User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

"James Bond in film"

Hi Betty, I realize James Bond in film has incoming redirects, but I think it's anyone's guess whether Portrayal of James Bond in film or Production of the James Bond films is the intended target. I retargeted to the former because it's far and away a better semantic match; if a reader types it into a search box, we can be much more confident that they're looking for Portrayal of James Bond in film over Production of the James Bond films. If you're concerned, it would be better to patrol incoming links rather than reinforcing the problem. I won't revert but hope you'll reconsider. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

I actually agree with you but I don't think we should be second guessing what editors intended to link to. Looking at the first three incoming links (Boeing 747, Cult film and Dr. Strangelove)), would you not agree that the intended destination is an article about James Bond films in a general sense, rather than the portrayal of the character? I think the obvious solution here is to fix the incoming links first and then change the redirect. I am bit surprised this wasn't done when the article was renamed. Betty Logan (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
I do agree that they're about James Bond films in a general sense... not the production of them! That's the core problem, here, that for whatever reason, we've steadfastly avoided an article about James Bond films in a general sense, though I think Portrayal of James Bond in film is getting pretty close. --BDD (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Personally I think List of James Bond films is a more appropriate general target. I just don't think think that readers would expect to be taken to an actor-centric article. But the process would still be the same: fix the incoming links then fix the target. Betty Logan (talk) 08:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Justice League

If the film had lost as much money as it was said, it wouldn’t have been on Warner Brothers’ quarterly earnings. Per Bomb Report:


I’m going to paste what I wrote on Facebook a few months ago — this is not an affront toward you. Forbes or either of the Penske owned rags variety or deadline, set ridiculous bars of success for that movie to break even, based off of nothing. The budget was never released by Time Warner. The ceiling to reach profitability kept being raised by those publications, and in turn churned out clickbait articles that Justice League lost over $100M. In february, Time Warner posted their quarterly financial report and now here we are with deadline posting how Justice League’s box office pushed the quarter into profit. Movies that lose $100M don’t make investor reports as the reason there is a profit. http://deadline.com/2018/02/time-warner-beats-q4-expectations-powered-by-justice-league-1202276054/

No offense to you or anyone, but it does not appear that the film belongs here. Volts and Lightning! (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

There are multiple reports stating that Justice League lost money. Just because WB had a good quarter it does not follow that Justice League was profitable. Most of the expense (bar the marketing) would have come in previous quarters, so quarterly income has no bearing on whether a film is profitable or not. John Carter would have made money for Disney in the quarter of its release. Ultimately Wikipedia has to go by what the sources say, and the trade papers reported Justice League making a loss. Betty Logan (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Close discussion regarding genre columns?

Hello there! You've always seemed more experienced than I when it comes to Wikipedia procedures. In regards to the section on Talk:List of American films of 2019 about genre columns: should that discussion be closed? Like, with one of those nifty blue archive boxes? The consensus appears to be that genre columns should be removed from the list articles in question, and there has been little activity in the discussion for some time now. —Matthew - (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

I'd say there is a strong consensus but the discussion should still be formally closed, ideally by somebody not involved in it. I would post a request at WP:AN/RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 04:38, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thank you! That was just what I was looking for. —Matthew - (talk) 15:40, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

The Birth of a Nation

You reverted my edits without providing any explanation. I looked again and I don't see why you would have a problem with it. JimKaatFan (talk) 14:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that it is a completely subjective edit and I don't think it is an improvement, or adds any further clarity. You state that the revival of the KKK is its largest lasting impact despite the fact it is one of the most influential films ever made (many people would argue that the impact it had on the film industry and the medium of film itself is more noteworthy). It is telling you qualified your reasoning as "arguably". In truth all of its legacy is significant. Secondly, your edit doesn't respect the "flow" of the lead: the legacy of the film is discussed in the final paragraph, so this is the logical place to discuss its KKK legacy. There is no real reason to break out a single sentence. Finally, the structure of the lead here follows the general structure of the lead on other film articles i.e. the opening paragraph is confined to discussing the factual, creative elements of the film and the film's reception/legacy is discussed in the subsequent paragraphs. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK vs MOS:REPEATLINK

Both of these link towards the same thing, however, it does state that links should only be linked — in general — once, unless it is helpful to readers to be linked more than once in things such as infoboxes or tables, and I don't believe in the case of List of James Bond films it does, especially since if we were to "rowspan" them — which we won't, due to MOS:ACCESS, only one link would exist, especially where the Bond actors are concerned. Again, not trying to engage in some kind of conflict or edit war, as it does seem your contributions to Bond film related articles is substantial and well-respected, I am merely bringing my own point-of-view to your attention at this time. Thank you, and do hope you are well during this uneasy time in the world, wherever you may be. livelikemusic talk! 14:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

If we were discussing a non-sortable table I would 100% agree with you, but I generally think it is best to link all the terms in a sortable table because the order can change on the basis of how the user wants to view the data. Now, maybe somebody with 20/20 vision will not have a problem with picking out the linked terms in a small table, but if you are using assistive technology the linked term could jump to the bottom of the table and you would have to carry on through the table to get to the linked term. The same goes for citations as well that readers may visit out of written order. As for rowspans, again I think they are generally ok—and often useful—if they are used properly, but generally they are not. For example, if you take this row-spanned table and highlight Goldfinger's row what you get is a break in the table that misses out Sean Connery's name. If you highlight the Moonraker row you lose Roger Moore and Lewis Gilbert, which again is problematic if you use assistive technology. That is a poor use of row-span. On the other hand, if you highlight the rows at List_of_snooker_tournaments#Professional_tournaments (which has extensive row-spanning) you will see that none of the columns are skipped, so all the data can be digested in the way it appears to somebody with 20/20. Betty Logan (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for explaining your POV; it is much appreciated, and definitely changes my view a smidge. livelikemusic talk! 16:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

New Hollywood

  • I see that you've been taking out some of the films listed in the article. Care to explain? Espngeek (talk) 21:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    I am performing a verification check on the sources. Those films that fail verification will be removed; those that are in doubt due to dead sources and being famous exponents of the movement will be tagged. Betty Logan (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

DoRD

Hello BL. I hope you are well. I just noticed that the second sentence in your post has a Department of Redundancy Department message. I do those all too often which is why I noticed it. It brought a smile to my day actually but if this message bugs you please feel free to remove it. Best regards and stay safe. MarnetteD|Talk 21:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out. The problem is my brain races ahead and then I read what I think I wrote afterwards. I had to make several corrections to that post. Betty Logan (talk) 21:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there anything you can do about AllegroMastermind?

Since you’ve talked them they’ve continued to insert misinformation to various articles.

They’ve been doing this since 2018. The reason I found out about them was because they added erroneous release dates to several video game pages in 2019.

Is there anything you can do?24.182.107.15 (talk) 02:45, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

I am not an admin so it's not as though I can block him. I can post a warning on his talk page but after 2 years I doubt he is going to start following the rules now. The best approach is to elevate him through the warning system and after you have reached the end of that dump it at ANI. Betty Logan (talk) 00:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Technical question

Hi Betty, I was wondering if in your Wiki travels you had come across a way I could have two pieces of text side by side for comparison? I'm trying to get the two excepts in the "Development section of this page to be side by side both for readability and aesthetic purposes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

You can use the column feature as I have done here: [1]. That's the only built-in mechanism I know of. Another way to hack it would be to do it in Word, screencap it, save it as an image and then add it to the article as an image file. Betty Logan (talk) 23:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Betty Logan, was just what I was looking for. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:A Bug's Life#Plot summary issue. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

1985 World Snooker Championship FAC

Hi Betty, I hope you are well! There is an FAC open at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/1985 World Snooker Championship/archive2 that you may be interested in. Have a great weekend. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I'll make some time for it this week. Betty Logan (talk) 07:15, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

About reverting my edit

I am new to Wikipedia editing, so I'm not sure if this is the place to write my message to you. If it is not, I apologize in advance. You just reverted my edit again. I was well aware of what you had said, and first I reverted you reversion and then proceeded to translate two long quotes from both sources as a "quote". But in the meantime you had already reverted my reversion again and when I tried to add the quotes to the page I faced a "solving conflict" thing I didn't know how to work with and now my quotes are both gone. I don't feel like writing them again, but I just wanted you to know that I did notice the rule you told me to obey in the next edit.

