Talk:Lists of works of fiction made into feature films

[Untitled]
Feel free to add. See Category:Films based on books for some fodder. Her Pegship 18:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Title
I think the title of this article is wrong, it should be List of fiction works made into feature films. The word fictional suggests that the works themselves are fictitious and do not exist so that the film is based on an imaginary book mentioned within another book. The companion artice is at List of nonfiction works made into feature films not List of nonfictional works made into feature films. Anyone agree? MeltBanana 20:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * As the article's mommy, I will be happy to change it. I use the term "fictional" interchangeably with "works of fiction" in my profession with impunity, but I understand the need for accuracy here. Thanks! Her Pegship 20:43, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * An additional thought. Looking down Lists of film source material this rather stands out against the naming used on the majority there (and elsewhere too). I'd suggest "List of films based on fiction works" (or just "fiction" or "fiction books"). This would also be in line with the name of the category: Category:Films based on fiction books. Obviously the important bit is the content (which is excellent - top marks all round) but that name does stand out a bit at the moment (I made a similar suggestion on Talk:List of TV shows made into films a while back but there are more issues with that name). Anyway just my fourpenneth. (Emperor 18:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
 * This list puts the source material as the first point of access, if you will; films based on fiction works, in addition to being the reverse concept of this list, already has its own category. There's no to correspond to, thus this list. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself)  20:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Isn't that because they are the same thing? Having two would be redundant. (Emperor 21:35, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Nope. One is a list/category of written works, one is a list/category of films. You dig? Her Pegship  (tis herself) 22:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I understand - what I'm saying is that you wouldn't produce both. Anyway just throwing in my suggestion. Your call in the end. (Emperor 22:17, 29 May 2007 (UTC))
 * I think I see what you're getting at. The same content is in both lists. If the list(s) were sortable as a table, then two lists would be redundant. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 23:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry I'm probably complicating this issue more than helping ;) I'll just explain my thinking and leave it for the main editors here to decide on things. So basically categories and lists aren't necessarily either/or. Lists are prefered as they are more flexible (you can red link entries and link inside other entries) and more easily policed. If you look at the other lists of films by source only the films tend to be listed as the entry itself should explain in more detail what the film is based on - e.g. List of films based on video games. You could in theory have two sets of lists - "films based on video games" and "videos games made into films" I'm not sure what the policy is but it'd be rather messy (and you'd have to try and monitor and maintain two with nearly the same information - the difference is you could have multiple films based on the same source material so videos games made into films would just say list "Tomb raider", doing it the other way allows you to be more fine-grained). Obviously if it was all in a database you could sort things whichever way you wanted but it isn't (possibly one of the places this system falls down I suppose). As this entry is linked in from Category:Lists of films by source and the category is Category:Films based on fiction books (all its sub-categories following that pattern) it makes sense for this to be "films based on fiction works". Hope that makes sense. (Emperor 00:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
 * If a list simply gives the title of the source material, without listing the adaptation, you would then have to go to the article to see which films/games/television media were based on it. That means the person who maintains the list would have to be sure the article about the adaptation has the information about the source material somewhere...and if an editor comes along and decides that information is irrelevant, or moves it to another article, then the list will have links that seem irrelevant. Again, this is a list of written media first. If it seems inappropriate to include this list among the "films based on" categories, then perhaps I should remove those categories. I originally thought it would be helpful but it seems to be messing people up. Cheers, Her Pegship  (tis herself) 00:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you have removed them from the categories. I wasn't suggesting that because although this isn't "List of films based on fiction works" it is as close as we've got. One of the things I was saying was that it might be it is close enough that nothing needs doing - I was tossing the idea for discussion. In fact one of the things I really want to avoid is someone creating a parallel "List of films based on fiction works" (at least for now or at least not without some broader consensus being reached - possibly between the various projects as it deals with the cross overs) and removing them from the categories might just lead to that. I'm not aware of anyone getting confused what I was suggesting was consistency with the other lists of films by source and the category itself. As I say this might not be seen as a big deal but I thought it was an issue worth raising. (Emperor 01:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC))
 * Don't worry, it wasn't done in a fit of pique or anything. Your comments seemed quite logical, so I felt it was logical to remove the categories. I think this list would work better as a "see also" reference within the film list articles. I'm really trying to preserve the character of this list as a literary article with a connection to film, but I'm also trying not to claim ownership of it and to remain flexible. I do appreciate your comments. Cheers! Her Pegship  (tis herself) 04:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Equally, it is very handy to have a few users with a good grasp on the scope and remit of the page as such entries can bloat with items that just don't fit (a lot of editors are just passing through and just throwing things in because they think it's the best fit). Obviously their is always the danger of WP:OWN, but that could crop up anywhere, and I see no sign of it here.
 * I suppose my problem is that while my arguement might be logical I am only working from precendent and didn't have anything to do with setting up things the way they are so I suspect I'm missing some key killer fact as to why it is the way it is. It could just be contingency - the first entry was "List of X based on Y" which set the precedent and it spread from there. Equally there may be a jolly good reason for it that I'm missing because as far as I can tell either way would be fine, it just happens that most entries I've seen conform to the other pattern leading to a slight lack of fit. As I say this might not be a big deal but it might make a difference (for example "Films based on fiction works" would go under "Lists of films" but this is a list of the fiction works, equally it is not strictly a list of films by source although it contains that information). That is why I raised the issue for discussion really. Thanks for the feedback. I'll have more of a ponder on this (although no clever ideas present themselves to me at the moment - nothing new there ;) ). (Emperor 14:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC))

