Talk:List of film noir titles

Merge proposal

• I'm re-opening discussion on merging the list of notable film noirs from Film noir into this list. Per the discussion there, it seems that highlighting 35 films as being notable is generally accepted to be original research. --Dystopos 16:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What sort of "merger" do you propose? Every one of those 35 films (which come from both the 1940s and 1950s, of course, not just the 1940s) is already cited in this list. Are you suggesting the director and actor information from the list of 35 be added to those films' mentions here? What about the four hundred-odd other films on this page? Do you plan to start adding director/actor info to the rest? That would be a mammoth task. But if that doesn't happen, those 35 films would stick out on this list in a way very similar to how they do now. What's your plan?—DCGeist 16:57, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll expand, since it seems the proposal is misunderstood. First of all, the current situation is untenable because an unverifiable claim is made by utilizing original research to create a list of films that one editor considers especially notable. However, the contents of that list, with the editorial context removed, are factual and verifiable and should not be merely deleted. Therefore, I propose improving this article to include some context (directors, major players, etc), along with an introduction which discusses the various periods used to divide the list, and a reference to Film noir for explanation of the term "classic noir". In my opinion this would best the guidelines developed on Wikipedia for article content while preserving the maximum portion of encyclopedic content. (Regarding the issue of "sticking out like a sore thumb" - it is better to be incomplete and invite improvement than to be wrong. Wikipedia is all about accomplishing mammoth tasks. --Dystopos 16:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• - Per Dystopos explanation, I'm supporting the merger. Any large, rambling list does not belong in the body of the article, and the only reason it remains is because one user has refused to adhere to the clear majority consensus against it. VanTucky ^(talk) 17:03, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

It's still not clear what sort of "merge" you're talking about. DCGeist asked a couple of valid questions and you haven't answered them. The changes you talk about for this article -- "include some context (directors, major players, etc), along with an introduction which discusses the various periods used to divide the list, and a reference to Film noir for explanation of the term "classic noir" sound good, but they have nothing to do with merging the list of 35 that I can see. RedSpruce 17:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, if we're going to continue this discussion, we have to bring a halt to the false claims that are being made. For example,

• "a list of films that one editor considers especially notable": as RedSpruce has explained on the article Talk page, as the note in the article makes abundantly clear, as the history of discussion on the article's Talk page (Talk: Film noir#Detour (1945 film)) further evidences, this statement is patently untrue.
• "the only reason it remains is because one user has refused to adhere to the clear majority consensus against it": what is clear is that two long-time contributors to the article are opposed to the list's removal either at the moment (myself) or at all (RedSpruce).

On the broader point of the list of 35's usefulness--yes, it would be ideal if there existed an authoritative critics' poll identifying a given number of the most important or notable film noirs. In the absence of that, the present list has been as close as we could get to an objective and efficient guide for readers interested in educating themselves first-hand in film noir. While the list is not in accord with articulated Wikipedia guidelines, it is in accord with the spirit and purpose of Wikipedia: to educate and serve the reader. The question I have is this--do any of those who have advocated for the effective elimination of the list have any ideas for how the purpose it serves (beyond the listing of verifiable credits) may be conveyed in a revised or entirely new format?

Finally, I have moved the list to the bottom of the article, now that the text has been revised to eliminate direct reference to it.—DCGeist 19:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• The "type" of merge I am talking about is moving the information from the "List of 35..." in the article Film noir into this article and deleting it from the source article. The new information would improve this article by expanding on the context of these films and linking them to their creators, as well as by establishing a format for adding information about the other listed films. It would improve Film noir by removing what is - and I think enough people have agreed with this that it needs no further argument - an unverifiable synthetic claim about what films are most notable within the genre. --20:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dystopos (talk • contribs).

