User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 4

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 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Speaking of socks...

Many thanks for your kind words at ANI in a rather ridiculous, Kafka-esque turn of events! It was much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It was pretty weird by Wikipedia's most absurd standards. You wake up one morning to find a full blown debate on your talk page about a dispute you had no part it in up to that point, and then you get accused of wiki hounding the editor who came to your page. What sort of sanction could they even impose? Ban you from your own talk page? And then the guy who requested that you prove you weren't a sock merely because the editor you supposedly wiki-hounded on your talk page had once got into an argument with a sock?? And then you get asked to remove the evidence of not being a sock because it violated the sock's privacy lol. You couldn't make it up. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Words cannot describe the annoyance I feel at the hounding Gimmetoo subjected SchroCat to. While part of me wants to say that I regret asking SchroCat's opinion on a partly-questionable edit, on the other hand what has Wikipedia come to if you can't ask a senior experienced editor with a solid grasp of the rules to provide an opinion without worrying about the consequences. I find it ironic that SandyGeorgia defends Gimmetoo without addressing his malicious behaviour yet on her talk page she has the following sub-heading "What should be said about admins chasing away good contributors?" Fine words indeed. I see from SchroCat's talk page Gimme won't let the matter rest. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thunderball v Skyfall

Hi Betty, Have you come across any solid figures for the comparison between the various films in the bond series? The numbers don't have a global figure that takes into account inflation, which is something of a pain. I suspect this edit is factually correct, but it sits alone in the lead and is unsupported by the irritations uf citations or similar. Any thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible it has overtaken Thunderball, but I haven't seen any confirmation. I suspect it probably hasn't as yet (Thunderball had already hit a billion a couple of years ago) but possibly will do once it is released in China. I would revert the edit with a slight alteration: Prior to the release of Skyfall, Thunderball was the most financially successful movie of the series after adjusting for inflation. It basically states the same thing but acknowledges it may have been beaten. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted both edits before I read this discussion. Sorry! According to several websites Skyfall must reach either 1.03 or 1.04 billion to claim #1 when adjusted for inflation. I've checked several large Bond fan sites but they have no information about this other than what I've quoted here. As usual, I defer to SchroCat about this. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If it does overtake Thunderball I'm pretty sure it will be widely reported by the industry media, I can't imagine Sony and Eon passing up a golden marketing opportunity like that. With any luck we'll get a fresh inflation list for List of James Bond films. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Bambifan101 vandalism and talking style?

It seems that you know him, so I would like to ask you if you're familiar with his older incarnations or talking style. I do not know where he operates, so I can't check anything back then. From the list of people who report his socks on sock investigation, most users who have dealt with him more than once have retired. The current suspected sock has respond to my message. Can you take a look at [1] and tell me what you think? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I never conversed with Bambi. It may not even be him/her, it could just be another editor with a similar MO. It's best to let the SPI run its checks, and if it is Bambi they'll be dealt with in due course. If not, we need to tackle the situation at an educational level, so I have left Redcoyote a message explaining how running times should be approached. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me apologize to you for reverting three times. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your RT top critics proposal for MOS:FILM

I have been editing Wikipedia articles for many years, but have not previously been involved in any discussion about changing policy. So I don't know what to expect of the process with regard to your proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Over the last four days since you made the proposal there have been three people who have commented, all supportive, so that bodes well for the change being ultimately accepted, but I have no idea how that ultimately is decided. Will some admin be brought in eventually to assess the proposal and discussion and make a decision or does something else happen? And what is the typical time frame (if there is a typical one) for that to happen? Any information about the process you can give me (since I have none) will be helpful. Thanks. 99.192.83.116 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (= the other 99.192's)

We don't need an admin to change the guideline. Typically we give people a week to comment on the draft, then incorporate any suggestions and then give them another week to ok it. I appreciate it drags out, but if nothing else it stops editors challenging it a later date on the basis that there wasn't enough discussion time. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I appreciate that it does take time to do things right, and I don't mind that it does. It just was a bit worrying to not be sure that the wheels are still in motion. Thanks for putting that to rest for me. 99.192.83.116 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Franchises

Hey, just letting you know I've replied to your message on the inconsistency of crossovers and franchises. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind

I like what you did with the photos I added to Gone with the Wind in the past couple of days. I put Gable's trailer shot at the top of the cast listing instead of the bottom since he was billed above Leigh, Howard and de Havilland, and I reversed the other pictures of Gable and Leigh in order that they face the text instead of looking away from it since I think that generally makes a better presentation when it's feasible. I never knew that photos aren't added to plot summaries but it makes sense since the summaries are often confusing enough, and in any case I think your rearrangement is much better and I wish that it had occurred to me from the start. Thanks, Betty, and I hope to encounter you in Wikispace again. I'm happy that we managed to do this since the page looked so bare with absolutely no cast photos whatsoever, which was the case, counterintuitively enough, a few days ago. Accubam (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's basically a convention, I don't know if there is a strict rule against it: the idea is that images are supposed to support the sections, but since the plot covers the whole film and should not include any interpretation images are simply decorative rather than supportive. I'm going to try and push for a GA over the next few weeks so I'm working through each section bringing it in line with the MOS. I'm going to upload the overture for the music section so we have something more than just pictures as well. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Great idea to upload the overture. The music remains generally so important to this particular film. Accubam (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:31.18.250.39

Hello, Just wanted to reassure you as there seems to be some confusion as to who my message was addressed to, that it was not meant for you. I was going to warn said user about mislabeling edits and vandalism but saw you had already. So its all good. But he assumed I was talking to you, which I was not. Happy New Year by the way. MisterShiney ✉ 10:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it's ok, he was confused because your reply simply came after mine. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it better to add to rather than give them another warning in case it was interpreted as us all ganging up on him. MisterShiney ✉ 11:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for wading into the pool.

I just wanted to more concretely express my thanks for your thoughtful comments regarding what I'm rapidly coming to think of as the "Synchronous Motor Debacle". I very much appreciate your getting involved in this boondoggle. Doniago (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't help wondering whether I should have just unwatched the page and let it remain as it was until an editor came along who both had the resources to cite the information and cared more about doing that than arguing over the matter. Sigh. Thanks again for your involvement in what's rapidly becoming the most bruising experience I've had here. Doniago (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's kind of sad that after all the fun at ANI, the whole conversation simply gets wiped due to inactivity without anything being done about the problems. Makes me wonder whether anyone learned anything from the situation, and whether it's really a great policy to let topics be archived simply due to nobody saying anything for two days. Oh well. Unfortunately at this point I'm kind of glad just to see the whole thing go away. Thanks again for your involvement with it. Doniago (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's frustrating when discussions just go stale without resolution, but there isn't much you can do without sounding like a broken record. The upside is that the Synchronous Motor article is much better sourced than it was, which is a start, so the discussions were productive to an extent. The bottom line though is that if you erode the sourcing condition it just becomes a hobby site rather than a real alternative source of reliable information which would be a shame. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, to the extent that I care at this point, I'm glad the article was improved (admittedly I don't think I've looked at it since the improvements started). I would have appreciated it if the editors who apparently felt WP:CIVIL didn't apply to them had been called on it though...I particularly didn't appreciate having the situation painted as a "me against everyone else" scenario even after other editors had spoken up in defense of my actions. That was, after all, the point of my going to ANI, though other editors were quick to derail it and paint the ANI filing as a content rather than conduct dispute (even accusing me of misrepresenting my goals in some cases). Even if I was inclined to re-open the discussion (and only about 5% of me is), I freely acknowledge that it most likely wouldn't be a good idea or yield anything helpful. So there it is, I guess. With any luck I won't deal with some of those editors ever again, or at least not soon. Anyhow, thanks again for your input and contributions to the discussion throughout. Doniago (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Iowa Film Critics

This AfD may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003. You can see my comment there. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Would you be able to weigh in here? Thanks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer, replied in full there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No jpegs

Oh no, not again! - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I nipped it in the bud. Although I think the Commons crew screwed up. There is lots of stuff that is PD in the US but under copyright outside of it where the rule of shorter term doesn't apply, but for some reason the Bond trailers are being singled out as a special case. I think they realized that we were right but didn't want to back down, so we ended up with this farcical situation where US PD content has to be hosted here. I don't care where they put it, but I refuse to end up back where we started. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Top critics

I don't mean to pester, but has the time come now to add the "Top Critics" change to the Film MOS? The proposal seems to have safely survived without any objection. Thanks. 99.192.77.50 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, editors have had long enough to challenge the revisions so I've transferred them in. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will now bravely venture off to remove top critics scores from pages that have them! 99.192.92.87 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk: Verifiability.
Message added 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I have a query regarding a specific sources. Cheers! Till 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all your helpful and insightful comments to the verifiability discussion :) Till 14:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get enough of these you know: you really should have a lot more for all the work you do! - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A thanks

I'll like to thank you for correcting my edit in the list of most expensive films article. Also I'll like to tell you that i've corrected the problem with the Sound-era record holders. The problem was caused due to using the command colspan="2" due to which 1 title will span 2 columns. Please don't use this command in the list again. Thank you again. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Thanks

Thank you for your help with the 1967 re-release Gone With The Wind poster Fair Use - It has been difficult navigating through what is needed for these types of images.Jobrjobr (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the work you did under Later Releases for the Gone With The Wind (film) article - Great addition to the article - Good to see this iconic poster referenced on Wikipedia.Jobrjobr (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You had fulfilled all the FUR requirements, but when I added it to the GWTW article I switched the template for the multiple article set. Also, the licensing is unsual for this film: there seems to be an explicit court decision ruling that GWTW and Wizard of Oz publicity material is in the public domain; technically you don't need fair use rationales for PD content, but the court ruling placed restrictions on its usage so I thought it was best to keep them. Without the court ruling your license would have been correct. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but Wow what a mess - Thank you for the response.

If you have any interest(yes, here it comes), I have done a lot of work documenting the art of the designer of this poster, Tom Jung. Any help you can provide on his Wikipedia article would be appreciated.Jobrjobr (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of revamping Gone with the Wind so I'm not really looking for another project to take on at the moment, but if you need any technical assistance or peer review I'm happy to help out that way. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

IMDB external links?

I need your opinion on an edit. link I thought linking to someone's IMDB page was acceptable, even though we can't use IMDB as a RS. Seems rather strange to have Wikipedia:IMDb, if the user's edit were correct. Thanks. - Fantr (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (former fanthrillers)

I don't really work on the actor articles, but picking a few FAs at random and Kirsten Dunst, [[Brad Pitt] and Cillian Murphy all have IMDb links so it seems to be a regular feature. The reason for removing the link seems slightly suspect too, because while IMDb is not permitted as a source it is a regular external link on the film articles, since they aren't subject to the same criteria as sources. Personally I would revert the edit on the grounds it isn't being used as a source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Fantr (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

STIiD

Per WP:SUBJECT, that information shouldn't be in that article. xkcd might work, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, I wasn't aware of the policy. Maybe the Independent article can be added to the talk page as a "mention in the press" thing? I've seen them on several talk pages. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use of images

While I'm uploading images with better quality than the ones that exist, they are still of much lower resolution than the source I took them from. For example, I've uploaded File:Battle Droids.png (and most other screenshots) from a 1920x816 source and reduced it to 720x306, and the purpose was to show the subject more clearly since the original is too blurry and pixelated to begin with. I've already explained in each one of them that they are for illustrating the subject of the page, so I'm not sure what's missing. Is the resolution still too high? What would be the appropriate one? Thanks in advance. Alexrdias (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a judgment call when it comes to resolution. It doesn't just have to be lower than the original, it has to be the lowest it can possibly be to serve the purpose. To be honest, the Battle Droid one is a bit blurry so you have a reasonable argument for keeping the clearer image. However, in the case of an images like File:Palpatine ROTJ.jpg and File:Emperor RotJ.png that goes in the infobox at Palpatine, the lower res one is sufficient because it's clear and because it goes in the infobox it doen't need to be as high resolution as the one you uploaded. My advice is to up load them at just the size they need to be, and at the resolution they need to be so they are clear at that size. I'm just a normal editor though, not an admin, so if you disagree with any of my decisions just request a third opinion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and they will review them for you. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I'll lower the resolution of the infobox pictures I've uploaded and remove the speedy deletion notices. Alexrdias (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you know about Lobby Cards...?

Hi Betty, Long time no speak and I hope you're well. These lobby cards must be a colonial thing, as we don't have them in the UK! I've had some questions raised against the images used on the H. C. McNeile article at the Peer Review. The points raised are all spot on and I'll have to deal with them now or at FAC. One of the questions was against File:Bulldog Drummond Poster.jpg. While this is probably the original poster, I can't find any data to collaborate the fact, to I thought I may as well drop in a different image and two have come up which may suit:

Would these be OK to upload at Commons, do you think, based on the fact that they are over 90 years old? Cheers - ????

I would think the lobbycards would be ok to upload since they are pre-1923. However, the poster has been authenticated as the 1922 version at http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/5439184. I'm pretty sure auctioneers flogging off a poster for $2000 would have had an expert verify the dating. To add weight to it, the poster clearly says the film is being distributed by "Hodkinson Pictures", which was a major distributor during the silent era, and there are no mentions of it existing from the 1930s onwards. Even if the auction site got it wrong and the poster was from a reissue a few years later, it would still qualify as public domain content as per not having a copyright notice and being pre-1978 artwork. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic news—and I'm not sure how I missed the auction site, but that should be good enough for the poster. I now have a delightful embarrassment of riches as to which of the three I use! Thanks very much—as always you have lived up to your oracle status! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard

Betty,

I need a third party opinion from you. There is issue of spoilers regarding the plot of A Good Day to Die Hard. It has been released in certain East and Southeast Asian territories on February 7th, but it will be released in America and Canada in February 14th. The user from Singapore name Bonkers The Clown has setup the full plot of that movie before the American and Canadian release in February 14th. I understand he did that since he followed WP:Spoilers as faithfully as possible, but I worried how the full plot of this movie on that page might affect the box-office results in US and Canada. We would like your opinion on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Apols on the rollback - I hit the wrong damned link on my phone! - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is absolutely nothing that says we have to wait for the film to be released in certain territories before putting up the full details of a plot. We had exactly the same situation at Skyfall recently, with the UK release date some time before the US one. Despite putting up the full plot a couple of weeks before the US & Canadian release, the film has grossed over $1 billion, so I guess the box office wasn't hit that hard. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat is right. Once a film is released to the public anywhere in the world then its plot is verifiable and meets the criteria for inclusion. As well as Skyfall, this also happened with The Avengers too and they ended up as the two highest grossing films of the year. Betty Logan (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

History

Re children's film: "nothing from the current article is being retained,so it is better to retain the edit history of the new page". So why could we not retain both histories? I haven't checked - have we now got two histories hopelessly jumbled? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A history merge doesn't make any sense in this case, because there has been no merge. Robin has written a completely new article without using any of the material from the old article. The old article needed to be deleted and the new article moved to the available name. The edit history now does not make any sense in regards to the new article. It looks like other editors have contributed to the new article when they haven't done, and it looks like Robin contributed to the old deleted article when he didn't. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Betty and RHaworth,

Thanks for making the move on Children's film. I understand what Betty has written about the article edit history. But I am at least glad that people would be able to at last read more material dealing with children's film. I put up the rewrite on sandbox 7 months ago and waited for this move all along. I am happy for your help though I feel some one could have done this much earlier. This is a highly visited page and to think that people have not been able to access information which they sought even though it was worked on rewritten is something that we all need to work on. I read the conversation between Betty and RHaworth at this talk page when I came to the talk page of Betty Logan in order to thank her for the page move. I thought it would be better to explain that. Thanks once again for your help. Robin klein (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly more information now, Robin. The reason it hasn't happened sooner is because a request had to be filed to move your page since only an admin could get rid of the old article. I have also redirected the Family film article per the discussion at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Betty Logan, thanks for redirecting the page family film. Robin klein (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Robertson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For all your help in getting James Bond filmography up to its new GA standard, despite the attempts to delete it from Wiki altogther - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Bond grosses

My finger was hovering over the revert button for this for being unsourced. It may well be true by now, but have you seen anything we can use to back it up? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All I can find is this. I'm not sure if that is RS or not—I'd have to take a closer look—but it looks like a reasonable to me. This chart also seems to indicate that Thunderball is probably still in front: Casino Royale grossed 600 million selling 90 million tickets, so 1.1 billion at 2006 prices would equate to roughly 165 million tickets, still less than Thunderball, and 1.1 billion would of course buy fewer tickets now than in 2006. The admissions chart looks the most authoritative because it seems to be published by Sony, but obviously we can't use it because it's been posted in a forum. That admissions chart looks very interesting if we can soure a reliable copy. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet this says third! I'm going to take it out for the moment as it's not clear yet and there is certainly nothing in the press about it (my media searches have shown nothing), so it'll have to wait just a little longer. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I did some rough calculations (using Casino Royale's adissions and gross as yardstick), and Skyfall has sold about 130 million tickets worldwide, making it a dead heat for the second place. I think it is probably for the best to leave out such claims either way unless an authoritative source analyses it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that - I've taken it out already as a precaution! I am fairly sure there will be some nice reliable sources at the clear-cut point it all happens. I'm sure you'll know the answer to this (and excuse my ignorance) but are DVD etc grosses also included in our figures, or do we just rely on cinema grosses only for this? - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gross figures apply to just the cinema box office. It doesn't really give an accurate picture of financial success, but it is probably the best way of judging the popularity of a film because the problem with DVD and TV is that you are then just looking at income rather than assessing how many people watched it. For instance what many people don't realise is that the most profitable film ever made is not Avatar or even Gone with the Wind, it was actually Pixar's Cars, which was one of Pixar's worst performing films. The reason: it made 10 billion off toy licensing, but most people would probably agree that Toy Story was more popular. If you are interested in the other revenue streams: box office figures, video revenue and TV income, and that is leaving out product placement and merchandising. Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was probably the case, but just wanted to check. Many thanks, as always! (ps. Nice work on GWTW!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: this... I hope you're in agreement with the reversion. Let me know if you think otherwise! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Another petering question

Sorry to bother once again. Just clarifying this: as far as I was aware, United Artists are a distributor of Skyfall, rather than a production company. Is that your understnading too? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox film}} states to "Insert the company that produced the film". In the case of Skyfall that would seem to be Eon Productions. The BFI entry lists the film as being 'presented by' and 'made by' Eon productions, and lists Danjaq, United Artists and Columbia as "copyright owners". Our guidelines ask for the company that produced the film, not the companies that financed it or own the copyright, it's a different role. This distinction is mirrored by the American Film Institue, which doesn't have an entry for Skyfall as yet, but in the case of Quantum of Solace lists Eon as the production company and Sony as the distributor, with Danjaq, United Artists and Columbia as "copyright claimants". Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I've reverted and also taken out Danjaq, which doesn't appear to warrant being there either according to that classification. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of highest-grossing films know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on February 25, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/February 25, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally, the highest-grossing films have been war films, musicals and historical dramas, but franchise films have been the best performers in the 21st century, especially the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean series. The only films in the top ten that do not form a franchise are the top two, Avatar and Titanic, both directed by James Cameron. Disney has enjoyed success with its Pixar brand, of which the Toy Story films have been the best performers. James Bond, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones are still among the highest-grossing franchises, despite starting over thirty years ago. Gone with the Wind (poster pictured) was the highest-grossing film for 25 years and, adjusting for inflation, would remain so.

Rocki II edits

Greetings Ms.Logan

What appears to be the problem with my edit to the plot of Rocky II? I've seen the films enough times to know what is what but you've reverted me twice now. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem with your edit is that it very much reads like an interpretation of what we see, rather than what we actually see i.e. you are imposing your own reading of the film. Now, it's many years since I have seen the film so I would be lying if I said I could remember it in utmost clarity, but I vaguely recalling Apollo congratulating Rocky after being counted out: that is what we actually see, unless there is something else I have forgotten. I will ask at the Film project for a third opinion though because as I said I haven't seen it for along time. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You won't need to watch it again specifically for this because how you remember it vaguely is exactly how it was - unlike in the third and fourth films where post-match congratulation was not a part of the story (opponents Clubber Lang and Ivan Drago respectively), we did see it here and the reason I felt it worth mentioning is that unlike in the original Rocky, Creed is officially the antagonist for this movie (the first film was about Balboa's rise from a nobody so there was no real antagonist other than society itself!) and it is clear that as the fight gets longer and longer, it is no longer the case that Balboa having gone the distance in the last fight was a fluke. That said, Apollo still promises Rocky, "you're going down!" when knocking gloves at the start of the final round. So when Creed is finally beaten via knock-down, it is only right that the mere gesture of congratulating his opponent should be included otherwise we leave those not to have seen the film with the impression that the man who led a smear campaign against the protagonist was still a bitter figure by the end. Whether it was known to Stallone at the time remains a mystery but the sportsmanship of Apollo coupled with his love from the fans and his showman persona in the first film would fit neatly for the third and fourth films where he is "on the side of the good" - his character was introduced properly and he wasn't seen to have changed in any way, it was consistent with the character you knew from the first two films. Asides that, I know plots are supposed to be short and not include elements not truly necessary to the story-line. Let me know what you think here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Don't undo my stuff... please...

Please :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.79.168 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

meanie

you dealeated my page so i dont like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.242.242 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't delete pages. However, if your "page" was deleted, it was because it didn't meet the WP:Notability criteria. If it was deleted because I proprosed deletion, you can submit a request to have it restored at WP:UNDELETE. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disney Vault

I need to pick who I have arguments with better! [2] --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

List of abandoned and unfinished films

Clarityfiend persuaded me to begin a draft article in my user space: User:Fantr/List of abandoned and unfinished films. I'm backlogged with articles I'm drafting. I encourage you to work on the draft article. The linked category in the draft article lists other unfinished films that can be added to the first table. Thanks! I've also invited SchroCat and Erik to join. - Fantr (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently busy prepping Gone with the Wind for a GA push, but I will have a look at the article once I have finished up on that. I was just reading an article last week that may be of some use to you: River Phoenix - Dark Blood. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Entertainer (film) running time

re: this edit [3]. IMDB which as we know is not a reliable source claims that Turner Classic Movies' print runs 105m. The Turner website claims 97m. The BFI claims 96m. I can find no evidence that additional footage exists although I note that the 1976 American remake runs 105m according to IMDB. - Fantr (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would say revert straight away, but my default reference for running times is the BBFC, which actually measures the film. They give the running time as 107 minutes. So is this a mistake? Well, if you click on the "full information" tab it gives you the exact length in feet: 9686 ft. You get 16 frames per foot on 35mm film, which translates to 154976 frames of film; film plays at 24 frames per second, which works out to 107.6 minutes. The BBFC measurement does indeed seem to indicated that they rated a 107 minute cut of the film. It was X rated, so is it possible the 97 minute cut is an American version? Back in the 1960s American censorship was tough, you effectively could only release films for family viewing, so any X rated British films would have needed to be cut prior to 1968. It's possible the American version is the only one that exists now, which is why all sources list the shorter running time. Personally I would use the BBFC time and source them since they measured the film, but it's your call. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change it to 107m. - Fantr (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Really great work on Gone with the Wind! Keep it up! Icarus of old (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it is almost ready for its GA nomination I feel. I am going to rework the lede this weekend and then hopefully it will be done. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Klan in Gone with the Wind (film)

Hello, I saw your edit where you added "—now members of the Ku Klux Klan—" to Gone with the Wind (film). Based on your other edits I know you know this film far better than I, but I've checked with a couple other fans of the film and none of us remember any reference to the Klan. I see that it is explicit in the book, but I wanted to check to make sure you were sure about it being in the film. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I just checked my DVD, and Melanie simply refers to it as a "political group"; I've never actually noticed that before! However, the context of the scene remains the same: the "political group" still undertakes a raid on the shanty town after the attack on Scarlett, and, you know, there was only one "political group" raiding shanties in the 1860s. So I guess the question is how do we document it? I guess we could change the Klan to "political group" as the film references it, but are we being unnecessarily oblique about something which is pretty obvious? Perhaps a solution would be to use the film's terminology but link it to the Klan, so readers don't necessarily lose the context of the description. Alternatively, the group is generally recognized as the Klan in critical analysis so we could just bring in a source such as this one: [4]. I mean it's not a huge deal for me, it's really just a question of how to best convey the events of the film, especially to someone who possibly hasn't seen it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I think my reluctance to mention the Klan stems from my affection for the movie and the characters - and that's a terrible motivation for editing an article. If the movie shades it by calling it a "political group", but the scholarship makes it clear which political group it is, then it seems to me that that conclusion should be described in the article, but it should also be clear that the movie did not explicitly say it was the Klan. You are doing a wonderful job with the article and I trust your judgement to handle it well. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've come up with a sensible compromise: on one hand I think it's important to not lose the context of the raid, on the other I think it is important to recognize that Selznick did make a creative decision to not explicitly represent the KKK in the film. I've reintroduced the vague terminology into the plot section and framed it as a creative decision in the analysis section. I think this is the best approach for dealing with this sort of thing. A pre-existing source actually covers this aspect already, so it seems like an organic solution. Betty Logan (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#RfC: Is listing every speaking character actor in the cast section relevant?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#RfC: Is listing every speaking character actor in the cast section relevant?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind

Hi Betty, I've begun the Gone with the Wind GA review. It looks strong on my first pass, but I'd like your input on a few points--you can see them at the review page. Thanks for your work on this one, I'm very glad to see it improving! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your copy-editing looks fine to me, I don't have any problems with it. I will work my may through your points. Most of them are easily fixable, a couple of others are a bit more complicated so I will come back to those at the end. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		As God is my witness, I'll never be C-class again! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for contributing this one. I end up reviewing a lot of X-Files episodes and 2012 movies over at GAN, and while that's both fun and important, it's always great to see a lasting classic come down the pipe along with them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. It gets 4000 hits per day which is an amazing figure for a pre-War film (even more than what recent hits like the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films get), so I reasoned it was about time we gave it that final push. It was a very smooth review, you picked up on points where I had become unfocused and didn't get caught up in minutiae. I will drop a note to User:Walloon since he contributed as much as I did, but unfortunately he seems to be no longer active on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Fantastic effort on getting Gone with the Wind up to GA. I'm not jealous that you got picked up for a review after 24 hours, while I'm still waiting for someone to have a go at James Bond in film, even though it's been waiting since last year, no I'm not, honestly! - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It probably does help your cause when you have just nominated the most iconic American film ever made though. Still, I am surprised it has taken this long for a Bond article to get picked up, they are usually snapped up within days aren't they? Betty Logan (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally yes, but I think it's such a big article with a lot of text there. Still, I'm on leave for a few days, so I suspect that'll be the time someone picks it up! -SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow

Frankly my dear, that is a Good Article Gone with the Wind in 60 seconds Prairiegrl (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, that's really good. Thanks for your copy editing on the article last week too. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

James Herbert

Please don't accuse me of misrepresenting the source in the edit I made. I make all my edits in good faith. In this case, I put the name in as the paper reported it as it was sourced information and I didn't want to introduce my own POV by editing it. I can accept that I misread/misunderstood the source as the way it was written introduced an element of ambiguity, at least to my reading. But saying I've misrepresented the source implies intent and shows bad faith, which puts me on the defensive and makes me less inclined to be civil. On top of which, I'd made further changes to the article since to make it have fewer and more clearly-defined sections instead of many scattered little ones, and your undo undid those edits too, meaning I had to reinstate them. In such a situation you should've just edited to remove the surname rather than undoing. I wouldn't have re-added it - as you can see, while I've undone your edit to restore those changes, I've removed the surname to preserve the change you made as I accept I may have misunderstood (but not misrepresented!) the source. 90.221.243.46 (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't realize my edit had undone other changes until after I had made it and I was about to restore the other stuff before you reverted. My edit was not doubting your "faith", it was an attempt to summarize exactly what was wrong with the edit. I had already explained in a previous edit the problem with the wording and you hadn't understood so I was trying to make the problem clearer. If a source describes her as "Eileen O Donnell" in a current day context then fair enough, that is what we go with, but we can't draw that inference from the way the source uses it, unless we phrase it the same way. Anyway, keep up the good work, it's good that this misunderstaning has been cleared up. Betty Logan (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

from, From, fRoM etc

Hi Betty, I'm just starting to peer review the Julianne Moore article when the name Far from Heaven stood out of the text. Moore's article has Far From Heaven, the film's article reads Far from Heaven. Before changing one of them and starting a mini Star Trek-style tsunami, I'm wondering which one has it right... Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the whole issue over Star Trek was whether "Into Darkness" was supposed to be a subtitle or not. No such ambiguity exists in this case, and according to WP:NCF I would say that it should be Far from Heaven, so the article is correctly titled, and the Moore article should follow the naming conventions really. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll let them know. Are you going to go through PR and FAC with Gone with the Wind at any point? - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, at least not before next year. It's the 75th anniversary in 2014 so I'll maybe put it through then. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to go for it now, while you've still got the momentum. If FAC say there is more to do, then you'll have time to get everything sorted before next year. It doesn't matter if it gets its star now and waits until next December before getting on to the front page. Worth a thought, at any rate! - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

request?

