Talk:1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die

This article was nominated for deletion on 12 July 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Removed deletion tag

This is not true at all. It is a very popular book and spawned numerous "sequels" such as 1001 albums and 1001 books as well as being rereleased with new editions. A google search of the title IN QUOTATIONS brings up 47,600 results! DarkSideOfTheSpoon 06:40, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it is back up

The wikipedia policy states:

n order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent sources.
In order to have a neutral article with minimal errors, a topic must be notable enough that there will be non-partisan editors interested in editing it.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. As such, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate directory of businesses, websites, persons, etc.

The book meets this criteria. Can whoever put this notice up please discuss what their apparent problem is? Cheers.DarkSideOfTheSpoon 06:52, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, you provided ZERO sources (which is one of the most basic rules of Wikipedia). Are we just supposed to take your word that it meets the criteria? Second of all, take a look at Wikipedia:Notability (books). That is the guideline for books here. A glance at the book guideline shows that the article does not pass any of the requirements. TJ Spyke 07:19, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sources? I had the external link to the review on about.com, and considering that the article is currently only a stub I don't see how that isn't sufficent to verify the content.

As for it not passing the notability test for books- that is plain wrong.

"A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more of the following criteria:

1. The book's author meets Wikipedia's notability criteria for people, based on his/her work as a writer."[1]

The book's main author and editor, Steven Jay Schneider, passes this criteria. The wikipedia criteria for an author being notable is:

"Published authors, editors and photographers who received multiple independent reviews of or awards for their work"[2]

Reviews? Check out the amazon page for 1001 Movies: [http://www.amazon.com/1001-Movies-Must-Before-Die/dp/0764157019]. There are 10 reviews there alone (not from users- actual real reviews) not to mention his other works.

Is that sufficent? DarkSideOfTheSpoon 10:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then put those sources in the article(if they are true), it is your job to proove it is notable, not our job to proove it's not notable. TJ Spyke 20:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem, mate? Go to any other stub on Wikipedia and there is almost never more than one source. The external link was sufficent evidence to prove it was notable in the first place, but since you are so bloody anal I will add some more. Goodbye. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 01:37, 8 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:1001moviescover.jpg

Image:1001moviescover.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Movies from previous editions

Let's make a list of movies that disappeared in every new editions. Constant Gardener (2005) is one such film. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.63.216 (talk) 01:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's no point in collecting that information here. -Gohst (talk) 03:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with myself after all these years. I think the old films no longer included in the book should have been collected in the article. -Gohst (talk) 06:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

25 Documentaries

There are some problems in this section. First, there are 27 films listed. Second, the 26th film is a Bollywood movie (!!). --201.235.218.229 (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-English editions

The book has been published in many languages. The non-English editions include some local titles (20 in Finland according to the Finnish Wikipedia). Also, In the Finnish edition, for example, the foreword is written by Kari Hotakainen and synopses for the Finnish movies are written by Pasi Nyyssönen. I would appreciate if someone added some information about the non-English editions. Memasa (talk) 09:10, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links to Basketball teams?

In the list of the countries, the links all point to the basketball teams. I fail to see a reason why but before modifying anything, I'll ask: had anybody done that on purpose and why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groquik (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're right! I'll fix that now. Thank you! --Secundus Zephyrus (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign titles

Is there a reason that foreign films are listed under the titles in their own language? Per WP:COMMONNAME, they should be listed under their English titles? --Killer Moff (talk) 09:06, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

cleanup

This article, whose sole reliable live reference is this (not even a sentence), does not need to be a summary, essentially, of the book's content. There is no justification for that in the first place, esp. not if no case can be made for the book's importance. Drmies (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: The list is creative and so copyrightable (cf commented warnings on Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time and 1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die), and since you're an admin you can delete the revisions yourself all the way to 835594698. Also 1001 Video Games You Must Play Before You Die should have the list removed for the same reason, all the way to 778048085. Any claim that "fact lists are not copyrighted" can be countered by the list's creativity. I'll see if Diannaa and our latest admin Money emoji can take a look and post a "don't put the copyrighted list on WP" warning. ミラ P 20:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List Clean Up

At the moment the 1001 list totals to 1011 titles. Here are extra titles I think that are listed.

In the 2020 version of the list, Le Professional, a 1981 film direct by George Lautner is listed. But I can find no other version of the list that includes that title. Initially I thought it might have been a mistake confusing it with Leon: The Professional, which is also listed, but I can't find on other versions.

Also cannot find the 1990 film Cyrano de Bergerac on any other versions of this list.

Also cannot find La Grande Vadrouille on any other lists

Also cannot find the 1993 French Film Les Visiteurs on any other list.

Avengers Infinity War/ Endgame, The Lord of the Rings, and The Toy Story Films are combined in the book, and should be marked that they are collection in the book.

By my counting, that is 10 I have found that aren't on other lists for 2020. I don't own a copy of this book, but I think if someone has it they should crack it open and see.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.154.220.21 (talk) 02:51, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]