirected to
638:,without any indication of pages, sentences or any further indication)...the reliable source for Madhur Bhandarkar is an anonymous review in the site "Sify Movies", the one for Jean-Jacques Beineix is a dead link, for Shyam Benegal is the book
429:* - 1.) I think this article should be kept, but changed. I think it should be modified with sources/citations wherein substantial critics and directors within the film give input on the matter. For example, my knowledge of
757:
entries are not sourced. The rest need to be researched and then cites added or entries removed if they can't be confirmed sufficiently. Think of it as a rough draft, and one that no one will ever force you to work on.
472:
what constitutes an auteur. 2) ? 3) And whose criteria would we use for defining this? Yours? 4) This article has no value as far as I am concerned. It is just a list of directors that some people think are auteurs.
1099:
Sorry, not sure I understand your point in relation to b). Are you saying that if there is an article on x which doesn't mention that x is considered an auteur, then the inclusion of x in a list of auteurs would be POV?
608:
Nor do I think that there is such disagreement about all argued auteurs that we can only throw up our hands in despair instead of doing the work of analyzing and weighing sources. No one will force you to work on it.
368:
But that's exactly the problem with this list and why I've nominated it for deletion - Who sets the criteria for considering whether a director is an auteur or not and therefore inclusion or exclusion on this list?
165:
946:
article, I wonder whether it needs to be in list format or whether it would actually be better off as a discussion. The tone and content on that page and on your post here seem like a good starting point.
306:. Nom hits it on the nose. Someone has gone to a lot of work here. Unhappily it is not suitable for wikipedia because there's not a shred of objectivity in the selections. Elsewhere perhaps. --
261:
550:
Much of the discussion here seems beside the point. It doesn't matter whether Knowledge editors have subjective opinions or bad opinions or differing opinions about who is or isn't an auteur.
634:, 26 directors, 6 supported by citations, 20 unsupported etc.etc.), other are supported from blog-sites, other are supported by vague book-titles (ie Hal Hashby's authorship source is the book
1073:
the sources are converging, but if (as almost always happens in this case) there are some sources that recognize a director as an auteur and other ones that not, that clearly violates
281:
668:
to have, even preferred, but it's simply not true that something is unsourced because a page cite is not given. You mean someone might have to do some work, track down a copy of
526:
Apologies for thinking that - the editing style seemed similar and you only had one previous edit against your account (which incidentally you don't seem to be logged into). --
126:
1147:
I like your comparison to "most talented chefs". Just because a food critic says that a certain chef is "an artist", doesn't justify inclusion on a list here on Knowledge. "
735:
to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything." (emphasis added) Only an article that
159:
678:?), and look in the index for Hal Ashby (not "Hashby")? Heavens to Betsy. It's just too hard, isn't it? (page 15 is pretty clear re: Ashby as an auteur, btw).
642:
without any further indication, one another dead link on the not-so-reliable site "Focus Feautures" support the "auteur"-ship of five directors and so on...--
972:
article, but Knowledge should not point out who is an auteur or not. A list is wrong regardless of if it's a standalone article or part of another article.
222:
1196:'s suggestion), so I am not against a merge although I don't really think it should be in list form, as I think after a time, we'll be back here again! --
323:- As pointed out by the others, this list is inherently subjective. Inclusion appears to depend entirely on personal opinion and original research.
700:
Lol! So,1) How can I check what these books say? A reference without pages or indications fails WP:V. With your method I can easily argue that
484:
450:
99:
94:
1188:
great film directors are", and it appears that this is how this list is perceived. A well written and well sourced discussion on the
103:
1053:
86:
1169:"most talented chefs" is not a fair comparison. An Auteur is a particular kind of film-maker. It's not about how good they are.
