Jump to content

User talk:BornonJune8/Archive5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You've got mail

[edit]
Hello, BornonJune8. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of box office bombs (2000s)

[edit]

There is a discussion about what criteria we should be using for the List of box office bombs (2000s). You might want to participate in that discussion as it is forming a consensus as to what criteria is needed for a film's inclusion on the list. Also when you copy over a citation please make sure you find the full citation. For many of the entries, including what you added today, the citation you've copied only included the <nocode><ref name></nocode> which produces a citation error. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Hello again (apologies for not originally signing the above comment). I see that you are currently undertaking similar work to the one above at List of box office bombs (2010s). Please slow down your additions. The citation errors you're causing will require massive and time consuming clean-up. An emergency consensus is developing at Talk:List of box office bombs (2000s). I would ask that you please think about contributing your point of view to that discussion but in all cases to please be more careful with citations and to consider a pause on your work until a consensus about what films belong in these lists can be reached. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As you've probably seen I have been steadily working away at List of box office bombs (2010s). However, I don't think it was unfair of Onetwothreeip to revert your adds to List of box office bombs (2000s). I wouldn't want to do the research you're doing to come up with the films in the first place or collate the data and so to the extent that these lists have value, that work is necessary. But these data dumps create HOURS of work for other editors to clean-up. From what I've seen, about 1/4 of what you dump into a letter is ultimately salvageable; it would be helpful if you could do some of that narrowing down in the first place. There seems to be consensus around the criteria for inclusion in these lists, at minimum could you do your own screening to make sure films either have clear citations for being called a bomb (or flop or disaster or other related term) or have clear citations to losing money? The sources you're drawing from don't meet Wikiepdia's standards of WP:RS and by listing them in the edit summaries you're now disregarding what's necessary for a copy-paste edit, which has been trouble for you in the past. Slow down. There is no WP:NODEADLINE. See to it that your hard work in assembling these lists comes to something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first make this clear that I've been using this particular site as a main point in reference. I've used the site Bomb Report as a further point in reference. And then there's this site to better supplement the list had what justifies going on there. The way that you're phrasing about how data dumps create HOURS to work on for others to clean-up, it to me sounds like it's my singular responsibility to make it more legible or consist. As long as you claim that it takes for you to try to clean up these lists, it takes almost as long for my to create the list in the first place. It's difficult for me to figure out how to operate at another editors desired pace. That would just put too much pressure and self-doubt on my shoulders for what I can or can't do to contribute to an article. It's only so much to just look for movies where the article literally spells it out that it was a "box office bomb". And when you bring up the edit summaries that I'm disregarding, bare in mind that I've tried to be conscientious in adding an Attribution note. BornonJune8 05:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By reverting more recent edits or additions that I made, you're basically denying me a right or a chance to finish a list. Onetwothreeip never seemed to show me more patience over my additions. Instead of actually giving the time and the thought to properly analyze what has been added, just because it was crowding things up so to speak, they had to be rejected. Keep in mind that the notes section is there to give better context (whether its too much of a context for other people is up for judgement on its own) for why said movies are considered box office bombs in the first place. BornonJune8 05:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all you could have notified me by mentioning my name as an internal link, like User:Onetwothreeip, as I'm very willing to discuss this with you. I believe it is actually more fair to you that these edits are reverted now rather than being progressively deleted over time. The important reason to revert your edits is because a consensus does not believe you additions are described as box office bombs by reliable sources.
If you are saying now that your research has changed, I certainly welcome this but I would like to see you remove the wrong information you've put on the articles first before more information is added. When you add entries to these lists, it is certainly your responsibility to reference them with reliable sources that explicitly describe them as box office bombs. I'm certainly patient enough to analyse the entirety of the article(s) as much as I've can, and you've certainly made a lot. I will therefore remove the latest additions again, and as a courtesy to you I will retain the section to which I made those removals on my user page. With you, I and User:Barkeep49, we should be able to cut the articles down to acceptable criteria in an orderly amount of time, as long as there are no more big additions made. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're also quite obviously jumping the gun based on a preconceived personal feeling that whatever has been added is inevitably or ultimately going to be deleted anyway. So by your logic, it's better for everybody's sake and time to just cut to the chase and remove whatever you feel doesn't belong before somebody else can. What makes you guarantee that such a thing is going to ultimately happen elsewhere or beyond your hands? BornonJune8 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of the argument User:Onetwothreeip, I'm going to provide links the go into why the movies that you won't allow me to add are regarded as "box office bombs in the first place: Land of the Lost, The Lovely Bones, Leatherheads, Lions for Lambs, Love in Time of Cholera, Lucky You, The Last Legion, Lady in the Water, Lassie, Last Holiday, Little Children, The Last Kiss, Lord of War, Lords of Dogtown, The Libertine, Laws of Attraction, Little Black Book, The Life of David Gale, Life or Something Like It, Life as a House, Little Nicky, Loser, Lost Souls, Lucky Numbers. Again if you say that you're patient, then it's kind of ironic that you'll immediately remove any additions without much questioning. I don't fully understand what you're implying or suggesting when you talk about an "acceptable criteria" (either entries or what goes into the notes section for how they performed at the box office). BornonJune8 05:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: The biggest box office bombs from the 2000s:

BornonJune8 06:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BornonJune8: I could have been clearer by what I meant by slowing down. As the person adding content to the article (which again is of value, as I think both Onetwothreeip and I have said) there is an obligation that's incumbent. Adding HUGE chunks of information, larger than many pages, and which goes against the consensus, such as it is, about what qualifies for the lists, is not collaborative or good editing. So when I say slow down my hope would be that before you add the content you take time to evaluate whether your additions qualify. That you take more time to not dump such huge amounts of text onto the page. This will slow down your edits, that's why I used the term slow down. Like Onetwothreeip my hope is that the volume of content you're adding slows in pace and the three of us (and drmies and any other editor who desires) can polish these into great lists (maybe even Featured Lists). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:BornonJune8, I implore you not to take any of this personally. It does not matter what you or I think are box office bombs, what matters is whether they are considered that by reliable sources. However I am inclined to include lesser known films that are blatantly box office bombs as well. Your edits have been reverted because they are against the consensus determination that they are not properly attributed, especially when there are clearly many misattributed entries in the articles. When edits are reverted in good faith, it takes a consensus to determine what should remain in the article. It's not simply a matter of who is most vigilant in making their edits the current version, otherwise that's simply an edit war. The website www.bombreport.com is not considered a reliable source. Would you at least agree that films that have higher box office revenue than their budget are not generally box office bombs and should be removed? If we don't continue removing false entries instead of adding more, we risk continuing to have published false information on Wikipedia. Please remove false entries from the articles before added more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: There's so much that goes into the calculation of how much a film actually makes and some films depending on how much they actually spend want to make a huge, huge, huge profit, not just a big one. BornonJune8 07:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but generally it's not the case that a film that makes a profit is considered a box office bomb, right? I think you can agree to this. Many films you've listed were profitable, and most of those weren't considered box office bombs outside the sources like www.bombreport.com that you've used. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Maybe not generally, but let's say Avengers: Infinity War had only made a 50 million dollar profit all the calculations included, it would be considered more or less a bust and very disappointing. BornonJune8 07:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Onetwothreeip: Let's think about it this way, as a rule of thumb a film has to make about twice it's production budget at box office in order to break even. As far as I know, by general definition, if it makes more money than it cost to make, it’s not a bomb. This is because theaters keep a variable percentage of the box office take, call it 40 percent. The film's marketing budget will often be up to half the production budget, but against that the film may make money on rentals, downloads product placement and merchandising. These are only rough rules. Or to put things into another perspective, the dynamics of a Star Wars film are very different to a smaller, more indie movie like Three Billboards, but twice budget to break even isn't a bad guess. There are however expectations like a cost of capital and an opportunity cost to make up for. If a major studio's biggest franchise summer blockbuster delivers only a modest profit, the studio involved would probably consider that film to be a bomb (take for example, John Carter). BornonJune8 01:45, 24 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

June 2018

[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I see you reverted twice more on the 2010 article. I have no doubt that if someone reported you for edit warring you would be blocked, so I urge you to tread more lightly. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging

[edit]

I have been wondering why I haven't gotten pings from you and I figured it out. You've been writing {{Re|Barkeep49|}}. What you want is {{Re|Barkeep49}} without the second |. Also I'm unsure but I think that particular template might require an uppercase R. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:BornonJune8/Archive5&oldid=855103300"