Since you didn't provide an edit summary your intention was not clear. Please note, however, that writing on the subject of vegetarianism or expressing sympathies and support for the lifestyle is not explicit confirmation that one is a vegetarian. The subject needs to be clearly identified as a vegetarian to be added to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Highest grossing films peak

I had previously requested a change for the peak for Transformers: Dark of the Moon on the Highest grossing film page, due to the adjustment of the gross for The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. It was changed, but you later reverted it saying "t's not just Dark of the Moon. A whole bunch of films below Return of the King need fixing." However the only other films affected by Return of the King's increase, namely Spider-Man: Far From Home and Captain Marvel, already had their peaks adjusted to account for the increase in Return of the King's gross on February 28]. So if we want to be consistent, either Dark of the Moon's peak should be decreased by 1, or Spider-Man and Captain Marvel's peak should be increased by 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:CE6:4CCA:9A47:24D0 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there are several problems with peak positions. The reality is everything that no longer matches up to the source needs a note affixed (including Transformers) so just changing the number is only an illusion of a fix. I am aware that this may already have happened for some films making the chart inconsistent. I am currently awaiting a response from Box Office Mojo on the figures for Harry Potter, and once this issue is sorted out I will try and fix all the peak positions in the chart including Transformers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Box office for sequels

Hi Betty Logan, I hope you are well. As you seem interested in box office of films, I didn't know if you had seen or had an opinion on this article Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of film sequels by box-office improvement and the proposal for deletion. I wasn't keen on the original list (which is what the article name refers to) so shortened the list but feel that there is a place on Wikipedia for box office data for sequels (and later films in a series) separate from the list of highest-grossing films and added more tables that I think are of more interest. Would be interested to know your thoughts at the discussion.Sudiani (talk) 13:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

i want to confess my reason of deleting images

the reason of deleting them is they are highly sexual and can be misleading for teenagers those can go to the wrong direction who used wikipedia as a positive site. so you must put an age restriction on it so i think it was helpful for Bikini Waxing article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravinesh rds (talk • contribs) 12:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexually explicit images in articles about sexual practises are to be expected. It is not a legitimate reason for their removal. Please read WP:NOTCENSORED. Betty Logan (talk) 12:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo problems

Months ago I suggested you post on GetSatisfaction, which typically gets a response from an IMDb representative within days, and it seems you still have not. Yet you've brought up the issue again. If they're showing inaccurate data to paid customers, that's most likely a problem they would quickly act upon. You said creating an account "isn't a problem" and you would "pursue that angle if I haven't had a response by next week". So why haven't you? Nardog (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I have been corresponding with Box Office Mojo directly. I have a stack of emails if you would really like to see them. I thought emailing directly would be more effective and it generally is. The BOM team is generally responsive and the problems get fixed within a week or so and then new ones appear. However, the last couple of weeks the problems have escalated. So it's not a case that they do not know that the problems exist or indeed a case of me whining about it and then doing nothing to address it. I am happy to post to Get Satisfaction but I assumed I would just be put in contact with the people I am already emailing? But perhaps posting to Get satisfaction would take me higher up the command chain? Betty Logan (talk) 14:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm glad to know that you've been in contact with them. Take a look at how I got them fix dead Mojo links in just a few days to see if you think it's worth giving a shot. Posting the issue on the site also has the benefit of getting it seen by other users (mainly prolific contributors to IMDb), who can "me-too" it so you'll be able to see how many others also want it to be fixed. Nardog (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I have just signed up with Get Satisfaction and am in the process of creating a post. Talking to a different group of people may help.I am not going to let this drop. I am half tempted to just buy a sub so I can then sue them! Betty Logan (talk) 14:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Good to know. Hopefully public pressure will lead them to address the issue in a holistic way. Nardog (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Here we go: https://getsatisfaction.com/imdb/topics/tons-of-data-corruption-at-box-office-mojo Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Well put! Fingers crossed. Nardog (talk) 16:39, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
We seem to have quite a few staff members following the thread and they are treating it as a priority. You are right I should have done this sooner! I have clearly been communicating with the wrong group of people. Betty Logan (talk) 21:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, these logos look identical at a glance. But there are clear differences between. Please check the Motion Picture Association official website[2]. Wikipedia should provide the correct information. I hope it will help you.--LogoSince2020 (talk) 13:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Even if there are minute differences you still don't need two images in the article. The logo is not subject to any commentary in the article and is only used to visually identify the topic. The most recent will suffice and the correct place for it is in the infobox. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Please check the difference between the two logos. I'm confident that Wikipedia should not continue to offer fake logo.--LogoSince2020 (talk) 03:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Aquaman