Add More from
http://www.littleman.com/movies/categories/movies-by-category-Based-On-A-Novel-1-212212.html

there is no Peter Pan in the list.Vivek 01:54, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
 * That's on the List of plays made into feature films. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 20:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Date, format
Does the date correspond to the film or the source work? I was slightly confused and put the dates for the source work. Format: happy with current system? I'm curious as to which would look better: like it looks now vs. changing to a chart/table. Thanks. MikeBriggs 12:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The date should be for the film. Printed matter can have several copyrights, which is why I included the title and author only for the source; films have only one copyright date, so I include the year there as the most recognizable unique identifier. Thanks for asking.
 * As for tables, wellllll...lists are less code-heavy, easier to edit, and (to me) more attractive than tables, although I see you're quite the hand at it. I would prefer to keep it as a list, if you don't mind. Her Pegship 17:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * No problem (though I do find tables easier to understand). Date: Not completely sure what you mean that books can have more than one copyright and films can only have one (I normally use the date work first published or shown (film); true a book might be copyrighted in UK or USA at different times (countries used for example, I normally use first copyright), but then films can also have different UK or USA copyrights (countries used as example).  MikeBriggs 23:30, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There can be differences between print editions depending on the introduction, translation, restoration of "lost" portions, etc. etc. The vast majority of books in English don't have this issue, but - ! I guess the other reason I use the film date is that there can be more than one version of a film based on a book (see A Christmas Carol!), so the date distinguishes one version from another, whereas generally a book's original text/story doesn't change drastically (despite the variations mentioned). (I'm a librarian, so I run into this while cataloging.) Do you think the book dates are essential to this list? Her Pegship 00:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Proposed move to List of films based on novels
This move is suggested to bring this list inline with the other lists of media based on media. There is already a List of films based on short fiction, so why not a List based on novels? LA (T) @ 21:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I really do oppose such a move. The focus of this list is the source work, not the films (necessarily). If a film list is desired, certainly one can be created, but please don't change this to a "list of films". It's a list of written works. Her Pegship  (tis herself) 20:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

better suited as a chart
the current list layout is hard to read.--71.183.238.134 (talk) 06:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Alphabetical order
Many of the titles are / were in foreign languages. See the T section. I changed several links to avoid redirects, but these will have to be re-alphabetized.

The question is, will readers look for works like "80 Days Around the world" under E (for eighty) or L (for Le Tour du Monde). Not everyone in the English-speaking world took French, as I did. Fewer have taken German (Der Tod in Venedig, Thomas Mann - Death in Venice, 1971). --Uncle Ed (talk) 06:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

James Bond
Not all of the Bond films are in here. I'm thinking of Octopussy and The Living Daylights in particular, since they do contain near-direct adaptations of short stories from Octopussy and The Living Daylights. They aren't adaptations of the whole work, but they are more so than The Spy Who Loved Me (which is in here), and it can't be said to retain any more of its source novel than Bond and a vague description of two henchmen. If we do go down the anything-with-the-same-title road, then A View to a Kill and Quantum of Solace should also be included, since they are titled after the stories From a View to a Kill and Quantum of Solace from For Your Eyes Only. And if we choose to include any films with elements of the novels or short stories, then Licence to Kill would be included because of its use of elements from The Hildebrand Rarity. If no one has any objections, I will at least proceed to include Octopussy and Daylights, but as far as I'm concerned, the rest is up for debate. Sheavsey33 (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Crap, just noticed List of short fiction made into feature films. I guess you can ignore all this, and I'll take my concerns there. Sheavsey33 (talk) 11:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Splitting this article
This article is listed at Special:LongPages as the 3rd longest article on the whole of the English wikipedia.

It needs to be split.

If there are no objections, I volunteer to do this.

Azylber (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like there are any objections. Given what you are trying to achieve, titles beginning with "the" and such like ought to be included in T and the 1st letter of the next word. That way, people looking for a title can find it a bit more easily. Op47 (talk) 22:22, 4 January 2013 (UTC)