Template talk:Lists of box office number-one films

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Film (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.


I had to add a sub-group for "other lists" since it dropped off the template: [1]. The thing is, we need to think about dividing this template into sub-groups, since the maxium number of entries a group can contain is twenty; this means we are going to have countries dropping off the template if we add any more. We need to come up with sensible sub-groups to allow for expansion.

I was thinking of using a basic continental model: Americas, Eurasia and Oceania. I don't think we need to sub-divide the American region since a single American group could easily contain all the countries from North and South America, and I think "Eurasia" would be sufficient for the time being since there are only 3/4 Asian countries on the list, so we don't really need a separate Asia sub-group yet. There are no African countries, but eventually they will no doubt be added and can form their own group. Any opinions on this? Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead if having to reorganise the templates, I suggest we split it up now. E.g: Western Europe, middle east, eastern Europe, south east asia etc.--Coin945 (talk) 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it needs to be refined to that level. Many readers wouldn't know if a country is in Western or Eastern Europe, and besides we are never going to need more than one group to represent Europe. Asia may need to be broken down further at some point but since there are only 3/4 Asian countries in the box at the moment it doesn't need to be refined to that level, otherwise we'll just have lots of boxes with one or two countries. The best organization would be to have just one list ordered alphabetically, but since we have a space limitation we have to split it up, but I favor using the minimal number of sub-groups. Betty Logan (talk) 19:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with your reasoning and understand your argument. I was merely saying that perhaps many small templates are better than a few choca-blocked templates which will onoy be reorgwnised later on. I personally don't like really big templates - that's the only reason I suggested a split into regions rather than continents. There must be more than twenty countries in Europe... even if there's not, a massive template (which will only get bigger when multiple rows are added per country due to articles for all years) would just be too big. Well has my view anyway. I'm very grateful for you bringing this up though--Coin945 (talk) 21:05, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Colombia was added which exceeded the template limit so we're out of time. I've gone ahead with the split as I suggested above since it had to be done in some way, and any further refinement can be discussed now the basic problem has been resolved. I've created the Afro-Eurasia supercontinent region since we can't create an Africa group until there is an African entry, so at least there is a group where the first African entry can go. Betty Logan (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
  • After looking at some film literature, box office seems to be discussed in terms of the three main economic zones (EMEA, America, APAC), and often analysed on this level. If we have to sub-divide it makes sense to use a model that the film industry itself uses, so I've modified the table to represent the economic model rather than the geographic one. Betty Logan (talk) 08:06, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

"List of highest-grossing films in Canada" link[edit]

An editor is repeatedly replacing the link in the template so that "Canada" links to List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States rather than List of highest-grossing films in Canada. It is true that List of highest-grossing films in Canada redirects to List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States but this is not a reason in itself for changing it.

I have referred the editor to WP:NOTBROKEN which advises:

There is usually nothing wrong with linking to redirects to articles. Some editors are tempted, upon finding a link to a redirect page, to bypass the redirect and point the link directly at the target page. While there are a limited number of cases where this is beneficial, there is otherwise no good reason to pipe links solely to avoid redirects. Doing so is generally an unhelpful, time-wasting exercise that can actually be detrimental.

This is also enshrined in the MOS at MOS:NOPIPE. The reason the template links to List of highest-grossing films in Canada is simply because it is the Canadian entry. In a perfect world there would be a Canadian box-office chart at that page which would be more specific than the one it redirects to. The only viable reason for replacing the redirect with a piped link is if we want to link to a List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States, which we don't. That's just a byproduct of the redirect. If an editor creates an article at List of highest-grossing films in Canada then we want it to link to that article! Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 9 June 2015 (UTC)