Talk:Skyfall/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions about Skyfall. 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 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Box Office

Discussion moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Film talk page. See link at bottom. - ^theWOLFchild 07:52, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone explain why "billion means something different in Br Eng"...? The box office is currently listed as "$1,108 million", which is rather silly and even a little misleading. "1.108 billion" would be better. - ^theWOLFchild 10:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See #Box Office Gross Formatting. It is neither silly nor misleading, so please do not try to smear the opinions of others just because they differ to your personal preferences. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Silly or not, every reader knows what a million is, or can find out. The problem with "billion" in Br. English is that it has two numerical definitions so it is better to avoid the ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English." - Oxford Dictionary.

It seems that most people in the UK accept "billion" to be 1,000,000,000 (I know I do). Not sure why we need to use such an odd way of denoting amounts, just to accommodate a small number of people. Also, I didn't insult anyone SchroCat, so... relax, I was just talking about the numbers. - ^theWOLFchild 21:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very relaxed. The consensus - long-standing - is to retain the current form. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you didn't seem relaxed when lashed out me above, but anyway, I'm glad you're ok now. That said, there was a discussion that reached consensus on this? Can you point me to it? Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 23:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Official government statistics have officially adopted the short scale version, but that is really at the root of the problem. It puts reporting figures at odds with people's understanding of them. Maybe that will change in fifty years time when everyone has been educated on the short scale, but you have to appreciate that someone over the age of 50 will have been educated on the long scale. In the Oxford English Dictionary which generally has the final say in these matters the primary definition is "1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.)". Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you addressed my question. Even if I grant that some people, in Britain, "over the age of 50" still "sometimes" equate "billion" with million x million, in some situations, this is still a minority, and small one at that. Why are we catering to the few? Far more people recognize billion as thousand x million. (And for the record, I'm British and in my mid-forties. I have never used "billion" except in the modern sense.) Shouldn't we be using what is most common? (isn't that policy?) Doesn't WP cater to the majority? Betty, you yourself just said that "Official government statistics have officially adopted the short scale version". So, what's the debate? - ^theWOLFchild 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several countries round the world that have not adopted it, and it's culturally insensitive to ignore their wants too. There are plenty in Britain under 50 that still use it in the old sense (I happen to be one, but that's neither here nor there). – SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Culturally insensitive"...? Are you kidding? So basically, using the word 'billion' is racism now? Now that is silly. Please, show me a wiki-policy that supports that. And meanwhile, I'll ask again (3^rd time?) What about the majority of people that use the modern form of billion? Why are we ignoring all of them? - ^theWOLFchild 13:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, do not dip into untruths to try and bolster your opinion: no-one has drawn the parallel with racism, so perhaps you could reign in your intemperate language, and (again) do not smear other people's opinions as "silly", just for daring to be different to yours. – SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Then how about you explain just how this is "culturally insensitive"? (then perhaps I won't think of it as being silly) And, again... I'll ask (for the 4^th time now), what about the wide majority of people who use the modern tern 'billion'? Why is it ok to be "culturally insensitive" to all of them? Also, perhaps you noticed the wiki-policy I cited/quoted below? I'll ask you (again), do you have a wiki-policy to support your position on this? I look forward to your answers, if you care to ever provide any. - ^theWOLFchild 15:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a solution, just cite the box office as $1,108,561,013. This has been done for other films on Wikipedia and removes any confusion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. But only as an alternative to using this ancient long-form. I still prefer the modern short form. - ^theWOLFchild 13:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI - As per WP:NUMERAL; "billion" and "trillion" are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively. I really can't believe we're debating this, but perhaps this should be taken to the WP:WikiProject Film and/or the WP:MOS talk pages for broader discussion and consensus. - ^theWOLFchild 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If "billion" and "trillion" are used on Wikipedia the policy states they should be used in the short-scale sense. No-one is arguing otherwise, but that does not mandate that we actually use these terms. The majority of readers will not be familiar with the MOS so it is not particularly helpful in these cases. The primary definition as given by theOxford English Dictionary reads " 1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.)", and I would be uncomfortable using a word in an article written in British English that is contrary to how it is defined by the OED. The bottom line is that nobody will be confused by the term 1,000 million: it means exactly the same thing as a short-scale billion and it is unambiguous. We are writing for 70 year-old pensioners just as much as we write for 20 year-old webheads. Betty Logan (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Betty. I respect the work you put into film pages, I really, do... but with that said, you have basically contradicted yourself here, and no one is answering the question; 'why are we catering to the minority?'. Was there a discussion with consensus on this? Or is this the preference of you and schrocat? I mean, it seems we are disregarding MoS and the OED and I'd like to understand exactly why. Also, I had suggested above that perhaps this debate be taken to the WP:Project Film and/or WP:MOS talk pages for a broader discussion, but neither you or Mr. Cat have responded to that. - ^theWOLFchild 00:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as "catering to the minority", but as catering to everyone, and so far I have not seen a compelling reason to add an ambiguous term to the article when we can easily avoid it. I don't see this as a MOS issue because the MOS does not mandate that we use "billion" in place of 1,000 million; it only mandates that when we use "billion" it should be the short-scale version. It would be a MOS issue if we were to use "billion" to denote "million million" which is not the case here. If you would like to get further input from the Film project I have no objection to that. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

See, to me these are subjective interpretations that could just as easily go the other way. You and s-cat seem dug in on this, so again I'll say that perhaps a broader discussion is needed. Endless debate can become pointless after awhile. - ^theWOLFchild 01:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Betty, per WP:WEIGHT section, it says that "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" We should not be uploading the views of the minority and should instead use the phrasing and notation that the majority understands. In WP:NUMERAL it says ""billion" and "trillion" are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively" and in the wikipedia article "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Long_and_short_scales" it states "The short scale is now used in most English-speaking and Arabic-speaking countries, in Brazil, and several other countries" of which includes England. and the short scale for 9 digital numbers is Billion, not 1,000 million. Since the majority of people in England use short scale notations, Billions should be appropriate here, not 1,000 millions, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NUMERAL Stphnpn (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WEIGHT is about sources and has nothing to do with this. – SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't WP:WEIGHT pertaining to neutrality? I don't see anything that mandates it to only apply to sources. Betty said "but you have to appreciate that someone over the age of 50 will have been educated on the long scale" which states that in this case long scale is used to cater to those who was educated on the long scale, this is a minority held education and view and should not be be given undue weight. It is a minority held education and view because, as I stated, WP:NUMERAL and "https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Long_and_short_scales" states the short scale notation is used in england. So therefore, for 9 digit numbers, we should use Billions instead of 1,000 Millions.Stphnpn (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not representing a "minority" view because we are not using the long-scale version of the word. Nor are we violating NUMERAL since it does not say we must use "billion" in place of 1,000 million; it simply means that where "billion" is used it should be the short-scale version. Moreover, it seems to be a presumption that long-scale adherents are in the minority among British English speakers: no statistics have been forward that back up this notion. The Oxford English Dictionary itself does not state that long-scale adherents are in the minority, but simply that a "billion" is "commonly" understood to mean 1 million million. Now, if a word is "commonly" understood to denote a specific quantity in British English would you not agree that it is potentially misleading to use it to denote a different quantity, and if there is a perfectly acceptable unambiguous alternative we should not use it? That would seem consistent with WP:COMMONSENSE. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying, I'm able to more clearly understand you now. I have researched more on this subject and in 1974 Prime Minister Harold Wilson confirmed that the government would use the word billion only in its short scale meaning (one thousand million). England has officially adopted Billion as meaning 1,000,000, and "in official UK statistics the term is now used to denote one thousand millions" Since thats the official stance of the UK and British government, shouldn't that supersede the Oxford dictionary or at least carry some weight into the discussion? *http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04440/SN04440.pdf I understand that Oxford English dictionary denotes that it is "still common" but it also states that billion of the thousand million "has been increasingly used in Britain, especially in technical writing and, more recently, in journalism". In British news sites it is now the norm to see Billion to denote 1,000,0000 instead of million million. *The Guardian Nevertheless, if you are still adamant on catering to the ones that still understand Billion as to mean million million then we should eliminate the confusion and just denote the box office as $1,108,561,013. Stphnpn (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The simple fact of the matter is that 'billion' has been used in the short form for long enough that even people over 50 in the UK know that it means 1000xmillion. (since 1974 according to Stp, which is more than 40 years!) Using billion instead of 1000,million will not confuse anyone, (and by that I mean enough people to merit usage of the long form). There is plenty of reliable sources and wiki-policy to support the use of 'billion' in this infobox. (along with other infoboxes in articles written in Br. Eng.). - ^theWOLFchild 23:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll change the box office notation to $1,108,561,013 for now, I think this is a middle ground we can all settle on for now. We should continue the discussion about short scale and long scale until we come to a consensus, but $1,108,561,013 would be appropriate for now. Stphnpn (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't change it to your preferred choice while there is an going discussion. It's extremely poor and will only irritate others. See MOS:LARGENUM for the reason not to have the full figure. – SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't undue changes to YOUR perferred choice when you have not read any of the discussions. I have said and will say again the change is because it is to remove confusion. and please stop linking to where it does not help your argument.. MOS:LARGENUM states "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason" the precise value in this case is given in matter-of-record reasons from boxofficemojo and is stable because it has ended its release run. please stop disrupting the discussion any further. Stphnpn (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am disrupting nothing, so please try and be truthful. You need to stop edit warring on this point, per WP:STATUSQUO, which states "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.".

In terms of the rest of what you have written, ihave read the discussion, so please try and also remain truthful on that point too. There is no consensus at present to support the change, so you need to work to change the consensus, not just edit war to amend something that has stood for a long while, which is also by consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand what status quo means? You need to start engaging more constructively and stop edit warring immediately. – SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand what status quo means, but since the opposing party has stopped replying, and since the changes to digit numbers was agreed upon above. "Here's a solution, just cite the box office as $1,108,561,013. This has been done for other films on Wikipedia and removes any confusion" by SonOfThornHill, which was replied to as "That would be fine with me. But only as an alternative to using this ancient long-form. I still prefer the modern short form" This was the reason for my change in order to remove any confusion. for the discussion of digit numbers, what is the opposing argument? Stphnpn (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stp, Schrocat is right (for once), you can't edit disputed info in an article while there is a discussion taking place on the talk page of that article regarding that specific bit of info. The discussion must conclude first, and even then there must be clear consensus on how to proceed. Not only is this discussion still active (and dragging) but there certainly isn't any consensus as of yet. Please don't make any further changes to the box office total unless there is a consensus to do so, we don't need Schrocat getting anymore agitated than he already is. - ^theWOLFchild 13:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not agitated, just bored of repeating the same thing to a brick wall. – SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! Then I would hate to see you when you are 'agitated' (according to you). Do you turn green by any chance? - ^theWOLFchild 19:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's already been given several times. We are now waiting to see what other editors think. They will comment in the forthcoming days if they feel it worth their while. We work here by way of consensus, which can take several days (sometimes weeks) to reach. Simply forcing your preferred version will not help anyone reach that consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

the argument against Billion as the short scale notation has been given, but not full digit numbers. Simply forcing your own preferred version is what the editor first did when it inserted 1,000 million as opposed to 1 Billion or 1,000,000,000. I will state the case again for full digit numbers, it avoids any confusion to the 1,000 Millions because not only is 1,000 Million similar to 1.000 Million and therefore would cause confusion, it is also the long scale version of 1,000,000,000, which is no longer used in England. I welcome discussion on this matter. thanksStphnpn (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding to my statement above. Since late 1974 the short scale (billion, not thousand million; and so on) has been official and correct usage in government communications in the UK *Parliament document'. The BBC and the rest of the media in the UK followed fairly quickly. (if you can find articles that refute this, please rely) Since then, one billion has meant the same thing in both versions of English. Even Oxford has been moving toward simplification: the OED still gives the older British definition of billion precedence, but the more fluid and more-frequently updated online version tags the “million million” (10^12) version as “dated.” Stphnpn (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Have reviewed Wikipedia's article on the Long and Short Scales and saw this map https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Long_and_short_scales#Current_usage. It would seem that the Long scale is still in use in many countries in the world. In addition both scales are being used in the UK and Canada. Thus, so there is no confusion for the average Wikipedia user, who could come from anywhere in the world, I think we should retain the current notation of $1,109 million in the info box for simplicity. However, there is no good reason to not list the full number of $1,108,561,013 in the body of the article itself. That seems like a reasonable compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What? Um, no... the long version is not used in Canada. - ^theWOLFchild 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much disagree because the article should be written to foremost serve English users. furthermore, as you can see in the graph and the passages below, there are almost no english speaking countries that use the Long scale In fact I can't find one country who's primary language is english that is still using the Long scale. In the case of UK and England, I have stated my case above as they have been using the short scale officially since 1974 per parliament documents and contemporary journal and newspaper articles, for the case of Canada, English-speaking regions use the short scale exclusively, while French-speaking regions use the long scale. This is noted in the citation on the short and long scale page. Additionally, if we are choosing 1,000 Million notation, we are ignoring the people who use short scale notation, this is not neutral in nature and should be avoided. If we want to remain neutral, $1,108,561,013 is the only notation possible. Stphnpn (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:LARGENUM. – SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Using 1,000 Million is not ignoring those who use the short scale. They should be able to fully understand the meaning while only using the short scale would be confusing or misleading to those who use the long scale. And I would only use it in the info box for simplicity and use the full number in the body of the article so there is no confusion. Just trying to find a compromise that works for everyone. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it fails WP:LARGENUM because it states "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason" the precise value in this case is given in matter-of-record reasons from BoxOfficeMojo and is stable because it has ended its release run, theres no reason to disregard the exact figure. Re:SonOfThornHill, I think using 1,000 Million is giving weight to the side that uses long-scale more because per the graph table on Long and short scale page, 10^9 is represented by Billion in short scale and Thousand Million in long scale. so we are using the long scale of 10^9 when no primary english speaking countries use the long scale. Stphnpn (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My thinking is that, when displaying the box office numbers, we are either sourcing directly from BoxOfficeMojo or a reputable British publishing news site, however, neither of these two use the long scale form of notation to denote 10^9 = Thousand Million, so not only are we assigning ourselves to subjectively decide whether or not 10^9 should be displayed in short scale or long scale , we are choosing to use the long scale when it conflicts with the official usage and stance of the UK and English parliament and contemporary journalism, and when no primary english speaking countries still use it. It would make sense to either source the exact number from BoxOfficeMojo or source it from British news publications, who all use the short scale. Stphnpn (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fail LARGENUM. Look at the examples given (particularly the court award) for a very close example. – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see the example, but the heading still states, Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits but that Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason I see nothing that would rule out using specific number to signify the box office in these passages. Stphnpn (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We are choosing to use the long scale notation when it conflicts with official UK and England usage and stance, and when contemporary UK journalism only use the short scale notation. and we are only doing this because the Oxford English Dictionary's definition on Billions denotes the long scale usage, however, the closest source on that definition is from 1874, and when any sources later than 1874 cite the definition as the short scale notation or a thousand millions. Also the more frequently updated Oxford Dictionaries denote Billions as being 10^9 or a thousand millions *Oxford Dictionary Stphnpn (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For the nth time, we are not using the long scale notation. If we were we would use the word "milliard"; we are abstaining from using either scale, simply because it is unambiguous. It is essentially no different to saying "fifteen hundred" to denote "1500", instead of "one thousand five hundred". Moreover, while official government usage may have adopted the short-scale notation the government does not dictate language; common usage does, and the Oxford English Dictionary states that long-scale usage is still common. While this is primarily a British English issue, it is worth bearing in mind that there are many English speakers from non-English speaking countries that read the English Wikipedia (something like 40% of all traffic if memory serves) and many of those countries still use the long-scale. In short, you are arguing for converting something that is perfectly clear to something that is clearly ambiguous and therefore open to misinterpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in any of these arguments thus far has convinced me that there is enough people still using the long form to warrant the strange way currently of denoting the box office value. I have a hard time believing anyone would be "confused" if we were to use "billion" and actually think a movie made a TRILLION DOLLARS. What are you people thinking? No one smart enough to even comprehend simple numbers is going think for one second a film made that much. By know, even people that used the long form are well aware of the short form, and will know that it is indeed the short being here, like it has everywhere in their lives for the last 40 years. - ^theWOLFchild 16:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you take your axe and go and grind it somewhere else. Cassianto ^Talk 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well... that's hardly collegial. (and by that I mean, what is up your ass?) Do have anything to actually add to the topic on hand, or are you only here to attack me? This is the "Skyfall" talk page, not "Cassianto's personal website". So state your opinion on the subject we are discussing, or shove off. - ^theWOLFchild 18:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that you are here to disrupt, as illustrated by both this and the laborious thread above. You are displaying symptoms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and frankly, patience is running out. Cassianto ^Talk 18:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? Who's "patience"? I am here discussing an issue with this article and a worthwhile one at that, considering the number of valid arguments and numerous facts I've presented to support my position. Why is it anytime Schrocat gets bent out of shape about something, you pop up and attack whoever happens to be in disagreement with him? Do even have a purpose here, other than to bait me into some silly flame war? You are clearly just a troll itching for a fight. I'm not interested, so beat it. - ^theWOLFchild 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you know of me. How interesting. And who are you a sock of I wonder? I only ask as I don't know you from Adam. Cassianto ^Talk 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Tee-hee... you're funny. - ^theWOLFchild 19:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The WC, I have found you to be utterly "uncollegial", so it's a bit of a joke accusing others of the same. – SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What a shock... of course you have. When I have to repeatedly ask you to stop insulting others, posting rude and obnoxious comments and posting ridiculous, facile, meaningless arguments, I am hardly surprised you find me to be "utterly collegial". But this is what you guys do when you have nothing to counter sound logic. You stamp your feet and whine and cry and complain. By the way... do have that explanation on how "billion" is "culturally insensitive" yet? PMSL!!! - ^theWOLFchild 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, like your "friend" here, I will also ask you to remain on topic. Thank you - ^theWOLFchild 18:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well top acting like a petulant child throwing his toys out of his pram when the adults don't bow down to his whim. There are millions of better things to do, rather than having your pointless tantrums – you have been as uncivil as anyone else here, but I doubt whether you think you have been. As to you last sentence, that's just too childish to bother replying to... – SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, more insults, more rudeness, more rantings and ravings. You have yet to logically counter even one argument put to you. You have yet to even explain your utterly ridiculous "culturally insensitive" comment. Now you're trying minimize your behaviour here by throwing accusations at others. If you feel I have been "uncivil", then by all means, start an ANI. I would be more than pleased to stack up my comments here against yours, any day. Now, do you have anything relevant to say about the topic at hand? Anything at all?? - ^theWOLFchild 19:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A reflection of your posting, I think... More rubbish to ignore – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll get us back on topic myself. There is something I'm hoping someone can explain to me (preferably Betty). I had a look at the List of highest-grossing films, and there is currently 23 films with a box office take of over a $billion. Skyfall, being one of them, is the only one with it's box office noted this way. Just how is it all these poor, uneducated British senior citizens are managing to get through life with all these other films using the short 'billion'? My gawd! The chaos! I think this is tantamount to elder abuse, isn't it? I noticed that another British production, "Harry Potter", uses the short 'billion', yet there is not. one. single. complaint. about. that. Then there are the Commonwealth productions of "The Lord Of The Rings"... also using the short 'billion'. If anything, we are creating more confusion by using a different form on one single movie. This is especially so, considering all the others are also noted to 3 decimal places. So we have ended up with this;

