User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 |
Happy New Year, Betty Logan!
Betty Logan,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 16:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks Moops, hope you had nice Christmas and here's to the New Year! Betty Logan (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
How about?
Kindly explain your revert.Highwatermark1 (talk) 04:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- What is the point in you having a talk page? Do you talk?Highwatermark1 (talk) 23:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Highwatermark1. Since I have edited lots of articles I have no idea which one you are talking about, or which edit you are talking about. If you dispute an edit of mine at a particular article then I would recommend starting a discussion at the talk page for the specific article and then other editors can weigh in and consider whether my edit was justified or not. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello back, you are in error. We're to assume that every time England is mentioned if it is tagged that would be over-linking? This is in reference to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?Highwatermark1 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) If you look at WP:OVERLINK (which Betty Logan linked in the edit summary), it specifically says not to link major examples of countries. England falls into that category. - SchroCat (talk) 06:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hello back, you are in error. We're to assume that every time England is mentioned if it is tagged that would be over-linking? This is in reference to Who Framed Roger Rabbit?Highwatermark1 (talk) 01:36, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
- Hi Highwatermark1. Since I have edited lots of articles I have no idea which one you are talking about, or which edit you are talking about. If you dispute an edit of mine at a particular article then I would recommend starting a discussion at the talk page for the specific article and then other editors can weigh in and consider whether my edit was justified or not. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 & 5 budget
Hello Betty sorry for the bothering but I am huge fans of Pirates of the Caribbean films series and I am was wondering why you changed the budget of fourth and five movies. I m explaining. Pirates of the Caribbean 4: On Stranger Tides cost only $250 millions and Pirates of the Caribbean 5 - Dead Men Tell No Tales only $230 millions. Where Wikipedia take $378 millions and $320 millions? I know you take 378 budget from that fake news article of Forbes written by that troll of Christian Sylt that write that fake news of McLaren and Ojeh of Formulas One. He is not reliable source. If the movie budget was $378 million the movie probably was a flop at the box office but wasn't infant Disney did Pirates 5 and the same thing of Pirates 5 that cost only 230 infact Pirates 6 is in development. I don't understand why Pirates 4 cost so many money. Ho menys money Disney gets in return? 87.1.231.179 (talk) 21:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- If you wish to discuss article content please begin a discussion at the articles themselves. I simple restored the figures to their sourced values. Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Betty, just for let you know that this IP is Carlo Galanti--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- I don't bother reporting him any more because he just gets blocked and then reappears a few weeks later. It's easier and quicker just to keep an eye on him and revert him when he shows up. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Betty, just for let you know that this IP is Carlo Galanti--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:01, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
- HI Betty, though I'd avoid creating a new section as this is budget related. This source is used on John Wick as, I think, evidence that it's budget was possibly $30 million, as most sources say it was $20 million. I don't have a lot of experience with these tax credit things but would you agree that is saying the spend is $30 minus credits? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, what that statement says is that the nominal expenditure was $29.7 million, although in practice the producers probably never spent this amount. The state rebated $6.1 million in tax to the production, equating to a 20% credit. This is not uncommon: to attract the business the state will often waver the tax bill. In practice this invariably involves awarding tax credits (as opposed to a cash subsidy) which can then be deducted from your tax bill at the end of the year. This would mean in reality that the film's net cost was $23.6 million and it is this figure that sources are reporting. It's is very likely they didn't know the exact cost at the time of reporting so just went with a rounded figure. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- So would you consider $20-$30 to be accurate or $20-$24? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Well $20–30 million is technically correct, but I think the best approach is the one used at Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and The Dark Knight Rises because you are dealing with two different concepts. The nominal cost of the film was $30 million, but the budget was effectively only $24 million because that was all the producers needed to spend. Betty Logan (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- So would you consider $20-$30 to be accurate or $20-$24? Darkwarriorblake / Vote for something that matters 14:51, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, what that statement says is that the nominal expenditure was $29.7 million, although in practice the producers probably never spent this amount. The state rebated $6.1 million in tax to the production, equating to a 20% credit. This is not uncommon: to attract the business the state will often waver the tax bill. In practice this invariably involves awarding tax credits (as opposed to a cash subsidy) which can then be deducted from your tax bill at the end of the year. This would mean in reality that the film's net cost was $23.6 million and it is this figure that sources are reporting. It's is very likely they didn't know the exact cost at the time of reporting so just went with a rounded figure. Betty Logan (talk) 14:46, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
New issue
Hi, just for let you know there is a new (big) issue with BOM, this time with Thor: Love and Thunder. They added $215 million more than the correct gross--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- Strewth, we should probably just go with The Numbers gross for now. I think we are going to have to have a serious discussion about the WP:RS status of Box Office Mojo. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
- They have just fixed the issues--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to let you know that I have updated this page with new issues for Jurassic Park and now also Rogue One. So if somebody will try to update Rogue One the gross from BOM is not correct now--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