Hey can you run a webcite comb on The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) Not sure how you did that on X-Men: First Class so I am requesting you to do it. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a go but I got a time out messgae. I'll try again later on. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ext link copyright board

Hi there Betty - Since you suggest raising the issue at the WP copyright board, do you have a link for it? - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Make sure you make it clear to them you only want to link to the page, not that you want to reuse the images on Wikipedia. Don't let them get sidetracked into a general debate about linking to an open wiki either, you just want to know if WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to the site in regards to the images. Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do this tomorrow if time permits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And now -

Pacific Rim

Hello, there is currently a discussion in place re the title of "Pacfic Rim" on the Article Talk Page, that if you could swing by and provide some input that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 12:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and question

Hi Betty, I've been seeing your good work popping up all over the place lately, it seems. How did you generate a full list of cached sources in that WebCite report on The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film)? I use WebCite a lot, but only know how to do one source at a time, which gets time-consuming. Thanks for all your work on film articles, it's much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can archive a whole bunch of URLs using the utility at Webcite comb. It brings up a checklist of all the links it finds on the page. You have to check each one (although it can bring up the same link more than once depending on its usage in the article) and on a page of 100 links or so it can take several minutes to work your way through the checklist, but it still beats archiving them one by one. Also, when it's busy it "queues" the job, so sometimes your tab can seemingly freeze for 5-10 minutes after you start the archiving process; I thought my browser was crashing originally but it turns out you just have to patient. Unfortunately it won't add them to the cite templates on the wiki page for you, but if the links die editors can check the Webcite archives using Checklinks as and when. A very useful resource, hopefully we won't lose it at the end of the year. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good to know--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Another Bond-related barnstar for the collection, this time for your tireless work on James Bond in film‎, which reached GA today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Like -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I warrant a barnstar for adding a caption, but thanks all the same! Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You did a lot more than that during the article's development: it only got as far as it did because of the development undertaken by you and Fantr! - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been so long I can't even remember doing anything on it. Congrats on getting it promoted anyway, it's been a long time coming! Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. No revert: Espresso-con-pana

Betty, if you have time, please see SchroCat's comment on my talk page about "vandalism" of article Dr. No, April 2013, and my reasoned response, which he instantly reverted from his talk page. —I did not expect such a strong reaction! Thank you. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a fuller explanation for my reverts at Talk:Dr. No (film). I fully understand why you don't appreciate your edits being reverted—no-one does—but when there are problems sometimes it has to be done. At From Russia with Love (film) I thought your edit was reasonable at first glance and I actually tried to integrate it into the article better, but when I realized it was also unsourced I felt it was better just to pull it. Likewise with your edit at Goldfinger, there is no logical reason to pick out Thunderball either; what distinguishes it from You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me in this particular case? As for SchroCat removing your comments from his talk page without a response, he probably didn't appreciate your Wikipedia:POINTY edit at Dr No and most likely didn't want to escalate what is starting to become a deteriorating situation. It would be better if the discussion relating to your edits remain in one place, so if you would like to continue this discussion let's keep it off SchroCat's talk page and keep it at the Dr No talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

E-c-p

And it continues... - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Template talk: James Bond films

I read your "options" proposal response to SchroCat on the James Bond Template talk page and I think it has a great deal of merit. I can't think of anything more to add, so give it a go! Appreciate your experience. Thanks. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

AfD

As someone who has worked on an article whose content is duplicated, the following AfD may be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nominations & Wons in the James Bond film series. I'd also be glad to hear (either separately or on the AfD thread) your views on Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's comments regarding the naming of the "Critical reception" section. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Distributor in film infobox

re: this edit. Do we include the home video distributor in the film infobox? I'm fairly certain we don't but the infobox template page is ambiguous. I figure if anybody knows the rules and can point me to them it's you. Thanks! - Fantr (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally just the main distributor is recorded: for films that had a cinema release that would be the theatrical distributor, and the video distributor would only be recorded for films that were direct to video. A good rule of thumb is to make sure the distributor is recorded for "notable" releases, which we also record the release dates for, so the distributors and the dates should match up. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are in good faith

Betty Logan at the reliable sources noticeboard you said I'm misrepresting the discussion and that I called you inexperienced. I apologise for the insult but that doesn't mean I was trying to bully you. Believe me all my edits are in good faith. Also please notice that a reliable source noticeboard is no place to complain about someone's attitude. Apart from that my English is my own problem. I request you to only focus on the matter at hand and help resort this situation peacefully. The decision of which source to use and not to is now in hands of administrators. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not complained about your attitude at the noticeboard (although I do think you need to adopt a less combative approach in discussions). I have simply explained the circumstances of the disagreement as I see them. Betty Logan (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts

If you think that the list of films should be culled, please start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded p b p 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is not required for articles that indisputably do not belong on the list. The instructions state Please don't remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. Be bold, though, and if something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 10,000, remove it, with discussion if necessary, assuming good faith always. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Within the spirit of the guidelines I acted appropriately. There was no mass deletion here, I removed three film that are not listed on the Film project's core list. If an article isn't listed as a core article it certainly doesn't belong at Vital articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation on the AN/Incidents

You are invited to discuss this issue on the AN/I. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediation note

Hello, Betty Logan. You were recently involved in a discussion on the RS noticeboard. I've been mediating this dispute, and I thought I'd let you know that one of the editors has put forward a proposed resolution. I'd just like to notify you of this opportunity to build consensus. The proposition in question is here. Regards, m.o.p 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Iron Man (franchise).
Message added 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw ^talk 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Prometheus portals

Hi! Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Could you take a look at the FAC of Ra.One? Your input would be much appreciated. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 10:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussing Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Hello again Betty Logan. Acting upon your advice I will like to start a discussion of replacing BOM with Boxoffice.com for the box office gross of the film Incredible Burt Wonderstone when the consensus has been reached. So I will like to invite all.intrested parties to this discussion. Also I would like you to advise on which points should I keep in mind while trying to prove that BOM should be replaced with Boxoffice.com. Also I would like your opinion on whether I should start a new discussion to replace BOM with Boxoffice.com where this "N/A" problem is present and make a case-by-case approach. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best to start a discussion at the article talk page and notify other regular editors of the article about it. If there isn't an obvious consensus (say within a day or two) then notify the Film project of the discussion to get some objective opinons. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In this regard: I am sorry, I did not want to come over as critizising so much, as just making an observation; the problem is that in hindsight one may find many a fault when scrutinizing edits. So, sorry about that, I did not want to sound so ascerbic. I think Dispute resolution should be the way forward. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The worse that can happen is I get topic banned from the article. It's not an area I'm hugely invested in anyway, but these animal rights articles are the focal point of huge POV pushing. I suppose people will always find fault if they go looking for it, but these lists have benefitted from someone enforcing a sourcing standard. Betty Logan (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A thank you

Hello I want to thank you for helping to reach a consensus at WP:RS. Without you I think it would have been nearly impossible to reach a consensus . So I thank you for your tireless contribution. Also sorry again about insulting you at the beginning of the discussion. I still regret that. Also I commented about your behaviour at ANI because what I saw was what I said. But I don't want to repeat the same experience that happened on MarnetteD and Tenebrae's talk page to happen here too. So instead of discussing about your behavior I would like to say that if you feel I have misrepresented you in some way ,then please forgive me for that and let the disputes of the past remain in the past. Can we please be friends? Thank you.:) KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I feel you have misrepresented me. Since I have never been involved in an editing dispute with you, you have no right to call me a disruptive editor. I am happy to work with you when there is agreement, but you have to stop lashing out when you disagree with someone. BoxOffice.com was added to the list of reliable sources and I was one of the editors who helped that happen; in fact I was the editor that added it to the list of Film resources. I will work alongside anyone to accomplish a common goal, but only if you are willing to be cordial. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if we have a common goal. Please forgive me for saying this but I somewhat don't trust you. Still since I know your edits are in good faith and you behavior is civil. But at one point it seemed in the discussion you were making things up. You said that BOM is always more updated than Boxoffice.com. That's why sometimes I get suspicious. But please let's put the past mistakes in the past. Please don't be angry just because you think I disrespcted you. Will you please be my friend,please? KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to trust each other, otherwise we can't collaborate if you doubt the other person's motives. I am pretty sure I haven't said that Box Office Mojo is more updated, just that we know when it has been updated because it dates the information. At the end of the day I eventually became convinced that BoxOffice.com was reliable, and that is how you edit Wikipedia. Like being a scientist: you have to prove something is right before it is published in a book or a journal. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Film templates

Betty, thank you for doing the coding for the merge and checking the updates like a hawk. It takes a lot of time and I appreciate your work. I haven't had a chance to look over the merge results closely so I haven't replied on the main forum. Since the old templates are being retired, what should be done with all the pages using those templates? Will a bot automatically convert them or should editors go over them and change them manually?
"In the future, just add the admissions to the box office field; it is not metric specific so can accommodate a gross figure or admissions, since it is all box office."
True. I will probably do that for the future. Thanks. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A bot won't be able to convert them because of the problem of using the {{Film name}} sub-template, and to do it manually would be a huge undertaking. Basically what the merge means to editors is that the film infobox can add any necessary categories, and any changes in the parameters will carry over to all the Asian film articles too, so editors just need to be aware of that. It is basically a glorified redirect: the infobox doesn't have to be changed on the film articles, and it should be a transparent process for editors. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it. And if an editor has copy-pasted one of the defunct templates and continues to use it in the future on new articles, it will still work but is discouraged. Is that correct? ₪RicknAsia₪ 19:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it will work fine. It's not even discouraged, just like you are allowed to link to redirects if you want. I strongly suspect that many editors won't even notice the change so will continue just doing what they always did which is fine. They just need to be aware that if they want to withdraw or add a parameter or change something it has to be done at the main infobox now. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Please don't edit other people's posts, move their signatures, or change the structure of the RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry, but your RFC description was very biased. It easily violates the instructions for filing an RFC. However I am ok with it provided you leave my comments where they are, to address the extremely non-neutral tone. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

BOM has finally replied

BOM has finally replied to my query. I've received a reply from Ray Subers, editor at BOM. This is what they said :-

"We don't have enough people on staff to keep up with this. Simple as that. Sorry.