The Box Office Mojo page for Aquaman has grosses listed for two days before its domestic release. Is this an error?

It appears to be the preview gross. The Numbers has the exact same gross. Betty Logan (talk) 23:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Are they typically counted as separate days? I don’t believe I’ve seen this elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.23.249.111 (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Thursday evening previews are usually included with the weekend figures, but if they are held before then they are usually counted separately. If there is a mistake it is at the distributor's end because the figures are reproduced on other trackers. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case then it has impact on whats' regarding as Aquaman's first/second weekend for the purposes of lists on List of highest-grossing second weekends for films and List of highest-grossing superhero films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:6529:90FB:2B5C:7897 (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
If that is the case you should initiate discussions on the talk pages at those articles. Betty Logan (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the Aquaman page didn't show those values before the Box Office Mojo redesign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:71A2:6391:464A:DBB4 (talk) 04:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
These figures also appeared on the old Box Office Mojo: [3]. Betty Logan (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly enough Box Office Mojo counts the December 21 weekend as the opening weekend for the purposes of the biggest opening weekends list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:D5EE:CB01:3B9C:1932 (talk) 16:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Motion Picture Association film rating system

Your edit here perfectly captured the intent of my edit. It's much clearer now, so thanks for that. I swear I spent like 5 minutes trying to see the difference between the two nearly identical lists. Anyway, pleasure meeting you; catch you about! -- ShinmaWa(talk) 17:01, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

New world snooker player profiles

Hi Betty I want go talk to you about the above. Will you hit me back ?. Cheers 178.167.243.22 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Betty I want to speak to you about 6 red events will you answer me back please ?. 92.251.247.15 (talk) 17:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Sure what's on your mind? Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
I just cannot believe your user page does not exist and you are a pending changes reviewer. I would like to thank you with this. Cupper52 (talk) 18:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you

You are one of the few editors of Wikipedia who were always, ALWAYS very kind. For that I am eternally grateful to you.

Wishing you the best always Betty Logan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:205:108B:E62E:6879:C83E:6C66:B479 (talk) 22:01, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Message to Betty Logan

Hey Betty. Boushenheiser said Amblin Entertainment kicked off in 1981 with the movie Continental Divide. Might be false. Please tell Betty to undo three changes, since newspapers verified Amblin existed in the 70s. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:89EA:72E4:97DB:14B5 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The older revisions stated it was founded in 1970. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:B570:E32D:9077:C393 (talk) 00:04, 23 September 2020 (UTC)
A company legally exists from the time it is incorporated. Surely this is easy to establish through public records? In fairness neither date is valid without a source. Betty Logan (talk) 02:32, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Discussion on my talk page

Hi Betty. You were involved in a previous thread (October, 2017) about an IP who was said to be adding unsourced information to film articles. You might have an opinion of your own to add at this thread on my talk page, concerning editing of horror film articles by someone who is probably the same person. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

I only have a vague recollection of this editor so I doubt I will be able to offer something that will connedt the editors but I will try and take a closer look at this tomorrow when I am fresh. Betty Logan (talk) 04:29, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Intolerance

.

Can you explain why you reversed my edit on Intolerance (film)? You changed it back to an overly confident and demonstrably erroneous statement, which seems like a peculiar choice, to say the least.

