Talk:List of Black Panther box office achievements

scope

This fork should either not exist and be merged into a List of MCU box office records, or be renamed as Black Panther at the box office. Nergaal (talk) 07:46, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Well neither of those articles exist, so are you even sure articles like those would be accepted on the site? Most box office articles are formated like this one, for one specific film.★Trekker (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What is your reasoning for this Nergaal? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Half of the current list is NOT a BO record. If non-records are removed, the list might be a bit thin, so expand the remaining to include other non-AIW movies and their BO records. Nergaal (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

What of them are not records? I took a gander at it and it seems most of it is well sourced and correct.★Trekker (talk) 10:10, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Looking at it a little more closely I could agree to move it to something like List of Black Panther box office accomplishments since it is still a list.★Trekker (talk) 10:33, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

An editor is currently removing a lot of the stuff listed, but I think the list was much more interesting and better with them, so I do feel fully that either List of Black Panther box office accomplishments or Black Panther at the box office should be used.★Trekker (talk) 10:37, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Being number two, three, and so on is not a record. I think it's better to remove the entries that aren't records than renaming the article. TompaDompa (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

But it is a huge accomplishment and very relevant for it's box office history.★Trekker (talk) 10:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Maybe, but that can go on Black Panther (film). I think we should match the way we do it at List of box office records set by Avatar, List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War. TompaDompa (talk) 10:49, 5 July 2018 (UTC)‎

Are those things you removed in the BP film article right now? Otherwise they should probably be moved there.★Trekker (talk) 10:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

All of this info is not at the film article, nor really shouldn't be, as the box office section was very large and added too much size to the overall article. A "record set" doesn't have to be the top record, so I don't think we should be hung up to much on the title. But I would support List of Black Panther box office accomplishments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I think using that title would prevent people from comming in and removing a ton of stuff.★Trekker (talk) 17:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Just looking at the current contents of the list, the accurate title would be "List of box office records set and others by Black Panther". Nergaal (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

If we are to keep the current scope (I don't think it's a particularly good idea, but it's possible), the best title would probably be Black Panther box office or something along those lines.
Favre1fan93, what do you mean by A "record set" doesn't have to be the top record? TompaDompa (talk) 17:40, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, in response to the claim from you that "Being number two, three, and so on is not a record", looking at something like the film being the third highest-grossing film of all time in the US, is a record and a notable achievement. Records aren't just setting the top position. That's why *Treker suggested the title of the article be changed to List of Black Panther box office accomplishments. I think that is a better name than Black Panther box office because it is still a list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about second place being a record (achievement/accomplishment is uncontroversial, though). At any rate, I think this article (a) sets a bad precedent and (b) meshes poorly with the other "List of box office records set by [...]" articles (Avatar, Avengers: Infinity War, Deadpool, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens). Changing the title would ameliorate the latter but exacerbate the former. "List of accomplishments" also sounds a bit too much like an endorsement in my opinion. TompaDompa (talk) 21:08, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The title doesn't have to exactly follow or "mesh" with what has come before, nor does it set a bad precedent. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

"BP at the BO" is a fine title for a spinoff list. There are many meh lists like "XYZ in popular culture" that have a weak scope but they exist for the sake of keeping the XYZ article clean. Nergaal (talk) 10:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Creating a weak-scope sub-article for the sole purpose of keeping the main article clean is a bad solution that stems from a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the main article. TompaDompa (talk) 13:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

But this topic is clearly very well covered. There are tons of sources and relevant content.★Trekker (talk) 13:39, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

While the sourcing part is true, that doesn't necessarily mean the material should be included. Cf. the case of List of box office records set by Deadpool, where the FLC discussion resulted in the list not being promoted due to the list largely being made up of non-notable trivia/"pseudo-records". TompaDompa (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is exactly the point I've been trying to make regarding the existence of the IW list. That just happened because you felt "oh it's making records, we should have the list!". There isn't any real justification for it, especially when you feel a list s a bad solution that stems from a reluctance to remove excessive material that doesn't improve the main article. This list properly split off material from the main article, and when you do so, you are generally not going to then duplicate the same info from where you just split it. Hence, the formatting of this list. We all seem to agree the title needs to change, and really, List of Black Panther box office accomplishments is the best, because it still is a list, and should have such in the title (which Black Panther at the box office does not provide. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

About List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War: that list has a clear scope, unlike this one. One alternative to having that list would be adding a list of records on the main Avengers: Infinity War article, since readability in prose for that amount of that kind of information is poor. Another alternative would be removing the information outright as excessive detail. As a side note, I'll admit that creating the List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War article wasn't warranted at the time. If it had occurred to me then to create it in WP:draftspace or a sandbox, I would have done so since that would have been a better option.