• Fine. Except (a) no claim is made about "most notable"--the list simply says "notable" and (b) the methodology for constructing the list is entirely transparent--via the note--and thus verifiable. Also (c), for the moment the list is still objectively valuable for highlighting within the article the names of significant noir performers. I plan to intitiate a new subsection that will cover the important topic in the near future. Once a basic groundwork of information is present in the article's main text, I'll be amenable to removing the list--there's no need to rush it out. This will also give us time to see if we can devise an effective substitute for it that fits more readily within Wikipedia guidelines. To wit, the question remains unanswered: Do you have any suggestion for efficiently and effectively guiding the readers of film noir to a manageable number of notable classic film noirs with which they can begin their first-hand education in the genre (as the List of 35 currently does)? If you do have such a suggestion, what is it? If you do not have such a suggestion, please say so.—DCGeist 23:05, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

• I would propose that the note is, in some ways, more problematic than the actual list. Spelling out such a rigorous and personal methodology for distilling a "comfortingly round number" of notable films is itself evidence that the list is meant as a statement. It makes transparent the personal prejudices that went into creating the list. Explaining the synthesis within the article discourages other editors from modifying the list based on their own knowledge of the subject and thereby raises an improper claim on the "ownership" of the article. The only suitable substitute would be a list based on an external published source. This is a core policy of Wikipedia. It is explained in Wikipedia:Original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. The fact that you do not recognize appeals to these policies as valid arguments is unfortunate. Moving on, surely there must be, among the numerous references listed in the article, one or more authors who have proposed a central canon as an introduction and survey of the topic? I believe Neale's Genre and Hollywood is probably the best place to start. --Dystopos 00:13, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

As RedSpruce and I have attempted to explain, the list is precisely not a personal statement. To summarize: many editors--and, apparently, readers--over a long time have found it useful to have a list of notable classic noirs in the article. The current list was designed as a way to maintain that utility while eliminating, to the degree practical, the personal opinions of Wikipedia editors as a primary basis for inclusion or exclusion. For instance, several of my favorite noirs, acclaimed films such as Scarlet Street and Gun Crazy, do not appear on the list. If you had bothered to read the link I provided above (Talk: Film noir#Detour (1945 film)), you would know that "other editors" have in fact actively participated in modifying the list in its current format. So...now that we're all clear that none of us is trying to "own" the contents of the list in order to advance an individual viewpoint or "personal prejudices," let's move on...

You suggest that "one or more authors [may] have proposed a central canon as an introduction." Well, yes, one or more have, but choosing one of their canons will almost certainly result in a more personal and "subjective" list. For instance, there's "The Black List: Essential Film Noir" by film critic Lee Server, which appears in The Big Book of Noir. This is Server's honest description of his canon: "Here is an admittedly idiosyncratic selection of one hundred titles that will provide the aspiring fan of dark film with a solid foundation in the noir vision through the decades and around the world." Do you believe that substituting Server's canon, or one like it, would constitute an improvement to the article?

Finally, since you are in favor of making personal observations about each other's "unfortunate" failures of recognition, allow me to observe (1) that you fail to recognize my acknowledgements that the current list is not ideal, my explicit statement of understanding that it is "not in accord with articulated Wikipedia guidelines," and my editing of the article in order to make the list more dispensable. Allow me to futher observe (2) that you seem entirely unaware of WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY, WP:Use common sense, and especially WP:Ignore all rules and thus seem to find it difficult to focus on what's most important, the practical value and utility of the article to the Wikipedia readership. All this, despite RedSpruce's attempt to bring these guidelines, policies, and perspectives to your attention last week. As I say--or, rather, as you say--unfortunate.—DCGeist 01:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not clear to me why ignoring a fundamental content policy is supposed to be commonsensical, or why pointing out one of our most central policies is supposed to be a symptom bureaucracy. I'm personally all about getting rid of uselessly detailed guidelines, but "No original research" ain't one of them. You say that the methodology of creating the list makes it more objective. I say that it transparently reveals its subjectivity. I agree that we do not need a reference claiming to be idiosyncratic. We need a reference claiming to represent consensus or authority. Since most writers on film noir agree that there *is* no authority, we are left to find a verifiable source for critical consensus on the most representative films of classic noir. By some accounts, the canon of classic film noirs is more universally recognized than their defining stylistic qualities. Perhaps the list here does represent such a canon, but if so it's not because you're "comfortable" with an even number or because it's easy for you to remove an extraneous Hitchcock picture. We need a published source so that our readers can independently judge the usefulness of the list. It's just that simple, it shouldn't be that hard to find, and that's the last I'll say about it. I have no interest in continuing to beat my head against this wall. --Dystopos 05:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dystopos, I apologize for removing the "mergeto" tag from the Film Noir article with the wrong reason given. I said "no rationale given", and I see now that in fact you do give a two-sentence rationale somewhere in the off-topic jumble above. If you add the film info as you describe, that's fine with me. RedSpruce 14:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dystopos, thank you for stating that what is important is making it easy for "our readers [to] independently judge the usefulness of the list." The current list and note, which carefully makes transparent all of the decisions involved in its formulation, clearly achieves that. To my knowledge, no list that appears in any currently published source comes anywhere close to being assessable in the same manner. So we agree: for the time being, this list is the best there is.—DCGeist 01:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sure it's a fantastic list, suitable for publication. The author should definitely submit it for publication. Once its published it will no doubt attract rave reviews from all manner of notable critics and will quickly find its way into Wikipedia with a suitable reference. Readers will then seek out the original source for the list and familiarize themselves with the painstaking methodology used by the author to create it. Let me be clear. Wikipedia cannot be the original source for the claims made by this list. That is not a minor legality, that is central to Wikipedia's mission, to provide free, neutral, verifiable information. Wikipedia:No original research explains the reasoning for this policy.

