Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film sequels by box-office improvement


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

List of film sequels by box-office improvement

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The main premise of this list---measuring the box office "improvement" of a film compared to its preceding film---appears to be an exercise in WP:SYNTH. A secondary premise of this list looks to be documenting the box office records for the Xth film in a series, but it's not clear why that's a defining characteristic by which to compare film receipts. A third type of information in this list is the "progression of record", i.e. who was the record holder over time, but there are no sources to verify this information (the cited references are to the box office receipts, but that does not by itself prove that a subsequent film was the record *breaker*, merely that it had a larger box office take). Furthermore, notes on the talk page that it's a bit of WP:OR and SYNTH to place some of these films into series with each other, and in what ordinal position within those series. Is Captain America: Civil War the 3rd film in the "Captain America" series or the 13th film in the "MCU" series? At its core, this list wants to carve out "sequels", in various senses, as somehow distinct from non-sequel films and examine their box office profits but I don't think this is a defining characteristic about films that passes WP:SAL or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep. Some of it is synthesis (nth sequel) and should be deleted, but sequel box office analysis is done a lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Would you support removing all of the other information besides just the film-to-direct-sequel tables? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure. Only the first two tables are worth keeping. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * These are the tables in the chart that I have the biggest problem with keeping and would be ok with them being deleted. I think these are likely OR or SYNTH. I don't recall seeing any charts published to show a list of films with the biggest improvement. Yes, there are charts showing comparison but not comparing those comparisons. I did note in the Film Facts book that it did show Austin Powers as the best by improvement (presumably using US grosses rather than worldwide) but I think it is a bit of a stretch to generate a table like this. This is why I cut the table down from the mass list that it was as it wasn't really supportable. I would be happy for these two tables to be deleted and for it just to show the top grossing sequels, as these are direct from the highest-grossing lists of all-time published and The Numbers has a similar chart, as well as the position ones as again, these are direct from the charts and Variety has published comparisons for third, fourth, second films in a series in the past. I think the history is important too otherwise, as with many other lists of Wikipedia, it just becomes a list of current things and ignores the past. If the suggestion is to only keep the first two tables, I would vote to delete the whole article.Sudiani (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * After looking over those first two tables, I would just combine them into one, as the criteria differentiating them are rather arbitrary. Here's another article/list (from The Hollywood Reporter): "29 Sequels That Outgrossed the Original Movies (Photos)". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * TompaDompa did try it combined but I think one table is a mess with two criteria driving what appears in it. I think it is better separated to understand the criteria for inclusion in each list. The only way I see it working as one table is to have it by a certain gross differential AND a certain percentage, however, this likely means that you only show the highest-grossing which is not really the point of the comparison. If I were to choose one chart over the other, I prefer the percentage increase one.Sudiani (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you want to retain two artificial, arbitrary criteria. As long as there's a reliable source discussing sequel bucks vis a vis the original's box office, the pair can have an entry. If the list gets too long, it can be split up into sublists, per SOP. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I would, however, change the title to List of film sequels by box office, as flops are as notable (if not more so) than successes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Clarityfiend has found reliable sources covering this.  D r e a m Focus  10:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per Clarityfiend's sources. Box Office Mojo also publishes analyses like these all of the time. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep As I added some of the newer tables, let me explain the reasoning and the sources behind these. I'm not entirely clear what this SYNTH argument is but don't think it particularly applies here. As now, box office charts of the highest-grossing films have been published for almost 90 years. Based on those, especially Variety's annual lists of the highest-grossing films of all time, it is relatively easy to see which were the highest-grossing sequels every year. Now that sites like Box Office Mojo exist, it is easier to see throughout a year where sequels placed so you can look at the archived records on the Wayback Machine to see the placing of the sequels during 2015. I started off by posting a chart that Variety published based on data from EDI showing the top grossing fourth chapters from the 1990s. As later data is available, it is relatively simple to take the data from the highest-grossing