About this article: either the article needs to be renamed or the contents need to be revised, because the title and the contents don't match. I favour the former. As for the latter, I agree with Nergaal that Black Panther at the box office is a good title. I don't mind including the word "list" in the title, but I don't think it's entirely necessary either. My main objection to List of Black Panther box office accomplishments as a title is the word "accomplishments", which I think makes it sound like an endorsement. TompaDompa (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

As myself and others have noted, the "non-records" are notable info and should be kept, so we shouldn't remove it. Hence why I feel we are trying to come to an agreeable new title. Would there be any objections to List of Black Panther box office achievements? I don't feel that has an "endorsement" feel to it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any substantial difference between "accomplishments" and "achievements" in that regard, frankly. I'd like to come up with a more WP:NEUTRAL-sounding title (which Black Panther at the box office would be, although it doesn't specify that it's a list). TompaDompa (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm good with List of Black Panther box office achievements. I prefer "achievements" over "accomplishments" even though they are pretty much the same thing. There's something about calling them "accomplishments" that bugs me. Black Panther at the box office would not be appropriate because we are only listing the list of records/achievements. We are not detailing the actual box office grosses each week for the film. - Brojam (talk) 17:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

True, but then again there's nothing stopping us from including that information and choosing that title anyway. TompaDompa (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm starting a subsection below for everyone to comment on a new title name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Fav, IW broke all sort of records in many places. BP only did so in the US, not much elsewere. A true record list is perfectly fine IMO. A "dumping" page for keeping the main article clean is IMHO a fine solution, since there are plenty of "useless" lists on wikipedia. Some might disagree, but I am fine with it. IMO the ideal solution is a merged BO records list for the entire MCU since a few of them overlap a bit anyways. If a separate page is kept, I just want a correct title, which "records" seems inappropriate in the current format, and "accomplishments" is a bit too pompous. Nergaal (talk) 20:07, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Have you even looked at this page? The film broke records all over the world. I am not strongly for or against any specific renaming, as I see no actual issue with the current name. I do feel that the title should still include "List of..." since, you know, it's a list. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

This is clearly not correct.★Trekker (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You guys are fetishizing things like "March IMAX opening day" too much. Half of the currently-listed records are meh at best, only of interest to an extremely niche audience. Nergaal (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, the inclusion of highly intersectional records with multiple parameters pre-specified is something that was brought up as an issue on Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of box office records set by Deadpool (film)/archive1 and is currently under discussion at Talk:List of box office records set by Deadpool. TompaDompa (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm simply of the mind that I feel that any legitimate record is still a record, if it gets reported by a reliable source it feels like something that is worth mentioning.★Trekker (talk) 11:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

New title

Per the discussion above, it has been determined the current title, List of box office records set by Black Panther, isn't necessarily accurate. As such, here are the options we are dealing with.

Option A List of Black Panther box office achievements

Option B Black Panther at the box office

Please indicate which of the titles you'd be in support of below. - Favre1fan93 (talk)

Survey

• Support Option A. As I've indicated above, at the end of the day, this article is still a list, so I feel list should still be in the article title. I do agree with the points that "records set" should be avoided in the current title since we cover other records, and I think "achievements" is a good title to encompass that. Per a point made above by Brojam, "Black Panther at the box office" suggests a broader discussion and examination of each week's accomplishments, which I don't feel is an appropriate approach or change for what we're going for in this list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option A per Favre. At the end of the day, this is a list and not an article about the complete box office history of BP. And no it should not be changed to be a complete box office history of BP since the main article does a perfect job of summarizing it. - Brojam (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Shouldn't a notice be posted at List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War about this? - Brojam (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Why? That list only covers records. The situation is completely different. TompaDompa (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For consistency. Records set can still be called "achievements", just not the inverse. - Brojam (talk) 19:39, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