There are multiple issues again, this time with Colombia grosses, take a look at Avatar, No Way Home, Top Gun, Thor, Minions, all of them are so incorrect, beacause there is a problem with Colombia box office, I hope they will fix it as soon as possible--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:19, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know. Box Office Mojo is becoming unusuable. If editors try to "correct" the totals then just revert with a polite edit summary. It is all we can do until the issue is fixed. Betty Logan (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi, I just want to let you know that I found new issues--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi Betty, I found another two (big) issues.....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:19, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- Hi, they fixed Joker but the added another two issues, there is a problem with Australia grosses....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:31, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, happy new year (I'm late, I know), and BOM made a present for us, they fixed something, included the 1994 Lion King!--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for the update, that's terrific. I wish they'd get the other major issues fixed. Anyway, best wishes for the New Year and keep up the great work :) Betty Logan (talk) 23:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
- I hope so, the Lion King was the biggest issue ($95 million), but there are so other many of them, big issues like Jurassic Park and many small issues. Thanks to you and have a nice day :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
- They fixed two more big issues, Titanic and Black Panther!--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, they almost fixed the Titanic gross--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Lol, at least they are getting closer! I can't believe how bad Box Office Mojo has become since it got taken over. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Sorry, they almost fixed the Titanic gross--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- They fixed two more big issues, Titanic and Black Panther!--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I hope so, the Lion King was the biggest issue ($95 million), but there are so other many of them, big issues like Jurassic Park and many small issues. Thanks to you and have a nice day :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, now there are so many movies (almost half of the top 50) with 1, 2 or 3 million more than the usual, look at the grosses, for example Avatar, Infinity War, Star Wars VII..... now I think also Avengers Endgame is wrong--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
- It's probably best to hold back on any updates for now, just in case it's a site wide error. Is it just Disney grosses? Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
- You are right! I didn't notice that! Only the Disney movies have issues--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I fixed 13 movies, I changed their url, so now the sources show the correct gross--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- For the other issues we have to use the wayback machine, for example this is the Avatar gross, the right one. What do you think?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for this another message, but I fixed another 9 movies with the wayback machine, so now all the movies in the top 50 have the right sources, except for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Rogue One. I have also found a new big issue with Skyfall--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this, it's a real mess isn't it? I don't understand why Box Office Mojo doesn't get on top of this. They are aware of the issue yet do nothing about it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- It is a mess, I don't understand why they want to keep wrong grosses.... Can you help me with the last 3 films? There is nothing on the wayback machine, I think we have to use notes (like Titanic and Frozen), you can see the issues of the movies at WP:BOXOFFICE--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- And I made more clear the WP:BOXOFFICE table, now all the Harry Potter films are together, the Star Wars movies are together, the animation movies, the superhero films, so now it is easier to find movies in the table (I think)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I can add some notes and formulae. I don't have access to my computer right now but I can do it later or early tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have replaced the total with formulae that subtract the incorrect figures. I have also included a hidden note to try and deter "fixes". If editors continue continue to change the figures we can make the notes more visible like with Titanic. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- And I fixed the highest-grossing franchises table, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- I have replaced the total with formulae that subtract the incorrect figures. I have also included a hidden note to try and deter "fixes". If editors continue continue to change the figures we can make the notes more visible like with Titanic. Betty Logan (talk) 15:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
- Perfect, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:22, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I can add some notes and formulae. I don't have access to my computer right now but I can do it later or early tomorrow. Betty Logan (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- And I made more clear the WP:BOXOFFICE table, now all the Harry Potter films are together, the Star Wars movies are together, the animation movies, the superhero films, so now it is easier to find movies in the table (I think)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- It is a mess, I don't understand why they want to keep wrong grosses.... Can you help me with the last 3 films? There is nothing on the wayback machine, I think we have to use notes (like Titanic and Frozen), you can see the issues of the movies at WP:BOXOFFICE--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:50, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing this, it's a real mess isn't it? I don't understand why Box Office Mojo doesn't get on top of this. They are aware of the issue yet do nothing about it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:34, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
- I'm sorry for this another message, but I fixed another 9 movies with the wayback machine, so now all the movies in the top 50 have the right sources, except for Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2, Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom and Rogue One. I have also found a new big issue with Skyfall--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, now we know that BOM is not the only one with issues, also The Numbers have issues, with the italian gross of Quantumania..... so now BOM is correct and The Numbers is wrong, a few days ago was the opposite--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:23, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
List of most expensive films
Hello Betty, sorry for the change I made for the Star Wars films. In the article I read I mistook the gross budget as net budget and imputed the incorrect information. Glad it was changed back to the correct information. Sorry that a tag had to be put on the edit page to let people know what not to do. Name13013 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
- No worries, net and gross figures cause a lot of confusion. The important thing though is that the article takes a consistent approach so there is a "level playing field". Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Betty
Hello I have a question for you please ?. can you reply when you are free please ?. Thank you 178.167.159.53 (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Betty I have an important question for you please ?. can you help out ?.
