Talk:Lists of 2012 box office number-one films

Trying to create a compromise
I'm trying out this page in order to settle a compromise for the page 2012 in film to make it bias free and have it in specific years in order to make many readers as happy as possible, regardless how redundant this page may be. I also think we should create this kind of page in every other specific years.
 * TEST LINK: Talk:Lists of 2012 box office number-one films

What do you guys think about this article? BattleshipMan (talk) 17:31, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this idea seems fine (I had suggested it in the first place), and that the new template is good as well. I was just wondering why that template is able to show up even though it apparently doesn't exist if I try to go to its page. Alphius (talk) 00:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's because they need to be created and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Terrible idea. This page is entirely duplicative of Lists of box office number-one films, an article in no way large enough to warrant forking. Should be merged post-haste, if not outright AFDed. GRAPPLE  X  00:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, it's cretainly necessary because we need something to create list of number one box-office films in each year since we need to be specific about the years of the films released in those countries. It will make things easier for anyone who would want to know about the number-one films in whatever country with cretain years, like 2012 in film, without having to go Lists of box office number-one films which only has countries in different years. That way, in whatever year the films are released, we will use it other pages like 2011 in film, 2008 in film, etc. without without having bias issues from other countries that have those films release and such to anyone using the English wikipedia, which is why I'm trying something to settle this problem without frustrating many readers. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I still fail to see what is frustrating about navigating Lists of box office number-one films. It's not a large list and it's entirely simple to get from top to bottom. This list serves only to solve a problem that doesn't exist. GRAPPLE   X  17:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem with the Lists of box office number-one films because they have multiple years in different countries and we need to be precise about the years of movies in pages like 2012 in film, which Lists of box office number-one films doesn't. Even Alphaius agrees with the idea and TheMovieMan222 states on the talk page of 2012 in film that he/she agrees that specific 2012 films should be linked to the 2012 page instead of a broad year-by-year page linked to a specific year. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:14, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * There is zero actual difficulty in finding what you want or need on Lists of box office number-one films. Searching within the browser for the year you want is entirely realistic, while dividing the page into countries (or in a sortable table as Betty proposed before) offers a more useful layout in terms of organisation. It is honestly not hard to find the relevant 2012 lists on the extant page and to be frank you're making a heap of nonsense out of it. Lists of box office number-one films is completely and utterly a simple task to navigate, needlessly complicating things will not help anyone. GRAPPLE   X  22:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Then I strongly suggest we do an overhaul on it and change the section from countries to years and put up the year section on that page. For example, we should year sections on it and put the countries with films released that year on it. Afterwards, we can link the Lists of box office number-one films with the 2012 section. It's apparent to many readers that we should be precise about the year of number-one box office films released. Therfore, films released in specific years should be linked to the that year of film pages precisely instead of a broad year-by-year page. That's my suggestion to keep the readers statisfied. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * But it is precise. It is in no way vague or misleading. Finding the relevant information for each given year is an entirely simple task that really doesn't need all this effort given over to it. GRAPPLE   X  13:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, the overhaul BattleShipMan suggested above might be a better idea than making separate pages for each year. Either that could be done to the main Lists of box office number-one films article, or a new Lists of box office number-one films by year article. That way, there aren't a lot of extra articles covering separate years, but we could still link to sections for each year directly (in the same article). Alphius (talk) 15:30, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Instead of creating further redundant content, why not just use a sortable table as has already been suggested? Two of the same thing helps no one, actually using the original content instead of moving away from it is the constructive solution. But then why be constructive when we could just make redundancy after redundancy? GRAPPLE   X  15:48, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * We should try something like that as Alphius advised. It's either we charge the sections of the main Lists of box office number-one films from country to years and we could still link to sections for each year directly in the same article or create a new Lists of box office number-one films by year article and divide the sections for each year precisely. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:01, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, I think I might be seeing what Grapple X is saying now. Having a sortable table would be sort of like having the two separate articles, but in one article. I don't know...is there any way something could be done that would satisfy everybody? Since it's just been the three of us debating this (with a couple comments from Betty Logan), is there any way we could get anyone else's input? Alphius (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It seems like the sortable table idea would be less redundant and would only require one article, but that the two-article idea would allow links to go directly to whichever country or year is required. So both options have positive and negative aspects, I guess. Alphius (talk) 22:40, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The issue is how to setup the direct link to the precise years in films without going to a broad country-by-country page. I think we should either do the overhaul on the Lists of box office number-one films or created the new Lists of box office number-one films by year. Like you said Alphius, both opinions could have positive and negative aspects. But clearly, we will need to settle a compromise with making direct links to years of films released without going a broad country-by-country page and make it bias free as possible. That's it. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Get everyone who are discussing this issue on this talk page. We need to discuss this debate. BattleshipMan (talk) 23:25, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there any way that one article could be made that allows links directly to either countries or years? If not, I'd still lean toward the two-article option. But again, we should probably get other people's opinions. Alphius (talk) 04:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * It may have to get down to the two-article option if we can't reach an agreement to allow links directly to either countries or years. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This was my suggestion of a sortable table: . However I have no fundamental opposition to switching the primary sort key, so we can anchor the year sections. I still have a preference for keeping the table sortable though for readers who want to search by country:

You can then access each section with a dated link i.e. Talk:Lists of 2012 box office number-one films. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Duly noted your thoughts, Betty. You're clearly the mediator of this debate. We should be specific about the links of years of film. That's one of the issues for readers. 2012 in film should be linked to the 2012 films rather than the board country-by-country page. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added anchors to each year section, so you can patch in to the year section in the table by using a link. I've added a test link to the 1998 section right at the top of page, and if you click on that it will take you to the 1998 section. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Judging by this solution idea, maybe we should do a test link on the 2012 in film. We shall set up the test anchor on Lists of box office number-one films with the 2012 sortable table on that article while the link on 2012 in film in the Highest-grossing film section could say lists of 2012 number-one box offices film on that link. What do you think? BattleshipMan (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A 2012 link would in exactly the same way as the 1998 link, so I don't see why another test link is required. It won't work any differently to the test I've already set up, but if you want to set up more tests by my guest. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I was thinking that we can use the sortable table for anyone who wants to search by year and country. But I think we should linked them by year and set up sections by year, linked them with precise years to whatever year in film. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:17, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That's what I've set it up to do. If you click on the 1998 test link at the top it will go to the start of the 1998 section. You can link to any other year in the same way. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, set up the sortable table on Lists of box office number-one films for now. But I think we should replace the sub-sections from countries to years. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)


 * In practical terms, sortable tables need to steer clear of rowspan as it'll break rows when sorted. Sort the fields by country first I think, but anchors can be set in the year fields. I think (don't quote me on this) that a URL, rather than a wikilink, can be used to link to a table that's been pre-sorted one way or another. GRAPPLE   X  00:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you be a be bit more specific about what you mean by "it'll break the rows"? In my browser at least they appear to sort correctly. If the rows aren't sorting correctly for you it may be a browser bug that we can report and get fixed. As for organising by country rather than year, that would mean we wouldn't be able to link in to the appropriate year section which seems to be what Battleship is arguing for; I've added an anchor to each year section so he can link to each year section in the table, which we won't be able to do if it is organised by country. Personally I don't mind whether it is sorted by country or year, since it seems trivial to search by either with a sortable table. Betty Logan (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * When there's multiple columns in a table using rowspans, cells can sometimes switch places between columns in a row when sorted. If you want I can dig up an old version of some tables I'd worked on when we discovered this to show you, but it's best to repeat the cells rather than spanning them. GRAPPLE   X  01:46, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Here. Scroll to the "Albums" table, and try sorting any of the columns, you should see what I mean. GRAPPLE   X  01:48, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but it doesn't seem to happen in the table above. Maybe the bug doesn't occur in two columns or less? Betty Logan (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That said, I don't have any feelings either way on the matter. If you'd prefer to get rid of the row spanning it can be easily accommodated. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * So is that what was decided, then? Are you making the table to put on the article? (I just thought I'd check, since no one has posted anything here for a few days.) Alphius (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not really for me to decide, I've just put forward a potential solution. The main disagreement was between Grapple and Battleship, so if they are happy with the sortable table in the example above we can move along with that. If they don't agree then they'll have to get wider project input to determine the outcome. Betty Logan (talk) 01:24, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm happy with any solution that eliminates the desire for articles like this one which are whole duplicative; a sortable table is fine by me. GRAPPLE   X  01:27, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Battleship agreed above, so I've restructured the list as a sortable year. I think I've rounded up the errant lists and templates and redirected them. Betty Logan (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me, although I had thought part of the argument was about wanting to link directly to both countries and years (and it only seems to link directly to years). Someone will need to go back and change the links in the "Highest-grossing films" sections of each year to link to the appropriate place on this list. I've only done that for 2012 and 2011 (so far, at least). Alphius (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * May we suggest do the tune up of the link of the List of box office number-one films on the year of film pages. The links on in the see also section of the highest-grossing film section should be like List of box office number films in 2012 since it has List of box office number-one films in the See also part of it. But I don't know to do that with the see also template. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:42, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

If you want to use piped links you need the See also2 template.
 * gives
 * gives

Betty Logan (talk) 07:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC)