Talk:List of animated films by box office admissions

Move

I playing on moving this page in 48H if there any last changes go ahead and make it. Fanoflionking 12:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTFORK

This is an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK of List of films by box office admissions with a slightly more narrow scope. I propose redirecting this to the main topic. I did so WP:BOLDLY some time ago, and it was reverted with the rationale "Not without discussing first", so I'm formally suggesting it here. TompaDompa (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Following a month of WP:SILENCE here, I implemented the redirect again on 8 June. It was reverted today with the edit summary WP:RELART. Of course, that's not what a related article is. The scope of this article is a proper subset of the scope of List of films by box office admissions. This is just an arbitrary (thinner) slicing of the data, and Wikipedia is not a box office database. TompaDompa (talk) 17:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Since when you became the only man who can decide if movies' datas should be put or not in Wikipedia? The article of box office admissions for animated films is needed because there are very few of them that can be included in List of films by box office admissions. It was not about Wikipedia being box office database or not. It was about removing the whole data of this article entirely without any discussions (and there are several users who disagree with you). It can be considered a related article WP:RELART because both articles related but different topics (animation). This does not make either of the two articles a content fork. Further, in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term. NextEditor123 (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Again, animated films is not a related but different topic but a subtopic of films. That makes this a WP:CONTENTFORK. You have arbitrarily decided to slice the data this way, with no justification presented why this subtopic should warrant a separate article—do the sources rank animated films by box office admissions with these divisions into traditional, computer, and stop-motion animated films? If not, assembling the data like this is producing novel content—which is of course not allowed per Wikipedia policy. You can't just trawl the sources for the data that would be needed to construct an article with a scope that does not appear in the sources themselves.

The last part in encyclopedias it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term; unlike dictionaries, a single encyclopedia article covers a topic, not a term (which was copied from WP:RELART) is completely irrelevant since this is not about a term—what point were you trying to make? TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The article exists because there are very few animated films for List of films by box office admissions. List was devided because there are different type of animations. If you insists, we can just combine datas in one full list instead of them being separated in different categories. NextEditor123 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

So? The same thing could be said for any number of parameters—we could conceivably say that there are very few films released in [insert calendar year here] on List of films by box office admissions for any given calendar year in the last several decades. That still doesn't answer the question of why slicing the data in this way is justified. TompaDompa (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

We are talking about bigger numbers of box office admissions from bigger films. You can address your concerns on talk page in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film. NextEditor123 (talk) 19:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about? You have presented no valid justification whatsoever for having this as a separate article. You have referred to no sources that would back up your assertion that this is an appropriate fork. TompaDompa (talk) 19:52, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

• There are some fundamental problems here. Has notability been established in line with WP:LISTN? Even if that can be established, despite being presented as "worldwide" admissions the bulk of the data pertains to North American admissions (i.e. United States and Canada). Citation 10 (as it is now) is used to source half the first chart and most of the second, but this uses the Box Office Mojo inflation index which only logs the "domestic" box-office in its adjusted charts. So while global admissions for films in general would almost certainly qualify as notable, what we have is a subset of the films (animated) and a subset of the box-office data (US/Canada as apposed to worldwide) crossed with each other. Is a list constructed from such restrictive criteria notable? I have my doubts? That said, TompaDompa, what you are effectively proposing here is deletion, via an informal redirect. That has been contested and other editors of the article have a right to defend its notability, so your next step should really be to propose the article via the formal WP:AfD process. Betty Logan (talk) 02:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)