- My talk page is not real time, you can leave a message and I will read it when I get a chance. Betty Logan (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok Thank you, Can you tell how do I upload a photo that I have on a DM on twitter onto a wikipedia page please ?. I haven't a clue what to do I can view the photo obviously but how do I upload it onto a wikipedia page please ?. Many Thanks
- You can upload a file using the upload wizard here: WP:FUW. Please note, that if you do not own the copyright you will need to create a fair-use rationale for it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Reverting my edits
If snooker Wikipedia doesn't want my edits, I won't be making any more of them. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:02, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- OK. Thank you for your contributions to the project. Betty Logan (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome. See ya, @Lee Vilenski: @Nigej: et al. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Context HurricaneHiggins? I saw one reversion with an edit summary but I didn't see anything else. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:29, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- It would certainly be a great pity to lose you. Wikipedia is desperately short of editors who make well-sourced substantive textual additions. As to the issue at hand, I'm a little confused since the 10 players previously suspended are only listed in the text at List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing and are not listed in the table, so I'm wondering why the previous edits were ok but not this one. Always worth discussing these sort of thing on the talk page (or WT:SNOOKER for general snooker issues). You don't always get your way but often worth a go if you feel your case is strong. Nigej (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- The reason the ten Chinese players are mentioned in the lead is because they are party to the biggest match-fixing scandal in the game's history i.e. it is a particularly noteworthy case. If it emerges that Mark King is party to that then I would have no objections to him being included in the lead. However, without further details it appears to be a run-of-the-mill match-fixing case, most of which are listed in the table and not in the lead (unless there is something particularly unique about the circumstances). I don't think my talk page is the appropriate place to discuss article content, but if HurricanHiggins would care to explain at the article talk page why he believes that the King case should be elevated to the lead over say the Peter Ebdon case, or the David John case and the many others of that ilk then I am happy to consider his reasons. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh i don’t think there was anything wrong with your action. There is nothing notable about Mark King being suspended at this stage because its not even clear if Mark has broken any rules, and we aren’t a news site. If he were to get an actual ban, that would be notable for going in the table. I concur with your views on the 10 chinese players being suspended, that is particularly notable even if we don’t have an outcome from that yet. The article lead should really be for extremely notable match-fixing related bans imo. It seems HurricaneHiggins had unilaterally decided their edits were more important than other peoples’ and didn’t appreciate anyone questioning their contributions to the wiki, hence their reaction here on this talkpage to your revert, which wasn’t a sensible or logical reaction to an edit revert imo. - CitroenLover (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- Personally, this all seems a bit overblown. That article is pretty poor regardless, needing a bit more prose for context, but I agree that individuals likely don't meet the barrier for being mentioned in the lede. Deciding to not edit because of a single reversion is a little petty - I get reverted several hundred times a year. I might spend a bit of time writing this article up to FL standards, but my time is low at the moment. I would recommend any further interactions being either on the article talk, or WT:SNOOKER to avoid a massive discussion on a user talk page. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:37, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Tbh i don’t think there was anything wrong with your action. There is nothing notable about Mark King being suspended at this stage because its not even clear if Mark has broken any rules, and we aren’t a news site. If he were to get an actual ban, that would be notable for going in the table. I concur with your views on the 10 chinese players being suspended, that is particularly notable even if we don’t have an outcome from that yet. The article lead should really be for extremely notable match-fixing related bans imo. It seems HurricaneHiggins had unilaterally decided their edits were more important than other peoples’ and didn’t appreciate anyone questioning their contributions to the wiki, hence their reaction here on this talkpage to your revert, which wasn’t a sensible or logical reaction to an edit revert imo. - CitroenLover (talk) 23:57, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- The reason the ten Chinese players are mentioned in the lead is because they are party to the biggest match-fixing scandal in the game's history i.e. it is a particularly noteworthy case. If it emerges that Mark King is party to that then I would have no objections to him being included in the lead. However, without further details it appears to be a run-of-the-mill match-fixing case, most of which are listed in the table and not in the lead (unless there is something particularly unique about the circumstances). I don't think my talk page is the appropriate place to discuss article content, but if HurricanHiggins would care to explain at the article talk page why he believes that the King case should be elevated to the lead over say the Peter Ebdon case, or the David John case and the many others of that ilk then I am happy to consider his reasons. Betty Logan (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
- You're welcome. See ya, @Lee Vilenski: @Nigej: et al. HurricaneHiggins (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
Highest-grossing franchises
Hi Betty, I think there are too may franchises in the table, do you think it is a good idea to reduce them to a top 20? (or a top 15, I don't know)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I think 20 would be a good number. It used to be 20 and then it got extended to a top 25, but I don't think it benefits the article. Ultimately it's not up to me, there should be a consensus to change the size of a chart (either increasing or reducing) so I would suggest starting a discussion on the talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- You are right, done--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
Snow White
Here is the information confirming the information you claimed was untrue (https://filmic-light.blogspot.com/2016/02/1938-uk-snow-white-pressbook.html). This is sourced in the Evil Queen's own Wikipedia article FYI. Kind regards. RedSorcery16 (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- I did not say the claim was "untrue" so please do not attribute false statements to me. I simply pointed out that the category you added was unverified, and therefore not in accordance with WP:CATVER. I have viewed the source and I do not see where it says the mirror contains a "demon". Will you please be more specific and add the page number of the press book? Betty Logan (talk) 15:35, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, Betty, if you actually bother to check the Evil Queen's article, you will see it referenced in there four times without issue. All I did was copy it. RedSorcery16 (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Other Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources per WP:CIRCULAR, since information can be erroneously added. All I am trying to do is corroborate the claim you keep adding to the article. Instead of calling me names you could make this very easy for us by simply providing the information I have asked for and provide a page number. Betty Logan (talk) 02:11, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- FYI, Betty, if you actually bother to check the Evil Queen's article, you will see it referenced in there four times without issue. All I did was copy it. RedSorcery16 (talk) 02:04, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Guess what? Page number four about half-way down calls the mirror a familiar demon. Although I doubt it will be good enough for you though. But still you can have a good long suck on it. RedSorcery16 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you, that wasn't so hard was it? It's just a shame you had to be so rude and obstructive about providing information that should have been provided by you automatically. Please remember that all claims on Wikipedia need to be WP:Verifiable, that is policy, no exceptions. I can't say this has been a pleasant encounter, but it won't have been a complete waste of time if you have learned from it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
- Guess what? Page number four about half-way down calls the mirror a familiar demon. Although I doubt it will be good enough for you though. But still you can have a good long suck on it. RedSorcery16 (talk) 17:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)
Titanic
Can u pls tell what are the latest collections of the film...as it has not been updated since days.🙂 Harshit Kumar (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- In the List of highest-grossing films Harshit Kumar (talk) 08:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your guess is as good as mine. We'll have to just wait for Box Office Mojo to update it. Sometimes when a film is near the end of its run BOM does not update the collections every week. Betty Logan (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
- ok Harshit Kumar (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
- Your guess is as good as mine. We'll have to just wait for Box Office Mojo to update it. Sometimes when a film is near the end of its run BOM does not update the collections every week. Betty Logan (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Article work...
Hey, Betty! I wanted you to know that even though I have always preferred to do gnomish types of editing to article work, I've also always greatly benefited from advice you have to give me so I am proud to let you know that I have done some article work, and completed two articles at LinuxConsole and Protection Court as me newest one. They aren't Featured articles or anything, but they are still my own accomplishments, and I want to make you feel like you did make the right decision to support me, so as always thank you for your support! Huggums537 (talk) 02:01, 17 April 2023 (UTC)
UK Championship
Thank you for your message and I had hoped you would reach out to me over you repeatedly reverting my additional information on television coverage of this tournament as I would like to avoid an edit war. I have tried to accommodate you by re-wording the information and have included an independent and reliable reference, but you seem unwilling to give any ground here. If we can't compromise then we'll have to begin to get others involved in this potential dispute beginning with a third opinion. Rillington (talk) 00:30, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- I "reached out" by providing full explanations in my edit summaries. If they were unclear it would have been better to begin a discussion on the talk page rather than simply restoring the content. I really don't know what else I can add to what I have have already explained in my edit summaries. While it is factually correct the BBC has broadcast the tournament since its inception, the source you have provided does not actually corroborate that claim. More problematic is the claim that coverage has "gradually increased" over the years: in common with all snooker tournaments (bar the world championship) it has been variable, and actually decreased in the 1990s. Up to 2007 the first round was not even televised, and it is only in the last decade or so that there has been comprehensive coverage, and even then there are untelevised tables. There cannot be any compromise about unsourced and factually inaccurate claims, but I would be more than happy to participate in a form of mediation with you. Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply and your willingness to try to work out a compromise. The source I provided states that the BBC was showing the first edition of the tournament and I think it is reasonable to state that the BBC has televised it ever since as this can be verified by the same website. I have now provided a second reference which clearly states that the BBC is the rights holder. You are, of course, right to indicate that coverage has been variable over the years but as part of my attempt to compromise with you I have not added this to my latest version of the article. If you still feel the need to revert my edit I will ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion.Rillington (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- The revised wording is acceptable to me. I would point out that technically your source does not corroborate that the BBC has broadcast all of the tournaments, but as I know it is factually correct I am not going to remove it. I hope this resolves the issue. Peace out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for your reply and your willingness to try to work out a compromise. The source I provided states that the BBC was showing the first edition of the tournament and I think it is reasonable to state that the BBC has televised it ever since as this can be verified by the same website. I have now provided a second reference which clearly states that the BBC is the rights holder. You are, of course, right to indicate that coverage has been variable over the years but as part of my attempt to compromise with you I have not added this to my latest version of the article. If you still feel the need to revert my edit I will ask for a Wikipedia:Third opinion.Rillington (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
List of natural horror films
Hi Betty Logan,
I don't understand what you mean by "Source fails corroboration".
I've inserted the same link source (www.allmovie.com) that is at every other point of the list.
Please explain me this problem, so I can learn and finally add to the list the two movies.