1.502 billion
1.416 billion
1.401 billion
1.322 billion
1.301 billion
1.288 billion
1,170 million
1.162 billion
1.105 billion
1.091 billion
1.062 billion
1.008 billion

Get the point? - ^theWOLFchild 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is one point I have, but I don't think you'll want to hear it... – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can present it in a mature fashion without the rudeness and insults, then I'm perfectly willing to 'hear' it. But I must ask that you address at least some of the numerous points I have put forward. - ^theWOLFchild 21:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two ambiguity and confusion I see in using 1,108.6 million.

1,108.6 million can be confused with 1.108.6 million or 1.1086 million.
The usage of 1,000 million can be confused to mean one thousand million, which would be using the long scale, and therefore conflict with the official stance and usage of the UK and British parliament, as well as contemporary journalists everywhere. Therefore, the wording of 1,108.6 Million is not "unambiguous", and it is it is arbitrary to ignore these confusions, and it is arbitrary to consider "billion" to be ambiguous and 1,108.6 Million to be not for reasons I stated above. Stphnpn (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, whose idea was this BS? :/ I don't see this on Deathly Hallows Part 2 yet if you want to go add that on there.... Charlr6 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you even know what the debate is about here? If so, do you have opinion? - ^theWOLFchild 17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoevers idea this is, it is stupid. Never, ever seen this on Wikipedia before, and seems to be another deliberate contradicting hypocrite rule someone has found and tried to enforce. This is taking 'British english'/'American english' to a whole new level. Anyway, I believe it should be "1.108 billion". Whoever added it in as it is now though, should really go to the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 page and change it on there. Charlr6 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Charlr6: - OK, well I'm glad you agree. I'm not sure why this one single article had it box office added that way either. Harry Potter has had it's box read as $1.123 billion since mid-January of this year. (before that it was always marked as $1,000,000,000). That's 10 months, on a British film article, and no one complained about it or had problem with it that I can see. And not just the box office, but there are almost a dozen other monetary comments on that page, all using "billion", instead of "$1000,million." These comments are also supported by refs using "billion". Along with Harry Potter, there are 21 other films with box office totals surpassing a billion, and they are all marked as "billion"... again no has any problems with that. This seems to be the only article that people will for some reason, become "confused" and think that Skyfall made a "trillion" $US dollars. - ^theWOLFchild 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I for one wasn't even taught in school (from UK!) that a billion was 1,000,000,000,000, or whatever it apparently used to be. Also I do not believe anyone coming to Wikipedia would be like "huh, I'm confused to why it says that". Even Oxford says it has changed. Charlr6 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that both sides are pretty dung in to their positions. Maybe this should be referred to an administrator to request arbitration.SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Arbitration"..? Is that a joke? This is a debate, and relatively mild one at that. What is needed here is for it to be brought to another forum for a wider discussion with more editors, so that we might finally gain consensus, one way or they other, like WP:Project Film or WP:MOS. (Wait... where have I heard that before? Oh yeah... me! I've already said this a half dozen times). "Arbcom"... now that's funny. - ^theWOLFchild 17:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you not know the difference between an idea and a statement?[1] Cassianto ^Talk 17:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, I would love that. for the box office numbers and the review section opening statement. Stphnpn (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a consensus here now, it's just that you are choosing to ignore it. Cassianto ^Talk 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC figures

On this BBC article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34697604 posted today, 2nd November, just an hour ago it says...

Skyfall, the previous Bond movie, was the highest-grossing 007 film in the franchise's history, taking £700m ($1.1 bn) worldwide.

Notice it says £700 million for the $1.1 billion. Is that enough official proof/evidence/references to put it how it should be? As said before on here, never seen this "1,000 million" done before anywhere on Wikipedia. I personally think some editor found some rule and wants to imprint their editorial work a bit more, using that to back themselves up instead of doing what should really be done. BBC themselves, a highly regarded professional news organisation said $1.1 billion than $1,000 million. Is that enough proof to put it in? Wikipedia relies on actual sourcing and referencing. And here is a big one. Charlr6 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No-one is disputing the official usage of the term by the media or the government, we are questioning its interpretation by British readers. Here are what several sources have to say on the matter:

Oxford English Dictionary: "1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions."
BBC Lexicographer: "...the value of billion is now generally understood to mean a thousand millions ... the older sense "a million millions" is still common."
UK parliament: "What constitutes a billion is a source of occasional confusion."

