1383:
films but the source material is still the comics, even the storylines of some of the movies. I admit I haven't seen the show but if it's anything like
Arrowverse, several of the storylines (or at least significant elements) in the series but not the movies first appeared in the comics. Much of this is debatable. In some cases like The Legend of Tarzan, the source material is clearly the Disney version and not the works by Edgar Rice Burroughs. That should stay, based on the purpose of the article. But what to do with the Star Wars entries? Did all of those come from the films, or the books? I'll also note that the articles for several of these TV series state the series is based on the film, but even that statement is often uncited. I'll give this more thought before continuing much further, but I repeat, it's a mess.
1845:
don't agree with this not being a sequel, as it "follows the events" of the previous work. So it checks that criteria - it's even more related to the previous work than do shows like Buffy (which barely even mention some of the events of the film, while ignores others all together and is not considered part of its canon) or
Highlander which save one character appearing in both, has ignores all movies (including the first) and thus both don't check the second criteria written in the article
1533:
continuity), what if the article were arranged as "based on films as an original source" and "based on films as a derivative source" (or words to that effect)? That would draw some clear lines, would not be a magnet for those entries with relatively obscure source material, and would not require the degree of research we're discussing here to determine whether something really qualifies. Issues of continuity and tie-ins would be side notes rather than a defining characteristic.
307:
286:
112:
393:
375:
208:
190:
50:
1289:
of Oz/Oz Kids (most Oz books are in the public domain, so derivations can be freely made without referencing the heavily copyrighted elements of the 1939 movie). In all of these cases, the movie was popular enough to drive production of a TV series but it cannot be explicitly true in all cases that the TV series is "based on" the film -- they are based on the book, play, or whatever.
218:
102:
81:
21:
575:
1401:, they all "come from the films" – the novelizations themselves come from the films, so any TV series adaptation would also draw ultimately back to the films... The problem is when there's an earlier books/etc. source that led to a film adaptation that then led to a TV adaptation – most of these will actually be TV adaptations of the
1783:
Yeah, I do – because, by definition, it's not a "sequel" or a "prequel": it's at best described as a "parallel work" (i.e. taking place at the same time, and along side, the feature films). Now that may merit its own section, but a one-entry section in a "list" article strikes me as rather pointless,
1628:
The issue is that it's a "weird" situation. Is it "based on a film"? Or is it actually "part of a larger franchise"?... Maybe it's semantics, but I don't know how to categorize this one. I definitely think you can't call it a "prequel" or a "sequel". But it's not exactly an "adaptation" either... You
990:
These lists have a number of duplicate entries. These should all be eliminated. Either the TV series is a "prequel" or "sequel" to the movie in question, or it is a straight "adaptation" (aka. a "remake" or a "reimagining") – it can't be both. So an effort needs to be made with any duplicate entries,
1844:
You should avoid using phrases like calling someone not agreeing with argumentative, in so far as you might be the one being argumentative to their perspective. I don't agree with adding information to the lead that is not in the body. That's just bad article work, IMO (which the MOS agrees). I also
1763:
I'm not actively editing this so my caring-level isn't that high on this issue, but I don't buy into the dismissing of the guideline argument for no real exception case, which this really isn't, considering there are many other options like a prose section; defining the scope in a section of its own
1495:
And all of that is fine – for entries here, I just want to see a source say something like, "The TV series, which is adapted from the film..." or "The TV series continues the events of the film..." Just something along those lines – as long as it's sourced (or sourceable), it's fine. (It's just with
1467:
It all depends I guess what the scope of the article is. Is it "TV series that are 100% based on the film - the film being an original work"? Is it "TV series that are based on the film but the film can be based on a previous work"? Agents of SHIELD is of course based both on the film and the comics
1409:
series likely was an adaptation of the film, rather than of the original work... But, bottom line: Follow sourcing – if sources say "...TV series adapted from the earlier film..." we go with that, even if it's arguably wrong. If the sourcing says "...the TV series was adapted from ...", then we have
1887:
You do realize that what you are advocating is more OR than based on sources, right? Also, small nitpick, I just noticed that the section is not even titled "Sequels and prequel" but "Follow-ups and prequels", which again, SHIELD checks. So all 3 criteria listed it follows, while other shows in the
1288:
A good number of entries on this list are series that are arguably based on earlier works that are not movies (i.e. the series and movies are each based on the same source material), such as Bates Motel (the movie Psycho was originally a book), The Odd Couple (movie based on a play), and The Wizard
1480:
reprises his role as Phil
Coulson, which is an original character introduced in the films all the way back in the first Iron Man film. Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Jasper Sitwell, Sif, Peggy Carter, Timothy "Dum Dum" Dugan, Jim Morita, Dr. List, Matthew Ellis all reprising their character from the film.
1382:
What a mess. I agree with the
Exorcist comment because it's cited, but I disagree with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. The article isn't about being tied in to the films; the description at the top states "adapted from theatrical films". One could argue that the style and settings are influenced by the
936:
Star Trek should not be on this list in any form. The original property that was successful was a TV show, Star Trek, not the movie series. What's the point of this list if it's going to include things that are not TV shows based on films, but TV shows based on TV shows that were also separately
715:
I dont like the arrangement of "successful" and "short lived"Â : it seems quite POV. "Successful", as applied to the list as it stands, seems rather arbitrary. If "Successful" refers to longevity, then I have a real problem with some of these: I recall, "Clueless" was a "blink and you missed it"
1532:
Just to throw this out there... The current organization is around followups/prequels and adaptations -- I'm guessing the distinction is around the relative timeline, either before/after or effectively concurrent. Since the topic is "based on films" (i.e. the source material, regardless of
836:
at least the first series): bad guys kidnap a man's daughter and tell him they will murder her if he does not assasinate some politician for them. Artistic device of both: the story unfolds in 'real time' (1.5 hours in the movie, 24 hours in the TV series). I don't know if there's any formal
1804:
Again, you are moving the goal posts so suit your own preference. This list is not titled "List of television programs that are sequels or prequels to a film", but rather "based on films"; and the text of the article as I've shown above also does not say that, but actually spells it out
716:
series, as was "Honey I Shrunk the Kids", but if I moved them, I'd probably start the mother-of-all-edit-wars-that-don't-involve-German-names-of-towns-in-Poland. I think it should go back to a straightforward alphabetical listing, perhaps with years that the show ran.
1575:
I dunno, much of this is unsourced anyway, and the articles on the corresponding films often state if they are based on a play/story/book (or if no such statement is made, one can reasonably infer from the other text that the film is the original source). It would be
963:
Spawn also doesn't belong on this list. The animated series was based on the comic, which the movie was also based on, but the plot of the animated series is not a direct continuation of the movie. They only share elements because they share a common original source.
767:
I don't like it either. Myself, I would prefer to differentiate between the series what follow the events of the movie (like
Stargate SG-1) and therefore are sequels of it, and the ones who are remakes of the movie. I have time to implement it, if nobody opposes. --
1444:...said the storyline for the proposed series will be largely “autonomous” from the “Avengers” sequel feature that is also in the works. The series will revolve around the activities of the top-secret S.H.I.E.L.D espionage org featured in “Avengers.”
1675:(actually even after Iron Man 3), Pill Coulson, Nick Fury, Maria Hill, Jasper Sitwell, Sif, Peggy Carter, Timothy "Dum Dum" Dugan, Jim Morita, Dr. List, Matthew Ellis all reprising their character from the film with the same actor. The events of
1784:
though I wouldn't oppose one if consensus was in favor of creating one. Mentioning it as "exception" in the lede strikes me as the best approach, because in general the lede is the only portion of a "list" article with substantial prose. --
1809:. Both of these include SHIELD. Either change the title of the article or deal with it that some forms of media will not fit in to your own definition, and instead relay on RS who do say that SHIELD follows the events of the film.
1446:
So, is it based on the films? Is it not based on the films?... I can't tell. But I also can't tell if it's "adapted directly from the comics" either.... Honestly, it is unsourced, so I think I'm going to take it back out for now.
1018:. As the "Upcoming" section that had been added was completely without sourcing, I have removed (as other editors had attempted to do in the recent past). It should not be readded without adequate sourcing for the entries. --
1768:
includes Agents of SHIELD; so if SHIELD is out of the scope, you should define what exactly you want this list to include, cause atm it really looks like you, not the sources, have a problem with including it in the list...
737:
How long does a TV show have to run to be considered successful? Two years? Three? Would it be better to just have a single list, and add the years (as in "1998-2002") for each? Then people could decide for themself.
1555:-y". With this, we're basically stuck with going with what sourcing indicates, including whether it's a "prequel/sequel" or not. (IOW, if sourcing doesn't indicate that, it needs to be pulled out of that section...) --
1468:(as the films are based on the comics as well). Almost all (and maybe all period) of comic book adaptations are based on the comics. But it's also based on the film franchise (and not only Avengers). The aftermath of
1410:
a problem. And if sourcing says "...the TV series is a (direct) adaptation of the earlier written work..." it can be removed from the list. Similarly, anything unsourced (and likely unsourcable) can be removed... --
1304:
Yep. It's been on my long-term "To Do" list to go through this list, and trim it for things like this (and my earlier post) – I just haven't gotten to it. Feel free to do what you think needs to be done...
1671:
Again, this depends what the scope of this article is. It's not a 1:1 conversion, in that, it's not an Iron Man TV series that came after an Iron Man film. However, the events of SHIELD do come after
1014:
a section like that is to be included it MUST be fully sourced – as all in-production, yet-to-premiere series must be fully sourced as per usual
Knowledge (XXG) guidelines – likely with a source that
1263:
In the near future, I will endeavor to search through this list, and remove those entries that involve just TV movie precursors, unless there is further discussion about this issue here... --
1039:
I agree, though the series should also have to have entered production with a full series order. Shows "entering development" or pilot orders should not be listed and will be removed. --
532:
1687:
2 and 3 are also directly mentioned. Also as mentioned before, the character of
Coulson came from the Film and not the comics so in that, it is a 1:1 conversion (sort of a spin-off). --
897:
was a movie, it's article needs to state that, if not, it needs to be removed. I'll check back this weekend and delete it if no one objects unless the changes are made before then.
1094:-y edit?...). Frankly, I think this is the best outcome, as an 'Upcoming' section is just going to continue to be problematic, and the article doesn't need an 'Upcoming' section. --
1580:
in the sense that work is done do conclude which of the proposed sections each belongs in, but that would be based on (presumably) non-OR statements in the linked film articles.
357:
746:, but wasn't sure as to whether it should be short-lived since it ran for two seasons, but I know that the series can't be placed under sucessful since it didn't reach a
527:
1909:
is good), you don't need my permission. I've made my views on what should be done (and why) clear, but I'm not going to "stop" you if you put it back into the table. --
1171:
1167:
1153:
841:
It's interesting, but unless there's a clear and conscious connection, such as re-using a character, or a citation from the producers, it shouldn't be included here. --
1993:
347:
1998:
512:
507:
487:
323:
172:
31:
517:
497:
492:
1739:
Theoretically, yes. But that's a guideline, not a "rule", and this is a situation where I think it makes sense to not strictly follow it. Again, what I did at
1988:
522:
502:
1968:
758:
162:
1123:
545:
541:
475:
859:
724:
That seems fine, although some entries may need further detail. We'll cross that bridge when we get to the appropriate German-named-town-in-Poland. :)
2008:
437:
443:
314:
291:
1973:
1139:
134:
1963:
754:- what does it mean "unknown"? What's unknown, the series' run? The level of success? Differentiating between the two subjects seems pointless. --
856:
I am taking off
Godzilla as that has a long history of it being released as movies themselves and the 1998 film is a remake of the 1954 original
138:
464:
1888:
list which barely even follow one are ok by your standards. Anyways, that was the last comment from me on this, as it's not worth my time. --
1348:, but if they have sourcing support for tying them to one or more theatrical films (as my two examples did), then they should remain here. --
750:
level of success. It seems a bit too troubling to have to be specific with something that should be fairly clear and simple. I mean, look at
1500:, after a quick look I couldn't find a source that was as clear cut...) Meanwhile, last night, I looked for a similar source for the 1996
2013:
1605:
1469:
971:
944:
1721:
Small nitpick, but shouldn't the lead be a summary of the article contents, adding no new information not present in the article body (
413:
125:
86:
1983:
236:
2003:
1978:
1149:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
871:
662:
Hey! Some of us youn'uns may NOT have been around for the whole run of the series, okay...How the heck are we supposed to know?
559:
555:
61:
1824:. I've given you two options: mention it in the lede, or do a new section. I don't understand what's so hard about this... --
409:
405:
400:
380:
1245:
1647:, for similar reasons, because there was really no other way to handle it. So maybe we should do something like that with
248:
240:
244:
231:
195:
1915:
1873:
1830:
1790:
1749:
1707:
1657:
1561:
1510:
1453:
1416:
1354:
1311:
1269:
1214:
1100:
1059:
1024:
1504:
animated series, and really couldn't find anything – so if it can't be sourced, I think keeping it out is justified. --
27:
1812:
Why are you being argumentative about this? This article has two sections: "Sequels and prequel", and "Adaptations" –
1740:
1644:
1435:
1236:
of this article needs to be spelled out so that it is clear that this list includes only TV programs spawned from
1613:
as any wikipedia article talking about the series or the MCU will have tons of sources for it. Here are a few. --
1170:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1140:
https://web.archive.org/web/20140729053445/http://voices.yahoo.com/five-best-tv-series-based-movies-6681712.html
1090:
After building up a properly sourced 'Upcoming' section, an IP then removed the entire section on April 5 (in a
1340:
649:
was previously listed as "Unknown" rather than "Successful". You've gotta be kidding. It ran for 514 episodes!
67:
1608:
975:
948:
1924:
1897:
1882:
1858:
1839:
1799:
1778:
1758:
1734:
1716:
1696:
1666:
1622:
1589:
1570:
1542:
1519:
1490:
1462:
1425:
1392:
1377:
1363:
1320:
1298:
1278:
1219:
1205:
1131:
1109:
1082:
1068:
1048:
1033:
1010:
I personally don't feel such a section is needed (we can simply add such series once they premiere...), but
1000:
979:
952:
925:
906:
875:
845:
807:
797:
772:
600:
537:
1548:
967:
940:
1334:
1127:
991:
and figure out if they belong in the "prequel"/"sequel" table list, or in the later "adaptations" list. --
786:
1189:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1177:
1143:
1044:
867:
551:
322:
on
Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1902:
1130:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
1405:, rather than of the earlier written source, but not always. For example, I suspect that the animated
1473:
1722:
1611:
793:
would fit? I'm not familar enough with either series to know whether they are sequels or remakes. --
769:
20:
608:
1233:
1225:
1174:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
1091:
1190:
1604:
Not sure how you couldn't find any source talking about the Agents of SHIELD being in the MCU
1078:
921:
902:
717:
607:
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
117:
1701:
Yep – all of which is why I think it merits a special mention in the lede of this article. --
1633:"uniquely" at this article – i.e. not include it in the tables/lists, but write it up in the
1919:
1893:
1877:
1854:
1834:
1820:
category. I'm not saying it doesn't belong at this article: I'm saying it doesn't belong in
1794:
1774:
1753:
1730:
1711:
1692:
1661:
1618:
1585:
1565:
1538:
1514:
1486:
1457:
1420:
1388:
1373:
1358:
1315:
1294:
1273:
1104:
1063:
1040:
1028:
996:
863:
587:
480:
1197:
803:
I hope it's okay to move this to "inc-video", regular "Incomplete lists" is very crowded.--
804:
319:
130:
1577:
1552:
1250:
1156:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
1344:
was sourced as to tying into the film. Bottom line: Some of these are going to tie to
1196:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
1163:
306:
285:
1957:
842:
794:
755:
111:
1074:
917:
898:
638:, running for at least 2 seasons, based on a movie from at least a decade earlier.
1639:
1338:
to my mind unquestionably ties to the films much more than the comics. Similarly,
1764:
and including it there; and also including it in the list itself. As a side note
1547:
While it's logical, and it's maybe what a film/TV scholar would do, I doubt it's
1249:
has no place in an article like this, as it is simply a TV series spawned from a
893:
included on this list if this list is of TV shows that were based on movies? If
235:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can
1910:
1889:
1868:
1850:
1825:
1785:
1770:
1744:
1726:
1702:
1688:
1652:
1614:
1581:
1556:
1534:
1505:
1482:
1477:
1448:
1411:
1384:
1369:
1349:
1327:
1306:
1290:
1264:
1095:
1054:
1019:
992:
725:
666:
471:
223:
133:. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can
1863:
I still say, put it in its own section, called 'Parallel works' or something –
129:, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Knowledge (XXG) articles about
1162:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
790:
685:
650:
639:
213:
207:
189:
107:
1332:
To follow up, I'm not sure I agree with some of your removals. For example,
392:
374:
1807:
These television series follow the events of the original theatrical film
1766:
These television series follow the events of the original theatrical film
1253:
252:
595:
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
318:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to
101:
80:
1144:
http://voices.yahoo.com/five-best-tv-series-based-movies-6681712.html
635:
470:
We're attempting to coordinate a few pages together, including
569:
459:
43:
15:
1867:
is a special case. It probably warrants a special mention. --
732:
1134:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
412:, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the
533:
List of feature film series with more than twenty entries
1232:
I've been meaning to bring this up for a while, but the
684:
Um, I dunno...look it up in an online encyclopedia? ;-)
837:
connection/agreement between the producers of the two.
733:
Where's the line between short-lived and successful?
1166:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1637:prose. I ended up having to do something that for
1434:– I've looked into a little, and I'm... confused.
442:This article has not yet received a rating on the
528:List of feature film series with 11 to 20 entries
630:each ran for one season. I seem to recall that
251:. To improve this article, please refer to the
137:. To improve this article, please refer to the
1629:know, it's possible that we should just treat
1152:This message was posted before February 2018.
513:List of feature film series with eight entries
508:List of feature film series with seven entries
488:List of feature film series with three entries
1472:is a main part of season 1 and the events of
832:(John Badham, 1995)? Plot device of both (re
785:Under the new format, does anyone know where
518:List of feature film series with nine entries
498:List of feature film series with five entries
493:List of feature film series with four entries
8:
523:List of feature film series with ten entries
503:List of feature film series with six entries
332:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Media franchises
404:, an attempt to structure and organize all
1905:, then. If you've got (good) sources (and
1124:List of television programs based on films
1122:I have just modified one external link on
476:List of television programs based on films
369:
280:
247:. To use this banner, please refer to the
184:
75:
49:
47:
408:. If you wish to help, please visit the
1994:Low-importance media franchise articles
371:
282:
186:
77:
1846:
1806:
1765:
1443:
147:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Television
1999:WikiProject Media franchises articles
634:was quite a successful sitcom in the
599:] The anchor (#Andy Davis) has been
335:Template:WikiProject Media franchises
30:on 13 June 2009 (UTC). The result of
7:
1847:and are set within the same universe
398:This article is within the scope of
312:This article is within the scope of
229:This article is within the scope of
123:This article is within the scope of
1989:List-Class media franchise articles
1677:Captain America: The Winter Soldier
1551:, and would probably end up being "
1470:Captain America: The Winter Soldier
66:It is of interest to the following
1969:Low-importance television articles
1016:includes the series' premiere date
14:
1126:. Please take a moment to review
422:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Lists
2009:Unknown-importance List articles
573:
391:
373:
305:
284:
261:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Film
245:regional and topical task forces
216:
206:
188:
110:
100:
79:
48:
19:
1974:WikiProject Television articles
828:count as a remake of the movie
478:. Feel free to discuss this at
352:This article has been rated as
167:This article has been rated as
150:Template:WikiProject Television
26:This article was nominated for
1964:List-Class television articles
1741:List of Nickelodeon crossovers
1645:List of Nickelodeon crossovers
1243:In other words, an entry like
907:19:36, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
808:07:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
742:I'm all of that. I just added
465:Film series topic coordination
1:
1279:23:28, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
980:17:57, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
953:17:44, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
406:list pages on Knowledge (XXG)
326:and see a list of open tasks.
1476:also somewhat have effects.
1246:London's Burning (TV series)
315:WikiProject Media franchises
1925:14:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1898:14:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1883:14:19, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1859:14:17, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1840:14:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1800:13:57, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1779:13:47, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1759:13:21, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1735:07:42, 17 August 2018 (UTC)
1717:15:06, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
1697:07:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
1667:23:15, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
1623:22:45, 15 August 2018 (UTC)
1220:23:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
926:21:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
798:07:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
2030:
2014:WikiProject Lists articles
1590:04:52, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
1571:04:30, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
1543:03:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
1183:(last update: 5 June 2024)
1119:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
1110:14:45, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
1083:20:44, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
1069:02:10, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
1049:02:01, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
1034:22:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
1001:19:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
773:01:07, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
444:project's importance scale
425:Template:WikiProject Lists
358:project's importance scale
173:project's importance scale
1984:WikiProject Film articles
1520:14:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
1491:07:38, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
1463:04:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
1426:03:39, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
1393:03:23, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
1378:02:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
1368:Noted. I'll address...
1364:02:50, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
1321:18:08, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
1299:17:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
846:21:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
759:15:27, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
669:19:09, Mar 29, 2004 (UTC)
642:18:55, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
441:
386:
351:
300:
264:Template:WikiProject Film
201:
166:
95:
74:
2004:List-Class List articles
1979:List-Class film articles
1822:either of these sections
1341:The Exorcist (TV series)
748:Buffy the Vampire Slayer
728:19:04, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)
720:15:47, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)
653:19:00, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)
484:. Other pages include:
338:media franchise articles
1115:External links modified
916:for not being a movie.
876:12:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
688:01:13, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
1743:is the precursor... --
1679:have a direct impact.
1335:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
787:Barbershop: The Series
632:The Ghost and Mrs Muir
601:deleted by other users
126:WikiProject Television
56:This article is rated
862:comment was added by
141:for the type of work.
60:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1681:Thor: The Dark World
1474:Thor: The Dark World
1260:a theatrical film.
1164:regular verification
1053:Completely agree. --
824:Might the TV Series
1154:After February 2018
937:adapted to films?
237:join the discussion
153:television articles
135:join the discussion
131:television programs
1228:of this article...
1208:InternetArchiveBot
1159:InternetArchiveBot
1006:"Upcoming" section
781:Unclassified shows
628:Planet of the Apes
546:Films → Television
542:Television → Films
62:content assessment
1923:
1881:
1838:
1798:
1757:
1715:
1665:
1569:
1518:
1461:
1424:
1362:
1319:
1277:
1184:
1108:
1067:
1032:
986:Duplicate entries
970:comment added by
943:comment added by
914:Sit Down, Shut Up
895:Sit Down, Shut Up
891:Sit Down, Shut Up
884:Sit Down, Shut Up
879:
744:War of the Worlds
615:
614:
590:in most browsers.