Ray Subers

Editor, Box Office Mojo"

This reply came 2 days back but I noticed it just today. I think.they can still be qualified as a reliable source but still it is better to use Boxoffice instead if BOM where the total foreign gross is "N/A" or is inaccurate. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I do agree it is better to use the more up to date source, but if you have three different figures from BOM, BO.com and The Numbers it may not be easy to determine which source is the correct one. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed the gross of Incredible Burt Wonderstone

While still using BOM as a source to avoid edit warring I've changed the worldwide box office gross of the film by manually calculating the whole foreign box office gross and adding it the domestic gross have to obtain the true "worldwide gross". As you can see I have instead linked the box office gross to this section (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=burtwonderstone.htm) where the foreign gross of all territories is given. The difference comes out to be more than 5 million when the whole foreign gross is manually calculated and considering the small budget of the film it's a lot. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks ok to me. If anyone reverts you though, don't get into a fight about it, just start a discussion on the talk page and leave me a note ok? Betty Logan (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK but if someone just reverts it then what I am.to do? I mean some user could simply just revert the edit without seeing the edit summary or the discussion at talk page. And if it is an IP address then it will be nearly impossible to invite them.for discussion except if a close watch is kept on the page. But a close watch cannot be kept on forever on the article. Some user might just simply copy what he is seeing and might insert the domestic gross in place of worldwide gross since total worldwide gross is "N/A". Still thanks for understanding Betty. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's an IP just revert it. If it's a regular editor it would be best to start a discussion to explain the problem. It might also be worth adding a hidden note next to the figure in the infobox so it doesn't get changed by mistake:

<!--The worldwide total at Box Office Mojo does not include the foreign grosses so these have been added in manually. You can check the figures by clicking on the "Foreign" tab at Box Office Mojo.-->

Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the advice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

Hello, Betty Logan. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

The discussion goes on. I did as you suggested - we just need the intention behind ELNO#12 elaborated on. I suggest raising the issue at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and standing by the outcome. I posted it there using those words (first half), the issue was addressed, and yet the editor who did not get the consensus he wanted continues on at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed some reverting earlier today; the problem though is that only two people who weren't involved in the debate added their opinions at the EL discussion, and only one of those was "weak support", so it wasn't exactly a decisive judgment. This is part of the problem on Wikipedia: there are half a dozen admins ready to jump on you if you break 3RR, but when you use the correct procedure for resolving the issue no-one can be arsed! I think there are a couple of options left:

Post a request at WT:NOVELS asking for more comments at the EL noticeboard.
If that doesn't work file a RFC asking a very simple question: should the link be included or excluded from the article.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

An RFC where? - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can find a step-by-step guide at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Betty Logan (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

As you know, I did this. You and a few others commented there. The RfC was not closed, but it was removed by RFC bot from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Media, the arts, and architecture three days ago. So apparently no previously uninvolved administrator has to respond to an RfC either. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:35, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

You can request formal closure of the RFC at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. Betty Logan (talk) 02:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd rather it got more response from previously uninvolved people. So I guess all I can do is leave it alone... - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:52, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your time off! Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed the box office gross of The Call

I have also changed the box office gross of The Call by manually calculating the total foreign gross and adding it to the domestic gross to obtain the true "worldwide gross". KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring discussion

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about the WP:3RR violations we've had to deal with at Ian Fleming‎. It's at [5] if you want to comment there. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up on FAC

If possible, could you follow up on your initial comments at the FAC of Ra.One? It's languishing at the board with no new comments, so I'd be happy if I could see some solid progress. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 12:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I will post some thorough comments at the weekend Ankitbhatt, when I have a bit of time to go over it. OK? Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thorough review. I'll begin work as soon as possible. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 09:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello BL. I wanted to stop by and say thank you for your post at ANI in the thread that I was involved in. I feel sure that you would have preferred to be editing article so I really appreciate the time that you took to look into things and to post there. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It should have been chucked out by an admin straight away. If an editor cannot be bothered raising the issue on the article talk page to find out why their edit was reverted as opposed to just templating the other editor and reporting them at ANI then there isn't a case to answer to IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Gosh I just remembered the huge wikidrama that you went through a year or two ago. I am sorry that your efforts to make BRD a policy did not work out. Thanks for your efforts then as well. MarnetteD | Talk 18:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Betty from me too. The whole incident made me so angry that this is the first time I have dared to to post on the incident. Your comment here is exactly correct. All the best –
– Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi Betty, Your thoughts would be much appreciated [[Talk:Global James Bond Day|here] regarding the merging of the Bond Day page. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Disney issues

Hello, Betty Logan. I'm here to ask you for your assistance in resolving a few matters in some Disney articles. Below, I've provided links to the respective talk pages where the two main contentions are being discussed and a brief description of the issue at hand.

A. Issue #1 - Whether or not Disney Enterprises, Inc. exists as its own functioning entity, operating as the parent of The Walt Disney Studios but simultaneously as an active subsidiary of The Walt Disney Company.

B. Issue #2 - Whether the studios' distribution unit as a whole or one of that unit's specific film banners (e.g. Disney, Touchstone, etc.) should be identified as the distributor in the respective infobox parameter for all film releases.

I would greatly appreciate your input since neither discussion has gained any traction without there being disagreements and edit reversions erupting every now and then, hindering the chances of a consensus ever being reached. I'm also asking the same from other editors, in an effort to gather as much diverse opinions as possible, in the hopes of reaching a consensus that satisfies every editor's concern. Thank you, ~ Jedi94 (talk) 18:14, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

GWTW renamed/rescued to bypass Google https link

It worked. By 21:00, 9 May 2013, Google was showing the new title "Gone with the Wind (1939 film)" with simple "http" link, when searching "gone wind" (or similar). I had move-renamed the article (and talk-page) before 06:00, and fortunately, Google reindexed the page, within 10-14 hours, to rank "1939 film" and outrank the old title (still shows secure-server "https" link). Within a few days, the daily pageviews will reveal the effects of the rescue, to (hopefully) allow 3,000 more people easy access every day.

The article is now available, to all viewers, in Google Search, by simple, typical "http" link when searching "gone with wind" showing new title "Gone with the Wind (1939 film)" as renamed. Based on the one-fifth day Google has listed the new title, the readership stats, later tonight, can be compared to the prior title with 1,880 per day:

pageviews-201305-as-1939-film - "Gone with the Wind (1939 film)"
pageviews-201305-as-film - "Gone with the Wind (film)" - were 1,880/day

Then, on subsequent days, the average pageviews should return to over 4,700 pageviews/day. I am sorry I did not rename the article weeks sooner, as relying too much on "others" to fix these extremely complex problems. I am still studying the pageview levels to determine how many people were actually thwarted in viewing the article, as compared to people who perhaps could see part of the page with lockup. There are over 300 other major articles hindered by Google https protocol (such as "Filmmaking" or "Film noir"), and I have updated essay "wp:Google https links" to list over 500 other pages with https-prefix, so far. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I just googled it and I'm still getting this in my Google search:

Gone with the Wind (film) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gone_with_the_Wind_(film)‎

Betty Logan (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Oh this interesting. If I search on http://www.google.com/search?&q=gone+with+the+wind I get the https link, but if I search on http://www.google.com/search?&q=gone+with+the+wind+wikipedia I get the new link. Betty Logan (talk) 00:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Still matched prior title until #REDIRECT removed: I also noticed the exact title still matched the old redirect (for phrase "gone with the wind") refusing to delink, while any variation matched the new title, until I changed the old title page to be a separate page (not a #REDIRECT), which then contained "See: <new title>" and that seems to have delinked the old title, so the full-title search now matches the new title, along with any other related words. As the next step, I then restored the #REDIRECT inside the old-title page but also set "__NOINDEX__" to stop Google/Bing from listing the old title at all. The final step would be a re-rename back to the original title; however, other http-prefix pages are still falling into Google's https-protocol trap, and so I am waiting for the new title to become https'ed, and then at that point, re-rename back to the original title, unless the onslaught of Google https-ifying pages is fixed by the developers or someone. In general, the double-rename method runs as follows:

Rename each article, temporarily, where the new title would be indexed into Google with typical http-prefix link, and then change each old-title page to contain a "soft redirect" linking to the new http title, and once re-indexed, then restore the #redirect with "__NOINDEX__" to allow Google to "forget" the old title, and finally rename back (by admin), where the double-renamed title would drop the initial https-protocol prefix.

I think the process can be condensed into a 3-day sequence of renaming, but the developers have been talking about a system-wide fix by inserting a link-tag, into the HTML markup, with option rel="canonical" and perhaps that could be applied soon to avoid renaming other pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:04, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Requested unrename to original title which Yahoo/Bing still list: There has been another surprise, where both Yahoo Search and Bing.com have continued to link original title ("Gone with the Wind (film)") for 5 days, and so I have posted at wp:RM to unrename (see: WP:Requested_moves/Technical requests#Technical requests), and so Google will align with Yahoo/Bing as all listing the original title (within 2 days?). However, the "~(1939 film)" title will remain a redirect, because several people have requested that title each week during prior 7 months. Already, the pageviews of the two titles, as redirect/aliases, show a total of 3,900 pageviews per day (versus average 1,880/day with Google https-protocol). Hence, with fewer people confused now the "https:" prefix is gone, then pageviews should exceed 4,000 per day. Yet, the month of May being the end of the school year, in some districts, might cause school-related pageviews to drop soon. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:02, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to the bottom of it and sorting it out. I have noticed quite a few Google links popping up with the https prefix; here is another: http://www.google.com/search?&q=bbc+sports+personality+of+the+year. BBC Sports Personality of the Year which is a featured article never went below 6000 hits per month last year, but is now down to below 4000 hits in April this year. I hope there is an eaier way to fix this, because I bet this has happened to thousands of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

GWTW film re-renamed and Google link http (not https): As the final step (to stay in sync with Yahoo/Bing and prior usage), the film page was re-renamed back to original "Gone with the Wind (film)" at 05:32, 14 May 2013‎ by User:Anthony_Appleyard (rev345), leaving redirect "~(1939_film)" and Google has created a new link with "http" prefix (where https-protocol link had been). Over the next few days, Google should begin to list the original title for gone/wind searches, and the 1939-film redirect title should fade in the search-results list (while pageviews shift to original title). Meanwhile, Bugzilla ticket Bug 48402 has been filed to address the system-wide fix for those thousands of Google-https pages (see: "wp:Village_pump (technical)#No canonical link when editing https pages"). There is still a rare chance for Google to re-garble the http-linked GWTW with a "https" link again, but I think that would take several days, during which we will see the true (http) pageviews again (stats-201305), as a sanity check that over 4,000 people view the GWTW film page daily. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow up on film ratings section for MPAA article

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks again for your feedback about my proposed rewrite of the Film rating system section of the Motion Picture Association of America article. I've now redrafted the section based on your comments and reposted it over at Talk:MPAA. If you have time, could you take a look and see if you think the new draft is better suited for the MPAA article? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Kyle, it is much better and I left my response. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks so much! I've just posted another follow-up over at Talk:MPAA, considering the most recent feedback from you and User:Erik. MPAA Kyle (talk) 14:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Vital Articles: Thank you

Betty, thank you for your recent participation in talk page discussions at Vital Articles/Expanded. I hope that you, Schrocat, and other film project editors will feel welcome and able to participate in discussions regarding additions, removals and swaps of topics related to films, actors and other subjects in which you may have an interest. Your input and suggestions are invited, and we look forward to hearing more from you in the future on VA/E topics of mutual interest. Regards, Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:06, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I was going to ask if you wanted to propose any more films for removal from the VA/E list, but you beat me to the punch? Any interest in taking that chainsaw of yours to the sublists of actors, actress and filmmakers, too? We have a serious pop culture logjam with those categories (pop singers and pop music, too). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look some time over the next week. There are still some borderline film cases that I've left on that would be better switched rather than dropped, so we'll see how many of my cuts are accepted. Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

MPAA "History" section updates

Hi Betty, I'm continuing to work on updates to the MPAA article, and I've posted a new draft of the "History" section over at Talk:MPAA that I'd like to propose, but it doesn't look like anyone's yet had a chance to take a look at it.

I'm especially keen to get this section over into the main article, as the current version contains quite a bit of plagiarism from the MPAA website, which is problematic from a copyright standpoint. What do you think about moving my draft over into the main article, and then addressing any feedback you have, in an effort to get the plagiarism out of the article? I'm certainly open to other possibilities as well. Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 22:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll take a look over the weekend. Betty Logan (talk) 10:37, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks so much for taking a look at the proposed updates to the "History" section for the MPAA article. I've posted a reply over at Talk:MPAA. If you have a second, could you take a look? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Just wanted to see if you'd had a chance yet to take a look at my reply to your comments about the MPAA "History" section. Thanks so much for your help on getting this article updated! MPAA Kyle (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to take a short survey about communication and efficiency of WikiProjects for my research

Hi Betty, I'm working on a project to study the running of WikiProject and possible performance measures for it. I learn from WikiProject Film talk page that you are an active member of the project. I would like to invite you to take a short survey for my study. If you are available to take our survey, could you please reply an email to me? I'm new to Wikipedia, I can't send too many emails to other editors due to anti-spam measure. Thank you very much for your time. Xiangju (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Sure. Feel free to email me :) Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Dutchsnookerfan

Could someone take a look at Dutchsnookerfan (talk · contribs). He adds constantly unnecessary flags to the Snooker season 2013/2014 article. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Reverting my edit on GWTW

And your point is? The film is 220 minutes long, is that not 3 hours, 40 minutes? Textorus (talk) 02:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

The length of the film is variable, as indicated by the times in the infobox. Since it is unknown how long the interval ran for during the preview screening—or indeed if there was an interval—then it is not clear if the film was cut down from 4:25 to 3:40 of running time, or if it was cut from 4:25 to 3:54 (or 3:58). The source is equally unspecific, stating "When the final credits rolled four hours and 25 minutes later (the film was later cut to under four hours), the crowd gave another ovation." Betty Logan (talk) 02:31, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, my concern was that the sentence as written is illogical: ". . . but would later be cut down to under four hours for its proper release (making it the longest American sound film made up to that point)." This makes no sense: all American sound films at that time were "under four hours." Do you see what I mean? It would only make sense with a positive value stated, not a negative one. Since I see from the edit history of the article that you seem to have an intense interest in making and keeping it well written, perhaps you would like to address this point yourself. Textorus (talk) 01:28, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

I've relocated the record where the length is discussed in more detail. See if it reads better for you. The problem is that 3:40 and 3:58 are both records either way, but it's not clear what the reference point is for the cuts. Betty Logan (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures

Hello, Betty Logan. You may recall you were involved with a discussion here, where the issue of what we should be identified in the "distributed by" parameter of Disney's film infoboxes (the main distribution arm or its film banners) was discussed. Since the discussion went dormant, I managed to get an administrator to formally close it. Unfortunately, it too yielded no clear resolution. However, the administrator who performed the action noted that the best solution would have been the one you solely supported. As such, and since the issue still needs to be addressed, I'm going to go ahead and implement that solution across all the affected articles. Do you have any remarks? Thank you, ~ Jedi94 (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

I have no objections. The closer only noted it was a reasonable solution rather than a consensus backed solution, so if anyone challenges it then it would be best to raise the issue at the Film project again. I think it's one of those instances where my suggestion will work in most cases, but we shouldn't apply it too rigorously where it is clearly deficient. Betty Logan (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

All right. I hope I don't come across any obstacles. Thanks again, ~ Jedi94 (talk) 00:43, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A bit more help on the MPAA article?

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks again for moving the "History" section of the MPAA article over. I've just posted another request at Talk:MPAA, this time regarding a rewrite for the current "Anti-piracy efforts" and "Controversies and criticisms" section. If you have time to take a look, I'd certainly appreciate your input. Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 16:09, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

I have been busy this weekend but I will take a look at it some time in the next couple of days. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks for taking a look at this! I've replied to your feedback over at Talk:MPAA. If you have a sec, could you take a look? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty Logan, Just wanted to let you know that I've replied to your latest round of feedback about "Anti-piracy efforts" over at Talk:MPAA. In short, your suggestion sounds fine. If you have a sec, could you go ahead and move the section over? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 18:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Hey Betty Logan, Thanks so much for your input on "Anti-piracy efforts," and for moving the section over! I'm working on a few tweaks to the introductory paragraph of the article, so I might reach out for a bit of assistance with that once I have the language prepared. Thanks again! MPAA Kyle (talk) 13:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

One last thing for MPAA

Hi Betty Logan, Thanks again for your help so far in getting the MPAA article updated and expanded. I have one last request, which I've posted over at Talk:MPAA, this time looking for help to update and slightly expand the introductory paragraph. If you have time, could you take a look and see what you think? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 02:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Adding image of Chris Dodd to MPAA article

Hi Betty Logan, I have one last request for the MPAA article, this time regarding the addition of an image of the current MPAA Chairman, Chris Dodd, to the "History" section of the article. I've detailed my request over at Talk:MPAA. If you have a moment, could you take a look? Thanks! MPAA Kyle (talk) 19:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Bishop Bell School

The pupil's name cannot be revealed due to UK law, and your addition was a major violation of our BLP policies. Please be much more careful in future. Giant Snowman 14:46, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't accept either of those assertions. I am not subject to UK law and neither is Wikipedia. I do not agree that there was a BLP violation either. WP:BLPNAME clearly states "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it"; however, every single media outlet in the UK published the person's name so it has clearly been widely disseminated, so please tell me how it breached BLP guidelines? Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Why are you doubting the asserion that "The pupil's name cannot be revealed due to UK law"? That's simply fact. You may not be subject to UK law and Wikipedia might not be, but plenty of UK editors are. As for WP:BLPNAME, the name may have been revealed by a few papers 8 months ago, but it has now been "intentionally concealed" (by law!) and therefore it should clearly be ommitted. Giant Snowman 15:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

UK law is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Lots of things are banned By Iranian law but we don't go censoring Wikipedia because of it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:27, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

UK law might be irrleveant to Wikipedia, BLPNAME is not. Giant Snowman 15:29, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

As I have explained, I do not believe BLPNAME applies since i) her name has already entered the public domain and ii) international media outlets in other countries (which Wikipedia technically is) that are not subjected to the gagging order are using her name in their reports. Betty Logan (talk) 15:41, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Well then you're on your own there then, see the discussion at WP:BLPN (which ideally you should have been advised about earlier). Giant Snowman 15:43, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for chiming in at WP:3RN. Based on AD86's past conduct towards me I've filed a request at WP:ANI. You're welcome to participate if you wish to. DonIago (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Garbo qustion

Hello BL, classicfilmbuff here. At the same time the sockpuppet messed up chunks of the Garbo p. this user, BeautyMan1997 (talk · contribs), separated the filmography section into a new p. I think it's the same person since same type of errors were made (I spent several hours correcting them as you can see on the p.) and his prose style the same. Can you find out if this user is a sp? Another GG editor and I think the filmography should be returned to the GG p. since 1) its long intro just repeats what's in the main article, and 2) the filmography isn't long enough to justify an entire article (GG made only 28 films). Keeping it in the GG p. strenghens the article. If he is a sockpuppet, can we remove the filmography p. and put the filmography back where it was? The other editor, has suggested we might also consider a merge discussion but I don't see that strategy getting anywhere, though I don't know the protocol. Would appreciate your thoughts and advice on this. Thanks,--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 16:03, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up, it looks that way. I will add it to the sock puppet investigation. Betty Logan (talk) 18:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

If you disagree with a split you certainly don't need to start a merge discussion to put the article back to how it was. The WP:BRD cycle allows you to revert a bold edit you disagree with. Betty Logan (talk) 20:34, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Bond film list

Hi Betty, I'm enjoying the sun away from home at the moment, so could you check whether this edit is okay or not? I've got no access to the sources and I'm struggling to see the changes on my mobile screen at the moment. Ta v much! - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've sorted it. The changes reflect what Box Office Mojo has, but if we change them we lose the inflation link. Betty Logan (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Still watching the Avatar (2009 film) article?

I ask because I may need your help there when matters of this or this nature pop up. Flyer22 (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

I support your reverts in those instances. I'll add it back to my watchlist for the time being and hopefully it will pass. It may be worth adding a cite to [6] for the language since the language is listed in the "details" section, so at least then further edits would go against the source which is easier to enforce. Betty Logan (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty. Very much appreciated. I don't mind your suggestion at all, though I'm lazy these days when it comes to adding material to Wikipedia articles. What details section are you referring to? Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

VisualEditor

Hey Betty Logan

I'm sending you this because you've made quite a few edits to the template namespace in the past couple of months. If I've got this wrong, or if I haven't but you're not interested in my request, don't worry; this is the only notice I'm sending out on the subject :).

So, as you know (or should know - we sent out a centralnotice and several watchlist notices) we're planning to deploy the VisualEditor on Monday, 1 July, as the default editor. For those of us who prefer markup editing, fear not; we'll still be able to use the markup editor, which isn't going anywhere.

What's important here, though, is that the VisualEditor features an interactive template inspector; you click an icon on a template and it shows you the parameters, the contents of those fields, and human-readable parameter names, along with descriptions of what each parameter does. Personally, I find this pretty awesome, and from Monday it's going to be heavily used, since, as said, the VisualEditor will become the default.

The thing that generates the human-readable names and descriptions is a small JSON data structure, loaded through an extension called TemplateData. I'm reaching out to you in the hopes that you'd be willing and able to put some time into adding TemplateData to high-profile templates. It's pretty easy to understand (heck, if I can write it, anyone can) and you can find a guide here, along with a list of prominent templates, although I suspect we can all hazard a guess as to high-profile templates that would benefit from this. Hopefully you're willing to give it a try; the more TemplateData sections get added, the better the interface can be. If you run into any problems, drop a note on the Feedback page.

Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Highest-grossing franchises and film series

Dear Ms. Logan,

You write, "Iron Man is indisputably a franchise, whereas the MCU is a series. You could argue that the Iron Man franchise is actually already on the list so it's true that adding it would be redundnant, but that raises the "Hulk" question: if we were discussing the Hulk franchise, that includes the Ang Lee film which is not part of the MCU, so it would not be redundant in this case i.e. a Hulk franchise entry would include the Lee film, but the MCU group of Hulk films would not. And if we included the Hulk franchise, it would then be inconsistent to not include the Iron Man franchise. It's a sticky one, because we either end up with redundancy or inconsistency whatever we do."

I definitely agree that sticky situations arise.

I had initially suggested essentially turning the list into what I guess is essentially merely a series list. You basically explained that it's a franchise list, but as your quote here demonstrates, the integration of the two types of lists into a single list creates sticky situations where films are regrettably listed twice. (Your explanation of the difference between the franchise and series is helpful, and I thank you for it.) Still, I thought a series list would be better than a franchise list. Then entered Calathan, who said she prefers franchise lists over series lists.

Thereafter, I made a counter-proposal, a compromise proposal more accurately. I suggested we separate the list into two lists, one for franchises, and one for series. (Two versions of this compromise proposal can be viewed in this sandbox.)

No one responded, so nine days later, I suggested we vote. So far, I voted in favour of adopting the compromise proposal, and Calathan has voted against the proposal. (Calathan has noted, however, that she/he would not object to the creation of a new article specifically to contain the various lists. I have no objection to that idea.)

I'd like to invite you to vote on the matter, because (1) you appear knowledgeable on the subject, (2) you appear to care about the article strongly, and (3) I think this compromise proposal I've suggested would be likely to eliminate the sort of sticky situations you discussed in the quote above.

Thank you, and best regards,

Allixpeeke (talk) 02:58, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Film Hong Kong

there is no template:Film Hong Kong, so I will revert this change. Frietjes (talk) 16:54, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Bias

You clearly have a pro-entertainment industry bias which should be disclosed. You appear to work in the industry, judging by your activities here and your insistence that burning villages to the ground after killing men, raping women, and rounding up children for slavery (piracy) is more of an acceptable definition of copyright infringement than "copyright infringement" simply due to the fact that you believe copying a series of ones and zeros is stealing because it deprives your industry from making money in a market they are not monetizing.

Excuse me while I go sue a few grocery stores into oblivion and lobby legislators all over the world for police powers. Beverage aisles are killing the lemonade stand industry, and I deserve to make a living doing what I do, regardless of whether or not it's a good business decision to refuse to adapt to a world in which I, as a middleman that hasn't provided relevant distribution or production value for decades, am not welcome in the social and economic structures of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.167.76.232 (talk) 07:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi, shill. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.153.224.37 (talk) 09:07, 9 July 2013

If anyone really cares, the relevant discussion this relates to is at: Talk:Motion Picture Association of America#Introduction of POV terminology. Betty Logan (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I also strongly urge an uninvolved editor to take a look at this edit by the IP at Shill. Looks like classic WP:Original research to me. Betty Logan (talk) 09:46, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Done.--Forward Unto Dawn 13:27, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Template:Film name

"Kana" should not be a parameter. It's all Japanese text uses kanji, hiragana, and katakana and they are all parsed in the same way on the internet.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:22, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

All I did was undertake the merge i.e. I directly copied the code from {{Infobox Japanese film}} to {{Film name}}. The parameters themselves were created by the editors who work on the Japanese film articles i.e. I did not create nor delete any of the film title parameters. However, you should take care deleting the parameter even if you disagree with its use because there may be articles that currently use it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, whoever originally made the template was wrong. I think I attempted to fix it before the TFD closed.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:46, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Studio field

Hi, Betty. At 12 Years a Slave (film), there happens to be a lot of companies involved with the film's production. The poster seen here says, "Regency Enterprises and River Road Entertainment present a River Road, Plan B, and New Regency production in association with Film4." I seem to recall a discussion where you and maybe Ring Cinema talked about how to separate these appropriately? It seems misleading to put all these companies in the "Studio" field in the infobox. Is it more appropriate to put only the companies attached to the word "production"? I feel like the field is too limited for appropriately categorizing the different companies' roles, not to mention it bloats up the infobox away from a summary form. Do you know how to best classify them, especially based on the poster spiel? And how could it be best covered in a film article? Erik (talk | contribs) 23:46, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is that very few films are developed in-house any more, so the field isn't applicable in the traditional sense. These days films can have several financiers and they all get listed as "production companies". When we talk about production companies though, what we really mean is the company that actually put the production together and physically makes the film (rather than the money men), and generally production is still undertaken by just one, maybe two, companies. Unfortunately film credits don't make it particularly easy for us to indentify the company who actually makes the film, but there do seem to be sources around that take that approach. The Motion Picture Credits database maintained by AMPAS very rarely have more than one company listed as a production company. Here are some examples:

Casino Royale (2006 film) - EON
Titanic (1997 film) - Lightstorm
Avatar (2009 film) - Lightstorm
Toy Story 3 - Pixar
Alexander (film) - Intermedia (our Alexander article currently lists 5 companies)

AMPAS doesn't have an entry for 12 Years a Slave as yet, but once it does I would wager they will just identify the actual company that produced the film, and personally I think that's the correct approach, otherwise you just get an indiscriminate list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you! That's very useful to know. Do you think there is a way to mention the other companies in the article but outside the infobox? It seems a bit shill-like to have something like the poster spiel start off the "Production" section, but I hate to exclude the companies that weren't technically involved. Others will push to include them anyway. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:59, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Even covering it in prose is difficult when it's not clear which roles the companies played. If it were me I would probably just let it ride, and hopefully once the film is released the roles these companies play will be more clear. It's not uncommon for articles at such an early stage of development to have more blurb than encylopedic content. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I was hoping there was a way to break down the spiel, like the companies that "present" are the main financiers or something like that. I'll let it be for now. Thanks for the feedback! Erik (talk | contribs) 13:56, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	YOU ARE A STAR for this! Many, many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 15:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Question

In the "I'm so slow, turtles are passing me by" department, it has come to my attention that your user name "Betty Logan" refers to a character from Heaven Can Wait, not to your gender. Am I wrong to assume you are a woman? Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not wrong on either account. Elizabeth is my middle name, and I use the name "Betty Logan" as a nod to the film character. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I had to ask. :) Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, I was wondering if you would be willing to reach out to SlimVigin on her talk page and try to put this behind the both of you. After all, if you were both working towards the same goal of improving the list, think how much you could accomplish! I realize that's asking a lot, but it wouldn't hurt to try to reach across the aisle. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Slim has to first accept the consensus from the RFC, that the article will be ordered alphabetically since it seems to me that is the biggest stumbling block between us. If she at least subscribes to that common goal I am actually open to discussion on everything else, and although she has taken exception to my comments at Talk:List_of_vegetarians#Images of women it is clear I am open to her suggestions about replacing some of the images, and adding section divides to the table and things like that. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