The question isn't about which scale the UK uses (we know the government and media use the short scale these days) or whether confusion does exist or not (according to highly credible sources confusion does persist), the question is about how we respond to the ambiguous nature of the term. Do we use it anyway and simply accept that some readers are likely to misinterpret it, or do we use phrasing that is unambiguous? My preference is for the latter because it doesn't make sense to me to use an ambiguous word when we can present exactly the same information unambiguously. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If it isn't a question about which scale the UK uses, then why bother using 'British English' at all? I did funnily enough find this link about Oxford - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-many-is-a-billion

It states "in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English".

So if a billion, is also a thousand million. And if in the UK, a billion used to mean a million million, but in the USA a billion meant a thousand million. Then how come there are other Wiki pages about films that gained a billion in gross, are called a billion instead of a thousand million? If it is the exact same thing, then why bother changing it?

If like you said, it isn't a question of what scale the UK uses, then like I said above, why bother using 'British English' at all? Whoever did this, and agrees with a thousand million, why hasn't it been changed back on Deathly Hallows Part 2? Because if one consensus here is for a thousand million, then surely it should be the exact on HPatDH Part 2? It is as British as Bond after all. Charlr6 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The James Bond and Harry Potters wikiprojects may have some members in common but they will also have many members which only belong to one or the other. I am guessing the average age at the James Bond project is a lot higher than it is at the Harry Potter project, so things which are an issue for older editors are probably not an issue for younger editors. I agree though in principle that it would be best to ′avoid the word "billion" in all articles written in British English for the sake of clarity. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty, I have read your recent comments here, and I'm not convinced that the term "billion" is that "ambiguous" nor likely to lead to misinterpretation. It's been acknowledged that "billion" has been used to mean 1000 x million in the UK now for over 40 years. If we were to use it in this articles infobox, do you really believe that someone might confuse it to mean the film made a "trillion" dollars? That is not a problem anywhere else in the project. There are 23 films now that have surpassed the billion dollar mark at the box office, and all of them use the word "billion" in their infobox, with the only exception being Skyfall. There have been issues of confusion that I'm aware of with these other pages. Another factor to take into account is that all the infoboxes are denoted to three decimal places, just like how the Skyfall total is noted 3 places after comma. As I pointed out above, these numbers look nearly identical, but are very, very different. All of this can also lead to confusion, and just as much, if not more so than the confusion you claim using "billion" can cause. It's unfortunate that this debate has dragged out the way it has, but as of yet, no one has addressed these points. I would like to hear your response to each of them. Thanks. - ^theWOLFchild 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Having read the arguments of both sides over the last few days, I have to agree with those who have made the case for changing to "billion". They have made a much better case. Since the short form has been the British standard for over 40 years and is in use by the BBC, that should be enough for Wikipedia. We shouldn't be catering to what at this point must be a small minority that might be confused because they are still using the arcane long form. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the pair of editors who continually maintain the infobox as "1,000 million" don't seem to have much of a counter-argument. And I say "continually", because since that version was added 18 months ago, it has been changed numerous times by dozens and dozens, (if not hundreds) of editors, both with accounts and IP users alike, to "billion", yet these same 2 editors keep reverting it, over and over again. One interesting thing I noticed is, that among all the various IP users who have changed it from all over the world (the US, English & French Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway, India, Sri Lanka, etc., etc, ) there have been multiple edits from all over the UK changing it to "billion" as well. The very place where this supposedly an issue. And while schrocat refuses to acknowledge any of the facts put before him, I am disappointed that Betty hasn't responded with anything more than; "billion is 'ambiguous' to some people". I'm afraid there could be some WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:POV issues here. But I'm still waiting for a reply from Betty. I'm hoping she may have more to offer and might finally address all the points I have put forward. Unlike some other editors, I find that she is at least calm and reasonable in her replies. - ^theWOLFchild 18:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Back into the sewer with personal attacks and lies? There have been several editors who have reverted the IPs and socks, not two. If you're going to try and smear others, please try to stick a little closer to them truth. – SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are so angry and bitter all the time? Just stay on topic. - ^theWOLFchild 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am neither angry nor bitter, so please do not continue with your smear tactics. I would be entirely happy to stay on topic if you could not lie or try to double guess what my mood is (and get it so hideously wrong on each and every time you've tried to do so). – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How is it a "smear tactic"? To me, your posts come across as angry and hostile, and have so since the beginning. Remember when I said the infobox listing was "silly", and for some reason you claimed that was a "smear" as well? Stop taking everything so personally. Not everything is about you. I simply asked that you calm down and stay on topic. Look at Betty's posting style for example... always calm, mature and on topic. - ^theWOLFchild 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How tiresome. Yet again you are trying to guess my state of mind, and got it very badly wrong again. I am not taking anything personally, nor am I angry or bitter, and any more calm and if I was any more calm I'd be comatose. I suggest that whatever you think about other people's motives, you keep those thoughts to yourself (which would help youto remain on topic) as you haven't judged any of them right so far. Comment on the content, not the contributor. – SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're still going on about this? OK... I got it. You're not "upset". You are joyously, ecstatically, jumping-jacks-happy. (I would sure hate to see your version of "being upset".). Perhaps you'll note that you started this little sub-thread, not me. That is why I'm the one continually pleading with you to remain on topic. Comment on the content, not the contributor. - Well, you've a sense a humour, I'll give you that. Now, when you post here again ('cuz we all know you will), I defy you to keep your comments on topic. (I might even have money riding on it). - ^theWOLFchild 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If the primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary and a parliamentary paper reporting confusion caused by use of the term isn't "much of a counter-argument" then I doubt any counter-argument will suffice. For all the accusations of "not responding" to arguments I have yet to see these points addressed. Why is the BBC favored over the OED here? The OED is generally considered the arbiter on British English, not the BBC. Why is a parliamentary paper documenting the confusion caused by the term similarly being ignored? Seems there is a bit of cherry-picking going on. We write for a general readership and many people will be confused by many things on Wikipedia. In view of that we should write with greater clarity wherever there is potential for confusion. If it transpires that there are people out there who do not understand what "1,000 million" means then obviously we would take steps to address that. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

summary of points

@Betty Logan:, this 'parliamentary paper' you cite is only 2 pages long, and only mentions once that; a billion is a source of occasional confusion. It then goes to explain how the "American" form of 'billion' has been the official form for over 40 years. I could just as easily use that paper to support my position here. Same with the OED. If anything, it also confirms that 'billion' now officially means 1000xmillion. That's what the government uses. That's what is taught in school. That's what all the reliable journalistic sources use. I could use the OED as support as well.