17:
180:
147:
509:
968:, subjective/marketing term. It's reasonable to mention a few filmmakers used as examples in fundamental texts in the
1151:" is acceptable as it is factual and objective. "List of most talented chefs" is subjective and unencyclopedic. --
1236:
670:
446:
141:
61:
40:
1205:
1178:
1160:
1135:
1109:
1090:
1027:
1011:
981:
956:
933:
902:
877:
858:
839:
817:
794:
771:
728:
718:
691:
651:
621:
602:
579:
535:
496:
454:
411:
378:
358:
338:
315:
295:
273:
253:
234:
214:
137:
68:
1174:
1105:
1007:
661:
476:
442:
198:
1232:
36:
783:
isn't reasonable to delete a list of 30 well-sourced entries just because other entries are not sourced
187:
1062:
1078:
977:
973:
505:
438:
90:
53:
1201:
1156:
1131:
1086:
952:
929:
898:
873:
854:
813:
790:
714:
647:
598:
531:
492:
407:
374:
269:
249:
230:
210:
173:
558:
in the list. So I think we're a far way off from being able to say, "yep, this is unsalvageable,
1066:
1038:
942:
This seems like a good solution. It has definition and objectivity. Reading the section on the
741:
1047:
994:
x is considered an auteur. Granted, this might end up being a much shorter list, in which case
1170:
1101:
1023:
1003:
835:
766:
686:
616:
574:
519:
354:
311:
291:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1231:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
753:, and it certainly isn't reasonable to delete a list of 30 well-sourced entries just because
475:
Incidentally, and without wanting to seem to be assuming bad faith, is there any chance that
153:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
890:
701:
82:
74:
1197:
1193:
1152:
1127:
1082:
1074:
1058:
948:
925:
894:
869:
850:
809:
786:
710:
705:
643:
594:
527:
488:
403:
370:
331:
265:
245:
226:
206:
1189:
1148:
999:
969:
943:
921:
917:
675:
202:
674:(a "vague book title"? do you simply mean you haven't heard of that seminal book on
1019:
886:
846:
831:
760:
680:
626:
what sources? The included names (at least from letter D) are mainly unsourced (ie
610:
568:
480:
468:
395:
391:
350:
307:
287:
120:
893:- the content in list format is not encyclopedic because of its subjectivity. --
52:. The arguments concerning the article's inherent subjectiveness are convincing.
399:
1192:
article explaining who considers who an auteur and why would be useful (as per
386:
consequently greater than other not-mentioned-directors? Who established that
324:
664:, FYI, so what "further indication" do you need?). Page citations are
1124:
an article on x which doesn't mention that x is considered an auteur
1225:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1042:
387:
262:
list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions
588:
Don't forget of course, that the case can be argued that
483:? Just their style seems similar and there are not many
116:
112:
108:
172:
1057:"art films"? may just two films be enough to make of
282:
list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions
1065:something more than a semi-novice? who the hell is
1061:an auteur? and could just one short movie make of
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1239:). No further edits should be made to this page.
731:policy: "all material added to articles must be
186:
8:
280:Note: This debate has been included in the
260:Note: This debate has been included in the
221:Note: This debate has been included in the
849:has already stated a "keep" vote above. --
279:
259:
220:
223:list of Film-related deletion discussions
727:1) Sorry, you simply don't understand
1069:?! b)sources add objectivity just if
7:
640:Shyam Benegal (BFI World Directors)
24:
1041:an "extra-ordinary" author? are
1054:Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1:
398:" is worthy of inclusion and
316:10:44, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
296:01:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
274:18:42, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
254:18:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
235:12:00, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
215:11:57, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
1206:11:01, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1179:10:50, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1161:10:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1136:10:30, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1110:09:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1091:09:20, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1028:08:34, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1012:06:21, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
982:18:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
957:14:13, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
934:13:37, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
903:09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
878:08:05, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
859:09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
840:07:15, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
818:09:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
795:21:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
772:20:40, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
719:18:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
692:17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
652:17:06, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
622:17:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
603:16:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
580:16:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
552:What do reliable sources say
536:15:09, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
497:13:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
455:13:26, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
412:10:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
379:09:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
359:07:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
339:07:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
69:15:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
1002:would be the best outcome.
394:not? Who established that "
1256:
671:Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
636:Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
513:an unspecified IP address
1228:Please do not modify it.
845:Note to closing admin -
630:, 12 names, 1 citation,
32:Please do not modify it.
402:is not? And so on... --
662:British Film Institute
199:List of film directors
1145:Good point, well put!