She expressed concern about the images on my talk page, so it seems like we are all on board with that. Is there any way for you to take bull by the horns and start replacing some of the images with a more representative sample? See my talk page for more detail. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested some obvious replacements and an approach, but I feel if I actually pick them myself she still won't be happy, and I don't want to add fuel to the fire in the ownership case by starting to change lots of images. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I feel that I have to mention this: when I was a child, Heaven Can Wait (1978) was one of my favorite films (after Star Wars of course). The scene that always stuck with me was when Farnsworth (now Pendleton) convinces Max he's really Pendleton. What a wonderful scene! I also refused to ride my bicycle through any tunnels after watching that film. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Warren Beatty is very good in it. I loved him stuff like Heaven can Wait, Shampoo and McCabe and Mrs Miller before he started taking himself too seriously. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Just watched it again and I was surprised that it still holds up today unlike so many films from that time. It has a certain naïveté and a tenderness we rarely see in films anymore. There's a timeless quality to the themes that speaks beyond any decade. I suppose this is a good example of two of the so-called "7 scripts" of Hollywood, combining all the features of a good comedy with a tragedy to form a tragicomedy, a "romantic play that violated the unities of time, place, and action, that glibly mixed high- and low-born characters, and that presented fantastic actions." I could be wrong, of course. It appears to be categorized as a romantic comedy, but the film has more in common with the screwball comedy genre, given the class conflict, witty repartee, farcical situations, etc. Viriditas (talk) 02:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1) Categories 2) Copyright

Hi Betty, Can I ask about the following edit, which added the Czech Republic as a location for the film. There is a brief scene in the pre-credits sequence in that country (2-3 minutes?), but I thought I'd seen something somewhere only to categorise when a significant section of the film is set there, or because that is what the topic is largely known for etc. I don't get interested in the categorisation bit much—really not my bag at all—but do you know much about it? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I don't have get heavily involved in categorization either (although bizarrely I'm in the middle of a CFD at the moment trying to save one!) and I'm sure both points of view are valid here. I doubt it will be of any importance to the overwhelming majority of casual readers, but Wikipedia categorization is also a powerful research tool, and being able to group films set (even if only briefly) in Czech may be useful. It's not a category I would have added myself, but at the same I probably wouldn't remove it either, if the dispute is only over one category which makes it a "complete" set. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I'm not going to revert either, as it's an area I find confusing and messy (through my ignorance of the matter, rather than any flaws in the system!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi (again) Betty, I was spinning over Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series)#Restoration and home video release earlier and saw that "Four of the films are in the public domain". I presume because the makers failed to register or renew the copyright at the LoC Copyright Office (These are US films). Do you know if there is a register that 'proves' the lack of copyright on these? I'd like to get a couple of images from these films to upload onto Commons and want to be sure of my ground. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The only thing that can "disprove" copyright is ultimately a judicial ruling, and there haven't been many of those in regards to public domain films. It is pretty easy to deduce yourself though. There are four basic rules:

Anything prior to 1923 is PD.
Anything between 1923 and 1963 is only copyrighted if its copyright was renewed in its 28th year.
Anything between 1964 and 1989 is dependent on the circumstances.
Anything from 1989 onwards is under copyright.

So anything prior to 1964 is pretty easy to confirm via the copyright database. For instance, the 1979 copyright entry for "Sherlock Holmes and the secret weapon" (reg: PA0000027401) tells us that the previous registration was in 1942, so the film entered pulic domain in 1971. The only stuff that is under copyright is anything new that was added in 1979 i.e. maybe a new score etc. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks. I've searched out the others and they are all in line with the first one you mention. There has been some rebuilding work done by UCLA on some copies (the versions I have, for example), so I think their work will probably be covered, but I'll dig up a pre-UCLA version which will be one of the PD ones and float them through Commons to see what happens. Thanks for the copyright lesson: it's an area in which I'm woefully ignorant! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spirited Away#Character page?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:36, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Elementary!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

- SchroCat (talk) 10:23, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Why CSD?

Why are you putting the CSD tag at Fifty Shades of Grey (film)? Let's talk at User talk:Lugnuts before. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )}07:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You are doing wrong now... -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )}07:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Fifty Shades of Grey (film) has never been an article, it is a redirect. User:The Vintage Feminist created the article at Fifty Shades of Grey (2014 film), but you are right that it is the wrong page. It is against Wikipedia policy to carry out "cut and paste" moves, so I have placed a request for the redirect at Fifty Shades of Grey (film) to be deleted so I can move the article to its proper name. User:Lugnuts will confirm this is the correct action. Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk at Lugnut's page. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )}07:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

If you carry out another cut and paste move I will have to report you for copyright infringement. Please stop interfering in the correct process. Betty Logan (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Stop tagging it and talk first. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )}07:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

You are a moron. Stop interfering and let me carry out the process. I have done this hundreds of times and know what I am doing. Betty Logan (talk) 07:41, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Continued at User talk:Lugnuts#Merge history. Betty Logan (talk) 08:29, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Talk back at User talk:Lugnuts. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )}08:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tried to help before, but I guess it was pointless. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:25, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, everybody just calm down now, I'm done already. And you know that I'm not making any moves so leave it here. Thanks everyone for help. -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )}10:51, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello there, can you help me here by telling me something please just for further information? If I've created an article at my userspace so how do I have to move it to the article page if there is already a redirect existed? -- Assassin! No, Captain Assassin! ^{( T - C - G )} 13:36, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Fettes College

Did you attend Fettes College? Have you ever worked for the Intelligence Service? Have you ever been in the military? Have you ever been in the Diplomatic Service? Have you ever been in the Fettes School Library?

If your answer is no to all the above questions then you ought to stop undoing my edits. 86.132.241.46 (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Lana Wachowski and WikiProject Film policy

Sorry, to disturb your semi-retirement, but you previously were a key discussant on the matter of how film articles should talk about transgendered individuals. I have returned to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Describing_transgendered_individuals and would value your input. Bondegezou (talk) 16:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing Special Chabbis

Hi there,

I noticed that you reviewed Special Chabbis and said the critical section is copy-vio. I have some contradicting opinion on this. In wikipedia how should one write crtitical reviews then? There are the sources could please write it for me as an example or direct me to one from where I could learn one. Plus I haven't written that one. In case of Bollywood films reviews are much less, reputed ones I mean, so there is very little scope of adding them to articles without copy-vio's.

$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 08:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You can find a good example at Fight Club#Critical reception. The objective is to describe the critical consensus not to sample it. It is ok to use quotes, but the section shouldn't wholly comprise them. As it stands, it is potentially a copyvio because nearly all of the section is directly lifted from other publications. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I'll go through it sometime soon.--$oHƎM❊আড্ডা 06:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

{{cite AV media}} template

Hi Betty, Do you know much abuot the {{cite AV media}} template? I'm trying to reference a featurette on a DVD properly, but can't see how I can do it using the template on offer. The DVD title is The Pearl of Death, but there is no field in which that can comfortably fit while including the featurette name at the same time...

Gitt, Robert (2003). Restoring Sherlock Holmes Featurette. MPI Media Group. {{cite AV media}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

Any thoughts? - SchroCat (talk) 21:17, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I had this problem a couple of years back when I was referencing a featurette on the Don't Look Now article. Back then it was "cite video" but it seems to be the same template. A simple way would be to just set the medium parameter to "The Pearl of Death DVD". It's a bit of hack but it's still clear enough. Since I was referencing something like three featurettes on the same DVD, I decided to handle it the same way we do book references: Dont_look_now#cite_note-Jones_.282006.29-10. Either way you have to fudge it a bit. Betty Logan (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

OK - I'll try that one and just be thankful that it wasn't me missing something obvious! It's a bit odd that something so obvious isn't available - I think I'll drop the question on the template talk and see if there's a reason. Thanks very much! - SchroCat (talk) 21:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

@SchroCat A-ha! This isn't in the documentation, but this seems to give the desired result: *{{cite AV media|last=Gitt|first=Robert|year=2003|title=Restoring Sherlock Holmes Featurette|work=The Pearl of Death|medium=DVD|accessdate=17 August 2013||publisher=MPI Media Group|}} produces

Gitt, Robert (2003). Restoring Sherlock Holmes Featurette. The Pearl of Death (DVD). MPI Media Group. {{cite AV media}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)

Fantastic! Many thanks for that. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

There's another option that's come up on the help page too (see [7]), which is:

{{cite AV media |last=Gitt |first=Robert |year=2003 |title=The Pearl of Death |chapter=Restoring Sherlock Holmes Featurette |medium=DVD |publisher=MPI Media Group|}}

This produces

Gitt, Robert (2003). "Restoring Sherlock Holmes Featurette". The Pearl of Death (DVD). MPI Media Group. {{cite AV media}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Spoilt for choice now! - SchroCat (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series)

Hi Betty, Can I ask your advice on the naming of the Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series) article? I've just finished a re-write and stuck it into FLC where one of the reviewers thinks the title mildly misleading, as the series ran 1939–46: I am sort of in agreement with this. He's proposed "Sherlock Holmes (Basil Rathbone series)" as an alternative, which I don't agree with, as a series of 14 films depends on more than one individual. I've had a spin through the MOS, which concentrates more on the names of individual films, rather than series. Do you know of an improvement on "Sherlock Holmes (1939 film series)" which also fits in with other film series titles? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All I can reiterate is what is at Wikipedia:NCF#Film series which indicates that "1939 film series" is the correct disambiguator. The reason they use the starting year for film series is because certain elements can change throughout its run; for example, what could you call the Michael Keaton/Val Kilmer/George Clooney Batman series? It even had different directors. The only constant is that it started in 1989, and it's a disambiguator that can be consistently applied across the film articles, even though it's not always the best choice. I agree that in this case "Basil Rathbone series" would certainly make it instantly identifiable to the reader using the search box, but ultimately I don't think this is a discussion for the FA review: the purpose of an FA review is to ensure it is MOS compliant which it seems to be. If you think another disambiguator would be better then maybe start a rename discussion, but I don't think the outcome of the FA review should be contingent on it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I knew you'd know the answer straight away! Thanks for that. I'll point them in that direction and see what they say. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

On a separate note, I think you should consider taking the plots out of the tables like with the Bond articles and list them separately. It looks terrible on a ipad, which is a resolution we are supposed to accommodate: ipad. Betty Logan (talk) 08:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I did think about that, but it's a fairly thin table without them. If I had budget & box office figures it may be a different matter, but nothing through so far on that front. If they come through at a later date (still got fingers crossed on that front) then I'll do a re-jig of the whole thing and add scriptwriters etc into the table too and move the plots to a separate section. - SchroCat (talk) 08:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I've removed the enforced column sizes on the table, so it looks better on the ipad now (certainly in landscape). Still searching for the budget figures and I may have to splash out $60 for a month's subscription if I can't find them anywhere else! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fast Five

This is neutral notice of a discussion concering the box-office section of Fast Five. Spinc5 (talk) 14:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Any rules/guidelines regarding language/prose clarity?

Dear Betty,

Sorry to bother you again, but as you're probably the most senior editor in our ongoing discussion about Larry/Lana, I must rely on your expertise once more. Are you familiar with any rules regarding clarity of the prose/language we use? I know it's there somewhere, but I can't find it. The indexes won't help me find what I need. The anon us trying to push toward not using a gendered pronoun, but I find that it's over the top and compromises clarity. If you know a rule regarding clarity of the prose, can you help me find it? I'd appreciate your help. Oh, and the discussion is arriving at its conclusion. A little more opinion would be greatly appreciated. Anthonydraco (talk) 18:16, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure if there is a single "hard" rule, but there are several guidelines that express a preference for clear language:

WP:MOS (second paragraph of the lead) - Consistency in language, style, and formatting promotes clarity and cohesion. Writing should be clear and concise. Plain English works best; avoid ambiguity, jargon, and vague or unnecessarily complex wording.
Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch has a list of terms we should endeavor to avoid, but doesn't address pronouns.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Betty. You're reliable as always. The information will definitely come in handy. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Your good comment on film Departed

Your good comment on the film Departed was refreshing to see. Any chance that you could look at the page and the Scorsese section and edit it into the exact form as you described it.

Regarding your other question on the large number of sources, only one of the Bulger books came out in 2004, before the film. All the other books (5 or 6 of them) about him only came out after he was captured. Looks very lop-sided. Even Scorsese withheld all comment about Bulger until after the apprehension. This is the article:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/18/idUS86019615120110918

76.193.164.24 (talk) 18:29, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

There were some follow up edits and discussion from your comments from the other day in response to them on the film Departed page. 146.203.126.246 (talk) 16:15, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

RT etc

Hi Betty, Was there an agreement on ProjectFilm to stop using the rather crass "Fresh" and "Rotten" tags from Rotten Tomatoes? I've changed ou a few edits from one individual who has been "improving" things like this. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:18, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello. I understand from SchroCat (Gavin), with whom I've been chatting as I tried to "improve" some film articles, that this might already have been decided at ProjectFilm. As I mentioned to him, would that suggest that all reference to Rotten Tomatoes should be removed? The RT site, crass or not, DOES bring it down to a single word, either Rotten or Fresh. I'm not defending RT - simply stating that if the consensus of the project editors is to NOT use rotten/fresh, then maybe the real consensus is to NOT use RT at all? Seems odd to say of RT "we will use what you say - we just don't like what you say, so we won't use the words that define the entire 'special hook' of your website"! Gavin and Betty - I'll watch here for further insight. Thanks. Jmg38 (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the MOS explicitly comments on this, but the RT/MC discussions at the Film project these days tend to result in editors saying "let the data speak for itself". By that we mean give the reader the raw stats and leave it at that i.e. "Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed 220 reviews and considered 72% of them to be positive". The problem with labels like "Fresh" and "Rotten" is that it doesn't mean much to the typical reader: a film could get 59% and be classed as "rotten" despite over half the reviews being positive", or it could get 60% and be classed as "fresh", whereas in reality that is a pretty mixed reception. They are a bit arbitrary, whereas at least with the raw stats a reader can draw their own conclusions. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes surveyed x reviews and considered x% of them to be positive". Looks good. Thanks, Betty. Thanks, Gavin. Jmg38 (talk) 00:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Million Award

I realize you already have a barnstar from me for this, but you deserve one of these, too, for this prodigious accomplishment.