I thought my edit summary explained this adequately. The 2K restoration is just a further iteration of "The Official Thames Silents Restoration", already covered in the article. All the details you added are already included in the section. Your edit added duplicate material to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 07:09, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding a graphic/photo to a talkpage for people to see

Hi Betty how are you ?. I want to add a graphic to clear up a debate on a Snooker talkpage, it's a photo actually but I only know how to add references on wikipedia. Instead of a reference I want to put up the photo. Can you help me out please if I give you the info ?. Kind Regards 89.204.239.215 (talk) 13:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

You need to upload images. If it is not going in the article itself I would suggest uploading it to https://postimages.org or https://imageshack.com and then linking to it from the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 15:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

If I send it to you the links through a <ref> link can you upload for me please ?. 19:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I can't upload an image I don't own to Wikipedia servers. Copyrighted images need a fair use rationale. And how would you send it to me, anyway? The most straightforward method is to use the postimages.org hosting website if you just want to use the image in a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 10:49, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Box Office

Sorry to bring this to you again. Maybe it's just an old film thing. I'm looking at Die Hard. I've got:

  • The Numbers which reports its total worldwide gross as $139.1 million, making it the eight-highest grossing film of the year
  • BOM which says its $140 million (not a vast difference) but reports it as the tenth-highest grossing film, though this seems to be because it is included Dead Poets Society (which was released in 1989, wtf?) and Cocktail (here at least it seems to include a foreign box office for Cocktail where The Numbers does not.

HOWEVER,

  • Our own page at 1988 in film makes it the tenth-highest grossing film based on including A Fish Called Wanda, while also including Cocktail. Both Numbers and BOM omit a foreign gross for Wanda, and the figure seems to come from a print Variety article I can't check.

It's all a bit frustrating tbh, since it prevents a solid analysis of the figures, and I actually like that stuff. Do you have any advice how to proceed? Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Pre-1990s reporting of worldwide grosses was very patchy at best because the film industry was just so US-centric. As you say, The Numbers doesn't log the gross for A Fish Called Wanda or Coctail but we do have figures from alternative sources. The BOM figure for Coctail appears very realistic to me, because Tom Cruise films have traditionally always been bigger overseas (just compare it to the same year's Rain Man). Likewise for A Fish Called Wanda, there are two Variety sources listed at A_Fish_Called_Wanda#Reception which state it grossed $115 million outside the United States; coupled with the US gross it would be looking at ~$180 million. This data was added to the article by Sudiani; I am familiar with this editor and they are methodical, diligant and honest, so if they tell me that is what Variety says then I am inclined to trust them. The figure is very plausible because A Fish Called Wanda is a British film and it is nearly always the case that under half the gross comes from the US market. On the basis of that both Cocktail and A Fish Called Wanda grossed more than Die Hard; forget about Dead Poet's Society, the BOM charts are a lost cause. Betty Logan (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Betty, and yes it is a shame about BOM. It being accurate did use to make things a lot easier. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
Although you need a subscription to log in, you can hopefully see the thumbnail of the advert showing the $115 million overseas gross for Wanda here.[4]Sudiani (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
No, it's too small, but I will take your word for it. Also $60 for a months access? What are Variety smoking? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Betty, sorry to bother you again. I'm working on Aliens and the BO is all over the place. The Numbers is seemingly more precise but it also treats re-release box offices as if they were part of the original figure (despite the obvious inflation parity problem) and so is not necessarily reliable to get an image of the figure at the time of its release. BOM on the other hand is like 50 mill off the Numbers figure, and no re-release is going to have made 50 mill, even over nearly 40 years. I can include both figures but the difficult part is that where Aliens falls in terms of highest grossing films of the year. It can be as high as third, low as fifth globally, seems to be seventh domestically. I've trawled through the New York Times and LA Times as they're usually good for industry info at that time but despite Aliens' relative success it doesn't seem to get brought up a lot compared to Top Gun and Crocodile Dundee. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Worldwide figures prior to the 90s are very sketchy. All I can say for sure is that Top Gun was #1 and Croc Dundee was #2 for 1986. If you look at the global chart on BOM you will notice most of the foreign figures are missing. It is entirely possible Karate Kid 2 made enough internationally to overtake Aliens, and Eddie Murphy was huge in the 80s so I wouldn't be surprised if The Golden Child ended up as #3 for that year. If you check out the chart I constructed at List_of_highest-grossing_films#High-grossing_films_by_year, there is a reason why it is called High-grossing films by year and not Highest-grossing films by year. The simple reason being that there is too much missing data to be sure of anything. I wish I could be more help, but 20th century box-office has more gaps than the fossil record! Personally I would just stick with the domestic rankings for that time period. Betty Logan (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Nuts. Fair enough. The inconsistency is frustrating. Finding info for Ghostbusters in 84 and Back to the Future in 85 was relatively easy. It doesn't help that the two box office sites also differ in counting films released in previous years but that made money in the following year against the films actually released in that year. Thanks for your advice. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ronnie O'Sullivan's first maximum break.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ronnie O'Sullivan's first maximum break.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Categorizing someone as American or otherwise in the lead

