Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Black Panther box office achievements/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was archived by PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC) [1].[reply]
List of Black Panther box office achievements edit
List of Black Panther box office achievements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Black Panther was one of the surprise box office hits of 2018. During the GA nomination of the film article, it was determined that there was enough info on that article to justify separate off all of the box office accomplishments of the film to its own separate list. As such, great care was taken to format and curate the information from the film article (as it existed as prose) into a comprehensive list. Since the film is no longer in theaters, and all info has been provided for each box office achievement, I feel the list is ready to be nominated for a featured list and has meet all nomination criteria. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose This has the same inherent issue of mostly consisting of non-notable WP:TRIVIA that led to List of box office records set by Deadpool not being promoted to WP:Featured list status and later being turned into a redirect to Deadpool (film)#Box office. Things like "Reaching $1 billion: 16th Walt Disney Studios film", "Highest-grossing film in an opening weekend at 150 AMC Theatres", "Eighth-highest opening day ever", and "Fifth-highest Hollywood film opening weekend gross in South Korea" simply have no place on a WP:Featured list, and what little would remain after removing the cruft does not merit a separate article. Suggest WP:BLAR to Black Panther (film)#Box office. TompaDompa (talk) 19:35, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the article was created from the GA nom of the film article because that article was too lengthly, definitely don't feel BLAR should occur. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's any problem or contradiction here. The content was removed from the main article because it was too lengthy – this I think was a good decision, because that section was overly long. The removed content was then added to a new, separate list – this I think was a bad decision, because the content itself was not worth keeping. Merging the contents back would be a bad decision because it would make the section on the main article too long again. Turning the list into a redirect to the relevant section of the main article would in effect be undoing the mistake of creating the list in the first place. The only entry I think might be worth merging back to the main article is the Monday gross record for North America; all other information worth keeping is already there. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the article was created from the GA nom of the film article because that article was too lengthly, definitely don't feel BLAR should occur. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:35, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- TompaDompa has been a significant contributor to this list, thus they should strike their "Oppose" statement and should refrain from giving an additional Support/Oppose statement given such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is true that I have made a large number of edits to the page, most of those were reverted by other editors (as you well know). This is reflected in the authorship measure of the page – mine is low, as most edits I have made were not retained. I don't think that constitutes being a significant contributor. I'll also note that the Template:FLC-instructions say that editors should indicate that they have been significant contributors if they support, not that they should refrain from supporting, commenting, or opposing if they have been significant contributors. It's a bit odd to argue that the content-related objections I have are not valid in a WP:FLC discussion simply because I've raised them before and (unsuccessfully) tried to implement changes that would address those objections. TompaDompa (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my initial statement carefully. I didn't say your comments should be removed (those are perfectly valid to include if you choose), only your "official" "Oppose", given you have been a significant editor on the article, regardless of if those edits were retained or not. So my thoughts on this is you should adjust your stance from "Oppose" to simply "Comment", and then we should proceed with another, uninvolved editor(s) reviewing the list.. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your interpretation of Template:FLC-instructions with regards to both what counts as being a significant contributor and how being a significant contributor affects what one should and should not do in WP:FLC discussions. However, I suppose it doesn't really matter – the closer will be able to assess the situation for themself when the time comes. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- FLC delegate note- we don't just add up opposes and supports, but read through the actual discussion, so it doesn't much matter whether or not a review has a bolded word at the front. The intention of flc-instructions is that editors who heavily edit a page should not !vote support without indicating that they are involved, so as not to give the impression of independent support. I don't have any issue with an editor formally opposing a nomination for an article that they've worked on, whether or not those edits were undone. What matters are the arguments they make about if the nomination should or should not be passed. --PresN 18:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with your interpretation of Template:FLC-instructions with regards to both what counts as being a significant contributor and how being a significant contributor affects what one should and should not do in WP:FLC discussions. However, I suppose it doesn't really matter – the closer will be able to assess the situation for themself when the time comes. TompaDompa (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read my initial statement carefully. I didn't say your comments should be removed (those are perfectly valid to include if you choose), only your "official" "Oppose", given you have been a significant editor on the article, regardless of if those edits were retained or not. So my thoughts on this is you should adjust your stance from "Oppose" to simply "Comment", and then we should proceed with another, uninvolved editor(s) reviewing the list.. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- While it is true that I have made a large number of edits to the page, most of those were reverted by other editors (as you well know). This is reflected in the authorship measure of the page – mine is low, as most edits I have made were not retained. I don't think that constitutes being a significant contributor. I'll also note that the Template:FLC-instructions say that editors should indicate that they have been significant contributors if they support, not that they should refrain from supporting, commenting, or opposing if they have been significant contributors. It's a bit odd to argue that the content-related objections I have are not valid in a WP:FLC discussion simply because I've raised them before and (unsuccessfully) tried to implement changes that would address those objections. TompaDompa (talk) 09:19, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Unfortunately this article is full of trivia that is not really encyclopedic. Examples are throughout the page, but "Highest-grossing February opening in Bolivia" would, by anyone's estimate, be trivial. I really think this entire list page can be summarized into 1 well-written paragraph and placed in the main Black Panther article highlighting the significant box office records. Mattximus (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and suggest trimming and merging. My comments at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens/archive1 hold here too, and I do not believe Wikipedia should be the place for listing detailed statistical trivia of this sort, especially as inflation and growing global markets make records easier to break as time goes on. Reywas92Talk 21:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to the 2 users above, I disagree that the article is
full of trivia
. Also in regards to reducing and merging, please see this version of the film article before the GA review in terms of its size and content, versus the current section. This list was a result of the Good Article review for the film article, to help reduce the overall size of that article, when all of this info was listed there much in a fashion you are suggesting be done now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]- See my reply above. In short, the clutter should have been removed outright back then, not moved to a separate list. TompaDompa (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose things like "Fourth-highest grossing fifth weekend" are really too trivial to even contrive, let alone record and claim as some kind of encyclopedic accomplishment. Far too many of these, and once they've been excised as serving little-to-no purpose, what's left should be merged back into the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment PresN, Giants2008, suggest this one is put out of its misery. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment PresN, Giants2008, I'll say it once more, I suggest this one is put out of its misery. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, missed this somehow. Agreed, I think we've reached consensus. Please note that at this point we've had the same result from several of these "List of box-office records"; while I note that there have been changes between each nomination, I think it's a fair warning that a more severe change is likely to be needed if a future similar nomination is to succeed. --PresN 19:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing note: This candidate has been archived, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.