Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of modernized adaptations of old works


 * 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 draftify (move to Draft:List of modernized adaptations of old works). There is a clear consensus that the current state of the article is not up to encyclopedic standards. However, there are two major camps in this discussion. The deletion position is that the article is far too broad in scope, and that the title is overly subjective. The keep and draftify arguments maintain that the article can be reworked given a tightening up of inclusion criteria, and since the AFD was initiated there has been a flurry of recent activity towards that end. The arguments on both sides have merit and were made in good faith. The number count on either side is about equal. Noting that deletion is generally held as the less preferable option if an avenue exists for further editing according to deletion policy, I am closing this as a move to the Draft namespace.  bibliomaniac 1  5  03:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

List of modernized adaptations of old works

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Fails WP:LIST and WP:FICTION, this is possibly also heavily unsourced on what modnerinzed adapations are based on old works. Pahiy (talk) 16:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete What is an "old work"? The word "old" means different things to different people. Furthermore, this list would be absurdly long if we include all modern adaptations of "older" works. To put it succinctly, this is an ill-defined list that should not exist. &#8213; Susmuffin Talk 20:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)
 * KEEP Rename List of modernized adaptations of older works or you can use the word "previous" if you prefer, or even "original". The articles linked to tell what classic work it was based on.  D r e a m Focus  05:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)  Clarifying my statement: You don't need a reference for an item on a list if the linked to article has a reference for the information mentioned.  Just a waste of time since they can click it and see it over there.   D r e a m Focus  18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete This list is an indiscriminate collection of everything from works ostensibly based on Roman myths, to works loosely connected with Shakespeare, to remakes of 80’s movies, to spinoffs featuring The Muppets. These things have practically nothing to do with each other, the list is ever-growing and is likely impossible to maintain, and establishing an inclusion criteria for it is impossible because the concept is so vague. Also, the fact that almost nothing in this list is sourced means tons of it is likely original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:31, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete No clear scope that isn't potentially gigantic. Even the "old works" themselves share little in common, aside from most being public domain. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 09:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete There is no clear definition of "old". Is this every work that is when remade set in a more recent time than when it is first made. Also no evidence that this is clearly a unified concept. How some of them qualify at all is also debatable, for example Disney did not try to set Aladdin in a modern setting, so that is highly questionable. The list is also basically unsourced, making us wonder how much origianl research it has. It has "Monsters versus aliens" without even trying to claim what it is based on. On the other hand it does not have the Miracle on 34th street remake, which was moved forward 40 years, which might not be a lot, but is more than some of the listed remakes did. Or does that not qualify because it is too much just a straight remake?John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep - this is a topic that clearly merits extended coverage here on the wikipedia. Some of those who are voicing "delete" opinions here have raised good points - every entry should be substantiated by an RS that explicitly says the modern work is based on a classic work, or reasonable equivalent.  But we don't delete articles on solid notable topics, just because the current version of the article is weak.  AFD is not supposed to be used as a goad for article improvement.  Sorry, the valid concerns of those who voiced delete belong on the article's talk page, not here.  Geo Swan (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Nominator, naysayers , , , , please look at this version of the article. I took fifteen minutes and added references to half a dozen of the Jane Austen adaptations, and then trimmed every entry in the list that didn't have a reference substantiating that it was a modern adaptation.  That version is not vulnerable to claims of original research.  I don't doubt that most of the entries in these lists could each have a substantiating reference, with a couple of minutes per entry's work.  Whoever started this article started from a very good idea, but they should have left the unreferenced entries in their rough notes, until they could add a reference.  It is a newbie mistake, and, in my opinion, a highly forgiveable one.  You guys, on the other hand, should have known better, and known that we don't delete articles on notable topics merely because the current version of the article has problems.  Please try harder to bear this in mind if you are going to continue to weigh in in AFD discussions, OK?