Talk:Sight and Sound

Top film lists

The copyrights of the "top film" lists are probably owned by the BFI, and that organization holding a Royal Charter, this may well be Crown Copyright. In any case, we should probably remove them as copyright infringements. They're available on the BFI site to anyone who wants to see them. --Tony Sidaway 14:10, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

The last list in the article was incorrectly labeled as the "Top Films of the Past 25 Years (2002 List)." The list is labeled on the magazine's website as the "Critic's Top Ten Poll" for 2002. I've fixed the title. TennysonXII (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

In addition to being copyright violations, these lists are off topic. This article is about Sight & Sound: what it is, its history and influence, etc. Regurgitating its material is not what this article is about. - SummerPhD (talk) 13:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

So, anyway, since the lists are copyrighted, shouldn't they be removed? Trivialist (talk) 22:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Louisiana Story

Why Louisiana Story is not in the 1952 poll — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.184.198.26 (talk) 06:41, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Split article

I want to split this article into an article on the poll and another article on the magazine. Responses? JoshuSasori (talk) 23:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I think this is sensible. There are specific articles for the last two polls. Sudiani (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

This is not only sensible but necesarry, the sections of the different polls are bigger than parts about the magazine itself BJI904000 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Misplaced paragraph

This paragraph is misplaced under the heading The Sight & Sound Poll of the Greatest Films of All Time:

Sight & Sound has in the past been the subject of criticism, notably from Raymond Durgnat, who often accused it of elitism, puritanism and snobbery, although he did write for it in the 1950s, and again in the 1990s.[3][4] The magazine's American counterpart is Film Comment, a magazine published by the Film Society of Lincoln Center in New York City.[5] It has also been accused of populism in recent years.[6]

NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 01:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. I had moved this already. Sudiani (talk) 16:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 6 December 2022

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) – robertsky (talk) 01:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

---

Sight & Sound → Sight and Sound – The magazine did away with the ampersand on its cover since the September 2021 issue. Now the website refers to it as "Sight and Sound". So do NYT, Guardian, BBC, Telegraph, Independent, Vulture, CBS, and Vox. Nardog (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

This is correct. The title should be Sight and Sound, without the ampersand. SoCal01 (talk) 01:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
  • Why they did that, I wonder? Espngeek (talk) 18:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support Rreagan007 (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. Shwcz (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support although when referring to pre-2021 events, such as the ten-year best film polls, the & should stay (a name change in 2021 does not retroactively apply to 2020 and earlier) (struck out per below comments). Randy Kryn (talk) 13:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
• Support looking at the archives, they have flip-flopped between using an ampersand and not throughout their history. Mostly they seem to have used "and" rather than an ampersand so would suggest that the name stay with the "and" and even if they revert in future to using an ampersand don't change it as it just seems to be a stylistic preference. The comment above about about pre-2021 using the ampersand is not correct. It does not make sense to keep changing the formatting in an article depending on the stylistic preference for when an issue was published. Sudiani (talk) 16:53, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Did it refer to itself with "and" in running text in 2012, when it had the ampersand in the logo? If not, then I find it reasonable to keep the ampersand for the 2012 poll article. Nardog (talk) 17:09, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  In 2012 it had an ampersand so agree that that poll article should keep that but in 1952, 1962, 1972 and 1992 they did not use an ampersand with their logo (1982, 2002 and 2012 did use an ampersand) so is not right that for references pre-2021 we should use an ampersand. For this article, I think it makes sense to just to use "and" as they chop and change and I don't see it that important to keep changing based on their whim. Sudiani (talk) 19:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well, 2012 and 2022 are the only polls we have articles about anyway. Nardog (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

• Support per all above. Plus, Wikipedia prefers "and" over "&" in general per MOS:AMP. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  This is precisely "when it is a legitimate part of the style of a proper noun, the title of a work, or a trademark" so MOS:AMP isn't particularly relevant. Nardog (talk) 21:57, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

  The point of mentioning it is if either are valid, then opt for the one without the ampersand. I assume there is some house-style reason to prefer "and" over "&" in general. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:32, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Sight and Sound poll navbox deleted

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Template:Sight_and_Sound_Poll about the deletion of the navbox. This page was not notified that the deletion attempt was even in progress, a discussion closed with little discussion after input from three editors (two to delete, with easily debatable reasoning, and one to keep). Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)