		The Million Award
		For your contributions to bring Gone with the Wind (film) (estimated annual readership: 1,203,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers. -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Wikipedia:Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

This editor won the Million Award for bringing Gone with the Wind (film) to Good Article status.

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:01, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou! A million views... I never realized that the article received so much traffic. It's quite staggering for a 74 year old film, it has certainly endured. Betty Logan (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

It really is astonishing--when I first looked it up I expected it to be around a quarter to half a mill, tops. I'm going to need to look at WP Film's Popular Pages soon to see what other classics qualify. (I don't mind giving it out for newer stuff, too, but some new releases that may get a million views this year are unlikely to make it two years in a row...) Anyway, congrats again, and keep up the good work! -- Khazar2 (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Jaws reference issue

Although the book that gives the information about Spielberg clouding Fields' pool with powdered milk does not have a bibliography, I still maintain that it is a reliable source due to some copyrighted material in the book that was given to the author for use as well as the fact that the book has been reviewed by Publishers Weekly and the Library Journal.

I also am unsure of the exact page number that the information is located, as I purchased the digital copy of the book rather than a physical copy, and therefore page numbers can be off by a number or two. Nevertheless, the page I read the fact on in my digital eBook copy was page number 60.

Hope this helps, or at least clears up a bit of confusion. --Matthew (talk) 03:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

A book doesn't need to have a biblilography to be a reliable source, but you do have to provide the bibliographic details for it to be verifiable. Copy in this template and fill in all the details you can:

<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |title= |url= |accessdate= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= |page=}}</ref>

. For information about the parameters see {{Cite book}}. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for showing me that, I knew how to add references to articles but I wasn't sure how to add bibliographical references. Also, because I only have the digital copy of the book, I'll just put page 60 on the reference. --Matthew (talk) 16:04, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Does your digital copy include the year and ISBN number? Ideally the source should provide those too. I have removed the Amazon link too since Amazon is a retailer and shouldn't be included. Betty Logan (talk) 19:29, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOS

Please read what I typed at the bottom of Wikipedia talk:Manual of style. Georgia guy (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Film distributor vandal

Hi there. As you've had previous experience with this before, can you help me solve an issue with a persistent vandal who will not stop adding Dimension Films to various Jackie Chan and Godzilla film articles? I've created an SPI page, so perhaps you can add your observations to it. Thanks. - Areaseven (talk) 11:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Posted my comments. I hope they help. Betty Logan (talk) 18:41, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. As usual, the vandal blanked my user page in retaliation. Perhaps you can provide insight on his attitude toward other editors. - Areaseven (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Betty. When I first opened an SPI report on Tue2011tue, I included the IP address 98.246.221.62, as it displayed the exact same mannerisms as Tue2011tue's other IP socks. Unfortunately, that SPI report was shot down on the grounds that IP 98.246.221.62 is in Oregon while the other IP socks are in Vietnam. Perhaps you can help me piece out the activity between 98.246.221.62 and Tue2011tue's other socks. - Areaseven (talk) 01:53, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations on the Gone with the Wind response.

Congratulations on the article for Gone with the Wind and the recognition it is receiving. Margaret Mitchell has not been disputed as the author of the book and her position remains secure. As you know from your recent comments at the Departed, this is not always the case for other films. From the Departed film page, it was a surprise to me that no one on the Departed page had asked any questions regarding the actual books which were meticulously studied and footnoted in the new section edit.

The Departed film (2006) has received a major reappraisal in the general agreement of its sources following the capture of the leading crime character portrayed in the film. Following his capture in 2011 general agreement in the U.S. following the daily PBS News Hour reports of his trial and his capture has gone to the view that the film is based on the biography of the captured Whitey Bulger. Prior to 2011, from 2006, virtually all of the literature was acknowledging The Departed as originating from a Hong Kong film trilogy called Infernal Affairs. After 2011 and the Bulger capture this view of the overwhelming Bulger orientation of the film even to the exclusion of even mentioning the film trilogy at all has taken place. The 4 cites were given together in the New Edit as evidence of this reversal of general agreement and opinion from 2011 onward. Although this is general agreement in the United States following numerous daily news reports broadcast nationwide during the trial and his capture, it is not clear that the BBC (for all their ample thoroughness) would have followed either the Bulger case or mentioned the Departed relation to the case with the same frequency as the U.S. broadcast media (Bulger was from Boston) which has led to general agreement on this issue throughout the United States.

This situation is comparable to the film Citizen Kane in film theory (also an academy award winner) where the film was originally thought to be based on a fictional story developed by Orson Welles but only later discovered to be the biography of Randolph Hearst, the newspaper magnate. Today, general agreement throughout the United States acknowledges the biographical aspect of the film as preferred.

The entirety of the wikipage for The Departed is presently split between the history of these two opinions, even though since 2011 the general agreement throughout the United States and all of the many books still coming out on Bulger now agree that Bulger is the primary source. The Lead section at present does not agree with the Summary Box for the film at the top of the Page which only mentions the film trilogy as the only source for the film. The current Theme section of this film only mentions the Bulger influence and ignores the film trilogy entirely. The current Reception section of this film only mentions the film trilogy as a source and excludes mentioning the Bulger influence (i.e., not consistent or balanced in the different sections of this wikipage).

My intention in adding the new section was to warn/inform readers of the wikipage that there are two radically different views of where the film origins came from and that Both points of views will appear randomly throughout the film page. These inconsistencies should be repaired and the general agreement across the United States should be plainly stated. With appreciation for your voice-of-reason comments on the Departed Talk page and congratulations on the Gone with the Wind response. AutoMamet (talk) 12:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Brazil

When you have a chance, can you take a look at the recent exchange on the Brazil talk page and give me your honest opinion? I have avoided responding to Hfm's accusations because I do not want the argument to get out of control. Frankly, situations like that are what make me consider leaving WP altogether. I have enough stress in my real life. At any rate, I would like to hear your opinion. Thanks. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 01:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

I have responded at the talk page. My "honest" opinion is that Brazil is a film that pretty much defies genre classification (really, who would describe it as a "comedy" or a "fantasy" to a friend down the pub?), so I have made a suggestion at the discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 10:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, which has now turned in a helpful direction. I am also glad that another editor, someone I do not know, chided Hfm for his editing style. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 13:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems to be getting a bit of support, but we can always drum up some more input at the Film project if necessary. That debate has ben rumbling for years so it would be good if we could have a definitive outcome at that article. Occasionally you do get films where labelling them with a genre is like forcing a square peg into a round hole. Betty Logan (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of James Bond fandom

The article James Bond fandom has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Hey, Betty, I saw this notice posted elsewhere and I thought you (and folks that work on Bond films) might have an opinion on this deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:39, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for your comment! DonQuixote (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Schindler's List

If you're not familiar with Reddit you might want to look it up: Reddit#IAmA_and_AMA --Kurt Jansson (talk) 15:02, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Lots of famous people have Twitter accounts but we don't automatically accept them as reliable sources, unless we know it is them. Since presumably anyone can sign up with any name, then confirmation is required that the poster is indeed Robin Williams. All I see is a name: is there any official announcments by Reddit or by some official representation that this person is indeed Robin Williams? What is to stop me signing up and pretending to be Angelina Jolie? Maybe I'm missing something here, but it is not immediately clear to me that this person is Robin Williams. Betty Logan (talk) 17:41, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I have listed Reddit at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reddit (IAmA). If they say it is ok then that will be fine by me, but as you can see I am concerned that there seems to be no transparent way of confirming the identity of the poster. Betty Logan (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

September 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to 1920 in film may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

{unreferenced|date=February 2013}

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 12:46, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou, you are a very helpful little bot. Betty Logan (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Discuss your opinion on dividing columns in cast sections in film articles

I need to voice your opinion on the MOS Film section here about dividing columns in cast sections. BattleshipMan (talk) 08:20, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

For your input. Side note, not sure what kind of films you like though I think you have a taste for older stuff? Perhaps that is just the kind of article you work on. If you like action at all and get some time, Dredd is a really good film. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

I tend to work on the older film articles mainly because newer films are pretty well served, so it's just a case of where I can make more impact. Also, there are fewer assholes vandalising the older film articles so I don't have to deal with as much crap. I think I saw one of the Dredd films many years ago. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly you saw Judge Dredd (film) which is an abomination and should be avoided. This one is a reboot with great characters, both male and female, and IMO, a great soundtrack, especially the ethereal style slow-motion music. If I had to describe it, I think it's very akin to Robocop. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:51, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Soylent Green

Betty, there is no consensus on the point on my edits. Sorry, but you are incorrect. =//= Johnny Squeaky 01:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Email probs?

Hi Betty, I got a bounce back on your gmx.com email. Is it temporary, or are you back up now? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

That's a bit weird. I have found three Wikipedia emails dating back to the start of September in my spam folder, including one from User:Binksternet too. I wonder if it's something to do with the new security protocols they rolled out, although I don't see how it could possibly affect email. I'll have to keep an eye on that. Betty Logan (talk) 13:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I sent you a note on October 5 (the issue is resolved already.) Maybe this small datum will help you sort the problem. Binksternet (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

List of vegans

Hi, and thanks for the heads up about the pictures overlapping the references (I use a large typeface on my computer and so don't see the formats for tinier typefaces). I traded out Bree Olson's pic for Anne Hathaways, solely on prominence (although I've never heard of Bree Olson and have probably missed out on her, ah, showmanship). Seems like a good switch, as Hathaway's fame is well established and can only rise. Thanks for taking care of this important list. Should there be a link to "List of vegetarians" in the lede? I was going to edit the lede a bit, please keep an eye on my edit there to see if it fits what has gone before here. Thanks again. Randy Kryn 12:27 28 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't think adding an image of Hathaway to the list really adds anything to it; there is already an entertainment bias. If we are going to start replacing images, then we should be looking for non-white people in non-entertainment professions. Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thank you for your input and support on the Administrators' noticeboard board, in regards to the issue that involved myself .With that please enjoy this kitty :)

Jguard18 ^{Critique Me} 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

fix AFD link.

Your AFD link on the page you requested for deletion was a red link. I fixed that for you. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 03:40, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Deep breath and a step back.

Sorry if I've responded sharply in the discussions over The Fast and the Furious. I have been very frustrated lately over the number of disambiguation links increasing despite a truly exhausting effort to combat them, often making basically the same fixes over and over again. Perhaps I need a vacation. Cheers! bd2412 T 03:28, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about, and I'm not intentionally going out of my way to make your life difficult. I just think you've approached the problem from the wrong direction. You may have a valid point that the franchise/film series article should be at the main name. However I don't think there is a valid case for a second article, simply because I don't see what it will cover beyond what the film series article covers. There are a few merchandise tie-ins, but that's a world removed from something like Star Wars that has a huge extended universe across different media. I think the best course of action would be to get the redundant article out of the way, and then have a discussion about where exactly The Fast and the Furious (film series) belongs. It's basically a simple move discussion, but the second article is making it a bit more complicated. Betty Logan (talk) 03:44, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

You are probably right, but I am hopeful that a complete solution can be hammered out of the current discussion. bd2412 T 03:55, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Request

I would like to ask that you review and comment on this proposal on the Talk:Captain_Phillips_(film) page. Thanks - thewolfchild 19:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Don't know who to ask so I will ask you.

Hello, Betty, I was wondering what the criteria is with listing who is "Starring" in a released film on the right side of every page for a movie. It seems rather inconsistent. For example, The Lord Of The Rings: The Two Towers has 20 credits including some that were only in the extended version of the film. But, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone and all subsequent sequels only list Harry, Hermione, and Ron. I was under the assumption, at first, that who was included and more importantly, in what order they were included was dictated by how they appeared on the Theatrical release poster, but after looking closer at the posters, I found that that wasn't always the case. So, how is it decided? TBWarrior720 (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

As per {{Infobox film}} you are only supposed to include the names that are in the poster billing block. It depends on who edits the article though whether that guideline is enforced or not. Some editors apply it stringently and other just ignore it. Twenty credits is a bit excessive though. Betty Logan (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Cairo Station

Did you read the talk page discussion about the title? Clarityfiend (talk) 08:39, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

No I wasn't aware of it, but I don't agree with the conclusion anyway. The IMDb states that The Iron Gate is the "world-wide English title" while "Cairo Station" is the US title. It seems to me there are two acceptable English-language titles in this case, so I don't see the point in moving it from the unambiguous title to a disambiguated title. Betty Logan (talk) 08:48, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Very unilateral of you. I've opened a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Title of film - Cairo Station or The Iron Gate. Clarityfiend (talk) 18:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for letting me know. I have left further comments at that discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 20:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Boxoffice.com's budget

Boxoffice.com has specified that it's budget actually includes both the production budget and promotion or marketing budget. This means their budget is the true budget of the movies and more reliable than Box Office Mojo which many a times either displays a little bit lesser budget than other sources (strangely it's always $5 million less than the budget of other sources in this case) or does not display at all. I would like to know what is your advice about using Boxoffice.com as a source for budget of the movies. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Well it's good that Boxoffice.com have clarified their figures, but only production budgets go in {{Infobox film}}: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (i.e. advertisements, commercials, posters, etc). " The marketing costs would go in the "marketing" or "release" section, since they can change over time i.e. reissues, video runs etc. Betty Logan (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

She's got a point about that, KahnJohn27. It's all about production budgets, not about marketing budgets. Only production budgets can go to the infobox. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:52, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Walkabout (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Water hole (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

International Championship

An IP keeps adding unsourced original research to International Championship and 2012 International Championship. It would be appreciated if you could keep an eye on it. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:16, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

OK, I've added them to my watchlist. If it happens again I will revert and request SP. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Maximum break

Is that relevant. I don't think so. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Amazing

List of highest-grossing films, I've never seen a featured list like this. Now I don't want to bother with List of best-selling game consoles - it feels like I got too much to do! « Ryūkotsusei » 21:20, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Lol, that page probably goes way beyond what you need for FL status. I'm probably prouder of that page than any other I've worked on, namely because it has developed into a pretty unique resource: all that information is out there, but not in a single place. I just kept adding stuff to it over the course of 2 years, and it only started as a quick clean-up job that eventually turned into an obsession of data collecting. You certainly don't need that level of exposition for most lists, but in this case there was a lot of historical context that was necessary to explain for them to make sense. Lists are a lot more boring to build than articles, so I think the key to building a good list is to give yourself a sensible timescale, maybe 6 months to a year so it doesn't turn into a second job. Betty Logan (talk) 01:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Waterworld

I didn't know if this article might be of use to you considering your work on the various BO lists, it's about Waterworld being, or not being, a flop. http://www.deadline.com/2013/08/isnt-it-time-to-take-waterworld-off-the-all-time-flop-list/ Darkwarriorblake (talk) 07:15, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I was aware it finally broke even; it's a good source though so maybe I can work it into the Waterworld article. People tend to overlook video and TV income when judging a film's performance. When you adjust for inflation Waterworld made about half a billion just in theatrical release, which isn't too shabby however you look at it! I remember watching it actually, it was a pretty good film from what I recall. Betty Logan (talk) 19:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Um... Dances With Wolves was a pretty good film. Robin Hood Prince Of Thieves was also decent. I never saw Waterworld, until a couple years ago. Now, it's true I couldn't take my eyes off it... but I felt more like I was watching a terrible automotive mishap in slow-motion, or one of those quarterback-decision-rehash-videos. It's a handoff! No, a pass! He's fading back! Going to throw deep! No, no, he's tucked the ball and is going to run! Wait, now he's looking to pass again! Uh, okay, back to handoff... he just attempted a backward lateral to an imaginary player! Tackled in a dogpile! Fumble! Oh nohz!

