Talk:AFI's 10 Top 10

This article is the subject of a request emailed to the Volunteer Response Team (VRT).

Issues identified are: Verifying that the lists are public domain. Specifically excluding the logo.
The VRTS ticket number is 2007041310002766.

Please discuss these issues here, being mindful of the policies on biographies of living persons.

Wiki Vandals Strike![edit]

Someone has been tampering with the results of the show, saying other films are 1st place, including others not on the list and putiing some in fourth or third when they should be first! We need to monitor this page and others in the AFI 100 Years. No doubt fans angry of the results will try and change them to fit their opinion.

ConstantineChernabog (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Movies Likely to be Included[edit]

I have a comment on the section called "Movies likely to be included" (or something like that). I just want to know why this section exists. How could we know that these movies would be likely included? Matlefebvre20 (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Removed. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:29, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the movies listed are the ones featured on the 10 Top 10 front page, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're the ones being honoured. Morhange (talk) 06:42, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Tables[edit]

Today, I added blank tables for the genres so the film titles can be easily added (between the wiki-brackets) and all the formatting is ready to go. For those movies that are from the 21st century, a simple modification to the "19xx in film" link can reflect a recent year. Please maintain this formatting because it will help the page easily fill up with the announcement on Tuesday. Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 18:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organized[edit]

I organized the titles so they are what AFI describes them as, I also fixed the order in which the films go in... please do not change these. thanks,

--Hooty88888 (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.168.125 (talk) 17:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like it might be better to change the uber-paragraph of names into a list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.206.255 (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awards Breakdown[edit]

I feel like this is sort of unnecessary and is not well-written. I went through and made it flow more, but I think it is a little overkill. Just my opinion

Hooty88888 (talk) 18:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It's nothing more than a glorified trivia section, which is discouraged in Wikipedia articles. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is anybody else scratchnig their heads over Tom Hanks supposedly being in When Harry Met Sally? I thikn I'll delete that, as it's plainly, patently false.Snyrt (talk) 06:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. It appears to have been recently inserted by an IP user. You're right to remove it. -Phoenixrod (talk) 15:33, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Table Colouring[edit]

The animation section has random red colouring.. was this intended as in computer animated, or a mistake? Feudonym (talk) 05:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Addtition of Reception and Gross[edit]

In recent days, a user has added columns for the box office gross and critics' reception to each movie. I feel that it is just extra information that is more relevant on each film's individual page, rather than this list. The AFI didn't present this information, and while the info won't change over time, it doesn't add anything to AFI's selection. Rather than just remove it all now, I started this discussion to see if others feel the same way. If no one objects, I would like to see this info removed, despite that user's hard work to add it. Any thoughts? Thanks. --Mtjaws (talk) 14:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awkwardly Written[edit]

It really bothers me how EVERy presenter's name is said in a different way. Perhaps putting the names in a chart at the beginning or somethig —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.188.76 (talk) 22:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised to see something missing[edit]

Hi,

Now, taste brought the question up, but after thinking about it, I ask it anyway. In the catagory Western, I expected to see some of the well known, and highly rated (http://www.imdb.com/chart/top), Sergio Leone westerns. Has there been mention of not being included? Was there a reason, like they didn't fit the category or something? Robin.lemstra (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They are not American films.--77.233.67.30 (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Western-lovers are sickened by high-gluten Westerns. 2603:7000:B23E:33EE:F994:D1F4:A49F:E715 (talk) 01:09, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]