sequels since then to update the chart and all can be supported by looking either at Variety's lists of all-time top grossing films or from archives from Box Office Mojo. The two areas, where it is harder to provide sources is the fact that the Variety's earlier records are for domestic grosses rather than worldwide grosses, however, are a good indication of the highest grossing-sequels worldwide at certain points in time in history and so far all have worldwide data, possibly with the exception of the Bells of St Mary where there is a worldwide rental figure of $10m but some sources (inc Wikipedia) show a US gross of $20m. The other issue is where a sequel appears in a series. With the current trend to have "universes" rather than just series it makes it a little harder and different sources group things together and separately so there is no real consensus as to where a film is placed but it is pretty obvious that something like the Hobbit trilogy can be treated as separate to the Lord of the Rings film and multiple sources support these and this was the reasoning with the intro to explain this but is based on how BOM and The Numbers group things. Also, if it is decided to keep, please can we agree a consensus for a name change. I suggested List of film sequels by box office. Not that I can provide an online source as the online version on Internet Archive is an older edition, but the 2001 edition of Film Facts (previously Guinness Book of Movie Facts and Feats) under sequels listed the most successful sequel in terms of improvement (Austin Powers at the time) and the highest-grossing sequel (Lost World and Star Wars Episode I) so these are lists that major books include.Sudiani (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The SYNTH argument is that even though box office takes for Foo and Foo 2: The Sequel are published, it's original synthesis to compare them in the absence of a reliable source making the comparison for you. Some of the commenters above suggest that film-to-direct-sequel comparisons are covered in reliable sources not infrequently but some of the other tables certainly aren't. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * The tables of the highest-grossing films published since the 1930s do that comparison. I appreciate that historic data tends to be US focused and would prefer if we used US grosses rather than worldwide as easier to support but worldwide data is available for most of these filmsSudiani (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing the existence of the data. I'm saying that reliable sources have to do the analysis; we as editors cannot do original research to make the comparison that has not been drawn by outside publications. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * No_original_research Simple math is fine.  D r e a m Focus  22:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure it is a calculation. It's just taking data from a list, like saying something is the second-highest-grossing film of all time or the highest-grossing Spielberg film. It's not SYNTH, it's just data from a chart. Here are some recent Variety articles, one discussing third films in a series and another looking at how later films perform although he presents the data as graphs rather than listing the films but it is giving the same sort of information about performance of films in a series and the downward trend which can be seen by the tables in the article with the fewer films reaching certain milestones — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiani (talk • contribs)
 * Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources (emphasis mine). I concede that there are some sources that compare individual pairs of direct sequels, but that does not give blanket license to trawl Box Office Mojo for every possible film dyad and claim that the comparison is "sourced". It's not. That's textbook original research. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. JOE BRO  64  22:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep I won't deny there are problems with this list (for example, is the record for highest-grossing 4th instalment really a thing?) but the box-office performance of sequels is clearly a notable topic with plenty of published writing on the subject (see this chart for example). The title of the article is arguably ill-fitting too. I really don't think scrubbing the whole article is the correct course of action. The subject (if not all the charts in the article) is clearly notable. This discussion needs to closed as a "keep" and a new one needs to be started on the talk page about what format the article should take and what information should be included. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I WP:Proposed deletion back when the article looked (and when I found it, it looked ). My main reason for doing so was that the underlying premise of the article at that time was comparing the improvements within one series to the improvements within another series, and no source making that comparison of comparisons had been presented. Since then, the focus of the article has shifted somewhat and it is no longer solely about the improvements from one installment to the next (though the title has not yet been changed to reflect that; my suggestion would be to rename this List of film sequels by box-office performance). I'm not sure if this is worth keeping—we have way too many box office lists as it is—but it really needs to be clarified what this list is supposed to be if it is to be kept. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep The subject of films having sequels improving or worsening at the box office is a topic that gets a ton of coverage.★Trekker (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.