The result was merge to List of films based on television programs. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
An RfC on the talk page found no evidence that the list is based on any inclusion criteria or reliable sources. In summary, it is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 09:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria seems pretty clear. Specifically, WP:LISTCRITERIA mandates that they be
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I put it to you that this is not the case here. If they are, you should be able to spell them out explicitly and point to the sources they are based on.And respectfully, it seems that you do not quite understand the issues brought up in the RfC, as your counterpoints do little to address them. The WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH objections have little-to-nothing to do with WP:CALC in this instance, for one thing. For another, Box Office Mojo is certainly a reliable source for the grosses themselves, but that's not the point of contention here—which Alsee very clearly spelled out in saying
Yes I see the existing refs, refs to what are essentially database entries for dollar figures for various movies. But nowhere do I see any refs relevant to the claimed article-subject. I see a ref claiming a gross of $791,115,104 for Mission: Impossible – Fallout, but I see no ref anywhere suggesting that this movie is #1 on this list, or any other list. That is pure original research.Moreover, while you say that
NLIST does not require the groupings of "X of Y" list to be covered elsewhere, in this case, "films based on tv shows" is covered in many places, what's required here isn't sources on that concept but sources on the topic of that subgroup of films compared to each other on the basis of their box office grosses. You seem to be under the impression that as long as a particular grouping of films is covered by sources, it would be acceptable and appropriate for Wikipedia editors to construct a list comparing the grosses of the films included in that set, even if no sources do. That's the part that is WP:Original research.I'll note that there actually does exist at least one source that covers the overarching topic here: the All Time Worldwide Box Office for Based on TV Movies list at The Numbers (website). But that list does it differently; while the Wikipedia article states that
Films such as Demon Slayer - Mugen Train, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Transformers are not included due to being adaptated from other media to television series before being adapted into films., the latter two are in fact included in the list over at The Numbers. And of course if we base our entire list on a single source, we are essentially acting as a mirror, which of course Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be.This list is very obviously the result of a bunch of WP:Original research. The "Peak" column is unsourced and likely unsourceable. The "Based on original TV series with year" column is certainly sourceable, but it is unsourced and was almost certainly not based on sources (and definitely not on sources relevant to the overarching topic) in the first place. The "Continuity" column is pure WP:Original research, and the entire "Top 50 highest grossing films based on television series that are part of the same continuity" table is in turn an absolute mess of the same (as is then obviously the "Highest grossing films based on television series that are not part of the same continuity" table).It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!*
23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
The result was merge to List of films based on television programs. Liz Read! Talk! 22:15, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
An RfC on the talk page found no evidence that the list is based on any inclusion criteria or reliable sources. In summary, it is a mess of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 09:47, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
The inclusion criteria seems pretty clear. Specifically, WP:LISTCRITERIA mandates that they be
unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. I put it to you that this is not the case here. If they are, you should be able to spell them out explicitly and point to the sources they are based on.And respectfully, it seems that you do not quite understand the issues brought up in the RfC, as your counterpoints do little to address them. The WP:OR/ WP:SYNTH objections have little-to-nothing to do with WP:CALC in this instance, for one thing. For another, Box Office Mojo is certainly a reliable source for the grosses themselves, but that's not the point of contention here—which Alsee very clearly spelled out in saying
Yes I see the existing refs, refs to what are essentially database entries for dollar figures for various movies. But nowhere do I see any refs relevant to the claimed article-subject. I see a ref claiming a gross of $791,115,104 for Mission: Impossible – Fallout, but I see no ref anywhere suggesting that this movie is #1 on this list, or any other list. That is pure original research.Moreover, while you say that
NLIST does not require the groupings of "X of Y" list to be covered elsewhere, in this case, "films based on tv shows" is covered in many places, what's required here isn't sources on that concept but sources on the topic of that subgroup of films compared to each other on the basis of their box office grosses. You seem to be under the impression that as long as a particular grouping of films is covered by sources, it would be acceptable and appropriate for Wikipedia editors to construct a list comparing the grosses of the films included in that set, even if no sources do. That's the part that is WP:Original research.I'll note that there actually does exist at least one source that covers the overarching topic here: the All Time Worldwide Box Office for Based on TV Movies list at The Numbers (website). But that list does it differently; while the Wikipedia article states that
Films such as Demon Slayer - Mugen Train, Alvin and the Chipmunks, Transformers are not included due to being adaptated from other media to television series before being adapted into films., the latter two are in fact included in the list over at The Numbers. And of course if we base our entire list on a single source, we are essentially acting as a mirror, which of course Wikipedia is WP:NOT supposed to be.This list is very obviously the result of a bunch of WP:Original research. The "Peak" column is unsourced and likely unsourceable. The "Based on original TV series with year" column is certainly sourceable, but it is unsourced and was almost certainly not based on sources (and definitely not on sources relevant to the overarching topic) in the first place. The "Continuity" column is pure WP:Original research, and the entire "Top 50 highest grossing films based on television series that are part of the same continuity" table is in turn an absolute mess of the same (as is then obviously the "Highest grossing films based on television series that are not part of the same continuity" table).It is plain to see that this article, as so many box office lists before it, was inspired by the only such list on Wikipedia that is actually of high quality: List of highest-grossing films (a WP:Featured list). The problem with the proliferation of these lists is that they are created without understanding what it is that makes that list work, and they often just copy the structure without considering whether it is appropriate for the newly-created list—or indeed, considering whether the new list should exist at all. The result is that we have a plethora of poorly maintained, straight-up bad lists with myriad problems including—mainly—sourcing issues. This is, well, churnalism—or I suppose online one would call it content farming. It is the assembly of pure WP:RAWDATA by way of WP:Original research at the whims of Wikipedia editors who have mined box office databases for the data and come up with a new angle from which to slice it more-or-less arbitrarily. It is a scourge. TompaDompa ( talk) 23:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Dusti
*Let's talk!*
23:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)