568:
567:
458:
457:
454:
453:
450:
449:
401:WikiProject Lists
368:
367:
364:
363:
279:
278:
275:
274:
239:and see lists of
183:
182:
179:
178:
118:Television portal
42:
41:
2021:
1913:
1871:
1828:
1814:Agents of SHIELD
1788:
1747:
1705:
1655:
1631:Agents of SHIELD
1600:Agents of SHIELD
1559:
1508:
1498:Agents of SHIELD
1451:
1432:Agents of SHIELD
1414:
1352:
1331:
1309:
1284:More about scope
1267:
1218:
1209:
1182:
1181:
1160:
1098:
1057:
1022:
982:
955:
857:
609:Reporting errors
577:
576:
570:
481:Talk:Film series
460:
430:
429:
426:
423:
420:
395:
388:
387:
377:
370:
340:
339:
336:
333:
330:
329:Media franchises
320:media franchises
309:
302:
301:
296:
292:Media franchises
288:
281:
269:
268:
265:
262:
259:
232:WikiProject Film
226:
221:
220:
219:
210:
203:
202:
192:
185:
155:
154:
151:
148:
145:
139:style guidelines
120:
115:
114:
104:
97:
96:
91:
83:
76:
59:
53:
52:
51:
44:
23:
16:
2029:
2028:
2024:
2023:
2022:
2020:
2019:
2018:
1954:
1953:
1602:
1397:In the case of
1325:
1286:
1230:
1212:
1207:
1175:
1168:have permission
1158:
1132:this simple FaQ
1117:
1008:
988:
965:
961:
938:
934:
912:Okay, deleting
887:
858:—The preceding
854:
822:
783:
735:
620:
611:
593:
592:
591:
574:
427:
424:
421:
418:
417:
337:
334:
331:
328:
327:
294:
266:
263:
260:
257:
256:
222:
217:
215:
152:
149:
146:
143:
142:
116:
109:
89:
57:
12:
11:
5:
2027:
2025:
2017:
2016:
2011:
2006:
2001:
1996:
1991:
1986:
1981:
1976:
1971:
1966:
1956:
1955:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1948:
1947:
1946:
1945:
1944:
1943:
1942:
1941:
1940:
1939:
1938:
1937:
1936:
1935:
1934:
1933:
1932:
1931:
1930:
1929:
1928:
1927:
1601:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1594:
1593:
1592:
1529:
1528:
1527:
1526:
1525:
1524:
1523:
1522:
1428:
1380:
1366:
1323:
1285:
1282:
1251:backdoor pilot
1229:
1223:
1202:
1201:
1194:
1147:
1146:
1138:Added archive
1116:
1113:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1071:
1007:
1004:
987:
984:
960:
957:
933:
930:
929:
928:
886:
881:
853:
850:
849:
848:
821:
812:
811:
810:
782:
779:
778:
777:
776:
775:
762:
761:
734:
731:
730:
729:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
696:
695:
694:
693:
692:
691:
690:
689:
675:
674:
673:
672:
671:
670:
655:
654:
619:
616:
613:
612:
606:
605:
604:
588:case-sensitive
582:
581:
580:
578:
566:
565:
564:
563:
549:
535:
530:
525:
520:
515:
510:
505:
500:
495:
490:
468:
456:
455:
452:
451:
448:
447:
440:
434:
433:
431:
396:
384:
383:
378:
366:
365:
362:
361:
354:Low-importance
350:
344:
343:
341:
324:the discussion
310:
298:
297:
295:Low‑importance
289:
277:
276:
273:
272:
270:
228:
227:
211:
199:
198:
193:
181:
180:
177:
176:
169:Low-importance
165:
159:
158:
156:
122:
121:
105:
93:
92:
90:Low‑importance
84:
72:
71:
65:
54:
40:
39:
32:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2026:
2015:
2012:
2010:
2007:
2005:
2002:
2000:
1997:
1995:
1992:
1990:
1987:
1985:
1982:
1980:
1977:
1975:
1972:
1970:
1967:
1965:
1962:
1961:
1959:
1926:
1921:
1917:
1912:
1908:
1904:
1901:
1900:
1899:
1895:
1891:
1886:
1885:
1884:
1879:
1875:
1870:
1866:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1856:
1852:
1848:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1836:
1832:
1827:
1823:
1819:
1815:
1811:
1810:
1808:
1803:
1802:
1801:
1796:
1792:
1787:
1782:
1781:
1780:
1776:
1772:
1767:
1762:
1761:
1760:
1755:
1751:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1737:
1736:
1732:
1728:
1724:
1720:
1719:
1718:
1713:
1709:
1704:
1700:
1699:
1698:
1694:
1690:
1686:
1682:
1678:
1674:
1670:
1669:
1668:
1663:
1659:
1654:
1650:
1646:
1642:
1641:
1640:Sam & Cat
1636:
1632:
1627:
1626:
1625:
1624:
1620:
1616:
1612:
1609:
1606:
1599:
1591:
1587:
1583:
1579:
1574:
1573:
1572:
1567:
1563:
1558:
1554:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1540:
1536:
1531:
1530:
1521:
1516:
1512:
1507:
1503:
1499:
1494:
1493:
1492:
1488:
1484:
1479:
1475:
1471:
1466:
1465:
1464:
1459:
1455:
1450:
1445:
1441:
1439:
1433:
1429:
1427:
1422:
1418:
1413:
1408:
1404:
1400:
1396:
1395:
1394:
1390:
1386:
1381:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1365:
1360:
1356:
1351:
1347:
1343:
1342:
1337:
1336:
1329:
1324:
1322:
1317:
1313:
1308:
1303:
1302:
1301:
1300:
1296:
1292:
1283:
1281:
1280:
1275:
1271:
1266:
1261:
1259:
1255:
1252:
1248:
1247:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1221:
1216:
1211:
1210:
1199:
1195:
1192:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1179:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1155:
1150:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1136:
1135:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1120:
1114:
1112:
1111:
1106:
1102:
1097:
1093:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1072:
1070:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1046:
1042:
1038:
1037:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1026:
1021:
1017:
1013:
1005:
1003:
1002:
998:
994:
985:
983:
981:
977:
973:
972:50.89.174.229
969:
958:
956:
954:
950:
946:
945:50.89.174.229
942:
931:
927:
923:
919:
915:
911:
910:
909:
908:
904:
900:
896:
892:
885:
882:
880:
877:
873:
869:
865:
861:
851:
847:
844:
840:
839:
838:
835:
831:
827:
820:
816:
813:
809:
806:
802:
801:
800:
799:
796:
792:
788:
780:
774:
771:
766:
765:
764:
763:
760:
757:
753:
749:
745:
741:
740:
739:
727:
723:
722:
721:
719:
704:
703:
702:
701:
700:
699:
698:
697:
687:
683:
682:
681:
680:
679:
678:
677:
676:
668:
665:
661:
660:
659:
658:
657:
656:
652:
648:
645:
644:
643:
641:
637:
633:
629:
625:
617:
610:
602:
598:
597:
596:
589:
585:
579:
572:
571:
561:
557:
553:
550:
547:
543:
539:
536:
534:
531:
529:
526:
524:
521:
519:
516:
514:
511:
509:
506:
504:
501:
499:
496:
494:
491:
489:
486:
485:
483:
482:
477:
473:
469:
467:
466:
462:
461:
445:
439:
436:
435:
432:
428:List articles
415:
411:
407:
403:
402:
397:
394:
390:
389:
385:
382:
379:
376:
372:
359:
355:
349:
346:
345:
342:
325:
321:
317:
316:
311:
308:
304:
303:
299:
293:
290:
287:
283:
271:
267:film articles
254:
250:
249:documentation
246:
242:
238:
234:
233:
225:
214:
212:
209:
205:
204:
200:
197:
194:
191:
187:
174:
170:
164:
161:
160:
157:
140:
136:
132:
128:
127:
119:
113:
108:
106:
103:
99:
98:
94:
88:
85:
82:
78:
73:
69:
63:
55:
46:
45:
37:
33:
29:
25:
22:
18:
17:
1906:
1864:
1821:
1817:
1813:
1684:
1680:
1676:
1672:
1648:
1638:
1634:
1630:
1603:
1501:
1497:
1437:
1431:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1345:
1339:
1333:
1287:
1262:
1257:
1244:
1242:
1237:
1231:
1206:
1203:
1178:source check
1157:
1151:
1148:
1121:
1118:
1089:
1015:
1011:
1009:
989:
966:— Preceding
962:
939:— Preceding
935:
913:
894:
890:
888:
883:
855:
833:
830:Nick of Time
829:
825:
823:
818:
815:Nick of Time
814:
784:
751:
747:
743:
736:
718:Dukeofomnium
714:
705:Snerk. :) ~j
663:
647:Peyton Place
646:
631:
627:
623:
621:
594:
586:Anchors are
583:
479:
463:
410:project page
399:
353:
313:
230:
168:
124:
68:WikiProjects
36:no consensus
35:
1903:WP:JUSTDOIT
1816:falls into
1478:Clark Gregg
1041:Wikipedical
864:Willirennen
624:Logan's Run
472:Film series
224:Film portal
1958:Categories
1723:WP:MOSLEAD
1549:Verifiable
1238:theatrical
1215:Report bug
1073:Suits me.
