Jump to content

User talk:Fanoflionking3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Notes

  1. ^ No pages were made in the year 2022

Footnotes

stupid king

Thank you serves My Stupid king Lion King File:Trollface non-free.png

How To Make A Pizza?

Step 1. make dough Step 2. Coming Soon

Category:User Fanoflionking has been nominated for discussion

Category:User Fanoflionking has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of films based on comics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IDW. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, --DPL bot (talk) 20:09, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Creation of the page about the character of Anxiety

Hello @Fanoflionking3:, I came to ask if you are interested in creating an article about the character Anxiety from the movie Inside Out 2. As I said in the discussion, there are many sources that talk about the character (her creation, the actress who played her, and the reception she received). So since you are editing this article, it would be nice if you could create a page for the character. And if you do, I would really appreciate it. There are many more sources on the discussion page and on the internet in general, so it won't be difficult for you to search. 2801:1CA:E:1411:62C:D6C:9D57:C071 (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of AFD

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus‎. Even after discarding !votes based on the current content rather than the notability of such a list, we are still left with valid arguments on both sides, and no consensus materializing after three weeks. Feel free to renominate in three months. Owen× ☎ 21:13, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of highest-grossing sports films

List of highest-grossing sports films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Topic fails WP:LISTCRIT, as there is no reliable source on how an items appears on the list. Interpretation of what is or is not a sports film comes off as failing WP:OR. See discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_79 in 2022 and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#List of highest-grossing sports films here in 2024. Two years ago, the article was discussed for deletion, since then, per the second discussion topic this year it has been described as being in a worse state, specifically due to WP:OR, as there is no clear definition of what is or is not a sports film, the list is made up of material selected per choice by editors. Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the person who first brought this up. This isn't an issue of "theres coverage for it" its that it is a definitional impossibility that conflicts with sports films and list of sports films. And it isn't something that can be fixed either by going through it and saying what is or is not a sports film based on sourcing because the whole thing is a failed exercise that cannot be undone. It's not even a split list as its contents contradict the other lists its supposedly split from. As an encyclopedia this article is so all over the place that while everyone here is debating Babe i'm noticing that according to it the top sports films of all time are Inside Out 2 and the entire Fast and the Furious series alongside the Dragon Ball anime. We could go into a deep philosophical discussion about "what is a sport anyway" but instead this article exists as a fork from sports movies for no reason. –– Lid(Talk) 03:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bring up Babe is about sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport see about sheepdog trail being sports https://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml Fanoflionking3 (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I'm not in denial of it being treated as a sport, what is and what isn't a sport film is less abundantly clear, so we can't just apply items like this. It's not clear what constitute the sports film genre per the links earlier that have different criteria. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:40, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we need a definition for a sports film then (i always considered that t being about a sport event or training for a event) Babe (using this as example) is about babe training for a sheep dog trail then complete in the trail. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 21:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with the genre is that is vague and unspecific. As shown by the two links above, there is no obvious connection between what is and what isn't. This is why an editor above may laugh at the idea of Babe being a sports film, while other may not. We can have our own personal definitions, but as that's not categorizable, we can't say what is higher grossing than the other. If a film were specifically about baseball we might be able to have some sort of list, but that would be relatively fringe. Andrzejbanas (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somethings are clearly sports film (rockey for example), whiles others could be question (babe for example) using babe a done a sample of what we could do.Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could do something like this, we do not need to every film just any witch someone question. Fanoflionking3 (talk) 22:39, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rank Film Year Worldwide gross Ref Sport(s)
1 Babe[a] 1995 $254,134,910 [2] Sheepdog trial
I think the talk page would be more appropriate for this, as the genre does not seem to be very specific, I don't think a list like this can be really be built on any foundation without some more strict details of what the genre may include. Andrzejbanas (talk) 22:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.bbc.co.uk/berkshire/content/articles/2006/07/24/sheepdog_trials_feature.shtml
  2. ^ "Babe".

