Talk:List of films by box office admissions

50M/60M

@Maestro2016 before rising the limt we first should talk about it I think it best to select a number and we should stitck to that the qustion is what number is should that be? Fanoflionking 17:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary: "50M threshold is too low. There are already 129 films with 60M+ sales. The list doesn't need to be any longer." While the 50M threshold is fine for North America, it's too low for worldwide numbers. Ideally, we should try to limit the list to around 100 films or so. There's no need to extend the list to more films on the lower end. 60M is a much more reasonable and manageable threshold than 50M. Maestro2016 (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wow did not reasle that many films on the list maybe a rise to 55M would be better for now Fanoflionking 22:30, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

55M is an odd number for a threshold. I think the threshold should be in multiples of ten. So 60M would make more sense. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

so should we make it 60M than or get a thrid option frist Fanoflionking 11:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, there are 130 films on this list with at least 60 million tickets sold, 120 with at least 70 million, 101 with at least 80 million, 81 with at least 90 million, and 70 with at least 100 million. I'd say raise the limit to 100 million. List of highest-grossing films only includes the top 50 films, and that's a WP:Featured list. TompaDompa (talk) 23:29, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be better to make it a top 100 list, so 80 million would be an ideal threshold. That would be a good middle-ground between where User:Fanoflionking wants the threshold (60M) and where you want the threshold (100M). As for List of highest-grossing films, I don't think that's a good comparison. That's a very large article over 300 KB, whereas this article was barely just over 100 KB prior to your edits (which brought it down to 67 KB). That article also has specific rankings, whereas this article has no rankings. The top 50 there is also basically just be a copy-paste of Box Office Mojo, whereas this is a dynamic list with no single source we can use for this article, but it's piecing together whatever data is available from different countries. There's still a lot of missing data, and a lot of the films listed below 100M could've actually sold over 100M but we just don't have the data for it. So it's good to set the threshold below 100M, so if any new data becomes available, they can be raised over 100M. For now, 80M is ideal to keep it a top 100 list. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why would we want a top 100 list? That seems excessive to me. Who cares about number 97? TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a ranked list. It's an unranked list. So it doesn't matter where a film ranks. It's simply a list of how much tickets are known to have been sold for a certain number of films. So it's not directly comparable to a highest-grossing list, because that's not exactly what this list is. Including a hundred entries looks about right to me. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A more directly comparable article would be List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada. That has 100 entries for the ticket sales. Which is more-or-less what this article also does. And that US list is only for a single region. This list covers much of the world (wherever ticket sales data is available). So it's only fair that this list has at least 100 entries. Maestro2016 (talk) 02:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that this is an unranked list seems to me like an even stronger reason not to choose a threshold based on getting as close to a nice, round number of entries as possible. On the contrary, the lack of rankings means that we should aim to have a nice, round number for the threshold. I think 80 million tickets is way more conspicuous as a threshold than 100 million tickets is, which means that it comes off as having been chosen for some other reason than being a nice, round number.