Unfortunately for our readers, it appears that although many have said that critical opinion has established a broad consensus on which films represent the central canon of film noir, no one has yet, to our knowledge, actually published such a list that is "assessable in the same manner". Therefore our options are (A) to do as User:Otto4711, User:SteveCrook, User:Mathew5000, User:VanTucky, User:Girolamo Savonarola, User:Cop 663 have recommended and just delete the original research, or (B) to do as I, User:DCGeist and User:Yorkshiresky have, to one degree or another, supported, which is to address the issue of canonic films using cited references in the text and to preserve the factual information in the list by merging it to an appropriate place before the list is deleted. --Dystopos 04:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Linkage

Please link all films listed; if they're notable enough to be on a Wikipedia list, then they're notable enough to deserve an article. Redlinks are not scarlet letters - they're signposts pointing where articles should be. Girolamo Savonarola 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Plural *not* "film noir"

From the preceding discussions, I understand that there is evidence for three plural versions: films noir, film noirs, and (as in French) films noirs. I have not seen any reference for the plural being "film noir." So why is it "List of film noir"? Thanks, Ibn Battuta (talk) 06:54, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Merriam Webster, at least 115 New York Times articles, and various film books including the Film Noir Reader all agree "noirs" is the term to use. -- Zanimum (talk) 14:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I recall films noir being the term used formally in my years as a cinema mahor; "film noirs" was strictly informal. --Scottandrewhutchins (talk) 15:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster offers three options (films noir, film noirs, and--the only one correct in French--films noirs). I personally don't mind which one is used, but I'm a bit confused why the list is now not moved to a correct plural form, but reverted to the singular.

BTW, the article Film noir claims in note 1 that Merriam-Webster "prefers" film noirs. I'm not sure where that claim comes from. Is the first version mentioned in Merriam-Webster automatically their preference, or how do they point out whether or not there is a preferred version? (In case you don't happen to know the answer, I will ask this question on the film noir discussion page.) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

For consistency and on the basis of much of the evidence referenced by Zanimum, "film noirs" has been and should continue to be the plural employed here on Wikipedia (this was discussed extensively some time ago on the film noir discussion page). That said, "film noir" is an acceptable usage for the title of this list. "Film noir", in part because of its peculiar loanword status, is used in English as a mass noun. While a lover of musicals or Westerns is obliged to say "I love musicals" or "I love Westerns", it is perfectly proper to say either "I love film noir" or "I love film noirs"—indeed, I'd bet the former is much more common. Either List of film noir or List of film noirs is acceptable English and consistent with our long-standing style—the latter has the virtue of being more straightforward in this context, I think.—DCGeist (talk) 16:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how "film noir" could be an acceptable title. You don't find any List of "funny animal" in media, List of cultural icon in Italy or List of reported lake monster (just a random three of the first lists in Category:Lists). Instead, one always finds the plural (try it), and for good grammatical reason. Again, there are three correct plurals of "film noir" according to M-W. (And I'm not prepared to just take anyone's words against the accuracy of M-W - a tiny little reference would be in place here!) Still, I'm fine with any one of the three plurals, even without any evidence why anyone wants that particular plural over another (remember, as of now, we only have evidence that they are indeed all correct!). So now please someone explain to me what exactly the excitement is all about. And please write slowly, 'cause I'm really lost... :o) --Ibn Battuta (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

