User talk:SavvySailor

Welcome

Hello, Spinc5, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 14:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In film articles

Why should the Japanese grossing be included? There are already three regions, which is a lot to keep up with, and they are at least English-speaking. Why would the Japanese grosses be notable? BOVINEBOY2008 13:34, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spinc5 (talk) 13:49, 19 September 2010 (UTC) Well it is one of the largest markets in the world. I think since Wikipedia is an international encyclopedia it shouldn't focus just on English-speaking countries.[reply]

That is true, but this is the English-language Wikipedia, and it would seem more relevant to include those major regions. And it seems odd, at least to me, to have a table with only one non-English country listed. BOVINEBOY2008 14:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Hans Zimmer

Any news articles saying that he's back. What also could work, if possible, is any REAL proof that Hans Zimmer or someone who's actually involved in the film confirms it. CJS2.0 (talk) 08:31, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles as you apparently did to Toy Story 3. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. Thank you. Pol430 talk to me 15:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Toy Story 3. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Pol430 talk to me 15:23, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Verification, sources, citations, and a couple other things

Hi there! Just to let you know, I completely eliminated the phrase in Toy Story 3 where it gives the movie's gross receipts rank in Japan. You brought it to my attention by changing the rank without adding a citation to a reliable source to verify the information. I checked the two citations already by that phrase and found no mention at all of a ranking, so I deleted the phrase altogether. I would be happy to see the rank put back in the article if you could please cite the source of the information.

On other notes, please don't use the minor edit button when you're changing the meaning of something, it's really only supposed to be used for uncontroversial stuff like spelling & grammar correction and vandalism reversion. Also, could you PLEASE use the edit summary to let the rest of us know what you're doing in each edit? It's really kind of rude to make everyone else figure it out for ourselves - especially when I see above that you've been asked to do this before!

On the whole, I appreciate your work for the encyclopedia; but if you don't want people undoing all your hard work, you'd do well to read the policies & guidelines I've linked to in this note, as well as those in the other messages people have sent to you above. Thanks again and happy editing! Ashanda (talk) 16:34, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Currently"

Hi. Just a friendly note to say that Wikipedia does not use terms such as "currently", "recently" and now, under the guideline of WP:DATED. You can substitute a phrase such as "As of 2011," or "As of April 2011".

Along with this, it's not generally acceptable to refer to moving-target box-office records. For example, we can say that such-and-such film was the highest-grossing of 2010, or 2009. Referring to the top-grossing movie so far of 2011 isn't helpful, since that can always change, necessitating editors to comb through several movie articles to change "third-highest" to "fourth-highest" etc. Keep in mind there's no deadline — Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Happy editing! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box office sections

There is a discussion here about the box office sections for Disney films that you may be interested in. —Mike Allen 07:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

2012

Hello there, you recently added content to article 2012 (film), do you have a source for that information please? That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		The Citation Barnstar
		Thanks. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 14:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Box-office news for Harry Potter 7 - PArt 2

Can you please expand the Harry Potter 7 - Part 2 box office section similar to POC4, thank you in advance. --Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pirates box office

A box office section (or being more specific: subsection, as it's part of Reception) probably longer than the Development one? You want to say it isn't cruft? The top two highest-grossing films of all time spend most space on "Commercial analysis" (why it made so much money) than dumping financial data (the top one even has an article for such stuff... not as detailed as the one you made, but that's another thing). The section is informative being straight to the point, without listing how it did in every single country.