Using List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada as a comparison doesn't persuade me in the slightest, not least because I brought up on that talk page that I thought it had way too many entries over a year ago. I would definitely be in favour of reducing the number of entries on both lists. If either list were to be nominated for WP:Featured list status, "Way too many entries" would be among the first feedback I would give. We shouldn't aim to have this article be consistent with that fairly mediocre article, we should aim to have it be more like better articles. TompaDompa (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article currently isn't at the stage where it can be nominated for a featured list. It's currently at a work-in-progress stage, with numerous films listed having incomplete numbers, due to a lack of available data from numerous markets. I still feel there's more work that needs to be done for this article. It helps if we set the threshold below 100M, so that if more data becomes available for sub-100M films, they can be raised to 100M. I have no issues with raising the threshold to 100M in the future, after enough work has been done to make it feel like a more "complete" list. But I feel like it's too soon for that now. We're still building up this list at this current stage. Maestro2016 (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the data for the films below 100 million tickets in order to be able to add more markets if data becomes available is a good idea, but the entries don't need to be on the main list for that to be possible. They can be hidden with comment markup or moved to a sandbox or even to this talk page. And none of this changes the fact that the sheer number of entries is excessive and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. TompaDompa (talk) 20:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned in the List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada discussion, it's arbitrary where exactly we set the cut-off point before a list becomes WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The advantage of having a shorter list is that we get to add other shorter lists (e.g. annual lists, timeline of records, etc.). If we do eventually add additional lists like that, then it would make sense to shorten the main list. But at the moment, this article only consists of a single list, so I don't see any particular reason for cutting down the main list when that's all there is on the page. Either way, I don't mind if there's some kind of consensus. Personally, I would prefer 80M tickets or 100 entries as a cut-off point for the main list (unless additional lists get added). Maestro2016 (talk) 20:25, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging article creator Fanoflionking for his/her views on this issue. Maestro2016 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer the list to have around 100 give or take (we might never get it dead on 100) If we could do sub lists (year, timeline, franchises, opening weekends for example) than maybe have another discussion than, on Monday I planing to get back to the animated version of this page soon, once that upload, we could have a look at other stub lists for theses pages. Fanoflionking 20:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if you presented a standard when deciding on the number of films to be listed. What standard or authority makes 50/55/60 the correct choice. Too many of you being subjective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.140.14.35 (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why should we limit the list with just 100 million sales minimum? There are too many popular films that people would like to know their box office admission numbers without money inflations. If you think that it will overload the article, we can just remove tables of territories' market numbers as their are just basically copy pasted from original sources without bringing any new information for the article (we can focus mainly on delivering worldwide numbers with putting territories' numbers of films through reference links and efn). Then we can put 60 million sales as minimal standard for the article. NextEditor123 (talk) 14:19, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To be blunt: this is a pretty poor article, which is unfortunately par for the course when it comes to our box office list articles. Apart from List of highest-grossing films, which is a WP:Featured list, they are basically all mediocre-to-bad. Many of them look more like somebody's personal hobby project than an encyclopaedic article, and this is one of them. The problem in this case, as in so many others, is that the sources we would need to turn this into a quality article don't really exist. Creating this article was misguided in the first place. Wikipedia is not a box office database, and when we are unable to cover a topic like this properly we should simply refrain from trying and inevitably failing.

As to the issue with the number of entries: there are over a hundred entries with over 100 million tickets sold. That's already WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Again, Wikipedia is not a box office database and we are WP:NOT supposed to just present a whole bunch of statistics. Compared to 80 million or 60 million, at least 100 million has the benefit of being a nice, round number that isn't overly conspicuous as a threshold (I would be more inclined to raise the threshold to 200 million to make the list less indiscriminate than to lower it). I do agree that the single-market figures are excessive, but then again, so is the entire article. TompaDompa (talk) 19:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New article

i working on a new article if anyone wants to come help find it at Draft:List of animated films by Box office admissions Fanoflionking 22:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've started having a look at the new article, and am doing some formatting and cleanup for now. Maestro2016 (talk) 15:48, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I playing on moving the page in 48H if there any last changes go ahead and make it. Fanoflionking 12:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Territories col

Maestro2016 Do we need a Territories with known ticket sales section? It all within the ref/notes Fan Of Lion King 🦁 (talk) 11:47, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of films on the list have incomplete numbers and still need updating with more data from more territories, and there's still more films to add to the list as well. So having a territories column gives us a rough idea of which films have complete and incomplete numbers, and which still need updating. It makes it easier to organize and update the list with a territories column, rather than having to check the notes for each and every film. Maestro2016 (talk) 14:36, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dividing the list on country production sections.

If a list is considered overblown (WP:INDISCRIMINATE), we can actually devide it on country production sections (first list is for US/UK production, second is from China and etc.). It would make this article easier for a reading. NextEditor123 (talk) 23:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would not make the list any less indiscriminate. The only way to make it less indiscriminate—short of deleting it entirely—is to reduce the number of entries. TompaDompa (talk) 23:21, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dilwale Dulhania Le Jayenge

Hi, This movie should certainly be included in this list, as the longest-running film in the history of Indian cinema, but I couldn't find a figure. Any idea? Yann (talk) 08:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]