With regards to consistency, this is the anomaly. List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War follows the pattern set by List of box office records set by Avatar, List of box office records set by Star Wars: The Force Awakens, and List of box office records set by Deadpool, whereas this article does not. There's a much stronger case to be made in favour of changing the scope of this list than changing the others. TompaDompa (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Just because those other articles established a style, doesn't mean they are actually better or correct. I would argue that this layout is much stronger and more informative than the "other" style, because it gives other notable rankings. But that isn't what this section of the discussion is for, just to change the article title with the content we have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Also just a small other point, because that "other" style exists, it doesn't also mean this article has to follow it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I'll clarify that my point was not that the other style is superior, but that arguing to change the other related lists to match this one for reasons of consistency would be getting it backwards. TompaDompa (talk) 20:16, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

• Option B is better. I still think tagging "accomplishments" which is otherwise just accounting statistics is inelegant to say the least. Also, rating something like "fifth-largest" or "sixth-largest" as an accomplishment is a joke. Nergaal (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

We only have records if they are in the top 5 of something. As I look now, there may be one or two we can consider removing, but not many. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

That's simply not true. We have ninth-highest-grossing film of all time worldwide, 15th-largest opening weekend of all time worldwide, 16th Walt Disney Studios film to reach $1 billion worldwide, and 33rd film overall to reach $1 billion worldwide. TompaDompa (talk) 05:02, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I am fine with 33rd billion film, which is an achievement. But sixth largest fifth weekend is a bad joke. Nergaal (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

• I favour Option B. I think the scope is poorly chosen, but that title is the preferable of the two for this particular scope. The main reason is that I have some WP:POV issues with the word "achievements" – I think it sounds too much like an endorsement. I don't see a need to have the word "list" in the title – it's not required by WP:LISTNAME, though it's noted that it's common to use it – but I'm not opposed to it per se, if someone comes up with a third option. TompaDompa (talk) 17:20, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option A - This is a list, not a prose article, and an "achievement" is an achievement, it's not pov or adverticemnet to be honest and point it out.★Trekker (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)
• Support Option A. A combo of the two, namely 'List of BP achievements and box office records', covers everything. SassyCollins (talk) 09:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

South Africa gross

The cited source [1] says:

Worth noting is South Africa, where Black Panther continues to be the No. 1 movie in its seventh weekend of release ($7.9M estimated cume to date). Box office for the region has now crossed $220M ($220.5M estimated to date, or the No. 4 MCU release of all-time).

I don't see how we got from there to Black Panther grossing $220.5 million in South Africa (which is what the list currently says). I'll note that Box Office Mojo puts the figure at $8 million [2]. TompaDompa (talk) 11:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Title for article

"List of BP accomplishments & box office records" or "List of BP box office accomplishments" SassyCollins (talk) 18:37, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This is already being discussed in the section above.★Trekker (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Level of detail in the lead

The WP:LEAD contains quite a lot of information only tangentially related to the topic of the list, which is Black Panther's box office. It's arguably in WP:COATRACK territory. This level of detail might be appropriate for the main Black Panther article, but not here. Per WP:LEADFORALIST, the WP:LEAD should introduce the subject and the list itself, so that it's clear what the list includes. The production history of the film is not the subject of this list, nor is the cast or the critical reception. I've started a corresponding discussion about the same issue on Talk:List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War, for the record. TompaDompa (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead includes the introductory paragraph giving the basic facts about the film, and then an abbreviated summary (only a couple of lines) about its production and reception just to give a bit of context here. This level of detail would not be appropriate at the film's page as it does not accurately convey the scope of the film, but as a brief idea of what the film is for readers who have not been to that article this is fine. We cannot expect readers to know anything about the film when reading this article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:56, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