About the discrepancies, the Spain number is just the Disney number covered by the ref being different from the ones in BOM (then again, all the numbers in BOM are smaller... except for the UK!), and the second weekend was covered by your version - though only in an overall, worldwide context (is there a problem in showing it wasn't as smashing in the US as in other markets?). Anyway, sorry about anything, and thanks for your help (it was a good work, with a lot of research put into it, but it would be hard to through GA - and possibly FA in the future - with that much detail, thus I felt the need to shorten) igordebraga ≠ 02:52, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like a section that sums up the box office in a manageable size should be preferred for readability's sake instead of a sprawling detailed list (a single paragraph with highlights, like you did on 2012 or Transformers: Dark of the Moon, kinda passes; a 28 kb section like the Pirates one is too unwildely). Though some films, such as Avatar and Deathly Hallows, have such an impact on the box office that a separate article with their records is kinda justifiable - big lists of awards and complicated/ellaborate productions get split from the main articles, after all. igordebraga ≠ 02:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since the box office isn't just North America, adding highlights of the foreign performance isn't so bad - many articles at least point out the most lucrative markets. However, detailing every single place where it broke a record (and how it did so) is kind of cruft, excessive detail that's not quite necessary. You can keep expanding as you do, only trying not to get out of control (separating for continent - and even the European region! - is a perfect indicative it's gotten too long). Separate articles are OK if the number of box office records is too high (something which Avatar and Deathly Hallows qualify), just like movies with lots of awards get a separate list for them. And that's all I have to say - as you commented, I talked enough on the subject, other opinions on the matter might be needed. Again, sorry for anything, thanks for any help you bring. igordebraga ≠ 03:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to express concern about the promotional tone I'm seeing in your edits for Disney films' box-office performance. It is not neutral or encyclopedic to use phrases such as "It also had phenomenal runs in many countries," as you did at Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, and such arbitrary-bar minutiae as "Territories where it generated a total gross of more than $10 million" is trade-oriented, inappropriate to a general-audience encyclopedia, and in seeing similar edits at Disney's [[Real Steel], it appears very much as if these edits are being generated from someone connected with Disney, which would be a conflict of interest violation. I'm toning back these promotional-sounding edits, and I would like to open a dialog, and get other editors involved, to see if we can reach some appropriate ground. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:18, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And I can see from this discussion I'm not the first editor to express such concerns. Perhaps Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film would be an appropriate venue in which to discuss this, and invite other editors so that we large a multifaceted discussion. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see you discussing the issue, and I would just say we probably need to open this up to a larger forum that only our talk pages, as I suggested. Whether you agree with me personally or not, other editors have expressed concern. Maybe, just maybe, that means there's something to their concerns. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I think it helps to reference reliable sources that highlight a film's milestones at the box office. It shows that a secondary source found the factoid worth reporting, and we pass that on. It's better than looking at Box Office Mojo's tables and drawing conclusions from these. You can use the "Related Stories" for a film at Box Office Mojo to help. You can also search Variety and The Hollywood Reporter with Google keywords like site:variety.com "real steel" "box office" and site:hollywoodreporter.com "real steel" "box office". Erik (talk | contribs) 19:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of this may be moot: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Box office takes a limited view of the box office section, probably to avoid this type of promotional-seeming prose: It says this section may detail results of a film's opening weekend — and not subsequent weekends — and only include results from different English-speaking territories. And even there, the only consensus-derived, guideline reason to discuss an opening "in a country not of the film's origin" is for the kind of contextual reason you and I agree on: "e.g., an article on an American film set in China may include discussion of the film's performance in that country)." --Tenebrae (talk) 19:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion started at WT:MOSFILM#Box office revision. Erik (talk | contribs) 20:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Spin" as in promotional spin. And I did say, humorously I thought, that it was a coincidence.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and so by WP:TONE, WP:NPOV and other guidelines maintains a plain, neutral, encyclopedic tone. This is very different from magazine-style writing, which is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I'm assuming from what you say that you didn't realize this and that this inappropriate style was inadvertent. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have just posted at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film about what I consider your disruptive and inappropriate reinsertion of disputed material while a discussion about that very material is ongoing. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spinc5, please see my comment above. We should source highlights to analyses already published. We should not draw conclusions from raw data. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I want to thank you for working on the Box office section of Harry Potter. The barn star goes to your diligent work and meticulous results. Eddyghazaley (talk) 17:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Twilight (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. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line 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) 10:49, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year

When you get the chance can you take a look at M.I.:4 box-office section. Do you think it's good? Other Records?--Eddyghazaley (talk) 22:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate that you give weight to my opinion. Thank you for asking. The records mentioned are fine. Of course more information about nationwide release should be added. I'm just waiting for the holidays to finish, so that actual domestic and overseas grosses are reported. Happy New Year! --Spinc5 (talk) 09:38, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Web archiving

Thank you for your contributions to Thor (film). However when citing online sources, it is imperative that you archive your references as over time they may fall victim to WP:LINKROT.

WebCite is a good means of archiving sources. A how-to-guide is available here. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Box office section

I appreciate that you're doing it in good faith. But with all respect, I ask you to see again the long October-November 2011 discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Box office revision about adding overdetailed, WP:INDISCRIMINATE minutiae to film articles. If you'd like to reopen the discussion at any particular film or call for a WP:RfC, that's perfectly your right, and I'd support you 100 percent. As it stands, week-by-week box office analyses and "smallest non-Holiday decline ever for a saturated release (2,500+ theaters)" go against consensus and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm being polite. I'm assuming good faith. Instead of losing your temper on my talk page, the proper thing to do is to discuss your concerns on the individual movies' talk pages — I think there were all of three on which I made edits. That way, it's not just the two of us, but all interested editors who have a chance to comment. That's how Wikipedia works.

And if my throw a sincere compliment in here, the quality of your research and your citing, and the very important fact that you add archive links, make you in many ways an exceptional and valuable editor. Whatever else, I did want you to know that. I think any other editor would similarly admire those qualities of your work. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:57, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you in return for your own kind words. Yes, I meant every word in my sincere appreciation of your research and fact-gathering skills, and your exemplary footnoting and, cherry on the cake, your additions of archival links. I wish more editors could be like you in that regard, and I hope you'll have a chance to mentor and guide other editors along.

And I also believe we're on a road to a middle ground, since two editors of good will can always find a way.

First, thank you for having an open mind about the $10 million bar, which, as we both agree, is an arbitrary number. And I do want you to know I read your edits carefully and thin them through; I know brief edit summaries are like trying to give a complicated rationale on Twitter. And IFRC, I believe, in conjunction with other editors, I and others have re-added some material, particularly in regards to wide-ranging records, after discussion with you.

For example, you'll see I never touched your list of Asian countries in which the Asian-themed Kung Fu Panda 2 set national box-office records (other than to remove the actual dollar amounts, which without economic context is hard to attribute meaning to). And I think if you step back, you can see in this respect "the largest five-day opening in Vietnam" might be considered extremely narrow parsing.

You're right that, as another editor said, "By reporting observations explicitly made elsewhere, we can at least say, 'They said it, not us' in regard to significance and neutrality concern." Undue weight is another matter, and not a small one. As Betty Logan said, at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#Box-office sections, 21:56, 15 August 2011, "The problem is with the level of non-notable financial analysis.... I think you get the balance a lot better than most editors, and I have a lot of sympathy for what you are trying to do with the box office sections, but the level of detail sometimes overwhelms the article."

You can see that all three of us honestly believe in the work you do. Having someone of your caliber to take point and shape up box-office sections with this professional trade-magazine-level detail and comprehensiveness ... well, I know I'm happy to have that, and I imagine Betty, Erik and others are as well. As Betty says, it's just a matter of pulling back a little on the details and seeing the big picture. Week-by-week analyses are important for industry people; I'm not so sure for average readers who just need an overall picture:

opening weekend and total box office for country of origin and (for English Wikipedia and where appropriate) North America
major records set
performance in countries involved in the production, locales or other pertinent factors (like the Asian-themed Kung Fu Panda 2 in Asian countries)
in some cases, any miscellaneous information that sheds light on the big picture

That's my thinking, anyway, as derived from all the many discussions we as part of a group of editors have had. Do these ideas and parameters make sense? What else would you add, and why would they help?

If and when you want, we can break this out and ask other editors to weigh in. It doesn't need to be just us talking. But y'know what? I'm glad we're talking. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with all of what you say in your latest post. While the WP:FILM guidelines are narrower about international box office, I, at least, see your point about mentioning the top few international grosses. (You're right than any number would be arbitrary, but three seems low enough to be defensible in terms of big-picture context.) The North American and the overall overseas openings — of course. And I agree with you that it's significant to mention the number of weekends that a film remained at number one.

I don't think other editors would disagree, so I say go for it. And if you still want to bring those three things up at the film guidelines page to formalize them, I would support you on them.

Believe it or not, ten editors is actually a lot for these sorts of discussions. You have to figure that, as in anything else involving volunteers, there are a number of people who agree with each of various points gives by those who speak up, and just aren't bother to speak up themselves.

I am so glad we've had this discussion; it really represents the best of Wikipedia when editors with differing viewpoints go through give-and-take, see each other's points, and agree to something in the middle, incorporating points of view each other might not previously had considered. The articles are going to be the better for it, and I think we've reached a ground of collegial friendship. I can honestly say, one of the best feelings I get on Wikipedia is when I see edits by longtime fellow editors who also are amenable to discussion and have open minds. Even on occasions where we disagree, we respect each other and I know that any discussions to resolve differences will be civil and polite. I am so happy to be working with you in such a constructive and fruitful fashion. With great regards, Tenebrae (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, and may I say likewise for anything untoward I might have said in the past.

I made a copy of copy-edit changes that don't affect content at Pirates just now. Also, if I misread in changing "two records" to "three records," please do clarify: I read it as opening-day and single-day records in addition to a third one. Good working with you Spin! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:40, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for April 16

Hi. When you recently edited The Lion King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jurassic Park (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) 10:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just saying hi, and kudos

Been seeing a couple of your edits on a couple of my watchlist pages, and just wanted to say what good, high-precision work you've been doing there and, I'm sure, on other articles. Your truly valuable contributions are helping to make and keep box-office sections big-picture-encyclopedic, in my humble opinion, and I just wanted to say thank you for taking the time and effort to be so careful and thoughtful. With regard, --Tenebrae (talk) 13:30, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that I was "checking out" anyone's edits. I just go like anyone else when they see hits on their watchlist and take a look. And after a couple of times of just happening to see your edits, I would think, "Damn. This guy really 'gets it." And thank you as well for your own nice words. Best wishes, bro' -- Tenebrae (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Avengers

I don't have time right now to go searching but off the top of my head Lockout (film), Fast Five (GA), Horrible Bosses (GA), Project X (2012 film), Thor (film) (GA), Chronicle (film), Tower Heist (GA), Saw (film) (GA) and of course The Avengers. The BOM figures are estimates and cannot be known to the dollar, it makes more sense to round them properly for an easy to digest figure that is in line with the budget above (we don't say budget: $200,000,000) than to present a 9 figure estimate. Like other things from the infobox, they can be extrapolated in the body, but BOM is not the be all and end all of figures and will generally present a different figure than other sites, such as the Numbers, though they will be in a similar range but likely not to the exact dollar. Which is why it makes sense to round it, rather than give undue weight to one particular source. The general reason I see the long form figure is that people are literally just copy and pasting from BOM, including extra spaces, leaving the ref floating off to the right somewhere. Not because they are particularly favoring that figure. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you broke up the BO by North America and elsewhere. I don't know if this is the case but North American and Canadian Box Office are normally considered one and the same. The Box Office Mojo figure for Domestic for instance counts both as I've asked them in the past about it. Do you know if the sources you are using are doing this and should the header be changed? I assume they are counting both since BOM bases its records off the same figures.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:34, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that the term North America included both USA and Canada. Since, as per MOS:Film, domestic and international should be avoided, I thought "North America" (as a shorter equivalent of "USA and Canada") and and "outside North America" are good alternatives. Spinc5 (talk) 20:39, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North American box office a.k.a. domestic box office includes both the U.S. and Canada (though not Mexico) per standard industry parlance. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So do you find the section titles OK? Spinc5 (talk) 21:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I wonder how Canada feels about that Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean. "North American box office" has been industry parlance for combined Canada and U.S. box office for several decades. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:16, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If they are adjusting the opening weekend, then they are inaccurate figures. You can adjust for inflation at this website (which provides you with the formula that is used to adjust for inflation. So, if BOM is adjusting more than just the entire gross (which is the only thing on that page identified as adjusted), then they are using a formula that does not match, and I'm more inclined to use an adjustment website that actually shows you how they calculate the adjustment than trusting a place owned by IMDb to do the adjusting and not tell me how they did it. Especially when the figures do not match. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:24, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bignole offers good caution. First, the website Tom's Inflation Calculator is just some anonymous person's amateur page. That page does point to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, which the anonymous Tom, who may or may not hold a doctorate in economics, says he uses as the basis for his, but which he believes he improves upon. That's quite a claim. But at least the BLS calculator has the imprimatur and backing of the US government and is created by professionals, so if we have to use any, the BLS' is better than an amateur site's or IMDb's.

Just to try out the BLS calculator, I entered the price of a movie ticket in Manhattan in 1980, $4, and the 2012 calculation came out to $11.17. That's in the ballpark, but less than the actual $13 of a standard ticket, although I suppose if you average in half-price cost of a pre-noon ticket, that would lower the $13 a bit. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:25, 16 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Prometheus

All films have box office sections, very few films set any kind of box office record. By this standard Prometheus should just not have a box office section because it is unlikely to set any records. News sites covering it feel these countries are important to note, in the case of the UK, not only is it a significant individual market but it is relevant to this particular film by production, crew, and release. And Russia is also a major international market. These are the major figures reported and sources refer to them as the film's major initial successes and it is that opinion I feel is relevant. More so than how many different people think Madagascar 3 is going to beat it. Chile might be worth removing however. And a non English speaking country's box office has never hamstrung you with Pirates of the Caribbean or The Avengers. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really bothered about the France/Sweden 2nd place thing, tbh I dont see anything but TDKR moving it down a spot, maybe The Amazing Spider-Man, I'm not sure how vital it is. It obviously expresses success since it is 2nd only to The Avengers, which is pretty decent 6 months into the year, but I guess (hopefully) more impressive information will come along. I'll remove that part for now and see how relevant the analysts think that is further into the film's lifespan. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with the section, just how long it is considering it seems to be saying the same thing repeatedly. I restored the previous relase section layout, but I did not change your text changes. As long as I've been here that is the layout I've used and I based it on previous articles, and noone has ever had a problem with it nor has it stopped them reaching GA or FA. I've started a discussion at MOSFILM about it being changed because the preferred layout makes no sense, especially for Home Media which should be down at the bottom somewhere, not before the Box Office and Critical reception. You can handle the NA Box office how you wish but I would appreciate it if you did not change the layout again. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Avengers (2012 film)

This is a neutral notice of an edit-war occurring at The Avengers (2012 film) --Tenebrae (talk) 13:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North America

North America is not equivalent to the USA and Canada. Please stop making that change. Cresix (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spinc5 is correct. The accepted and widespread film industry phrase "North American box office" refers solely to the US and Canada. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico has a film industry. Provide your evidence that this is an "accepted and widespread film industry phrase". Cresix (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The term "North America" is used by THR (google search -> site:hollywoodreporter.com "north america"), Variety (site:variety.com "north america" "box office"), MPAA (site:mpaa.org north america box office) and many others. Spinc5 (talk) 10:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The goal here is to replace less accurate information with more accurate information, not the other way around. As I said, North America includes more than the USA and Canada, and Mexico has a film industry. Therefore, by definition, if a fact applies to USA/Canada but not Mexico, it is inaccurate to describe it as "North America". It is just as simple to leave "USA and Canada" instead of changing it to "North America". Unless there is a consensus on Wikipedia otherwise, please do so. Thanks. Cresix (talk) 22:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, because your definition goes against the way the entire movie industry calculates box-office figures. There is no debate here, and it's not a matter of Wikipedia consensus. It's a matter of reality. Just because you, personally, don't like the term has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that this is the term all published references, from books to film-industry trade publications, have used for the past 50 or 60 years at least.

This is not an issue for some user's talk page. Take it to the WP:FILM talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:43, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tenebrae, you've been around a while and you should know better. Yes there is debate here because I disagree with what has been done, as is my right as a Wikipedia editor. And yes when there is disagreement everything that does not involve core policies is a matter of consensus. And yes this is a matter for this talk page (and possibly the WP:FILM talk page, which you are welcome to address there) because this is the editor who made the changes that I think are inappropriate. Cresix (talk) 01:50, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess i should appreciate being considered a veteran who's expected to know things. So that's something positive, at least. The reason I suggest WP:FILM is that the term "North American box office", referring only to the US and Canada, is all over Wikipedia and not just in articles that Spinc5 edits.

I'm also unclear on something: You're not actually saying that the film industry doesn't use the term "North American box office" to refer only to the US and Canada, are you? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:57, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What I am primarily saying is that, as an encyclopedia, we need to be more accurate, not less accurate (especially when making such changes in articles is completely unnecessary). And I have seen no evidence presented here that the entirety of the film industry always makes a perfect equivalency between USA/Canada and "North America", but that is of secondary importance. This is Wikipedia, not the film industry. If the makers of Spam want to call their product a delicacy, that doesn't mean we should use their wording in our descriptions. Cresix (talk) 02:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. We all want Wikipedia to be accurate. Our goals are the same. This is a matter of raw numbers, however, and not subjective promotional terms like "delicacy" If Spam's label says "500 calories," we say "500 calories."

As I'd mentioned, the reason I suggest WP:FILM is that the term "North American box office", referring only to the US and Canada, is all over Wikipedia and not just in articles that Spinc5 edits. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between "raw numbers" and "promotional terms" isn't convincing. If we want the "raw numbers" to be accurate, "USA/Canada" for the numbers in those countries is more accurate than "North America". As for WP:FILM, be my guest. I couldn't fix all of Wikipedia in a day even if I was right about everything (which, of course, is an absurd notion). My approach is to correct inaccuracies as I see them unless/until someone presents a consensus to the contrary. If you'd like to pursue that consensus, that's perfectly fine. I always try to respect consensus, but I am not aware of a consensus on this issue. Cresix (talk) 02:28, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I just took a glance at boxofficemojo.com, which is widely used on Wikipedia. Their terminology is "domestic" and "foreign". Now I am quite aware that one website doesn't define anything. And even if that website used "North America" instead of "domestic", my position for Wikipedia would be the same. But I think this dispels the notion that "North America" is seen as universally equivalent to "USA/Canada" on Wikipedia for information about films. Likewise, a film on Wikipedia is often described as "American" (as in USA) or "Canadian", not "North American". Cresix (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Domestic" includes Canada. The box office figure there is the same as industry trade magazines give for "North American box office."

And again, this is a larger issue than one editor. I don't know why why you resist going to WP:FILM's talk page unless you're unsure that your unusual reading of the term "North American box office" will not be accepted. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:47, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't attribute inaccurate motives to me simply because you disagree with me. I have encouraged you twice to go to WP:FILM if you desire. I haven't resisted anything. I simply don't see the need, nor do I have the time. I disagreed with Spinc5 and addressed my disagreement on that user's talk page. That is perfectly appropriate. You joined the discussion and suggested -- now you are almost demanding it -- that I take the matter to WP:FILM. But for the third time, Tenebrae, you are quite welcome to do so, and if I feel the need I will join that discussion.

"Domestic" may refer to USA and Canada, but it is not "North American", the term you are relentlessly pushing. And again, Wikipedia does not describe films as "North American" and instead uses "Amercan" or "Canadian". Your argument for universal use of "North American" on Wikipedia simply doesn't hold water. Cresix (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, all I can say is that you're the only editor here arguing for your position, which goes against industry standard. If you insist on changing "North American" box office, which is the recognized industry phrase, then the next step is for me to call an RfC. In the meantime, it's probably not a good idea for you to go around to all the articles changing an established and accepted industry term simply because you, personally, don't like it. The Wikipedia consensus is clearly to use "North American box office" the same way the industry does, from the sheer volume of articles that use it. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"then the next step is me to call an RfC": If you're trying to make me feel threatened, you failed. And I find it interesting that you push WP:FILM so hard and then switch to RfC. But go ahead. Either way is your right.

"In the meantime, it's probably not a good idea for you to go around to all the articles changing an established and accepted industry term simply because you, personally, don't like it. The Wikipedia consensus is clearly to use "North American box office" the same way the industry does": AGAIN, please stop attributing false motives to me. Please quote me in which I suggested that I would "go around to all the articles". Seriously, Tenebrae, you need to work on your discussion techniques. It is possible to disagree with someone on an issue without making false suggestions about their motives or intentions. This started out as a simple comment to one user about my disagreement with some of his/her edits, and it probably would have ended there because I do not have the desire or time to "go around to all the articles". Then you jumped in declaring that discussion of the issue is off limits and that consensus is irrelevant, and demanding that I take an action for which I have no obligation and that you are perfectly capable of pursuing. And by the way, please link for me the consensus discussion which concluded that all of Wikipedia must "use North American box office the same way the industry does". Cresix (talk) 03:11, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 28