You say we write "write for a general readership", yet this infobox item only seems to cater to one small, non-specific group. and these accusations of cheery-picking can easily boomerang the other way.
Where is the evidence that using "billion" for the box office total causes "confusion" for British readers aged 50 and up? I just don't see it. (I'm British and over 40 and I've only ever known 'billion' to mean the 'short scale/version')
How many of these people can there be, as opposed to all the people that know and prefer "billion" to mean the short scale?
Why does this supposed group take precedence over everyone else? Including other British readers who know "billion" to mean 1000x million?
I've also asked repeatedly, what reader is going to mistakenly believe that Skyfall made over a "Trillion dollars"...?
What about the fact that every other film article uses "billion"...? (Including the British film Harry Potter - no one seems to have a problem with that.)
You didn't respond to the list I posted above demonstrating how easy it is to confuse these box office totals, since they are either 3 places over from a comma or 3 places over from a decimal.
You say that BBC shouldn't be given as much weight as OED. But, the BBC, along with numerous other journalistic sources do in fact use "billion" in the short scale, and we use these sources all the time! They're the back-bone of the project. It's these sources that support the totals being listed in these pages, not the OED. Why is it this one infobox needs to be different than every other article and source?
How do you account for the fact that since the box office was changed to read the current style, it has been constantly changed to "billion", several times a week over the last year and a half? Changed by numerous registered and IP users alike, and not only are these IP addresses from all over the world, but several of them are located through-out the UK. There are literally dozens and dozens of users making it known that they feel it should read "billion", and yet they are always reverted by the same handful of editors. How do you account for that?
The only real support for the current version thus far has been "this article is written in Br. Eng.". But we know for a fact that in Britain, "billion" officially means 1000 millions. That's a supported fact, and we go by supported facts.
Why must this article adhere so strictly to "British English when it's a joint UK-US production?
So, really... in the face of all these facts, and what appears to be well established consensus, what argument is left to support the continued use of "$1,000 million" as opposed to "1.000 billion"...?
- ^theWOLFchild 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:, (and you as well @SchroCat: if you must...) - It has been 4 days since I listed this summary of points in favour of using "billion" in the infobox. Can I expect a point-by-point reply anytime soon? Or can we go just ahead a make the obviously appropriate change in the face of these facts? Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

^ "He's right you know." - Morgan Freeman.

But yeah, looking at all of this now. There is no consensus forming. Nobody is changing their minds whatsoever. If this is really a big thing, then it should STOP literally right here, and all of this should move to a higher place to be discussed. Because like said, there are other films which have got a 'billion'. Same as Potter Part 2. Saying editors are likely to be older here on this Bond page, than editors on a Harry Potter page is kind of stupid, because why should age matter when we are just trying to do our 'freelance' jobs here on Wikipedia?

Whoever wants this to continue, and I'm in agree that it should, this should go to the higher ups on Wikipedia. Because if this is so important, it is relatable to a lot of other things too, and not just Skyfall.

If it doesn't go up, then people please just try and not wind each other up, you know who you are and know you are doing it. Just listen to evidence on both sides, and not just your own. Please. Wolf has gave pretty good points. I understand both sides, and to be honest only him and Betty are really giving the best points here. But everyone needs to sort this out. Look at both sides. Be open minded, not closed. You aren't going to get fired to cause the internet to break if it isn't up to the way you personally believe and want it to be according to some reference you personably like more as it supports your side. Charlr6 (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are no "higher up" here to decide content. But, as I've already said multiple times, perhaps this should be taken to the WP:Project Film page or even WP:MOS pages. Also, Betty's comments are not "stupid". I don't happen to agree with them, but please don't make remarks like that. It's unfortunate that a couple of editors are really dug in on this. I appreciate that you agree a change is needed, but we really need some others to weigh in on this as well. - ^theWOLFchild 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those pages are the higher ups. If it needs to be taken to somewhere, those are the places.

It isn't like I insulted Betty, just her wording. It was almost implying that apparently because there are older editors on this than a Harry Potter page, then they would be less willing as they would be too young or childish to want to change. If they aren't, then no point mentioning older or younger editors surely? Anyway, it is irrelevant. Take it to WP: Project Film. Tag us all in it so we can see and continue on there. Charlr6 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't take it as a criticism so as a 'heads up' You never know what might offend people here. I merely stated that I thought the current b.o. listing was "silly", a one editor became extremely upset about it. So you never know how people might react to something they've written being called 'stupid'. There has been plenty of drama here already, I just want to avoid adding anymore if we can help it. That said, you are correct, the project pages can be considered "higher up" in a way, I though you were referring to people though. Before taking this anywhere else, I would like to see if Betty responds, point by point, to my last post. I see she is online, so I have just pinged her. Hopefully we can get this resolved soon. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers. - ^theWOLFchild 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokey. Ping me if need anything. I keep my eye on here anyway. But defiantly ping me if gets taken to WP: Project Film Charlr6 (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it is fairly obvious at this stage there is no consensus for adding "billion" to the article. To summarize the debate, this is how I see it:

MOS:NUMERAL stipulates that "billion" should only be used in the short-scale sense on Wikipedia. However, the guideline does not prohibit alternatives to using the word "billion".
The British government adopted the short-scale version in 1974. However, the British government does not dictate the English language. The Oxford English Dictionary states in its definition: "orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions".
Modern usage in the media favors the short-scale definition. This may be so, but it does not mean that readers will correctly interpret the term. A parliamentary research paper indicates what "constitutes a billion is a source of occasional confusion".
While "1 billion" is clearly ambiguous in British English, "1,000 million" is not. There is no evidence that using "1,000 million" in its place causes any misunderstanding.