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * This is not a good idea. It is a mixing of so many different things that there is no coherent one point. Is it modernization in style or setting How "old" is old? We need things that are definable, and nothing here is definable. This is not a defined topic, it has no clear definition, no agreed on inclusion criteria and is a total and complete mess. Alsoo, I am tired of being attacked for looking at articles as they are. The fact that a list sprouted up without good sourcing should be held against it. If we want Wikipedia to be useful and reliable we need to stop letting junk like this just sit around indefinately because it allegedly can be improved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Excuse me? Are you really arguing that when an RS says a modern work is an adaptation of a classic work this is not sufficient to rely on in an article?  Geo Swan (talk) 13:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * WRT your tiredness over "being attacked for looking at articles as they are"... Well, don't WP:BEFORE and other policies and wikidocuments call on you to consider the notability of the underlying topic, not the current state of the article?  I suggest asking you to comply with our policies, supporting wikidocuments, and longstanding conventions is not an "attack".  Geo Swan (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment made multiple excisions to the article, even though they had already called for its deletion., ,   In theory our policies allow any contributor to edit any article, even when an AFD is active and they have already called for its deletion.  However, since voicing a delete opinion is supposed to mean they think it is impossible to improve the article so it measures up to our inclusion standards, those who have voiced a delete almost never then go on and try to improve the article in question.  One will, occasionally, see someone who has voiced a delete make an edit when they think that there a problem, like a terrible BLP violation, that can't wait for the AFD to be closed.  Editing an article, at AFD, after you have called for its deletion is almost always a terrible idea, as it erodes good faith.  Those who want to see an article kept are encouraged to try to improve the article, by addressing the stated concerns of those who voiced delete opinions.  We don't want disappointed newbies to think "If only those guys who stated delete hadn't been edit-warring with me, I could have addressed some of the concerns stated in the AFD, and the article would have been kept.  I added three more references and restored three entries JPL excised.  JPL, quit doing that please.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC) also
 * If Aladdin fits in the scope of this article it is much broader than many people think it is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I asked you, above, whether we could not rely on RS stating a modern work was an adaptation of a classic work. Your comment above is not an answer to that question.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see any evidence that there is agreed upon limits of what is and what is not an adeaptation. Plus my issue here is with the issue of what is "modernized". Not all adaptations of older works are inherently "modernized". Is Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman a "modernized" adaptation of The Adventures of Superman?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, are there RS that says it is an adaptation? As above, I think the list is essentially worthwhile, provided each entry has an RS that explicitly says the more recent work is an adaptation of the earlier work.  This would leave out all entries which might have been adaptations, but no RS ever bothered to say so.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Rename List of modernized adaptations of older works. The list serves its purpose per WP:LISTN criteria Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep This needs clearer inclusion criteria but I think it can be reasonably well defined and sourced as a decent list both individually and as a group. I removed a number that are remakes of recent works or are only inspired by a previous work, not necessarily modernized adaptations of the same story; this needs a lot of clean up but should be a fair topic. Category:Modern adaptations of works by William Shakespeare is relevant. I have also removed the non-notable web series; having a WP article is a reasonable criterion to keep it discriminate in this instance. Reywas92Talk 20:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment - if the article is kept, it will need a serious and major overhaul. The criteria for inclusion at this point is just mainly original research and very dubious claims of adaptions. Several entries on the list claim "loosely based" or "very loosely based" or "influenced" — is that enough to be considered a modernized adaptation of an old work. Just to cite a few dubious claims – Mighty Morphin Power Rangers - many elements are based on The Wizard of Oz, really? So MMPR is a modernized adaptation of an old work. Rugrats - influenced by Look Who's Talking and Sugar and Spike, but yet when you click through to the article on Rugrats, it says it's based on "antics of Klasky and Csupó's (creators of show) infant children and also pulling inspiration from The Beatles, how is Rugrats then a modernized adaptation of an old work. A.I.: Artificial Intelligence - self-referential version of The Adventures of Pinocchio set in a post-apocalyptic North America, click through to that