Replace costner==quarterback, nature film, political film, action film, love story, war story... ending in a big mess. Sure, lots of people bought tickets for the big game in the big stadium, and even more people watched the decision-rehash-videos on teevee the next few weeks on the sports-channels. But did any of the spectators *enjoy* the spectacle? Waterworld seems to be gaining cult status in the same way that Ash Williams did, and for the same reasons. Maybe you can watch the film again, and see how it has held up artistically, since you first saw it in the theater, back in the day? "Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the gills."[8] 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:11, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

What can I say? I was a lot younger then. I may not like it if I rewatch it, but it didn't leave me wanting a refund like a lot of films do these days. Betty Logan (talk) 16:04, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Heh heh, boy do I hear that. I have paid good money to see something in theaters at least three times... in the past six years. :-( When I watched Waterworld, it was on netflix or somesuch at a friend's house, which I guess means that, just like you, I also didn't feel the need to demand a refund. <grin> Anyways, agree with Darkwarriorblake that it wasn't actually a flop. Just a very big-budget cult movie, of a sort, which failed to justify high expectations set by *other* films Costner had been in, and thus kinda *seemed* like a flop. See also, many of the Hollwood-produced movies with Jet Li, which were not WP:OMG-gimme-a-refund films, but simultaneously can hardly live up to his earlier produced-in-Asia fare, so they end up seeming worse than they actually are. That said, maybe I better go rewatch Fist of Legend, and see whether it holds up twenty years later. Hey yeah... it's research work, for the sake of wikipedia! That's my story and I'm sticking to it. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:01, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Julie Christie

Hi, Betty. I know what the refs say (although those are all based on second-hand or received info.) and I haven't read the Callan bio, but the bio i cited by Christie by Tim Ewbank (Julie Christie: The Biography, Carlton Publishing Group, London; 2000; ISBN 978-0-233-00255-2, pp. 1-2; "In the spring of 1940 meat rationing had just begun in England ... Vivien Leigh, a British actress born in Darjeeling, India, had on 29 February at a banquet at the Coconut Grove in Los Angeles won the Best Actress Oscar for her role as Scarlett O'Hara ... Forty five days later, on 14 April, there was much cause for rejoicing for Frank and Rosemary Christie, a British couple living on a tea plantation in Assam in the north-east of India, with the arrival of their first child, Julie Frances.") cites 1940.

So which bio is right? There is no record of her birth at the General Registry Office of England and Wales as she was born in India. I propose a compromise, as you will see in my next edit. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, if another credible biography gives another date I recommend a solution as per Audrey Tautou. Betty Logan (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Take a look and see if you like my compromise. Yours, Quis separabit? 18:14, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

That's fine, although I'm thinking maybe we should just go for the basic "1940/1941". I have been googling and quite a lot of respectable sources seem to have both. She's married to a journalist who works for The Guardian, and even they have used both dates: 1940 and 1941. If different biographies use different dates then truth is it can be either; I don't think I would bet my mortgage on either year now. The discrepency should be clear to readers. I recall a similar instance with Ali MacGraw over 1938 and 1939, and in the end McGraw herself issued a correction. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In case this comes up again, it's the same situation we used at Timothy Dalton, with the same issue there too, so at least the 'fix' has gained something of a track record for future reference. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:02, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Months later, talkpage stalker swoops in to say.... See also Mariah Carey and K.Michelle, where reliable sources disagree about the birthyear. What is the solution used for Audrey Tautou, who currently has just a single birthyear listed? I'm too lazy to review the edit-history, if somebody still remembers, and would like to just tell me. :-) 74.192.84.101 (talk) 14:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

The Audrey Tautou situation has been settled after many years. She confirmed her dob is 1976 and not 1978 despite many sources stating otherwise. Prior to that it used to have both dates: [9]. Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

"...Then she replies, the birth year is 1976. ‘But I would prefer if you wrote 1978. Could you write 1978? I tell you the truth, and ask you to lie.’ " Okay *that* is pretty funny. :-) — 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:06, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page South Pacific (film) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:13, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

My edits were in good faith

I don't really understand why you removed my comment on your talk page. I was just proposing to you to about solving the issue about the budget of the hobbit film through consensus. I know I made a joke in earlier comment but it was just a simple joke. I apologize for it if it offended you. My comments were always in good faith. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Local consensus doesn't overrule project guidelines, which are quite clear on this, and can be found at {{Infobox film}}. It is not known how much The Hobbit 1 cost; the official statement from the studio only says that it is "closer to $200 million" than $315 million i.e. the studio isn't actually saying it cost $200 million, so to give that as the sole figure is to misrepresent what the source actually says. The $315 million figure provides the context, since without it the comment by the studio doesn't make any sense. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually it's probably because they already said that $315 million "is highly inflated". Either that means it is highly inaccurate or maybe they're saying it was budget without tax rebates. They got $65 million tax rebates from NZ government. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Portals and film articles

Hi, Betty. Just got this message. May I see the relevant discussions? Have they appeared at the RFC level, or is it only somet

Also consider that "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." is very problematic because multiple Wikiprojects are relevant to a typical article. So there is consensus to add portals to United States-related articles but not to film-related articles? (Gone with the Wind is relevant to both WikiProjects). Then what do you do?

My view on this is that an individual Wikiproject cannot unilaterally opt its own articles out of a systemwide thing such as portals unless the articles in question only pertain to that project. This is impossible in that case of most films because they will be relevant to country-related projects.

Therefore in the case of Gone With the Wind it will be impossible to comply with "This has been discussed in the past. There is no consensus to add portals to film articles." due to conflict with the United States WikiProject (they will have to agree that no portals belong in that particular article) WhisperToMe (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I just went ahead and started Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Inter-project_relations_and_allowance_of_portals_in_US-related_articles. There have been inter-WikiProject conflicts (I remember one about Japanese names between Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and Wikipedia:WikiProject Japan) which have taken up valuable user time. My recommendation is for WikiProject Film to say "There is no consensus to not have portals" to avoid inter-WikiProject conflicts. Then on an article-by-article basis decide what portals are okay for which articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
- Also posted to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Cross_WikiProject_relations_and_decisions_about_portals. I'm letting everyone know WhisperToMe (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive 46#Use of Portals in film articles. In the cases where an article belongs to more than one project, or a portal belongs to more than a single project then I guess the consensus of all the relevant projects would be required to install portals. Betty Logan (talk) 00:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I see. In that case I linked to this discussion from both projects. I'm not sure how widely adopted this view is, but at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States#Inter-project_relations_and_allowance_of_portals_in_US-related_articles there was a user who argued "One benefit of WikiProjects is that they can each comprise a group of subject-matter experts that have expertise in a subject area. That's good for identifying reliable sources, content that should be included, etc. They should not deal with some structural items in articles, like the presence or absence of infoboxes, portal links, etc. The SMEs from WikiProjects should put together good portals so that they can be linked, but they should not ban portal links that make sense." So he seems to argue the question "should portals be included in articles at all" should be completely out of the hands of the WikiProjects. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I've expanded further on my views at the Film project discussion. Betty Logan (talk) 00:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Xmas greetings

Soham (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Soham (talk) 13:45, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

FYI

If an SPI is marked as "closed" and you would like to add a new report, you can just add a new section under the closed section, like Bobrayner did here. I've taken care of the editing angel from the AIV report. Thanks! Mark Arsten (talk) 20:57, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah, thanks, I didn't know if it would just be automatically filed away once closed. Looks like I'll have to go down that route anyway, since as you can see above he's back already! I guess we're going to have to consider a more permanent solution. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Understanding

Hello, I believe we know a both know a fellow editor Stiarts erid? Well I know his spelling isn't always perfect and that he says things on the spur of the moment. But I do, strongly believe his intentions are good and was wondering if you would be so kind as to give him another chance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by My latest trick (talk • contribs) 20:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

If you wish to return to editing I suggest you contact an admin and pursue WP:OFFER. If you keep creating more accounts they will be blocked and all your edits reverted, so there is no point to it. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay then I will try that, and if you stop blocking my accounts then maybe we can actually talk and reach an agreement. I don't think you can talk to an administrator if your account is blocked can you? P.S if that is true and I am blocked again, then I will have to create another account to talk to an administrator.

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	May 2013 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Lol, not off to a great start: User:The betty logan htcbi. Anyway, same to you, hope you have a nice Christmas. Betty Logan (talk) 22:19, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

NFCC

Hi Betty, if you have a moment I wanted to ask your opinion on NFCC, I think you generally know your way around this and I am in a debate that is frustrating me greatly because a video I have created is on the verge of deletion because people keep citing Rule 3 of NFCC, and no matter which way I read it it does not fail it. It doesn't fail any of the NFCC requirements, yet people keep saying that a piece of NFC should be replaced with a piece of NFC, yet they present no guidelines or rules which say such. But when I point this out it is ignored and they repeat themselves ad nauseum. It's getting very disheartening. Am I wrong in this? I know you to be clear and impartial on these topics where I can get lost in the argument. This is the file, it isn't film related but its the rules I'm interested in. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 15:11, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm no expert on NFCC, and I'm a bit rushed for time right now, but I will try to comment more fully in a couple of days. However, I notice the clip is 49 seconds, and that is never going to fly at an FfD review, so the first thing I would do to strengthen your position is to knock it down to 30 seconds if possible, because editors will probably vote against it if they consider it excessive. Briefly looking at the video, the sourced commentary and the discussion I think you have a decent argument, since I don't think a single screencap can convey the full functionality of gameplay, but I'll try to leave comments at the discussion over the next couple of days. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Betty. The discussion has yielded that there is no set limit on video length, and it is difficult to get it down to 30 seconds and show everything because its self made and its just not generally possible to complete combat in that time frame, but I think hte length is not excessive for what is being shown, much in the same way the American Beauty file is 1 minute long. I'm more concerned at the precedent it can set about the use of video in game and film articles, plus others. I'm not for the abuse of video files at all, but I wouldn't have added it if I didn't think it was appropriate. Obviously its Xmas so enjoy yourself, if I get a chance I will see if I can make another video. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dredd's FA nom! 23:31, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Prometheus 2012 film portal proposal

In light of the continued references to the portals of the 2012 film Prometheus I decided it would be best to make a specific proposal post about this film and the use of portals here: Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#What_portals_are_appropriate_at_Prometheus_.282012_film.29.3F. I brought up four options from the discussions, one of them written by you, and labeled them as "proposals". WhisperToMe (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

		Happy holidays.
		Best wishes for joy and happiness. Keep up the good work on Wikipedia! Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Comment request

Since you were involved in a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Actors_and_Filmmakers#Should_.22award.22_articles_be_comprehensive.3F I thought you might want to comment on the propriety of including Film Critic Societies at Critic top 10 lists in film articles at Talk:In_a_World...#Request_for_Comment.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Betty Logan

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2014. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2014 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2014 goes well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 17:50, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year! Hopefully I'll see you around on the highest-grossing films list—keep up the good work :) Betty Logan (talk) 12:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that. Also I am trying to improve another list on my sandbox. So wish me luck! Thank you though. Jhenderson⁷⁷⁷ 14:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Format of the RfC

Hello Betty Logan I want to say that the format of your RfC might be wrong. In an Rfc there should be a separate section for discussion and it should be below the surveyaccording to the rules and format of WP:RfC. However you did not make any separate section for the discussion. Since it is your RfC I don't think I can correct that so I request you to please correct this by making a separate section for Discussion. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:53, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

There is a discussion directly above the RFC for anyone who wishes to discuss the matter in further detail. Having two discussions going on isn't generally a good idea. However, I will make it clear at the RFC. Betty Logan (talk) 00:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

I think you're mistaking. It is a reason not a discussion. The reason for starting the RfC should be separate from discussion. Discussion should not be held in the "Background" section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Since you yourself not going to make a separate discussion section in the RfC I'm going to make it myself. WP:RfC does not say anything about adding sections or morphing layout of someone's RfC so I believe there is no problem if I add a separate section. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)