Talk:List of box office records set by Deadpool

List of box office records set by Deadpool is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
March 5, 2018	Featured list candidate	Not promoted

List of box office records set by Deadpool received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Lists

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles

Comics: Marvel / Films Low‑importance

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles

Low

This redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Related work groups:
/
	This redirect is supported by Marvel Comics work group.
	This redirect is supported by Comic book films work group.

Film: Comic book / American

	Film portal This redirect 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.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Worthy of an article?

I removed a bunch of "pseudo-records" based on concerns raised at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of box office records set by Deadpool (film)/archive1. Not much remains. The possibility of an WP:AfD nomination was raised there as well. What do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 23:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can't just unilaterally delete half of an article based on one person's opinion. If you think there is a concern with scope here, then please discuss it first. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:41, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't just one person's opinion – there was WP:CONSENSUS on the WP:FLC discussion that there was a problem of non-notable trivia comprising a large number of entries on the list. Even if it were just one person's opinion, that's known as being WP:BOLD – part of the WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. Now let's discuss the merits of the edit. TompaDompa (talk) 05:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay then, go ahead. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I share the concerns voiced in the WP:FLC discussion. A large number of the entries are non-notable trivia or "pseudo-records", and it's questionable if the rest is enough material to warrant a separate article. I'd suggest removing everything that needs more than two qualifiers (i.e. country/territory, rating, single day/weekend/etc., month, franchise, format, 2D/3D, etc. – so "highest-grossing film worldwide" would be 0 qualifiers, and "Highest IMAX 2D opening weekend gross for an R-rated X-Men film in February in North America" would be 7 qualifiers) and then considering whether an WP:AfD would be appropriate. I added qualifier counts. TompaDompa (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well we already have a problem here in that you apparently can't count. I suggest you give that edit another go, and look out for things such as Biggest IMAX opening weekend for an R-rated film ($16.8 million) which is an IMAX record with at most two qualifiers. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One for IMAX, one for opening weekend, one for R-rated, and one for North America. That's four. TompaDompa (talk) 00:07, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well if you're going to do it like that then of course there is going to be heaps. Looks to me like you are going out of your way to make it sound less noteworthy than it actually is. The fact is, most of these are pretty standard things to note at a film article, and I added a few extra to this list just to be complete. You just don't like the list apparently. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:11, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Which qualifier(s) do you disagree with? TompaDompa (talk) 00:35, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An IMAX record for February opening weekends is not too many qualifiers, that is a pretty basic and noteworthy record. Trying to split it all up and increase the count by ignoring context and common sense is obviously going to make it sound worse. This is clearly not going to be a whole list of straight-forward, single qualifier records such as "Highest grossing R-rated film", so if that is what you think is all that counts as noteworthy then you should just nominate the article for deletion, because that is not the scope of this page. This page is mostly for indicating R-rated and February records in both standard and IMAX formats and across the world, as those two aspects were significant with this film's success. No R-rated film had ever made anywhere near this much money before, and these sorts of numbers just didn't happen in February, so the fact that they did is very noteworthy and that is what this list is basically about. Anything that does not apply to that, like I said before, was added for completeness since a list like this should not be too overly specific. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:58, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the two of us will not reach WP:CONSENSUS on this. Pinging all users involved in either the peer review or the FLC discussion who have not yet weighed in on this discussion. @BeatlesLedTV, The Rambling Man, Courcelles, Mattximus, and PresN: please weigh in on this discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Test the principle and AFD it. Anything notable enough can go in the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:46, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that this article should be summarized and moved into the main Deadpool article. This is just a list of trivia and shouldn't have it's own page. Mattximus (talk) 13:16, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with TRM and Mattximus. It really is just a list of trivia that per WP:TRIVIA should be avoided. I would also say summarize the information and move it into the main page. BeatlesLedTV (talk) 21:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds to me that your suggestion is effectively a merge (and cleanup). I have added templates to that effect on both pages. TompaDompa (talk) 19:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would very much oppose a merge with the film article. That page has all of the box office information that it needs. This discussion needs to be about the merits of this article and whether it should exist in some form or not at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

After comparing this article and Deadpool (film)#Box office, I agree. All material worth merging to the main article seems to already be there. Hence, my suggestion would be to WP:BLANKANDREDIRECT to Deadpool (film)#Box office. TompaDompa (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RfC about redirecting

There is a clear consensus to redirect List of box office records set by Deadpool to Deadpool (film)#Box office. This has been done.
Cunard (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

Should this page be turned into a WP:REDIRECT to Deadpool (film)#Box office? Previous discussions can be found here and here. TompaDompa (talk) 22:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - On its own, I find this page to be a noteworthy list because of the large number of February and R-rating records set here, as well as the wide coverage. No film had made anywhere near as much money in February of with this rating before Deadpool, and I think there is a large enough potential audience for this list that will be interested in a full list detailing those facts to justify keeping it. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support the current list of contrived intersections is the very definition of trivia. Viewing statistics do not substantiate any claim of audience interest. Redirect to the relevant section of the main Deadpool article. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect – As noted in the previous discussions, most of the entries require several qualifiers to narrow the field enough to give this film the "record". One gets the impression that many of the combinations of qualifiers are post-hoc constructions designed to make Deadpool seem more record-breaking than it is. Without these "pseudo-records", there's not enough material to warrant a separate list. All notable entries on this list are already mentioned at the relevant section of the main article. TompaDompa (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect per TompaDompa’s remark on post-hoc “pseudo-record” puffery. “Biggest opening weekend for a film starring Ryan Reynold.” lol. —BLZ · talk 06:48, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support redirect Just because the data exists does not make the data notable. Nothing shows that this is notable.--Rpclod (talk) 13:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)(Summoned by bot)[reply]
Comment: Deadpool has indeed broke many records, right now the page may looks it should be redirected but with considerable edits it has the potential of a standalone article, and if not then I support redirect. Nauriya (Let's talk) 14:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC) (Summoned by bot)[reply]

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.