article and it says - loosely based on the 1969 short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long", and then an editor adds a reference that describes it as a "Pinocchio-esque quest", so that makes it a modernized adaptation of an old work, in spite of the article stating it being based on a short story. There are several entries on the list that are adaptions, but far too many that are original research, unsourced and dubious at best. At the minimum, each entry should be sourced that clearly states it is an adaption of an older work. Isaidnoway (talk)  10:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Roger Ebert said Paging through the movie's press kit, I came across this quote attributed to Amy Jo Johnson, who plays Kimberly, the Pink Power Ranger: " `Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie' is a mix between `Star Wars' and `The Wizard of Oz.' " I wonder if Amy Jo actually said "TM" when she was delivering that wonderfully fresh and spontaneous quote, which is so much more involved than anything she says in the movie. More to the point, I wonder if she has ever seen "Star Wars" or "The Wizard of Oz." So that one should be removed.  Any thing mentioned that isn't in the linked to article should be removed.  If you find a reference proving it, then put it in the main article.   D r e a m Focus  20:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. (edit: Draftify, see below.) Unclear title, ill-defined scope, original research, and a maintenance nightmare. The topic itself may be useful to have something about, but not in this form. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 01:50, 05 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Maintenance concerns is not a valid reason for deletion. If you see anything you believe is original research, not backed up by referenced material in the main article, then remove it.  Would you prefer a title such as List of entertainment media based on previous media?   D r e a m Focus  02:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Isaidnoway explained it well. If I were to delete original research, most of the list would be gone. That title is better, but that's a low bar to clear. Like I said, I believe this topic has merit, but I think it needs an expanded introduction and/or a section about why it's useful and relevant as a literary pursuit. I think this is a case for WP:BLOWITUP. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 04:05, 05 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you think of a single article that has ever been blown up and started over again, instead of just destroyed and abandoned? Better to just keep going through entries and purging those that don't belong there.  I have tagged it for Rescue so hopefully more will come to help.  These things do get coverage in reliable sources, they reviewing something they always mention what it was based on.   D r e a m Focus  05:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The difference between exploding it and merely giving it an exhaustive overhaul is semantic. I would happily choose to keep this once that work gets done (and I was unfamiliar with the Article Rescue Squadron until you mentioned it, and I commend their efforts as well as yours), but I don't believe this article is acceptable in its current form. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ (kaw) │ 06:57, 05 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with those below that draftifying is the best option here, and eventually splitting into multiple lists that each have an actual scope. I still believe that most of the content of this list is unsalvageable, but as a draft it will be useful as a starting point for selecting entries for those new lists. I would also be willing to help, though I'm not sure how much I can meaningfully contribute since I've never been great at finding sources. —&#8288; 烏&#8288;Γ  (kaw) │ 23:13, 09 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration.  D r e a m Focus  03:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge into whichever lists might be more appropriate, if it's not there already). Draftify (changed !vote, explained below) This list in its current form, or in the version of it presented above by, does not seem sufficiently well-defined to be useful. I'm sure there are plenty of sources that describe things as 'a modern version of a classic', or 'a modern retelling of an old story', but I don't think those sources are using that language in a sufficiently well-defined way as to make it valid to list them for our purposes - they're describing, rather than defining, the subjects. In its current version, it's a hodgepodge of everything from Roald Dahl to Homer; even in Geo Swan's vastly reduced version, it was still going from Bernard Shaw to Sophocles. I could see the point in having better defined lists - List of films based on Victorian novels, List of adaptations of plays by Shakespeare, that sort of thing, and so any of these entries could be added to lists like that if they are missing from them, but a list of new versions of old stuff seems too poorly defined to satisfy LISTN to me. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Expanding on thoughts above - another way this content might be saved/recreated would be to have better definition in the type of new versions we're talking about. This list currently mixes up stuff like West Side Story, a direct retelling of Romeo and Juliet in a modern setting, with The Rocky Horror Picture Show, a farce that draws somewhat from themes in Frankenstein, but in no way follows the original story. It includes Jesus Christ Superstar, which is not even modernised (it just contains some anachronisms for effect), and Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead, which again is not modernised in any way, just retold from a different perspective; but then it also has Rugratz, because it is apparently merely influenced by Look Who's Talking - which is already in a modern setting, there's no modernisation going on there. The film Matilda is in there too - that's not modernised, the film was released only 8 years after the book was published, it was just set in America to appeal to a wider audience. It's not just the 'old stuff' that is poorly defined - it's the 'This is a list of' side of things as well - I can imagine several useful, well-defined lists being put together from the stuff that's in this one, but this doesn't know what it wants to be. Girth Summit  (blether)  10:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Another odd entry is Aladdin. The biggest difference between Alaaddin and its source material is not that it has anachronisms, but that it is set in Arabia instead of in China as is the source story (although the source story of Aladdin set in China has lots of details many would argue fit better with Arabia than China, but it explicitly says it is set in China).John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that the trouble is that everything in it could be seen as an odd inclusion, because it doesn't define what it's supposed to be a list of. Is it things that follow the story of X but in a modern setting? Or modern adaptations (loosely defined) of X? Or things that were influenced by/drew inspiration from X? At the moment it's all of the above, before we even get into defining what 'X' is... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  13:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
 * There is also the factor we have things like Miracle on 34th Street and Sabrina, which are both updated maybe 30 to 40 years when remade. Even Saturday's Warrior at least the 1988 film which is often seen as a work that went from being made and set in the early 1970s to being made in the early 21st-century but still set in the 1970s has at least its first film make with details that make it no earlier than 1978, when it was first made in 1971. Come to think of it, Superman is first set in the 1930s, yet he is brought forward to the 2010s in Man of Steel. I know that has nothing on the time change from Romeo and Juliet to West Side Story, but what is the amount of movement we need for it to count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)


 *  Keep Draftify as a notable list per WP:NOTESAL since "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". This does not mean that the current version is sufficient. We do need better inclusion criteria, and that should be discussed on the talk page. Sometimes we deal with list topics for which it can be difficult to determine listings, like in the matter of genre classification. I suggest giving editors an opportunity to discuss criteria and to revise the article without the pressure of deletion. If the list does not appear sufficient to others despite established criteria and clean-up to reflect that criteria, it can be re-nominated. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , genuinely sorry if I've missed something, but where have the things on this list been discussed as a group or set? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  22:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , no problem, I'm glad to answer. I was looking at coverage outside Wikipedia before I posted above. First, in the current list, references #1, #15, and #17 list suitable adaptations. I see similar such lists in various search engine tests (using different keywords) like, , , , , (#5), , ,  (maybe). After some mulling, I think the list should include "classics" or "classic works" in the title because that seems to be the general source material. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 01:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. To be honest though, sources like those really underscore my concern that the scope of this list is too poorly defined. If we look at the first three:
 * Barnes and Noble starts out with a number of actual modernised adaptations of old stories - and then at the end it throws in Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West. Even the source itself accepts that it doesn't really belong - it's not modernised at all, it's a retelling from a different character's perspective.
 * Flavourwire talks about Wide Sargasso Sea, which is neither modernised nor and adaptation - it's an entirely original story, using characters from Jane Eyre; a prequel, in modern parlance. It includes Lavinia, a story which is set in the world of Virgil's Aenied - it's not modernised, it's just a retelling of the story from the perspective of Aeneas's wife. In includes His Dark Materials which, although the author admits he is heavily influenced by Milton, is in no way a 'modernised adaptation' of it.
 * Off the shelf is no better. We've got On Beauty, which our article admittedly describes as being 'loosely based on' Howards End, but then we also have The Hours, which 'draws inventively on the life and works of' Virginia Wolf, rather being an adaptation of her work, and it includes The Sixteenth of June, which it describes as 'a nod towards' Joyce's Ullyses. If we're going to allow things that have 'a nod' towards older stuff, it would be hard to exclude any work of modern literature from the list!