Hi. When you recently edited The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page I Am Legend (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) 15:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Amazing Spider-Man: Box Office Expansion

Hello Spinc5,

Its been quite a while that we haven't worked together on an article, well I was wondering if you could help me expand the box-office section for The Amazing Spider-Man, but most importantly I don't want a redundant usage of the following structure: The film earned/grossed/.. $XX. In some cases this is unavoidable, I understand but let's work on it. Regards, Eddy --Eddyghazaley (talk) 09:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote The Avengers (2012 film) to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm Tbhotch. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 20:58, 3 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 28

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited AKAP, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PKA (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) 09:05, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reference Errors on 12 December

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Thor: The Dark World page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 09:52, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's with moving all the references to the bottom of an article? Also why do you not use spaces in your references? You would in any other sentence to keep them clear and readable, why make wikisource difficult to read and discourage people from checking citations? (I've seen too many citations with dates or "facebook likes" written in spaces where the author was supposed to go, and even more times where the URL was full of junk that didn't need to be there, but that last case requires a bit more technical knowledge to spot. Mypointisifyoudonotincludespacesyoumakethingshardertoreadandpeoplearelesslikelytocheckformistakes.) -- 109.79.209.95 (talk) 04:17, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the refs to the bottom of the article makes it easier to read the text of the article while editing. It just makes the article look neater in edit mode. As for why I don't put spaces in my refs, I understand it makes it difficult to read but spaces just make the article so much bigger. Also, in contrast to normal text, a reference is a special kind of text where vertical lines, "|", and the equal sign, "=", already indicate separation of one part of the ref form the other. Maybe one space per part of ref is reasonable (e.g. ... |url=www.wikpedia.com |title=The Hunger Games |publisher=Blah blah |date=January 17, 2014...), but this (... | url = www.wikpedia.com | title = The Hunger Games | publisher = Blah blah | date = January 17, 2014 ...) is just too much. Why fill the article with so many spaces? Do you see what I mean? Spinc5 (talk) 14:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You do one thing to improve readability but you do another thing knowing it reduces readability? Citations need to be checked too, I would urge you to wait until an article is up to a good standard (maybe C class or better) before moving citations down to the bottom, as they are less likely to receive attention and improvements after that. (fixes to authors, dates, adding archiverurls, adding quotes, all things that many articles, even at quite high standards still need, never quite as close to finished as you might think).

There is really no shortage of space in Wikipedia, in technical terms everything is compressed on the wire, in practical terms of layout and spacing articles get split (sections like Soundtrack and Awards frequently get moved out) so easy reading and checking seem more important to me than space. (For me personally the extra spaces make it easier to use only the keyboard to navigate text, I can ctrl+tab quickly through the text and rarely need to reach for the mouse.) I learned to type, for me putting at least space after a word, or after punctuation like a comma, a pipe| or an equals sign= is only natural, it seems very strange that anyone would do it any other way, especially considering the impact on readability (but as I said before, I'm not convinced most editors even try to read and improve citations).

I used to edit more, now I only dip in anonymously. If you think I use lots of spaces you should see how many line breaks I used to add (I've given up on that though when so many other editors just strip them out).

You have your way, I have mine. I prefer to have citations in line, in the proper context when I'm editing wikisource, but when as source is used many times through an article and an article is well develop I can see how moving them down can tidy things up. Helps to know why people do things a certain way and that they have thought it through. Enjoy your editing, I'd still ask you to consider using a few more spaces here and there. -- 109.79.209.95 (talk) 20:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

April 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Frozen (2013 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:

40079|archivedate=February 12, 2014}}</ref> and among Walt Disney Animation Studios films (a record previously held by ''[[The Lion King]]''.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:00, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this edit on Frozen, I undid it because this source supports Frozen as being a Walt Disney Pictures release. The comparison is valid because Toy Story 3 used to be in first place, but Frozen overtook it. It's not specifically a comparison to a Pixar film. – FenixFeather ^(talk)^(Contribs) 16:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Boxoffice and Box Office Mojo or Deadline Hollywood

