Talk:BFI Top 100 British films

	This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Film: British This article is supported by the British cinema task force.

I notice that the column "Film link" has valid links to the BFI site only for titles up to number 50; consequently, the remaining links don't work. I don't see the added value for this list provided by these links; if anything, they might be appropriate for the articles themselves. I suggest to remove that column.

I also notice that the columns "Title" and "Director" don't sort according the rules which govern DEFAULTSORT: articles like "The" should be omitted from the sort term for titles, and directors should be sorted by their last name. If others agree this should be fixed, I volunteer to do it.

I further propose that all years should be linked to their [[YYYY in film]] article (Category:Years in film). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If there is say a "1973 in British film" that might be a useful link, but I don't see the point in wiki-linking to the general "1973 in film" since that will include films of other nationalities so won't enhance this article or provide context in any way. I think maybe the "Comments" column should go too - the BFI don't include such comments on their list so there is a notability problem here. Betty Logan (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article title says "BFI Top 100 British films" then goes on to list the top 10. Where's the rest? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0C:5A80:3F0E:1900:25A4:9C18:E937:D535 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How come Monty Python and the Holy Grail isn't on that list? That one must be one of the most popular Monty Python films of what I've read and heard. And yet other Monty Python film are on the list. That seems very strange to me //95.109.20.82 (talk)

Maybe, it has to do with the characteristics of the surveyed group since (and not knowing who is/was in the group) if you have a limited base what more can be expected but a result based on their values.A1Houseboy (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This article created with the results of the debut "list" reference that is no longer viable. In an attempt to update a source, encountered a problem that there are links based on this reference to other articles. Obviously, there will be additional 100 top lists issued which should they be placed in an article of its own each time issued or should there be a sole article on the "lists" that such as coded as the AFI 100 lists is set up in a sortable table? So that as the list changes a reference can be made to the year in which the change occurred with any resulting rank changes noted including in something such as a remarks column any significant reason for the change such as no longer part of the top 100 list indicated by year dropped. So, what would be the consensus of those in the know about revising this article to suit a more long term viability instead of noting the original list? Let me know and I can work on it.

Question: I know that it is not of long term viability but for those articles that use as their reference this article is there a way of identifying them so that the link can be updated?A1Houseboy (talk) 01:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should have included that the following is an active reference source not yet added: ^[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by A1Houseboy (talk • contribs) 02:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]