Thanks, JiunoLujo :: Talk 16:18, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
- The source does not back up the claim that the movies you added are natural horror films. For example,Allmovie describes Cocaine Bear as an action thriller. Therefore it cannot be used as a source for this claim. Betty Logan (talk) 16:28, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed that in the list there are movies with wrong grosses, Monsters, Inc., Brave and WALL-E have fake grosses, and also Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse and The Grinch have issues (with BOM). I don't know if there are other wrong grosses--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hi, it's not an article I have much familiarity with. I don't really work on the animation articles. There seems to be a lot of anomalies in the article, grosses that don't match the sources etc. Betty Logan (talk) 22:04, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
- I fixed the main table, now I think it is correct--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:55, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
New message from Sjones23
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film) § Summary of reviews in the lead. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 07:54, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
The Sound of Music (film)
Hello, you reversed my "citation needed" for the statement that Georg Trapp was offered a position by the German Navy before the Anschluss, claiming that it was already there. However, reference 153 only shows Trapp's WW1 statistics, on p. 98 of this Hungarian source there is no mention of any offer to Trapp, as far as I can see. So this reference doesn't extend back to the claim about the German offer which, in any case, is always said to have been made after the Anschluss. 2003:EC:9729:5E8:3D5F:1707:5CA2:F370 (talk) 10:43, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, thank you for the clarification. Do you know if the claim is true or not? Generally speaking, you should only tag something if you know it is factually correct but lacking adequate sourcing. If you are unsure of its veracity it is often better to remove the claim in a GA-rated article. Betty Logan (talk) 11:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have never seen any evidence that Trapp received an offer from the German Navy at all. But the family memoirs claim that he received such an offer after the Anschluss. I could point you to a recent book on the topic, but that might be regarded as WP:OR. (And such a post has already been deleted from the discussion page for Maria von Trapp, without explanation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:9729:588:AD28:6AEF:2BEF:2F5D (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for clarifying. Since the claim is somewhat disputed, and apparently unsourced, I will simply remove it. If somebody wishes to restore it they can follow the procedure outlined at WP:BURDEN. Betty Logan (talk) 16:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I have never seen any evidence that Trapp received an offer from the German Navy at all. But the family memoirs claim that he received such an offer after the Anschluss. I could point you to a recent book on the topic, but that might be regarded as WP:OR. (And such a post has already been deleted from the discussion page for Maria von Trapp, without explanation.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:EC:9729:588:AD28:6AEF:2BEF:2F5D (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello Betty, How are you ?. i found the results of a snooker event not accepted here on wikipedia
Hi I have the Snooker scene edition of the event which dates back to the early 90's. It gives the result of the event and the winner. I also have a newspaper article giving the result after the event. If I could produce the Snooker scene article with photos of the article on the event. Would that be enough to get the event added in the career finals section on wikipedia please ?. I hope you can help out ?. Thank you 80.233.25.10 (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
- You don't need to produce photos, you can just cite the article and the edition of Snooker Scene (i.e. month, year and page number). However, without knowing which event you are trying to add it could be the case it was rejected on notability grounds (e.g. exhibition event, non-notable amateur/junior event etc). Betty Logan (talk) 06:21, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes Betty is was a snooker challenge akin to the Centenary Challenge played between just two players Davis and Hendry in 1990. The one i have uncovered is a similar challenge match between two players in the early 90's. It says in Snooker Scene that it was sanctioned by the WPBSA at the last minute because Sky Sports wanted to show this event featuring two top players. When the WPBSA sanctioned the event and it was shown live on Sky Sports with the winner takes all first prize purse. This is not an exhibition where both players get paid for their night's work. This event is no different to the tournament mentioned above, infact it is similar to the 1975 Irish Masters which was first played as a one off challenge match, The 2019 Macau Masters where Barry Hawkins had to beat Mark Williams in a one off match in the 6 reds final. Joe Davis won the 1928 World Championship playing one other player in a challenge for money. May i point out the Irish professional championship, the Australian Proffessional and the Canadian Professional championships were played under challenge match conditions are were not regarded as exhibitions. The world championship was played as challenges in the 50's and 60's. Now people just presume the WST have run every event the same since day one, this is nonsense this only really stopped when Hearn told over in 2010 it became more professional. Can you help me with this info for this tournament if i send it to you please ?. Massive thanks. A lot of reading there. Thank you 178.167.146.242 (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Natural horror films
How did it not pass verifications? And if it does pass verifications, can I re-add it? Firekong1 (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- If you are referring to this edit, Allmovie was provided as a citation; however, Allmovie does not categorize it under the natural horror genre as far as I can see. If I am wrong, then by all means re-add it but please provide a direct link to the "natural horror" page that lists the film. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, I’m referring to the barracuda edit. I added it because it was relevant as an animal horror movie. Does it have to be under the natural horror movie genre? Firekong1 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Since Allmovie has a "natural horror" category, then any films that is not listed under that category fails verification. If you click on some of the other Allmovie references on that page you will see what I mean. It's not always clear-cut what is "natural" horror and what is not, I think it often depends on how far-fetched/realistic the natural element is. For example, according to Allmovie the first Jaws qualifies, but Jaws 4 does not. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- I see. That’s not a great categorization honestly, but I understand. Should I not re-add barracuda 1978? Firekong1 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- You shouldn't add it using Allmovie as a source but it may be possible to find another. The main thing to bear in mind is that the source needs to frame the film as "natural horror" as opposed to "creature feature", which could include something like Alien. Betty Logan (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. But if there's no sources listing it as a natural horror, is it not eligible for addition? Firekong1 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Not if it can't be referenced with a reliable source. See WP:Verifiability, not truth. Betty Logan (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Of course. But if there's no sources listing it as a natural horror, is it not eligible for addition? Firekong1 (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- You shouldn't add it using Allmovie as a source but it may be possible to find another. The main thing to bear in mind is that the source needs to frame the film as "natural horror" as opposed to "creature feature", which could include something like Alien. Betty Logan (talk) 05:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
- I see. That’s not a great categorization honestly, but I understand. Should I not re-add barracuda 1978? Firekong1 (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- Yes. Since Allmovie has a "natural horror" category, then any films that is not listed under that category fails verification. If you click on some of the other Allmovie references on that page you will see what I mean. It's not always clear-cut what is "natural" horror and what is not, I think it often depends on how far-fetched/realistic the natural element is. For example, according to Allmovie the first Jaws qualifies, but Jaws 4 does not. Betty Logan (talk) 16:59, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
- No, I’m referring to the barracuda edit. I added it because it was relevant as an animal horror movie. Does it have to be under the natural horror movie genre? Firekong1 (talk) 16:49, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
I Still Know What You Did Last Summer
Hi Betty, I have spent several years at Wikipedia reviewing articles, finding errors or adding missing information. I have decided to write to you since you are a user with extensive experience as an editor of information about films. A few years ago I found out that the movie "I Still Know What You Did Last Summer" is a co-production, I added the information to the article but it was recently vandalized and upon resetting the information Mexico was removed as a co-producing country. I tried to add this information but it was reverted without the reference I added being checked. The reliable source American Film Institute establishes that the film is a co-production between the United States, Germany and Mexico. You can see what I'm telling you when you enter the aforementioned website. I come to you in the hope that you will add the missing information in the "country" section where the three co-producing countries should appear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.168.135.194 (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Superman (1978 film)
"stylized as" doesn't seem to make much sense in regards to the context either way, even more less than "also known", because that term implies stylization of the same and only text of the leading title. In this particular case, would it be better accepted if the term was "marketed as"? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 08:30, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I think "marketed" is a good compromise. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The Birth of a Nation records
Hi, you reverted all my edits, adding "Please add sources if you are going to alter sourced content". First of all, the contents you reverted are not linked to any source at all... my edits add a source, which is a Wikipedia article, and it's linked Cabiria.