805:T. Anthony
791:Party Girl
622:I believe
414:discussion
253:guidelines
241:open tasks
144:Television
87:Television
58:List-class
1399:Star Wars
1198:this tool
1191:this tool
932:Star Trek
770:Andromeda
538:Spin-offs
1916:contribs
1874:contribs
1831:contribs
1791:contribs
1750:contribs
1708:contribs
1685:Avengers
1673:Avengers
1658:contribs
1651:here. --
1562:contribs
1511:contribs
1454:contribs
1417:contribs
1355:contribs
1312:contribs
1270:contribs
1254:TV movie
1240:films.
1226:WP:SCOPE
1204:Cheers.—
1101:contribs
1092:WP:POINT
1060:contribs
1025:contribs
968:unsigned
941:unsigned
872:contribs
860:unsigned
852:Godzilla
843:Bacteria
795:Bacteria
756:Bacteria
618:Untitled
28:deletion
1818:neither
1502:Jumanji
1438:Variety
1407:Jumanji
1128:my edit
1075:DonIago
918:Bhall87
899:Bhall87
889:Why is
752:Tremors
603:before.
552:Remakes
356:on the
171:on the
1911:IJBall
1890:Gonnym
1869:IJBall
1865:SHIELD
1851:Gonnym
1826:IJBall
1786:IJBall
1771:Gonnym
1745:IJBall
1727:Gonnym
1703:IJBall
1689:Gonnym
1653:IJBall
1649:SHIELD
1615:Gonnym
1582:HalJor
1557:IJBall
1535:HalJor
1506:IJBall
1483:Gonnym
1449:IJBall
1442:says,
1412:IJBall
1385:HalJor
1370:HalJor
1350:IJBall
1328:HalJor
1307:IJBall
1291:HalJor
1265:IJBall
1096:IJBall
1055:IJBall
1020:IJBall
993:IJBall
817:&
726:jengod
667:jengod
64:scale.
1907:Wired
1725:)? --
1578:WP:OR
1553:WP:OR
1436:This
1403:films
1234:SCOPE
959:Spawn
686:Lee M
651:Lee M
640:Lee M
636:1960s
419:Lists
381:Lists
1920:talk
1894:talk
1878:talk
1855:talk
1849:. --
1835:talk
1795:talk
1775:talk
1754:talk
1731:talk
1712:talk
1693:talk
1662:talk
1635:lede
1619:talk
1586:talk
1566:talk
1539:talk
1515:talk
1487:talk
1458:talk
1430:Re:
1421:talk
1389:talk
1374:talk
1359:talk
1346:both
1316:talk
1295:talk
1274:talk
1105:talk
1079:talk
1064:talk
1045:talk
1029:talk
997:talk
976:talk
949:talk
922:talk
903:talk
868:talk
789:and
626:and
584:Tip:
474:and
258:Film
243:and
196:Film
34:was
1643:at
1440:ref
1258:not
1172:RfC
1142:to
560:N–Z
556:A–M
438:???
348:Low
163:Low
1960::
1918:•
1896:)
1876:•
1857:)
1833:•
1793:•
1777:)
1769:--
1752:•
1733:)
1710:•
1695:)
1683:,
1660:•
1621:)
1610:,
1607:,
1588:)
1564:•
1541:)
1513:•
1489:)
1481:--
1456:•
1447:--
1419:•
1391:)
1376:)
1357:•
1314:•
1305:--
1297:)
1272:•
1256:,
1185:.
1180:}}
1176:{{
1103:•
1081:)
1062:•
1047:)
1027:•
1012:if
999:)
978:)
951:)
924:)
905:)
874:)
870:•
834:24
826:24
819:24
664::)
558:•
544:•
1922:)
1914:(
1892:(
1880:)
1872:(
1853:(
1837:)
1829:(
1797:)
1789:(
1773:(
1756:)
1748:(
1729:(
1714:)
1706:(
1691:(
1664:)
1656:(
1617:(
1584:(
1568:)
1560:(
1537:(
1517:)
1509:(
1485:(
1460:)
1452:(
1423:)
1415:(
1387:(
1372:(
1361:)
1353:(
1330::
1326:@
1318:)
1310:(
1293:(
1276:)
1268:(
1217:)
1213:(
1200:.
1193:.
1107:)
1099:(
1077:(
1066:)
1058:(
1043:(
1031:)
1023:(
995:(
974:(
947:(
920:(
901:(
878:.
866:(
562:)
554:(
548:)
540:(
446:.
416:.
360:.
255:.
175:.
70::
38:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