Notes

  1. ^ in the film Babe, Babe the pig trains to take part in a sheepdog trail, sheepdog trails are considered a sport[1]
  • Keep as a notable stand-alone list topic even though the list's current contents and approaches are garbage. The problem is defining a sports film as opposed to films that have sports in part, like considering Forrest Gump a sports film is WP:UNDUE. I do oppose the more complex and cross-categorization lists that are embedded in this list article per WP:NLIST since some just get plain indiscriminate. I would support a hard-ass culling of this list. Regardless, there are reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies, so the scope is 100% tenable. We have to overcome the sloppiness of this draft. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think there being reliable sources talking about highest-grossing sports movies necessarily means that the scope is 100% tenable. If those sources do not agree what counts as sports movies and what does not, there does not exist a consensus scope, but an equivocation. Do the sources actually agree on the scope in a way that makes for list criteria that are clear-cut and enforceable here? TompaDompa (talk) 17:42, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course the scope is 100% tenable. The problem is with how to present the details. We definitely have reliable sources writing about the highest-grossing sports films. Do we see these sources naming Forrest Gump and Babe as sports films? Or is it certain editors being ridiculously and erroneously pedantic here? Furthermore, reliable sources are not published with Wikipedia suitability in mind. So can we find a way to work with their coverage? Other approaches here could be to avoid an overall list and instead have various embedded lists by sports (e.g., highest-grossing baseball films). Or we could redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:44, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe we have different ideas about what it means for the scope to be tenable. If the best we can do is redirect to just sports film and write some prose saying what has been identified as highest-grossing films in the sports genre and not commit to a table, I would not consider the scope to be tenable. I would not even consider the scope to be tenable if we have to avoid an overall list. I'm sure we can find somewhere on Wikipedia to include the words "highest-grossing sports film(s)" with some relevant content, but that's a much lower bar. TompaDompa (talk) 21:00, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think TompaDompa's suggestion might be best. Being the third...fourth...fifth highgest grossing sports film is not something commonly applied to any film as an achievement and would be unmeasurable. Being the highest grossing sports film of all time or something is something you could potentially cover. The rest is just numbers games that we can't apply as with even sourced material above, there appears to be no consensus to what is and what isn't considered a sports film from person to person. Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'll quote myself from roughly a year ago over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of highest-grossing films based on television series: 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.
    As for what should be done about this list, specifically, if it is to be kept in any form whatsoever (be it as a stand-alone article or as part of some other article) it categorically needs to be demonstrated that it is actually possible to have inclusion criteria that are unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources per WP:LISTCRITERIA, or in other words that there actually exists some kind of consensus among the sources about what belongs on the list and what does not. What we currently have fails the requirement from WP:LISTCRITERIA to Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources. That goes for a lot of these lists. TompaDompa (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 16:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This is just a mirror of BoxOfficeMojo with some summaries ... that doesn't update as often. No effort to indicate when these statistics are captured or how out-of-date they might be. Or how they might compare across decades. And so the information is better kept at its source, and such an article offers no value. The inclusion criteria is between absurd and unenforced: there are silly entries (like *Babe*). But also entries for movies that haven't earned more than $10 million -- how could they possibly appear on any "highest-grossing" list? *Ben-Hur* for the "sport" of chariot racing? Come on. -- mikeblas (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't see what value this article provides to the reader either. Reflecting the comment above, it is impossible to keep up to date. The problem is effective sourcing is another problem. I don't see its value as a standalone article. scope_creepTalk 13:45, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please note that this debate is not about whether the current contents of the page are to be retained, but whether the list could be compiled such that it meets LISTCRIT and other relevant guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 18:18, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Andrzejbanas (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cannot access [nb 1]

Hey there, Fanoflionking3, [nb 1] cannot be accessed or clicked on outside editing. I don't think we can copy and paste these things from one article to another. It would be best if you made that note from scratch. Anyways, thank you for your contribution. Diamandiev425 (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bullseye (British game show), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ITV.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:54, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fanoflionking3&oldid=1258307297"