I can make the link more specific (directly to the paragraph about the topic: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cabiria#Distribution,_remake_and_restorations. Does that work for you? I'm asking because your reversions cannot be undone and I will need to rewrite them manually, so before that I want to be sure you are not going to delete them again.
I'm doing this because this film is glorified more than necessary. While it is true that it was technically innovative, some alleged records are either exaggerated or completely false (like that it was the first 12-reel film ever made) Alessandro.balbiano (talk) 21:16, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- It would be helpful if you could provide a link to the reverts so I know which edits you are talking about. Also—just to point out—other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources per WP:CIRCULAR. If I removed content you added from another article then this is probably why I reverted you. New article content needs to be referenced by a WP:Reliable source. It is also worth pointing out that the article doesn't claim it was "the first 12-reel film ever made", it states it was "the first non-serial American 12-reel film ever made", and it is sourced to that effect. If that is incorrect then you need to provide a source that states otherwise. Betty Logan (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
- Link to reverts: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.phptitle=The_Birth_of_a_Nation&oldid=prev&diff=1076016036
- After that, someone thankfully added "non-serial" and "American" to "first film ever made". Hope you understand that some level of details is needed in the lead, to avoid false statements. "first film ever made" as you reverted it, is just false, besides being an attempt to glorify a movie that doesn't need so. Glorification is not consistent with encyclopedic style.
- "It was the first motion picture to be screened inside the White House, viewed there by President Woodrow Wilson" is not sourced. You need to provide a source that state that, else I will add a source and correct the statement accordingly to the source. Alessandro.balbiano (talk) 10:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Your link does not work, I presume you are referring to the edits I reverted. I will take them each in turn:
- Revert 1: The lead is supposed to summarize key information about the subject of the article. The claim that The Birth of a Nation was the first film screened in the White House is true; the claim about Cabiria being screened on the White House lawn is secondary detail and is covered in the section about the White House screening. The reason I reverted your edit is because this is not essential information about The Birth of a Nation. Similar circumstances exist at the Cabiria article where it is noted that The Birth of a Nation was the first film screened inside the White House, but not included in the lead. The claim appears to be sourced later in the article which is compliant with WP:CITELEAD.
- Revert 2: Apart from the fact you added an unsourced claim to the article, you also added information about other films that was not essential to the notability of The Birth of a Nation. The fact the article explicitly states it was the first American 12-reel film, implies that there were other non- American 12-reel films before it. It is not necessary to note what these films were in the lead for The Birth of a Nation.