But the reader doesn't need to know all that about the film's production/reception/etc. The first two sentences (Black Panther is a 2018 American superhero film based on the Marvel Comics character of the same name. Produced by Marvel Studios and distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures, it is the eighteenth film in the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU).) is plenty. TompaDompa (talk) 05:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The WP:LEAD contains information that isn't mentioned in the body of the article, doesn't explain the scope of the list, doesn't explain the structure of the list, doesn't summarize trends in the list, and isn't directly related to the box office performance of Black Panther. In other words, there's a {{lead extra info}} problem. There are two possible solutions: include the material (cast list, production details, plot synopsis, critical reception, etc.) in the body of the article, or remove the material from the lead. I favour the latter option, which has the added benefit of freeing up some space in the lead that can be used for expanding the information about the box office performance of the film without it ending up in {{lead too long}} territory. If readers want to know about the other things, they can have a look at the main Black Panther article. TompaDompa (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete records

The records that since have been surpassed by A:IW need to be clearly labeled somehow. We don't imply that a record holder at 100m before Bolt is still the record holder today. I don't like the strikethrough method, but something needs to be done about not-anymore records. Nergaal (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The lead clearly says The records featured below were set while the film was in theaters and may not represent records currently held. It is not our job to constantly be updating records and making a big deal about who has what. The notability here is in the fact that these specific records were set for this film. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Nergaal that the list should be updated when records are surpassed. Not doing so would be borderline lying by omission. I'll note that the lists for Avatar and The Force Awakens label surpassed records. It's not exactly an insurmountable task. TompaDompa (talk) 06:25, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No terrible idea, almost all records will be beat one day, we shouldn't go around and update everything all the time. It's not relevant in the slightest, if you had a record you had it.★Trekker (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Go take a look at Maurice_Greene_ and you will see that everything is labeled FORMER world record. Nergaal (talk) 08:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't mean I have to agree with it.★Trekker (talk) 09:07, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I got an easy fix: split everything into 1) records; 2) former records; 3) other. Nergaal (talk) 08:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Bad idea, one day all the records will be "former records".★Trekker (talk) 09:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

You keep coming back to that. I don't see why it would be a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 10:30, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Because it will need constant updates, these lists are about records "set" not about the continuing development of the records themselves.★Trekker (talk) 18:55, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We need to keep the scope of the article in mind. This is for records set by the film, not just one page in a series of articles detailing who has the most up-to-date records. We definitely should not be crossing records out as some of the other lists do, which makes them hard to read, seem less important even though the notability of the record being set should never change, and changes the article from a list of records set by the film to a list of films that were better at the box office than this one. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you on that. The notability of a record is definitely affected by its longevity. I'd go so far as to make the opposite argument to yours: that not noting when records are surpassed makes them seem more important/notable than they really are. It's also important to make the distinction between mentioning the current record and mentioning the record that superseded the one that has an entry on the list – the latter is relevant to the record on the list, but the former is not. TompaDompa (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

But this list does not exist to note what film holds the box office records. It exists to note which records were broken by Black Panther. The latter is noteworthy, while the former is unencyclopaedic in this format. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:31, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

But this list does not exist to note what film holds the box office records. No, and that's not what I'm saying. If a record set by Black Panther is broken multiple times, it only stopped being held by Black Panther the first time. That's what I meant by It's also important to make the distinction between mentioning the current record and mentioning the record that superseded the one that has an entry on the list. If one of the records were to be broken by Black Panther 2 and then by Black Panther 3, we'd just list that it was surpassed by Black Panther 2, not that it was currently held by Black Panther 3. Each entry would only be updated once. TompaDompa (talk) 05:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If you just want to note that the record has since been surpassed, then perhaps there is a better solution which does not involve massive strikes or mentioning other films, which would keep the focus on this film. Perhaps a symbol leading to a note saying the record has since been surpassed lie how we currently use the † in the list. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Using footnotes would be a possible option. I don't think there's a way around mentioning the film that surpassed the record (we'd still need to source that it's been surpassed), but it could be contained within the footnote. If your objection is based on the use of strikethrough markup, there are definitely other options. TompaDompa (talk) 05:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem with mentioning the film that surpassed this one is that it takes the emphasis away from this film by making another one seem more significant, and it also puts the focus on the record-holding rather than the record-setting. We want to be focusing on the fact that Black Panther set these specific records during its run, not that these are records that were held by Black Panther with links to the films that now hold them. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree too that we shouldn't be making mention of records that since have been surpassed. Hence the sentence in the lead (all by itself) noting these were the records broken by the film, but may not represent records currently held. As with Adam, putting a strikethrough of a record then makes it more about what films surpassed it, not the fact that it did achieve such record/achievement. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I STILL think there is a simple solution: no strikethrough, but move surpassed records to subsections named "Former records", each bullet with parentheses listing who passed it and when - since it's in parenthesis, it does not deemphasizes BP, while being honest about not holding it. Nergaal (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no objections to that suggestion. TompaDompa (talk) 07:37, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