Despite the discussion approaching 200KB nobody has yet put forward a convincing argument why we should choose a term that could be misinterpreted over one that will not be. Unless somebody puts forward a source based rationale as to why "1,000 million" is a more confusing term than "1 billion" my stance on this will not alter, since my fundamental position is that we should write in the most unambiguous manner. I will also add that if I do not participate in this discussion any further that is simply due to the fact that I feel that my reasoning here addresses all the arguments put forward and I have nothing new to contribute. If a subsequent argument convinces me otherwise I will explicitly withdraw my opposition. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: - OK, you say that;

MOS:NUMERAL stipulates that "billion" should only be used in the short-scale sense on Wikipedia. - No offence but, what part of "only" do you not get? You say it "does not prohibit alternatives". I think it did, with the very sentence you quoted.
...the British government does not dictate the English language. - Again, no offence intended, but neither do you, or Wikipedia for that matter. We go by what the sources say. And speaking of which;
Modern usage in the media favors the short-scale definition. - Thank you! That is exactly what I pointed out above. (among the more than dozen points you failed to respond to) If the very sources we use to create and support articles, such as this one, use "billion", then why the need to use something different?
While "1 billion" is clearly ambiguous in British English, "1,000 million" is not. There is no evidence that using "1,000 million" in its place causes any misunderstanding. - You have that completely backwards. There is nothing that supports this so-called "ambiguity" you claim. The short-form "billion" has now been in use in the UK for over 40 years. It's used by the government. It's taught in schools. It's used in every numerical and math-related fashion in the English-speaking world. You claim, without support, that some British people over the age of 50 might confuse "billion" for "trillion", but we use "billion" in countless Wikipedia articles... not just film articles, but math, physics, astrology, cosmology, etc., etc., etc. Why is it you are so convinced that in this one single article, some indeterminate little group of people will somehow misinterpret "billion" to mean that this film made a TRILLION DOLLARS? Also, as a point of fact, the use of "1000 million" clearly is creating confusion as it is constantly being changed to "billion", on an almost daily basis by dozens upon dozens, possibly hundreds, of different users, from all over the world, in English and non-English-speaking counties alike, including multiple users spread across the UK itself. How do you account for that? More importantly, why are you ignoring that?

You're right, this debate has become quite lengthy. it's certainly not what I wanted nor expected. It has been dragged on my numerous, silly off-topic comments, but as for the issue at hand, while you are really the only one who has responded to it directly, you have not responded to it effectively. You just continue to make the same so-called "ambiguity" claim over and over, while failing to even acknowledge any of the wiki-policies, facts and counter-points presented to you. I even went so far as to list them out on a point-by-point basis for you, and you all but ignored that post in its entirety. If anything, that is why this has dragged on so long without a resolution. I have just went to the deliberate effort of responding to each of your points. I would respectfully ask that you do the same. - ^theWOLFchild 02:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with TheWolfChild here. At the start of this I was neutral and tried to propose a compromise. But he and the others who support the use of the short form have made their case. Wikipedia guidelines on the issue are very clear and the argument that some people might be confused rings hallow. Even if that were true, we should not be catering to what must be a very small minority of users. It is time to settle this and change to the short form. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

TheWolfChild is making amazing points here. Betty and Schro, you should really start to really listen. Count me all in favour for billion. I and entire family was also taught 'short form' in school. Charlr6 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing this thread it seems there are 4 editors in favor is using the short form and only 2 holding out for the long form. Let's give it another day or two for anyone else that wants to weigh in. But if no one else does, we should change to the short form. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing this discusion I see three established editors (you, TheWolfchild and Charlr6) and a SPA in favor of the change and three editors (me, SchroCat and Cassianto) in favor of retaining the status quo. That looks like a deadlock to me so per WP:NOCONSENSUS the change should not be initiated. I think it is pretty obvious the discussion has run its course and the outcome isn't going to change without input from further editors. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So an SPA whoever that was, doesn't count? Can I see the rule book for consensus on that? Because otherwise, if SPA does count as a fourth, then there is no deadlock. Unless the only reason you are stating that is so there is a 'draw' and can stay as it is? Also saying it has run its course is another way of saying "I don't want change, so keep it". Further editors will come though. And all of here which has been talked about, will be included in that. But can I see this possible rule you seem to be slightly claiming SPA can't have a say? Thank you! :D Charlr6 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Since Ip editors and SPAs tend not to be sufficiently grounded in Wikipedia policy and guidelines (unless they are socks) their arguments are usually discounted in RFC discussions. It is besides the point though because it is not a WP:VOTE i.e. the outcome doesn't go the way of the majority. Per Wikipedia:Consensus, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy." There is no policy that compels us to use "billion" and there is no policy that prevents us from using "1,000 million" in its place so how is one stance more policy compliant than the other? Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record I was counting myself, TheWolfchild, Charlr6 & Stphnpn as for the short form and SchroCat & Betty Logan as against. Reviewing Cassianto comments, he (or she) doesn't voice an opinion on the issue but rather just engages in a personal back and forth with other editors. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear he does voice an opinion on one particular direction. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

so SonOfThornhill, TheWolfchild, me & Stphnpn is for billion while SchroCat & Betty Logan and Cassianto against. Three... Charlr6 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

And Gareth Griffith-Jones, as below. Four. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Having waded through this wall af text, which is quite an ordeal for one of 73 years—see OAP - higher up this wall—my stance on this endorses that of Betty's.
Retain "million"; do not use "billion". — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 12:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ah yes. Glad a new editor joined even though on opposite side of opinion for me. Question though for all, let's say another editor comes for 1,000 million and that happens end of. Should we then all move and try and get same to done on Harry Potter Part 2? As British as Bond and if relevant and should happen here then should there. We wouldn't want to be hypocrites? Charlr6 (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOCONSENSUS. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