Hey, Betty. Regarding something like this, which I reverted, what should be cited to challenge such an edit? It seems similar to how we went with "American" for the Avatar (2009 film) article.

Please don't ping me if you reply. I'll check back for a reply. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:10, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

MOS:ETHNICITY is probably the guideline you want. Jolie's Cambodian citizenship is not an integral part of her identity. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I couldn't remember what guideline to cite. I've cited MOS:ETHNICITY times before, including at the Katherine Johnson talk page: Talk:Katherine Johnson/Archive 1#Nationality in the lead: Use of "African American". Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:31, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Onward box-office flop

Do you think that Onward flop at box-office? 2600:1702:1E60:B230:285B:BA74:BE1A:9D0D (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It is irrelevant whether I think it is a flop or not. Do sources describe it as such? Betty Logan (talk) 22:24, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Comparison tables

Hello, I am SlitherioFan2016. (I was renamed to DL6443 on 2 July 2020) As I have been formally permitted to edit content ratings articles, I am possibly thinking about creating a comparison table with more colour values in line with accessibility standards in my draft space, on top of my new duties as a recent changes patroller. I was wondering whether you would still be in on this? Thanks DL6443 22:30, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

This issue is resolved. The color standard Wikipedia uses is quite clearly detailed here: H:Colorblind. Any "standard" that falls outside of this guideline is a MOS violation. If you start your disruptive behavior again your block will need to be reinstated. Betty Logan (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Flyer22 and WanderingWanda arbitration case opened

The Arbitration Committee has accepted and opened the Flyer22 and WanderingWanda case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 30, which is when the evidence phase is scheduled to close. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Workshop, which closes January 13, 2020. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. To opt out of future mailings please see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Flyer22 and WanderingWanda/Notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

The Masters Snooker

Hi Betty I want to add the word "The" to the Snooker season's calendar for The Masters but Lee and Nigej keep removing it over some nonsense about consensus on a talk page, because they are always in agreement and won't listen to anyone else. Do you think the event should be titled as "The Masters" on the snooker season's pages ?. It looks silly just being labelled as Masters imo. Plus in players career finals it is in as "The Masters". Can you give me your thoughts here please ?. Regards 92.251.216.106 (talk) 16:31, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

The article name itself is Masters (snooker), not "The Masters (snooker)". You argument is not without merit (see https://wst.tv/tournaments/masters/) but you are tackling a symptom rather than the cause. The naming conventions across other snooker articles should follow the convention at the main article IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 08:36, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

So are you saying it should be Masters ?. It should be "The Masters". Just because it was opened as Masters (snooker) does that make it correct ?. How do I change it to "The Masters" please ?. Can you help me they said I need consensus. Would you be happy to call it "The Masters" ?. 92.251.151.149 (talk) 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What I am saying is that name changes should be handled at the main article, not on other snooker articles. You should follow the rules outlined at WP:RM#CM and propose a rename at Masters (snooker). Betty Logan (talk) 01:00, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Betty_Logan/Archive_11&oldid=1146347070"