That is still putting the focus on holding records vs not. Again, the scope of this article is not box office records in general, it is these particular records being set by Black Panther. The fact that they have been since surpassed is irrelevant frankly. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

For real, stop it with this already.★Trekker (talk) 08:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

MCU records

A lot of the entries are specific to the MCU. These are the kind of non-notable pseudo-records that led to the Featured List nomination for List of box office records set by Deadpool being shot down. Even more egregiously, there are also a number of second, third, fourth, and even fifth places internally within the MCU. Being ranked fourth or fifth out of (at the time) fewer than twenty entries is WP:TRIVIA, and populating the list with non-notable entries indiscriminately makes the entire list seem less notable as a result. TompaDompa (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

2018 records

Setting records for the highest gross (or whatever) of the year to date for a movie released in February is of very questionable notability. Yearly records that are still held after the end of the calendar year are a different issue. TompaDompa (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Records contained within other records

It's odd to have three separate bullet points for Highest-grossing superhero film, Highest-grossing MCU film, and Highest-grossing superhero origin film, considering the latter two are just more specific versions of the first one. Likewise, it's off to have separate bullet points for Highest number of ticket pre-sales for a film released in February on Fandango and Highest number of ticket pre-sales for a film released in the first quarter on Fandango, considering the former is a more specific version of the latter. This kind of indirect repetition gives off the impression of padding the list with more entries in an attempt to make the subject seem more notable, ironically making it seem less notable. TompaDompa (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your edits were removed. You can't go around and acting like you've gained consensus when you havn't. Please stop making this article lesser already, this is all you seem to do on MCU related lists "remove this", "merge these", "delete that".★Trekker (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I don't believe I've acted like I had consensus when I didn't. I made my case, waited several day for replies, and then WP:BOLDly implemented some of the changes I proposed when nobody voiced any objections. As for the accusation about MCU lists, I'll remind you that I was the one who created List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War. You should know this, because you were involved in the disagreement about whether it was appropriate as a separate list. TompaDompa (talk) 18:53, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

No I shouldn't keep track of that because I'm not a crazy person who remembers every single discussion I've had weeks ago. And that doesn't change the fact that you keep making tons of changes no one asked for or agreed to.★Trekker (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know where to reply out of the three sections in a row, so I'll do it here. I'm happy to discuss with you if you feel some of what is listed should be removed. But I feel all that currently is, is not to broad or trivial, and presents a good overview of the film's achievements. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I assume that we all want to improve this article. There is a precedent, of sorts, for doing that – List of box office records set by Deadpool was nominated for WP:Featured list status, and the nomination was unsuccessful. The main objection raised was the over-inclusivity of the list, with a large number of non-notable entries. I agree with that rationale, and I think the same issue is present here, albeit in slightly different ways. TompaDompa (talk) 19:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

"Previous record holders"

No reason to have these at all, it's yet another thing that takes away focus from the actual subject.★Trekker (talk) 14:17, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It provides context much the same way as noting which movie holds the actual record for the accomplishments on the list (i.e. the second-place entries with an "after X" clarifier). I'll also refer you to this comment from the unsuccessful Featured list nomination for the Deadpool list, which reads [...] the list gives no context. For example, how many "Biggest Premium Large Format R-rated opening(s) in North America" have there been? How many "IMAX opening weekend(s) for a February in Taiwan"? Like, are these records out of hundred or thousands of films? Out of twelve releases? If $55 thousand per screen is the biggest IMAX opening weekend in February in France ever, what's second place, or average? Is it a big record, or just barely higher than second place?. If the lack of context is a hindrance to that list becoming a WP:Featured list, the same would presumably hold true here. TompaDompa (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I disagree with the person who made that featured list comment. Same as adding who got the record after, it just clutters up stuff in my eyes.★Trekker (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

