Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi Betty. Just in case you missed it, see this report.  Alan  (talk) 06:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think we really need all the sources archivied? I don't think so, expecially the sources in the top 50, the grosses from the archivied sources don't match with the actual grosses, for example the archivied version of Avatar 2 says $434.5 million.... So for me they are useless. By the way, there are new issues....--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to this edit I have mixed thoughts. Archiving sources (especially those that won't change, such as books and newspaper sources) can prevent WP:LINKROT. Dying sources is one of the greatest problems that afflicts sources. However, we certainly shouldn't be archiving sources that are incorrect, such as Avatar 2. Personally I wouldn't archive any tracker site (BOM, The Numbers) unless i) we need the archived source because the current gross is incorrect and ii) where they are need to source chart positions. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to keep all of that exept for the top 50 sources? And also the high-grossing films by year? (Only BOM and TN)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this is normal practice on Wikipedia now. But there is no point retaining archived sources if they are i) wrong ii) prone to changing. Betty Logan (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so I should remove them (only BOM and TN) with a link of this discussion?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you don't mind doing that. Betty Logan (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a problem,  Done :) of course I removed them only from BOM and TN sources--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Betty, was hoping to lean on your expertise over a concern regarding two recent edits here and here. BOM reports the total box office haul as $668 mil, while NUM reports $670.1 mil. How is it typically worded in prose when there's a conflict like that, and would we insert a range in the infobox? --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:16, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may find you have your sources back-to-front there...however, if these were two legitimates estimates I would have advised rounding to $670 million, but in this particular case it appears that Box Office Mojo has double-counted a foreign gross: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Film/Film_finance_task_force#Box_Office_Mojo. In this particular case The Numbers ($668 million) is probably the correct figure (it is worth noting that is what BOM had before adding the random $2 million). Luke Stark 96 has done a very good job of tracking BOM's double-counting, but perhaps he has something toadd to this discussion? Betty Logan (talk) 11:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Man of Steel issue is one of the newest, the right gross is $668,045,518, and then a few days ago BOM added $2 million with no reason, there are many DCEU movies with this problem, unfortunately--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciate the info. I was not aware. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was combing through the biggest bomb list and came across Pixels, which is listed at $75 million. So I added this to the article. However, after taking a closer look at the source, it was published before the China release when the film was sitting at $182 million gross. The film ended up grossing $244 million, so wouldn't we need a more recent source to rely on this figure? --GoneIn60 (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source, it states "accounting for budget, marketing spend and revenue the film can expect to earn in ancillary markets", so the article has factored in expected future income. Whether they've factored it in correctly is another matter. It's not unusual for articles to do this; these loss projections are educated guesswork for the most part. Pixels is so borderline that it could go either way. If revised estimates come our way we will use them (we took Justice League off afters its loss estimates were downgraded) but sometimes we just don't have the information to make that call. There are quite a few films on the list that have a lower-bound estimate far beneath the 90-mil threshold (Black Adam, for example), but they still qualify for the list on the basis that potentially they could be among the top 100 money-losers based on reliable published analysis. Betty Logan (talk) 02:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Betty! --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Betty, how are you doing ?. I have noticed a change to the above only yesterday. In the infobox where it says Tournament Wins in green, it used to say ranking and the number (of wins across from it) and minor-ranking and the number (of wins across from it) below. In the last week or so it has been changed under the banner Tournament Wins it now says ranking wins and the number and minor-ranking Wins and the number. There is no need to add the word wins underneath as it is used in the line above in Tournament Wins. This was not approved on the talkpage or even mentioned. So who decided to change it and why was it changed please ?. Hope you can help. 178.167.150.13 (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree with you. The wording is superfluous given the context, and makes the change unnecessary. The change appears to have been initiated without any discussion beforehand. It's not the first time I have had to revert the editor in question; he seems to be making a habit of altering long-standing template and table formats without any discussion or consensus and it is becoming disruptive. Betty Logan (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for changing it back. it looked pathetic with the change he made. Can you block him for disruption if he keeps it up  ?. I will keep an eye on it incase he changes it again. Thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.150.13 (talk) 00:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks shouldn't be given for good faith edits (which this undoubtedly was), but I will discuss the issue with the editor in question if necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Betty how are you doing ?. Betty can you update the above page please ?. It still says Ronnie has 39 ranking titles and 21 triple crowns. Nobody updated the page after the UK. Can you change this please ?. Thank you 178.167.188.7 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Betty, I'm Horrorlover1026, and I hope you're having a good day. I found a credible link to a Film Industry Act of Bulgaria at the Film Center's website which was put into effect in May 2020, which I translated into English. On page 28, it states that persons under the age limit for the categories "C, C+, and D+" must be accompanied in order to view the film. I'm telling you this because I don't know how to add a link myself. Here's the link: file:///C:/Users/seths/Downloads/ZFI_02032021.pdf Horrorlover1026 (talk) 05:12, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Than you, but unfortunately, you have given me a link to a document on your computer. If you provide me with the link to the document on the website I will add it to the article and correct the ratings. Betty Logan (talk) 10:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nfc.bg/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/ZFI_02032021.pdf Horrorlover1026 (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 18:55, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Horrorlover1026 (talk) 22:04, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ★Trekker (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:Coffee/Holidays)) to your fellow editors' talk pages.

★Trekker (talk) 12:42, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Betty Logan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec19b)) to your friends' talk pages.

Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:31, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty how are you doing ?. Can you add the above event to the 2023/24 snooker season calendar please ?. It was the first event of the season for the World Seniors Tour . It was played on one day 29 December 2023. It was staged at Epsom Racecourse in Epsom, England. Stephen Hendry beat Jimmy White 1-0 in the final. It is similar to the Snooker Shootout but the frame lasts for 15 minutes instead of 10. 15 minutes is 900 seconds hence the name. Can you add this event to the World Seniors Tour section please ?. It was live on Channel 5 in the UK. Thank you 92.251.180.135 (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to ask, but would you be willing to weigh in on Talk:Horror film about a proposed writing on a genre? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a look at it some point over the evening. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Betty, for your awareness, there is a current ANI discussion happening. It appears that Andrzejbanas has canvassed you directly instead of posting at WT:FILM, which I offered as an option if we could summarize the discussion and agree on that summary before soliciting outside opinion. Looks like they jumped the gun without letting participants know. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's incorrect @GoneIn60:. I've posted about it here, and at WP:HORROR as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've clarified this at ANI. The fact that you did not notify participants at Talk:Horror film about the individual pings or wait to summarize as I had suggested here are true statements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:CANVAS, you are supposed to keep it brief and try to elaborate on the situation. I apologize, but I believe I did everything that was required. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also per WP:CANVAS: "Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." This was not done. And despite seeing my request that we summarize first, you went ahead and did the pings without waiting. This would have been the perfect opportunity to say, "I ignored your recommendation GoneIn60, and went ahead and pinged Erik and Betty directly." At least if you did that, it wouldn't have felt like it flew under the radar. Besides, no one wants to be pinged to a WP:WALLOFTEXT.

There may be points you still disagree with, and that's fine. We don't need to continue this here on Betty's talk page and spam her notifications. Drop me a note on my talk page if further responses are needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can get the gist by just comparing the two. You don't need to worry about the canvassing element, you will get an honest opinion from me. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the comments I've added at ANI suggest that your opinions will be impartial. Hopefully we didn't spam your notifications too hard! Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty, I just want let you know that I won't be longer active on en.wiki, I don't have time anymore to do my edits here, so I just want to say thank you very much for your advices, your help and your kindness through this years. Have a nice day and good luck with your life (on and outside Wikipedia), bye :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Luke Stark 96: Sorry to lose you; you have been a great editor on the box-office articles, one of the best we've had. Sometimes though, real life takes over, and I wish you all the best. If you apply the same effort and diligence to your real-life endeavors I am sure you will be very successful. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so so much, I really appreciate what you said, thank you, bye :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Betty. There's recent discussion about production company/distributor. Feel free to comments. Regards. 2402:1980:824C:E039:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film) § Plot rewrite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Look. I apologize for the edits on Motion Picture Association film rating system. However, when it stated that nudity is restricted to PG and above, some G rated films has this type, including Against a Crooked Sky and Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid, but I've seen that you have proven me wrong. Also, I won’t revert any edits that were corrected by signed users. If there’s any problems with my edits, please just let me know. Just be easy on me. I have Asperger Syndrome. Retrosunshine2006 talk 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, my addition did pass verification and the entry for the movie was updated. Why not keep it added, it is justified now. Firekong1 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the source and I do not see the "Natural Horror" genre listed anywhere. Neither is Barracuda listed under the "Natural Horror" category. I don't know what else to say. The source failed verification. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit request a while ago, the change should show up shortly and pass for verification. Firekong1 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but then the proper course of action would be to wait until the database is updated before adding the film to the list. The claim is not verifiable through Allmovie until the update is implemented. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, thank you for understanding. Firekong1 (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, I noticed that you reverted my edits and claimed that it was "not in the source from what I can tell." The source is the actual physical magazine on pp.34-37; the link is an official on-line teaser produced by the editor of the magazine, or intro, as stated: "The following is from the introduction to LIFE’s new special issue on Superman, available at newsstands and online." It was referenced in case the reader would like to purchase the material and view the actual material; one could say that the actual content is behind a pay wall. Possible solutions: I could delete the link in the footnote; or include proper verbiage to state that it is behind a paywall; however, deleting the link may be a disservice to the reader who may want to have a convenient way to access said material or even point them in the right direction. Lastly, your claim that "Financially there was a lot riding on the film" is not sourced. MiztuhX (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another source that supports the assertion is the on-line fanzine, "Supeheroes Every Day ^[1] written by Danny Horn, Director of Product Management at the Wikimedia Foundation, in which he states: "at an estimated cost of $55 million, Superman was the most expensive movie ever made. On these grounds, I think you should revert your edit. MiztuhX (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have relocated the budget to a more organic placement in the article (the box-office section is not the appropriate section for production elements). Specific claims need to be sourced, so if the inflation adjusted budget is not in the provided source, then it should not be included. In the future, if you wish to discuss article content please initiate a discussion on the article talk page so the discussion is archived in the article's history. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there, this is a notice that I reverted your revert of my edit on the Superman (1978 film) article and that a discussion re: said topic can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_(1978_film)#Disputed_%E2%80%93_Discuss

MiztuhX (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is there really nothing that can be saved for the article? Maybe a single sentence about intellectual blockbusters or a single example? Surely some of the references are suitable enough to include something? --62.166.252.25 (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You would need high quality sources that establish "intellectual blockbuster" as a specific sub-genre, with certain genre characteristics. Intellectual blockbusters have always existed, but it seems to me always in isolation rather than as a genre form. As an example, look at how "summer blockbusters" are treated by the same article, or for a more direct comparison something like elevated horror. Betty Logan (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Betty. I've given you a response here. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]