 * I come back to the question - what is it that we're listing here? I could get behind quite a few different ideas for lists of this type - an exhaustive list of works derived from the writings of Jane Austin might be interesting (and it would be quite lengthy in itself); a list of prequels and sequels of classic works (along the lines of Wide Sargasso Sea) would be well-enough defined, and interesting; a list of works that imagine a classic story from a different character's perspective would be great (Rosencratz and Guildenstern are Dead, Lavinia, Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West, or Atwood's The Penelopiad would all fit nicely into that). What we shouldn't have, which is what this article appears to be, is a list of 'New works of fiction that have some sort of connection to something older'. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  08:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understand your wariness. I am curious to know if "classic works" is the best foundation to have. Are we dealing with any non-classics here? As for describing the nature of these adaptations, I acknowledge that there is not a consistent and singular term for these. I agree that the lists you suggest are great. But if we have a list of works from a different character's perspective, why not a list of works in a different setting? Surely there are some works that are updated in terms of inclusivity that make identifying the work having "a different character's perspective" a somewhat tricky area too. I think this list topic is worth trying to salvage through some actual discussion first. The list has been around a long time (since 2004) and has apparently had over 200 editors edit it, so I think there is a sourceable approach to it. I agree that we need solid inclusion criteria to exclude sourcing that are merely stating nods and inspirations. Ponyo, for example, is one of those that I would drop. While The Little Mermaid had some influence on that, that's really all that it was. Where a film like Clueless is a sourceable lock. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 12:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * , I think that there are a lot of non-classics on the list - it's a subjective term naturally, but I don't personally consider Look Who's Talking to be quite in the same "classic works" territory as Pride and Prejudice.. But yes - I absolutely agree that a list of works where a classic story has been put into a modern setting would be totally valid. I'm voting delete because that isn't what this list is, and it doesn't look from the lead's description that that's what it's supposed to be. The lead starts by saying that it's a list of modernised adaptations (e.g. Bride and Prejudice, or West Side Story), and where the creator says that's what it is I think that would be an uncontroversially worthwhile thing; then, in the next sentence, it says the list also includes things where the author is trying to get around copyright by making enough changes. That seems to be a different thing to me - surely that should be a separate list?
 * Then, when you actually look at the contents of the list, we see that it conforms to neither of the two separate things that the lead sets out - as discussed above, we have a massive hodgepodge of works which are more or less related to something old, including even stuff like the film of Matilda, which is pretty much a straight-up film version of a book, released just a few years after the book was published - if that's includable, we might as well add every film that has ever been made of any novel.
 * One possible alternative to deletion that I could get behind might be to draftify, and then piece together several properly defined lists out of what we have here? Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  14:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking exactly the same thing about Matilda. I agree with you that the list is a hodgepodge. A list this old, with a lot of different hands on it -- there was no plan for this, essentially. I suppose I'm trying to see its potential because there seems to be a lot to work with. In my experience, a new tone has to be set. For example, List of film director and actor collaborations used to be this monstrosity, now it's more refined.
 * I'm fine with draftifying and have changed from keep to that. It would properly put the burden on editors who want to present this list topic in a better form. (Since sometimes some AFDs end with keeping articles but needing to improve them and never actually doing that, leading to a second round invoking WP:TNT.) I did this somewhat with List of film accents considered the worst, which led to an article with a redefined scope. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 14:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I've talked myself into changing my own !vote! I wouldn't want to see this list in its current form remain in article space, or for it to be reinstated with minor changes after draftification, but if the entries on it would help editors to put one or more better-defined lists then I have no problem with it being draftified rather than deleted. !Vote changed above accordingly. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It will be an interesting thing to tackle. Pinging -- would you consider draftifying as well? If we refine the scope and present it well and with sources, we can recreate a new version in the mainspace. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Just noting that I'd be willing to be involved in putting one or more new versions together, and in discussing what the new versions should be - having put so much thought into this discussion, and never having done much work on list articles before, I think this would be quite interesting. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:script;color:blue;"> (blether)  15:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete or possibly DRAFTIFY. List article without properly defined inclusion criteria. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)
 * Delete. This is clearly original work. The definition itself of the subject is pure original-work, naturally without any supporting reference. It's an introduction to a text that's full of arbitrary, unsourced listings. Even the sources that are supposed to support inclusion are one critic's or writer's opinion, i.e. nothing fundamentally, solidly conclusive: What to one person looks like a "source" to another might look like homage or partial inspiration. This list actually operates in the opposite direction Wikipedia lists are meant to go: It confuses and misinforms rather than educate. -The Gnome (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The premise of your comment violates WP:NPOV. Adaptations of works are scalable in terms of fidelity. To say that Clueless is not a "fundamentally, solidly conclusive" adaptation of Emma is patently false because reliable sources overwhelmingly say the opposite of what you say. It is reductionist to say that Wikipedia only deals with cold, hard facts. Wikipedia follows the sources in their assessment of such connections. If there is due weight of sources saying that Clueless is such an adaptation of Emma, we follow that. If there is due weight of sources saying that a work is classified in so-and-so genre, we follow that. Who cares about the unsourced listings? It's not an AFD argument. Unsourced listings can be removed or sourced with the proper weight. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it.</b> 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.