First, you might be interested in learning what a mass noun is, perhaps by reading the article to which I've again provided a link. "Film noir" is a mass noun; the examples you provide are not. It is incorrect to write "I am interested in funny animal"--you must write "I am interested in funny animals." You can't write "Cultural icon is beautiful"--you must write "Cultural icons are beautiful." Not "I'm scared of lake monster", but "I'm scared of lake monsters." However, it is entirely proper to write "I am interested in film noir," "Film noir is beautiful," and "I'm scared of film noir," because, you see, "film noir" is a mass noun (there's that link again!). By the same token, while the examples of hypothetical "list" titles you offer are indeed all improper, it is entirely proper grammatically to write "List of film noir."

Second, if we're going to use a plural form here, it should be the one that is and has been used consistently throughout our main article on the topic (film noir) for a couple of years now. That plural is "film noirs." This is also the plural that Merriam-Webster's lists first. This is also the plural that a Google Book Search suggests is used most often in contemporary authoritative sources. Best, Dan.—DCGeist (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Relax, Dan. I've never said a word against using "film noirs" (there it is again). Better? Mass noun or not, it does not make sense to have a list of [singular]. The whole point of lists is that several (BTW: countable) items are listed. The whole point of a mass noun is that there is "an unbounded mass (...) [which] cannot be directly modified by a numeral without specifying a unit of measurement..." (I hope me quoting from your cited article makes you believe that yes, I'm aware that mass nouns exist and no, I don't think that's very relevant here because film noir is not used as a mass noun here, whether or not it may be in other situations. Try to establish the List of sugar if you don't know what I mean. But be that as it may 'cause...) I still don't get your point: What's wrong with moving the list then to List of film noirs? Again, you've not even provided a hint of evidence* that any other plural is wrong, but even so, what would be wrong with moving the list to your, hehe, "pet plural"?** --Ibn Battuta (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC) * First, you may be interested in learning that Wikipedia is not a primary source, perhaps by reading the article to which I'm providing the link, by looking at the information about verifiability or references, by both or by none of the above. Second, if we're looking at M-W here, the evidence that their order of listed plurals reflects any preference is still out-standing. (Sorry, I love recycling sentence structures, don't take it personally.

** Yes, yes, it may be the pet plural of the entire film industry and the legions of film scholars combined, it's just that I haven't seen any evidence yet. I'm dying to be educated, though. Until then I'm exercizing my new-found freedom of calling that plural your pet plural, just because then I don't have to look it up every time I want to refer to it. As I wrote initially, they're both grammatically wrong in French, so it's just some sad loan word anyways, no matter which of the two is afforded the right to bear a plural-s. :o)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ibn Battuta (talk • contribs) 00:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Um...what the heck is your point? Do what you want to do broheim. I was just trying to take it slow for you, lost boy.—DCGeist (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

What is this now? The discussion page is on talk:List of film noirs (yeah: here!), but the article is on List of film noir. ... BTW, would it help if we asked other Wikipedians for their views? I don't feel the three of us are getting any closer to a solution. --Ibn Battuta (talk) 15:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to call it List of noir films? After some searching around, it seems like "noir film" is a pretty acceptable term for a film in the film noir genre. Thus, the plural structuring could possibly work out for everybody unless there is a reason to question how it's titled. —Erik (talk • contrib) 04:24, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

The original meaning of Film Noir from French was "Black Cinema" or "Dark Cinema" that denoted a genre in film-making. The descriptive name (parallel to 'musical film') of the genre "film noir" simply means "black movie". if you want to go back to the roots by following the original meaning, then it would be called "list of Film Noir movies". But since Noir is also referred to alone as something that defines the style, a shorter version suggested by Erik would do fine "list of Noir films".

