Talk:Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre

	Comedy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Film: American

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

what is is the budget of this move?

It doesn't look like the budget is more than $50 million. 59.152.106.140 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "NUM":

From Wrath of Man: "Wrath of Man (2021)". The Numbers. Retrieved July 20, 2021.
From Creed III: "Creed III (2023)". The Numbers. Nash Information Services, LLC. Retrieved March 3, 2023.
From The Gentlemen (2019 film): "The Gentlemen (2020)". The Numbers. Archived from the original on October 20, 2019. Retrieved August 26, 2020.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:14, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Etiquette

This shouldn't be necessary, but since @MikeAllen aggressively reverted my good faith edit, and forced me to re-assert, we should discuss it.

Don't aggressively revert good faith edits. Our goal here is good articles. Our goal is not preening over imaginary powers.

The article itself clearly states that the film budget was $50m and the box office was $48m. No source is needed to therefore conclude that the film lost money.

Its important for you to stop and think for a few seconds, so that you can understand the obvious logic behind a colleagues edit, instead of aggressively and rashly clashing with colleagues. Jozsefs (talk) 12:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OR. All content (especially this) requires a reliable source. Take a look at the archives on WP:FILM about this same type of edits to other film pages. I simply added that you needed a reliable source for that content you added. I am not sure how that was aggressive. And now you have added a source to IMDB which is absolutely an unreliable source per WP:IMDB. Mike Allen 15:17, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're not making any sense. The article already included the $50 million budget and $48 million box office. All I did was regurgitate those numbers and mention the obvious: the film lost money. If you were so suspicious of these facts, why not delete the financial information listed in the article prior to my edits?

The point is, you and ‪Lobo151‬ are aggressively reverting good faith edits, and starting quarrels with other editors, when it's completely unnecessary. Reverting should be a last resort. Jozsefs (talk) 11:31, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was 9 months ago. I don't even remember what this was about. Mike Allen 15:32, 1 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]