It appears we have another from the land of stupid. What part of my opinion didn't you get? Cassianto ^Talk 19:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read the No Consensus, and it doesn't say anything about what I've just said about if another editor comes in for 1000 million, then that is it and this is all over. Should we then go to Potter Part 2 where all of this is equally as relevant? You'd already have five people (from herE) for the change on there from a billion to a 1000 million. No difference. Charlr6 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you are canvassing people? Cassianto ^Talk 20:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you are nosing at my contributions? The point of canvassing, and I copy and paste "notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". We need a finalised consensus don't we? Charlr6 (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have Martin's talk page saved to my watchlist; despite his views on certain things, I find him a funny bugger and his contributions lighten my moods when people like you piss me off. Such as you're doing now. If you want other's opinions, open an RfC, don't cherry pick people as that looks like you have an agenda. Cassianto ^Talk 20:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to throw insults, from the comments I've read of yours, you always seem pissed off with everybody. Sadly though I don't think DarkWarriorBlake or whatever his name is is still around, or as frequent to join you in the attitude corner Charlr6 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dearest Charlr6! How nice to invite me to the party. Canvass away, old chap. My view is very simple - $1,109 million is unambiguous, whereas $1.109 billion is not. Although you could, of course, convert to Indonesian rupiah to make it look even more impressive! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

perhaps a move...

I was away for a few days, but I had hoped that during that time some progress would be made here. I had listed over a dozen points in favour of using "billion" instead of the current "1,000 million" and most of them have still not been addressed. Those opposed to this still cling to the singular and now-refuted argument about "confusion". Unfortunately, this discussion has really dragged on and has been bogged down by off-topic comments and general incivility. I have suggested several times that this discussion might be better served if it were taken to the WikiProject Film talk page. I hoped it would not be necessary, but clearly it is. I would like to have some fresh eyes on this and new opinions added. I'm sure people here will also join in, I would just hope that any 'baggage' be left here and any new comments there be kept to the topic at hand. - ^theWOLFchild 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now brought this issue to WikiProject Film - "Billion vs 1,000 million". - ^theWOLFchild 07:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

See WP:DEADHORSE. "Fresh eyes" have commented in the last day or so, but not gone your way. Forum shopping until you get the answer you want isn't a terribly constructive approach. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well said, SchroCat! See this post! Let common sense prevail! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Still in a miserable mood, huh schrocat? A whole whopping grand total of two people have commented while I was away. And, as one of them has pointed out, the entire discussion has become too long to reasonably expect any newcomer to wade through it. I have stated numerous times my intention to bring this to the Project Film talk page and now I have. It's nowhere near "forum shopping" and there is no reason for you to get so bent out of shape over it. This page has become all but useless because of all your off-topic drama, accusations, baiting and personal attacks. If you choose to comment at the other page, it will be interesting to see if you can, for at least once comment on the topic, and not on any editors. This issue affects more than the just the Skyfall article and the project page is the more appropriate place, so get over already. Relax, stop taking everything sooo personally. Try to remember why we are all here in the first place. - ^theWOLFchild 09:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please stop commenting on other people and keep your comments on the matter in hand? - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what? On second thought... don't change a thing. Just keep posting in the same manner you have. - ^theWOLFchild 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

WC, I have no idea why you wish to keep breaking the formatting on the closing, which has been incorrectly done. I think you are just in a knee-jerk revert mode without actually looking at what you are doing. I suggest you look closely at the effect your revert has had and rethink. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The only thing incorrect was I had accidentally included the section title. You could've just fixed that, but you didn't. I don't care why you insist on lumping these two sections together, removing my comments and un-closing my comments, but you aren't allowed to that. The formatting is now fixed, leave everything else alone. - ^theWOLFchild 10:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite... what is not what...? - ^theWOLFchild 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Love how I've seen different new editors change it to a billion. Then they get reverted. It is going to keep on happening, as obviously more people are for a billion than against. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many people changing the edit. Charlr6 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of those making the change are unregistered IPs. Which means it could be only one person doing it from different computers. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite a rebel to do it from all those different computers :P Charlr6 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I checked out about a dozen or so of the IPs and they are from all over the world. There was some from right across the US, both English and French Canada, several from right across the UK (England and Scotland), Germany, Norway, India, Sri Lanka... that's just a few off the top of my head. So, it's highly unlikely that it is just one person. Aside from the IPs, there are multiple registered users changing it quite frequently as well... far more than there are changing it back all the time. - ^theWOLFchild 17:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly has to be this 'discussion' about it with a few select editors forcing to be the 'boss' upon themselves, instead of the actual proof, which are all those editors, registered or not across the glove. Charlr6 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It happened again. As you will see, this person was confused to believe it reading that Skyfall received a 1 million, instead of 1 billion. Surely all of these edit changes are proof people are confused by this, more so than the small majority of the world and British public apparently believed by to certain editors will confuse 1 billion for 1 trillion. Charlr6 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they have poor eyesight as well as poor understanding? Perhaps you could send some better spectacles over to Canada for them? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, most of the certain editors are from the United Kingdom I believe. If they were Canadian they would be so much more friendlier.

But yeah, this is going to keep on happening, and as long as it does it is going to be sadly very relevant regardless of how some people are 'done with it' or it is 'over'. Charlr6 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, is that a 3D crystal ball you have there as well? Why have all these unfriendly anonymous UK editors started getting confused so recently? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You're a fun one to talk to. I like you. Another!!! Charlr6 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Lol". Maybe I'll wait until Thursday. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey K6ka, saw your recent edit on history. Would you care to join in the discussion and give your opinions on what should be done? Either here or possibly more on WikiProject Film - "Billion vs 1,000 million" where it is a bit more active? Charlr6 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

An interesting analysis that should be mentioned

The critical reception section is very superficial, and doesn't engage with deeper interpretations and critiques of the movie. This is an example of an analysis that should be mentioned: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01463373.2014.949389?journalCode=rcqu20 and perhaps also http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01956051.2013.858026 --StraboVarenius (talk) 07:07, 22 November 2015 (UTC)