- The lead for The Birth of a Nation is not the appropriate place to make commentary about other films. You are confusing "glorification" with "notability", and summarizing the notability of the article subject is what the lead is for. Please acquaint yourself with MOS:LEAD. If you wish to discuss article content any further please start a discussion at the article talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 11:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
- Your link does not work, I presume you are referring to the edits I reverted. I will take them each in turn:
The Flash (2023 film)
I do notice that users have been attempting to put this as well as several other movies (including Elemental, Indiana Jones 5 and Ruby Gillman) on the list of Biggest Box Office Bombs before they have left theaters. I personally think it's safest to add them afterwards and I believe at least some eventually should be added as this summer is quite possibly becoming the "summer of flops". What are your thoughts on adding these later rather than now? Also, what do you think is the safest estimate for how much The Flash lost, because my current estimate is around 100 million if they spent 150 million on marketing (a typical marketing budget for most blockbusters WB releases iirc). SuperBrowser243 (talk) 02:25, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- And by afterwards I mean after the movies mostly leave theaters or drop below the top 10 in the box office. SuperBrowser243 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- They certainly shouldn't be going on the list at the start of their runs; some films can open weakly but turn it around with decent holds, so it's not really possible to predict with any degree of accuracy how much a film will lose. But more than that, the quality of the source is of greater importance: many low quality sources (that may qualify as technically reliable under Wikipedia rules) clearly have no idea about how film finance works, so it is best waiting for a source that does i.e. The Hollywood reporter/Variety/Deadline/The Numbers etc. I would expect at least one of those to attempt to assess the "damage" at the end of the summer season, and for me that would be the sensible time to consider list additions. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
- I absolutely agree it's best to wait for a lot of the most reliable sources to report numbers. However, I fear that Warner Bros might wind up being too embarrassed in a sense to release these statistics, making them harder to estimate or research. Warner Bros Discovery is already in a really bad spot financially and it wouldn't surprise me if they swept a potential 100 million + flop under the rug to try and stay afloat. SuperBrowser243 (talk) 01:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
- They certainly shouldn't be going on the list at the start of their runs; some films can open weakly but turn it around with decent holds, so it's not really possible to predict with any degree of accuracy how much a film will lose. But more than that, the quality of the source is of greater importance: many low quality sources (that may qualify as technically reliable under Wikipedia rules) clearly have no idea about how film finance works, so it is best waiting for a source that does i.e. The Hollywood reporter/Variety/Deadline/The Numbers etc. I would expect at least one of those to attempt to assess the "damage" at the end of the summer season, and for me that would be the sensible time to consider list additions. Betty Logan (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Cleopatra credit
How do you do Ms. Logan.
What type of credit would you suggest as a reference for Desmond Llewelyn's (an actor of enough renown) appearance in 'Cleopatra'? TCM or IMDB? Page 257 of Joseph L. Mankiewicz: Critical Essays with an Annotated Bibliography and a Filmography? Interesting, he is listed twice in that work as a Senator AND as Lucius Domitius Ahenobarbus (consul 54 BC); I find no other reference for his name. Interestingly I have recently found that Dewey Martin ("43 International Stars?") was listed in many credits for The Longest Day at Private Wilder, but a British road show promotion book shows his photo wear a helmet with Staff Sergeant rank, my theory is he is the dead body next to Roddy McDowell in the final release print. Sadly, I can no longer find the interview of Douglas Wilmer declaring he walked off the film, it is only a theory that he replaced Wilmer.Foofbun (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- My point is that the credited cast list is precisely that: the credited cast. As a rule, uncredited cast members are not generally added to credited cast lists, unless there is a very good reason to include the actor, because cast lists in Wikipedia articles are not meant to be exhaustive. Cleopatra had many uncredited cast members, so what is the specific reason for including Desmond Llewelyn, while leaving out the others? If he replaced a credited actor, that may in itself be a good reason for inclusion. If he played a historical figure that would be another. But if he simply played a dead body, then I don't really see why it is necessary to add him, in view of the fact there are many other uncredited dead bodies in the film. If a good reason existed for adding him, then as an uncredited cast member he should ideally be added to the end of the cast list after the credited actors, as per Sean Connery's uncredited performance in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves#Cast, or R. Lee Ermey at Apocalypse Now#Cast. Betty Logan (talk) 02:41, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
John Higgins non-ranking event finals section
Hello Betty how are you ?. Can you add a runners-up finish to the above section on Higgins page please ?. Judd Trump beat Higgins 5-1 in the final of the Huangguoshu open in china this morning. It is in the other events section on the 23/24 snooker season Can you add this result as Higgins page is locked please ?. Kind Regards 92.251.146.50 (talk) 14:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
- Looks like someone has already added it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:09, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Your behaviour is unacceptable
You were warned by me not to revert these changes to support your own point of view. You have breached this warning and are now undoing my work with no basis other than your own point of view. The objective reader will note that I have not altered the lede section which is what the disagreement was over on the Talk Page. It is clear that you have an agenda to gatekeep a specific date range despite available evidence to the contrary freely in the public domain.Richie wright1980 (talk) 23:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Global distribution costs vs Promotional Partner Support?