431:film making precludes
479:is the same user as
467:1) Your claim that
390:is an "Auteur" and
1118:Not a question of
1039:David Gordon Green
744:, part of editing
201:or the article on
861:
508:comment added by
458:
441:comment added by
298:
285:
276:
237:
1247:
1230:
1063:S. Mckay Stevens
1048:Charlie's Angels
844:
729:WP:Verifiability
702:Dwight H. Little
523:
516:
457:
435:
329:
286:
191:
190:
176:
124:
106:
48:The result was
34:
1255:
1254:
1250:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1237:deletion review
1226:
510:
503:
477:Onlyiwillremain
443:Onlyiwillremain
436:
335:
325:
133:
97:
83:List of auteurs
81:
78:
75:List of auteurs
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1253:
1251:
1242:
1241:
1222:
1221:
1220:
1219:
1218:
1217:
1216:
1215:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1211:
1210:
1209:
1208:
1182:
1181:
1164:
1163:
1139:
1138:
1113:
1112:
1094:
1093:
1075:Knowledge:NPOV
1015:
1014:
984:
962:
961:
960:
959:
937:
936:
910:
909:
908:
907:
906:
905:
881:
880:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
805:
804:
803:
802:
801:
800:
799:
798:
797:
775:
774:
722:
721:
706:David DeCoteau
695:
694:
655:
654:
583:
582:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
473:
460:
459:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
348:
347:
341:
333:
318:
300:
299:
277:
239:
238:
194:
193:
130:
77:
72:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1252:
1240:
1238:
1234:
1229:
1223:
1207:
1203:
1199:
1195:
1191:
1190:Auteur theory
1186:
1185:
1184:
1183:
1180:
1176:
1172:
1168:
1167:
1166:
1165:
1162:
1158:
1154:
1150:
1149:List of chefs
1146:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1116:
1115:
1114:
1111:
1107:
1103:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1079:WP:SourceList
1076:
1072:
1068:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1055:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1032:
1031:
1030:
1029:
1025:
1021:
1013:
1009:
1005:
1001:
1000:Auteur theory
997:
993:
988:
985:
983:
979:
975:
971:
970:auteur theory
967:
964:
963:
958:
954:
950:
945:
944:Andrew Sarris
941:
940:
939:
938:
935:
931:
927:
923:
922:Andrew Sarris
919:
918:Auteur theory
915:
912:
911:
904:
900:
896:
892:
888:
885:
884:
883:
882:
879:
875:
871:
866:
865:
864:
863:
862:
860:
856:
852:
848:
842:
841:
837:
833:
819:
815:
811:
806:
796:
792:
788:
784:
779:
778:
777:
776:
773:
769:
768:
763:
762:
756:
752:
747:
743:
738:
734:
730:
726:
725:
724:
723:
720:
716:
712:
707:
703:
699:
698:
697:
696:
693:
689:
688:
683:
682:
677:
676:New Hollywood
673:
672:
667:
663:
659:
658:
657:
656:
653:
649:
645:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
624:
623:
619:
618:
613:
612:
606:
605:
604:
600:
596:
591:
587:
586:
585:
584:
581:
577:
576:
571:
570:
565:
561:
557:
553:
549:
548:
537:
533:
529:
525:
524:
521:
517:
515:
514:
507:
500:
499:
498:
494:
490:
486:
482:
478:
474:
470:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
456:
452:
448:
444:
440:
432:
428:
425:
424:
413:
409:
405:
401:
397:
393:
389:
384:
383:
382:
381:
380:
376:
372:
367:
366:
365:
364:
363:
362:
361:
360:
356:
352:
345:
342:
340:
337:
336:
330:
328:
322:
319:
317:
313:
309:
305:
304:Strong Delete
302:
301:
297:
293:
289:
283:
278:
275:
271:
267:
263:
258:
257:
256:
255:
251:
247:
243:
242:Strong Delete
236:
232:
228:
224:
219:
218:
217:
216:
212:
208:
204:
203:Auteur theory
200:
189:
185:
182:
179:
175:
171:
167:
164:
161:
158:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
139:
136:
135:Find sources:
131:
128:
122:
118:
114:
110:
105:
101:
96:
92:
88:
84:
80:
79:
76:
73:
71:
70:
67:
66:
65:
59:
58:
57:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1227:
1224:
1171:Tigerboy1966
1144:
1123:
1122:not saying "
1119:
1102:Tigerboy1966
1070:
1052:
1046:
1016:
1004:Tigerboy1966
995:
991:
986:
965:
913:
847:User:NarasMG
843:
828:
782:
765:
759:
754:
750:
745:
736:
733:attributable
732:
685:
679:
669:
665:
639:
635:
631:
627:
615:
609:
589:
573:
567:
563:
559:
555:
551:
512:
511:
504:— Preceding
469:Orson Welles
437:— Preceding
430:
426:
396:Manny Torres
392:Ettore Scola
349:
343:
332:
326:
320:
303:
241:
240:
195:
183:
177:
169:
162:
156:
150:
144:
134:
63:
62:
55:
54:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1067:Sarah Lewen
742:WP:PRESERVE
400:John Huston
160:free images
1198:Rob Sinden
1153:Rob Sinden
974:Smetanahue
949:Rob Sinden
895:Rob Sinden
851:Rob Sinden
810:Rob Sinden
595:Rob Sinden
528:Rob Sinden
489:Rob Sinden
371:Rob Sinden
227:Rob Sinden
207:Rob Sinden
1233:talk page
1194:Michitaro
1128:Cavarrone
1083:Cavarrone
926:Michitaro
891:WP:USEFUL
870:Cavarrone
808:here. --
787:Cavarrone
711:Cavarrone
644:Cavarrone
404:Cavarrone
288:• Gene93k
266:Cavarrone
246:Cavarrone
37:talk page
1235:or in a
1120:mentions
632:letter G
628:letter F
560:we tried
506:unsigned
451:contribs
439:unsigned
127:View log
39:or in a
1020:NarasMG
887:NarasMG
832:NarasMG
761:postdlf
681:postdlf
611:postdlf
569:postdlf
481:NarasMG
351:NarasMG
308:Lockley
166:WP refs
154:scholar
100:protect
95:history
1059:anyone
1037:a) is
966:Delete
746:policy
737:cannot
321:Delete
138:Google
104:delete
64:karate
50:Delete
996:merge
916:with
914:Merge
755:other
751:start
487:) --
485:edits
181:JSTOR
142:books
121:views
113:watch
109:links
60:&
16:<
1202:talk
1175:talk
1157:talk
1132:talk
1106:talk
1087:talk
1077:and
1051:and
1024:talk
1008:talk
987:Keep
978:talk
953:talk
930:talk
899:talk
874:talk
855:talk
836:talk
814:talk
791:talk
767:talk
715:talk
704:and
687:talk
666:nice
648:talk
617:talk
599:talk
575:talk
564:Keep
562:."
532:talk
520:talk
493:talk
447:talk
427:Keep
408:talk
375:talk
355:talk
344:Keep
327:Reyk
312:talk
292:talk
270:talk
250:talk
231:talk
211:talk
205:. --
174:FENS
148:news
117:logs
91:talk
87:edit
56:fish
1071:all
1045:'s
1043:McG
998:to
992:why
590:all
566:.
556:are
388:McG
334:YO!
188:TWL
125:– (
1204:)
1177:)
1159:)
1134:)
1108:)
1089:)
1081:--
1026:)
1010:)
980:)
955:)
947:--
932:)
901:)
876:)
857:)
838:)
816:)
793:)
770:)
717:)
690:)
650:)
620:)
601:)
578:)
534:)
522:)
495:)
453:)
449:•
410:)
377:)
369:--
357:)
314:)
294:)
284:.
272:)
264:.
252:)
233:)
225:.
213:)
168:)
119:|
115:|
111:|
107:|
102:|
98:|
93:|
89:|
1200:(
1173:(
1155:(
1130:(
1104:(
1085:(
1022:(
1006:(
976:(
951:(
928:(
897:(
872:(
853:(
834:(
812:(
789:(
764:(
713:(
684:(
646:(
614:(
597:(
572:(
530:(
518:(
491:(
445:(
406:(
373:(
353:(
310:(
290:(
268:(
248:(
229:(
209:(
192:)
184:·
178:·
170:·
163:·
157:·
151:·
145:·
140:(
132:(
129:)
123:)
85:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.