While I sympathize with wanting to reduce clutter, I would argue that the main source of clutter is entries of quasi-achievements that pad out the list, not individual entries being too detailed. Reducing the number of entries by removing non-notable ones and making the remaining ones more detailed by providing context is a good way to make the list more informative and relevant to the reader, and would make it look less like a blog post of trivia compiled by a fan. TompaDompa (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

So you would rather add information about different films and remove stuff actually relevant to the topic? That makes sense. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I would rather say more about less, go for depth rather than breadth. As it stands, we have a laundry list of WP:INDISCRIMINATE statistics. TompaDompa (talk) 22:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't change the fact that previous and future record holders are not relevant to this film.★Trekker (talk) 18:52, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

To the film, no. But to the records, they are. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

That's your opinion. There aren't a bunch of articles about random box office records by issue because no one really cares about those, and in the end people care and want to read/report about the specific films records. This is in the end still a spin-off article from the main Black Panther film article which was created because the main article got huge and there were enough records to juctify a separate one.★Trekker (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is a non-notable achievement by your standards? Again, if it's been reposted by a reliable and reputable source why would it not be inlcuded? It feels really POVy to just go by someone specific ideas about what is worthy and what is not.★Trekker (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

As noted above, all internal MCU achievements, but especially the "accomplishments" (as opposed to the records – the notability decreases the further from the number one spot Black Panther is). Also mentioned above: "best of 2018 as of February" records (of which there are several, as well as one which is as of April, which is not much better – if they're still the best of 2018 when the year is over, that's a completely different story). These examples are not exhaustive.
As for why we would not include something that's reported by WP:Reliable sources, the reason would be if it does not improve the article, per Wikipedia's WP:Verifiability policy (specifically the Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion section). See also WP:What Wikipedia is not, which says that [Wikipedia] does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere. at the very top and has a section called WP:Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. We should resist the temptation to attempt to include everything we can in an article when adding it doesn't improve the article in question. TompaDompa (talk) 20:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

If you really think that how can you advocate for adding a bunch of irrelevant "this record was laterb broken by random film"?★Trekker (talk) 23:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the contradiction; if the problem is that there is an excessive number of entries on the list, adding more detail to the existing entries doesn't exacerbate the problem – and I think it would improve the article. I also don't think it's irrelevant, because I think the longevity of a record affects its notability – Thierry Vigneron's 5.93m pole vault world record that was broken later the same day is less notable than Sergey Bubka's 6.14m record that stood for nigh on 20 years for that very reason (or for that matter, Jonathan Edwards' 18.16m triple jump world record is less notable than the 18.29m one he surpassed it with the same day and which stands to this day, over 20 years later). TompaDompa (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Well I don't agree with a single thing of that.★Trekker (talk) 04:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Black Panther film logo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

RfC about redirecting

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was redirect. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

---

Should this page be turned into a WP:REDIRECT to Black Panther (film)#Box office? TompaDompa (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support redirecting Some background: This list was created back in July 2018 in response to the first WP:Good article nomination for the main Black Panther (film) article (seen here), as the box office section of that article was deemed excessively lengthy.
  In September 2018, this list was nominated for WP:Featured list status as seen here. That nomination was unsuccessful, in large part because the list mostly contained entries that were non-notable trivia. Scrapping the list entirely by trimming those entries and then merging back into the main article was suggested by four different editors, where I was one of them.
  In June 2019, I trimmed the list heavily by removing the aforementioned non-notable trivia. This seems to have been uncontroversial as the page has changed very little since then.

  The way I see it, this is very similar to the case of List of box office records set by Deadpool, which failed this FLC nomination due to mostly containing non-notable trivia and was later turned into a redirect to Deadpool (film)#Box office following this RfC.

  In summary, this list was created because there was too much non-notable trivia on the main article, and now that the non-notable trivia has been removed, there is no reason to keep this list in addition to the main article. The non-notable trivia should of course have been removed outright from the start instead of moving it to a separate list, but here we are. TompaDompa (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• Support redirecting. This list is too short now, a few lines in the main article's section should be able to cover all the information displayed here. El Millo (talk) 18:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• Support redirecting. Almost all the records in this list are already mentioned in the main article's box office section. - Brojam (talk) 23:44, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.