There would be also nothing wrong with using "films noirs" that would translate as "dark or black films" giving a hint to the genre. As long as it's clear either you want to talk about the name of the genre or just about 'films noirs' -dark films, that's all what matters really. Hope that it helps. --Termer (talk) 07:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PS. It could be argued that the current name "List of film noir" refers to a list of a single "black film". It would refer to multiple "black films" if it said "List of films noirs" or "List of noir films", and to a list of films made in the Noir style if it said "List of Noir films". It's kind of the same either you want to talk about the List of Western films or "List of cowboy films"; and the current one "List of film noir" would be like "List of western".--Termer (talk) 07:45, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

What's noir and what is not and sources

Further up there was already a complaint that this list contains too much personal opinion and not enough sources. And indeed the list contains thing where the film noir connection seems pretty far fetched, like southern gothic vampire story true blood. To avoid that this gets totally out of hand, I'd suggest that aside from very obvious noir examples (=everybody intuitively agrees they are noir) entries needs to be sourced, i.e. there needs to be some (reputable) review/article/paper/book that actually calls the concerned film noir. The current entries should reviewed under that aspect and removed if necessary.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:58, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

• The standard might be a little looser for Proto-noir films, since it's acknowledged that they aren't quite noir yet, such as Great Guy, which has just too happy a romantic ending to make it count as a true noir. It's really just a working class crime drama. By contrast, the ending is less happily romantic in Alfred Hitchcock's Sabotage. And this is obviously a dark movie in which the innocent suffer. Moreover, the female lead, though not a true femme fatale, manages to get away with murder. Hence I consider this to fall into the category of "everybody intuitively agrees this is a proto-noir." (Which is what I mean by a looser standard.) I placed this film on the Non-American list because it was made in Britain. Fredwords (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move to List of film noir titles Orlady (talk) 16:10, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

---

List of film noir → List of film noirs — The term needs to be plural if it's a list. Either this or List of films noir. --Purplebackpack89 19:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there an equivalent for this in the English language for the title? Snowman (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've heard "film noirs" and "films noir"...but somebody awhile back nixed films noir. In French, you have agreement, so it's films noirs, with two silent S's Purplebackpack89 00:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

• Suggest instead List of film noir films, since "film noir" is the genre. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
  • "film noir films" is a actually what is used [1] per this google search. 65.94.45.238 (talk) 06:41, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
• Comment: What about "noir films"? Google Books Search shows that is used. In the same vein, we also have use of "neo-noir films". Erik (talk | contribs) 13:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

• With no traction so far, I will say I prefer moving the list to List of noir films. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:51, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

• Comment How about either List of film noir titles or List of film-noir titles? --Pnm (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support List of film noir titles. Anything else is messy - "films noir" and "film noirs" are bad corruptions, it's French, so it should be "films noirs" for a true plural - but "List of films noirs" might be confusing.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:38, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
• Support: List of film noir titles. Luigibob (talk) 01:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

WorldCat Genres

Hello, I'm working with OCLC, and we are algorithmically generating data about different Genres, like notable Authors, Book, Movies, Subjects, Characters and Places. We have determined that this Wikipedia page has a close affintity to our detected Genere of film-noir. It might be useful to look at [2] for more information. Thanks. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:28, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Highly inaccurate and subjective article

In my opinion, the only way to salvage this trash-bag of a list article is to require every film listed to have a footnote of its own, linking to a checkable WP:RS that states it is a film noir. (For example, the way that items in articles such as List of atheists in music do.) All non-footnoted films in the article are therefore open to being deleted. By the way, any film listed in this article should also bear the category Category:Film noir or Category:Neo-noir. If they don't, then remove them from this article. Softlavender (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

It may be a trash-bag of an article, but it's still an invaluable resource. Wikipedia's list of noir has become my go-to source for neo-noir discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.238.184.48 (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

All the obvious trash has been removed and the vast majority of the remaining films now feature footnotes with reliable sources. Therefore I've removed the disputed tag.--Croscher (talk) 07:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks very much Luigibob and Croscher for salvaging what six months ago was a hopeless mess. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks from me as well, this was a much need overhaul & improvement.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2014 (UTC)