Talk:List of films based on sports books

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Classics never filmed"[edit]

I removed a "classics never filmed" section because clearly, a film that hasn't been filmed, isn't a film.--BelovedFreak 10:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a book page, not a film page. This page was created by the Novels group to promote books.
Otherwise this page would be called "List of sports films" and it would be really easy to write and would probably already exist somewhere else.
This is a book page. Isn't that obvious?
Varlaam (talk) 23:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
Please be polite. Yes, we're all aware this is a books page as the title is "List of films based on sports books". You'll note that it's not "List of films based on sports books as well as sports books that were never filmed" or "List of sports books which have never been adapted to film". That kind of section does not belong here. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:04, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

What qualifies as a "Sports book"?[edit]

This list needs a clear definition of what a "sports book" is. I don't think it is a book that mearly contains a few scenes in which a sport is played. For example, to call the book Sharp's Waterloo a "sports book" is simply rediculous. The book is about the battle of Waterloo, for gods sake, not the sport of cricket.

My first criteria would be that the sport must be central to the plot of the book. Blueboar (talk) 19:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Varlaam has this in the lead section: "Many sports are not popular enough to carry a commercial film entirely on their own. In such cases, the listed films, and corresponding books, may involve a single important scene (and single chapter), or a subplot, rather than the principal storyline. A fan of lacrosse, for example, will have to settle for a scene, rather than a complete film." This is not appropriate in its open-ended nature. I am moving this uphelpful criteria. Erik (talk) 19:20, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I also agree. To qualify as a "sports book", the sport must be central to the plot, not simply mentioned in passing somewhere in the book. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
As with this point the sport must be central to the plot, 2 films I will use this point to remove 2 films off this list. One of it, The Football Factory, that film is centred on football rioting, I doubt there is much if not any on football itself, unless meatheads beating other meatheads up is considered to be a sport. The other, Red Cliff is a war film, not one about sports. Therefore both of these are removed. Donnie Park (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)



I am the (principal) author of the page. (Principal author is apparently the correct term for me.) The page has nothing to do with "sports books" per se. That is simply the handle that was assigned to this whole set of pages 4 years ago. Some people have chosen to ignore the content of the page in favour of the handle. Are they blind? Are they really that unimaginative? It never occurred to me as I was writing this page that anybody would rank the title ahead of the page content.

I could have called the page "List of films involving sports involving a book". But that is a little unwieldy, wouldn't you say?

The page is about films that somehow involve sports that somehow involve a book. This list is inclusive. That is how I wrote it. This page is supposed to be casting a wide net. Casting a wide net does not unleash a flood of material.

The requirement to have a book (or magazine article, whatever) puts a huge brake on the list. There is no flood. There is no list growing wildly out of control.

I am not especially interested in the unconstructive opinions of a couple of the people above who have never made any contribution to this page. Put your money where your mouth is if you are so knowledgeable.

At one time I was a major researcher for the IMDb. My original research for the IMDb between 10 and 12 years ago now appears all over Wikipedia as established fact, with the IMDb cited as the source. I chose to share my film knowledge, both there and here, with interested parties. There's my motivation – sharing information. What's yours?

I expected when I started working on this that I would get a little something back. But in the past year, I've written what? 100%? 99% of the page? You tell me. I am still waiting to get anything back other than yet more fucking aggravation.

If you like a movie, and you want to share that with other people, and it has significant sports content (you're a grownup; you be the judge; you don't want to look like an ass, so choose wisely), and it involves a book, good enough.

Yeah, if somebody says "Boston Red Sox" in a movie and that's it, no, that is not good enough. Why? Because there are plenty of 100% baseball movies; there is no need to pull in 1% baseball films. But if it's some sport that's only played in Bulgaria that no one has heard of, but people might enjoy becoming acquainted with, then use your judgement. Is it sportsy enough? If it's a little sportsy, then put a note on it saying, "A subplot involves a player of the sport." Good enough. Most people will skip over the weird Bulgarian sport anyway and go straight to football.

Most of the world does not have a domestic market large enough to justify a 100% sports film about their weird local favourite. Basically only the US, and India with cricket, can have a pure sports film and turn a profit locally. This is why you have exactly one curling movie. So for the less popular and non-American sports, you need to relax the criteria a little bit or you won't have anything at all. If you want to have a little marker like ####!** which means "less than 100%", then there should be a little marker.

I, personally, want to hear about weird Bulgarian sports I don't know anything about. I don't give a flying fuck if the movie is only 80% sports. I don't give a shit. Just tell me about things I don't know already; then I will figure out if it's sportsy enough for my taste. Tell me about everything, then I will decide what interests me.

I cannot believe the amount of time people have to spend arguing about nothing.