I'm quite confused with figures of these three outlets. Deadline Hollywood often provides different (and generally higher) box office results than Boxoffice and Box Office Mojo. Which one should I take? Are Boxoffice and BOM's figures always estimated results, and is Deadline's factuals? Please answer on my talk page. Thank you. ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 16:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. This is a question which requires multiple levels of answering. Let's start with domestic:

Domestic (US and Canada, for which the term North America is used): All grosses at Box Office Mojo are the most accurate. I ALWAYS use those for Wikipedia articles. The only one I sometimes use from other sources is the midnight gross, because it is not always reported by Box Office Mojo. The same occurs for other info like audience demographics. If available at Box Office Mojo, I use those; otherwise I use those from The Hollywood Reporter or Boxoffice or Deadline. As for articles saying "record Memorial weekend" or other records, I never trust other websites because they use the word "record" so often just for the sake of attracting more readers. I only trust articles from Box Office Mojo or the tables provided in the various sections of the website. If my eye catches something that they claim is a "record" on a different website, I always doucle-check on BOM.

International/Overseas (Outside the US and Canada, or outside North America): This includes all countries except the US and Canada. However, for some reason Fox includes Puerto Rico grosses in both the domestic and the international gross (essentially counting the gross twice). Box Office Mojo is the only website which subtracts the gross of Puerto Rico from the interntional gross (because Puerto Rico is considered part of the US). So overseas numbers for Fox films are only accurate at Box Office Mojo. For films from other studios, Box Office Mojo provides the studio estimates as of Sunday but it almost never updates them with actuals. Other websites, especially Deadline and Screen Daily claim that they update some of the numbers. Boxoffice used to do it some time ago but has now apparently stopped. I believe when it is explicitly stated within one sentence that the studio has provided an updated, actual gross - as long as it isn't Fox - it is safe to use these numbers for Wikipedia. However, I believe these matters are slightly trivial because the grosses are updated every week anyway. The cumulative gross reported a week after will take into account the previous week's actual. When the difference between an estimate and an actual affect whether a record has been broken or not, I think the studio usually provides the actual and Box Office Mojo does that too. Overall, I would trust BOM unless there are no data available, in which case you can search other websites. All the above is only for cumulative overseas grosses. As for cumulative grosses from a specific country, Box Office Mojo is not accurate. They take the cumulative gross in the national currency and convert it to dollars using the current exchange rate. That is not accurate since the current exchange rate must only be used for the grosses of the current day, not the entire run of the film. However, the individual weekend grosses are accurate in either currency. The cumulative grosses are less accurate and I wouldn't count on them. However, I only realised this recently and thus I have used them before frequently. Otehr websites make so many typos so often on their reports that I cannot count on them for anything unless I verify it by checking many website's reports. Remember that the only records that count are the ones reported in national currency. It would be irrational to claim a film broke a record in dollars in Russia for example, because exchange rates can very greatly. Box Office Mojo and the studios only report records when they are broken in the national currency but some other American box office websites are very likely to make the mistake of claiming that a film broke a record although it won't be true. Usually it is accurate if they also include the grosses in the national currency (often done by THR and Deadline). Obviously this is a very complicated matter, so if you have other questions, do ask. Thank you. Spinc5 (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Guardians of the Galaxy Box Office

Sorry for the late reply, but I just recently had time to follow up with the discussion. I definitely think that the current version is padded with insignificant figures and records and it surprises me that everyone has kept it as it is, especially considering how people used to respond to our previous detailed analysis. Its been almost 4 days that no one has replied, making it consensus until disagreement, so I think its safe to proceed with your suggested version. My only edit is to change "lower than normal" to "below par".--Eddyghazaley (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:09, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:28, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Europe 10,000 Challenge invite

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Europe/The 10,000 Challenge has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Germany, Italy, the Benelux countries, Iberian Peninsula, Romania, Slovenia etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. If you would like to see masses of articles being improved for Europe and your specialist country like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon, sign up today and once the challenge starts a contest can be organized. This is a way we can target every country of Europe, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant and also sign under any country sub challenge on the page that you might contribute to! Thank you. --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Spinc5. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Spinc5. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Spinc5. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:30, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]