Hi Betty, you normally have a good mind for this, I'm working on Mission Impossible Fallout and I have two sources, both from Deadline here and here
One has a figure of 140M for global distribution expenses which I thought was marketing and the other 135 for promotional partner support. Are either of these marketing budgets? Re-reading it maybe global distribution is just literally distributing the film? Although that seems very high, and promotional partners is people paying the studio to have their merch featured? Just wondering if you understand these terms more than I do. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:34, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- Hi DWB, global distribution costs is basically marketing. It can be slightly different because it historically includes the cost of prints and carriage as well as the actual marketing, but these days (i.e. the days of digital distribution) the terms are interchangeable. I imagine Promotional Partner Support is product placement, although I have never heard it called that. Some of that will be in kind (for example Aston Martin provides the James Bond films with cars to smash up) and some of it will be financial inducement i.e. advertisers paying for their products to be featured, or a burger tie-in meal etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
- That makes sense, thanks Betty Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
"Let It Be (film)" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect Let It Be (film) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 29 § Let It Be (film) until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:11, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Barracuda and natural horror films
Hello there, I noticed that you reverted my edits and claimed that the source didn't pass verification. But it did last time I checked. Can you please explain why you think it did not pass verification? Firekong1 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I have just checked your source. Barracuda is categorized as a "Mystery/Horror" film by your source, not a "Natural horror" film. I am not saying you are wrong, I have no opinion about the film, but the source does not corroborate the claim. Betty Logan (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see. But it does fit the criteria in terms of being an animal horror film, which makes it justified in being added. May I please add it back? Firekong1 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't disagree with your analysis, it is not our place as editors to make those types of determinations. The fact remains the claim is not borne out by the source. Allmovie has a full list of natural horror films, and for whatever reason Barracuda does not appear in it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Alright. But if the categorization does change on there, then would it be qualified to re-addition? Firekong1 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes that would be fine. Like I said, I don't disagree with your opinion, so if Allmovie add it to the category that would be fine. In fact I think you can submit corrections to them, so you could try that approach. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know! I'll do that when I can. After I do, I'd like to re-add it, and I hope you'll be alright with that. Firekong1 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Only if Allmovie update their categorization to acknowledge the genre. Betty Logan (talk) 05:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you for letting me know! I'll do that when I can. After I do, I'd like to re-add it, and I hope you'll be alright with that. Firekong1 (talk) 21:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Yes that would be fine. Like I said, I don't disagree with your opinion, so if Allmovie add it to the category that would be fine. In fact I think you can submit corrections to them, so you could try that approach. Betty Logan (talk) 21:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- Alright. But if the categorization does change on there, then would it be qualified to re-addition? Firekong1 (talk) 16:01, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- While I don't disagree with your analysis, it is not our place as editors to make those types of determinations. The fact remains the claim is not borne out by the source. Allmovie has a full list of natural horror films, and for whatever reason Barracuda does not appear in it. Betty Logan (talk) 02:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
- I see. But it does fit the criteria in terms of being an animal horror film, which makes it justified in being added. May I please add it back? Firekong1 (talk) 01:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
New issues
Here we go again, now they have problems with DCEU movies.... I have already fixed with the archivied versions of the sources in the highest grossing film page--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:46, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
BBC report
Hi Betty. Just in case you missed it, see this report. Alan (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Archivied sources
Do you think we really need all the sources archivied? I don't think so, expecially the sources in the top 50, the grosses from the archivied sources don't match with the actual grosses, for example the archivied version of Avatar 2 says $434.5 million.... So for me they are useless. By the way, there are new issues....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- If you are referring to this edit I have mixed thoughts. Archiving sources (especially those that won't change, such as books and newspaper sources) can prevent WP:LINKROT. Dying sources is one of the greatest problems that afflicts sources. However, we certainly shouldn't be archiving sources that are incorrect, such as Avatar 2. Personally I wouldn't archive any tracker site (BOM, The Numbers) unless i) we need the archived source because the current gross is incorrect and ii) where they are need to source chart positions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you want to keep all of that exept for the top 50 sources? And also the high-grossing films by year? (Only BOM and TN)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is normal practice on Wikipedia now. But there is no point retaining archived sources if they are i) wrong ii) prone to changing. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK, so I should remove them (only BOM and TN) with a link of this discussion?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, if you don't mind doing that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a problem,
Done :) of course I removed them only from BOM and TN sources--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- It is not a problem,
- Yes, if you don't mind doing that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- OK, so I should remove them (only BOM and TN) with a link of this discussion?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is normal practice on Wikipedia now. But there is no point retaining archived sources if they are i) wrong ii) prone to changing. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
- So you want to keep all of that exept for the top 50 sources? And also the high-grossing films by year? (Only BOM and TN)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Conflicting BO revenue
Betty, was hoping to lean on your expertise over a concern regarding two recent edits here and here. BOM reports the total box office haul as $668 mil, while NUM reports $670.1 mil. How is it typically worded in prose when there's a conflict like that, and would we insert a range in the infobox? --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- I think you may find you have your sources back-to-front there...however, if these were two legitimates estimates I would have advised rounding to $670 million, but in this particular case it appears that Box Office Mojo has double-counted a foreign gross: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Film_finance_task_force#Box_Office_Mojo. In this particular case The Numbers ($668 million) is probably the correct figure (it is worth noting that is what BOM had before adding the random $2 million). Luke Stark 96 has done a very good job of tracking BOM's double-counting, but perhaps he has something toadd to this discussion? Betty Logan (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
- The Man of Steel issue is one of the newest, the right gross is $668,045,518, and then a few days ago BOM added $2 million with no reason, there are many DCEU movies with this problem, unfortunately--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Pixels
I was combing through the biggest bomb list and came across Pixels, which is listed at $75 million. So I added this to the article. However, after taking a closer look at the source, it was published before the China release when the film was sitting at $182 million gross. The film ended up grossing $244 million, so wouldn't we need a more recent source to rely on this figure? --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
- Looking at the source, it states "accounting for budget, marketing spend and revenue the film can expect to earn in ancillary markets", so the article has factored in expected future income. Whether they've factored it in correctly is another matter. It's not unusual for articles to do this; these loss projections are educated guesswork for the most part. Pixels is so borderline that it could go either way. If revised estimates come our way we will use them (we took Justice League off afters its loss estimates were downgraded) but sometimes we just don't have the information to make that call. There are quite a few films on the list that have a lower-bound estimate far beneath the 90-mil threshold (Black Adam, for example), but they still qualify for the list on the basis that potentially they could be among the top 100 money-losers based on reliable published analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)