Varlaam (talk) 23:25, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot believe the amount of time people have to spend arguing about nothing. Um...case in point, I would say. If you want to hear about weird Bulgarian sports no one has ever heard of, this is not the place for it unless you can provide reliable sources (i.e., not the IMDB) which discuss the film about the weird Bulgarian sport. You're always welcome to start a website somewhere about the weird Bulgarian sport in an effort to give it more exposure. You're putting original research into this list by doing things like that (and the "classics never filmed" sections on several of the lists). There are plenty of "pure sports films" created in countries outside of the US and India, and if you don't think so, you just aren't paying attention.
You'll also note that no one has given a specific percentage, but rather we've been stating that "the sport must be central to the plot". It doesn't take a genius to determine that, and it's not really going to be ambiguous. In fact, if you aren't sure it's really central to the plot, it's likely not central to the plot. If you aren't sure, you can always strike up a discussion here or at one of the many sports WikiProjects out there to determine consensus.
As for your aggravation, if you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. You can not claim any sort of major control over an article based solely on the fact that you wrote most of it. It doesn't work that way on Wikipedia. If you're looking for wild accolades for all your hard work, it's unlikely you're going to find it here. You can always work to make the lists into Featured Lists, but that's about the extent of it here. It seems to me that you may be creating lists here for the wrong reason if that's what you're looking for. Maybe you should reexamine your motivations to make sure this is really what you want to do, especially if you can't stand the thought of anyone else rewriting anything and everything you submit. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 05:16, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Harry Potter[edit]

I don't think that the Harry Potter books can seriously be classified as "sports books". WHat does anyone else think? I have tried to remove them (as have at least one other editor) but the removals were reverted. I think that without references to reliable sources that describe the Harry Potter books as "sports books", including them here constitutes original research. I would be interested to know what other editors think.--BelovedFreak 09:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The Harry Potter books should be excluded. None of the books have sports as the primary subject matter. Erik (talk | contribs) 11:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Agreed with not including them. The books include sporting events, but those are not the primary topics the books revolve around. Andrzejbanas (talk) 12:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
This list (and others like it) are silly and subjective. For example, since when is The Sun Also Rises a sports book? Yes, it features the running of the bulls, which plays an important role and may even serve as some sort of analogy, but that's not what the book is about. The characters spend more time fishing than in Pamploma; is it a fishing book as well? Really, the entire list needs to be culled and cleaned. Right now it borders on just "here's a list of films based on books that vaguely feature sports (real and fictional)". Pointless. María (habla conmigo) 12:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Do you think it would be better to request merging and redirecting to List of sports films? The "based on sports books" criteria is overly granular. I'm not seeing any similar list that is not related to this Wikipedia list, just the typical lists of sports films. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Merging/redirecting may be the best course of action, depending on whether or not there is anything that won't simply be duplicated when doing so. However, my point above was that it's not simply a matter of mis-categorization of "sports books/films"; I see similar issues with the articles listed at List of films based on war books, List of films based on arts books, etc. These lists work on the misinterpretation on what classifies these particular types of works. For example, The Naked Civil Servant (film), the biopic about Quentin Crisp based on his autobiography, contains perhaps two minutes about his work as a life model, and plays a minimal role in the book itself; it's not in any way an "arts book", and yet it's listed as if it is. This is what I meant by problematic, subjective lists. They create tenuous categorizations for films and books, with little or no referencing to prove what makes them "sports", "arts", or "war" works. I've seen similar complaints about these articles before, but I'm not sure if anything has been done to fix them? María (habla conmigo) 14:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments so far. I agree that merging may be one solution. Some work has been done to try to clean up these lists, and you can see some discussion (as well as all the lists affected) at User:Nihonjoe/Films and User talk:Nihonjoe/Films. The work done so far by User:Nihonjoe, User:*Kat* and me has been to address formatting issues, remove the most obviously unreliable references and to remove unsourced WP:OR commentary. I do agree though that there are bigger issues with notability and classification, and perhaps some of these lists should not exist (at Wikipedia anyway) at all. There have also been huge ownership issues with the primary contributor, User:Varlaam. I have repeatedly tried to engage Varlaam in discussion about these lists (going back to March) but he/she has not appeared to be willing to discuss the problems so far.--BelovedFreak 15:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
What Belovedfreak wrote. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 15:20, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of the historical issues with the lists, though it is hard to follow up because it's a set of articles typically outside my purview. I will be happy to provide input and assistance with clean-up, so please message me on my talk page if you need an additional opinion or set of hands. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Have to agree with Maria above. Plenty of sources exist to verify the The Sun Also Rises is not only about fishing or bullfighting but much more. It would be difficult to find sources verifying the novel is a sports book, though sports are featured in the content. Very subjective and pointless. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:08, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

So, what ought to be done? Delete? Merge? Remove all entries except those that have references to RS that state that they are based on a sports book (or war, or arts or whatever is relevant to the list)?--BelovedFreak 09:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)