Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 19
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
← Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 → |
Contents |
You Don't Mess with the Zohan
I think people will need to keep watch out for vandalism and inappropriate chat on the talk page of this film article. Due to the nature of the film and one comment posted already I have a feeling it might be prone to vandalism. Govvy (talk) 10:02, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
AFD: List of stock characters in comedy
Didn't see a place to put film-related AFDs, so Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of stock characters in comedy. Cheers. ~ JohnnyMrNinja 04:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Film. Collectonian (talk) 04:34, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Inflation in grosses
Cshay (talk · contribs) is changing articles to only mention inflation-adjusted grosses, which reflects cinema admissions rather than the amount of money made. Can anyone point out the MOS on inflation-adjusted amounts on Wikipedia? Alientraveller (talk) 11:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't make much sense to say that a movie is the highest grossing film over a 70 year period if you don't take inflation into account. The movie industry indeed does this for marketing purposes (it makes recent films alsways seem the most popular). But marketing aside, it's a meaningless statistic if you don't take inflation into account. Cshay (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I know what you're asking. I see what he did on Titanic, saying that you cannot compare films across a 70 year gap, and removed the "highest grossing film of all time" bit. I think Box Office Mojo actually has an "adjusted for inflation" page that lists the money films have made as adjust for the current year. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- My concern is whether inflation trumps the true amount of money made. The fact is what Titanic earned is a larger amount of notes and coin dispensed by moviegoers than those who saw Gone with the Wind. What would start happening then? Would we have to start inflating opening weekends every few years or so? It might be a WP:DATED violation. Alientraveller (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, inflation would be the "true" amount a movie has made. What I would simply state would be where it falls in "unadjusted" dollars, which is completely fine, then state where it falls in "adjusted", and then also compare ticket sales if that information is available--which someone (not us, but someone in that field of work) could calculate based on what they know ticket prices to be back then, compared to how much the movie made. We wouldn't have to re-adjust every weekend, heck, not even every year. Inflation doesn't go up that much, and generally whatever ranking you are currently (if you're top dog) you're going to be there still. Only new films are going to creep into the list, no old films are going to surpass some film that that have sat behind for the past 30 years. Do I think we need to ignore completely the unadjusted figures Cshay, no I do not, so please do not delete things that have been common practice without discussing it first. I appreciate you being bold, and I completely understand where you are coming from, but listing a film's ranking in unadjusted dollars is not wrong so long as it is clear that it is unadjusted dollars. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- One thing to take into account is BOM only inflates the North America grosses. All we need to do is link List of highest-grossing films in the United States and Canada, and note it's just an NA thing BOM does. Alientraveller (talk) 11:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
- Well, inflation would be the "true" amount a movie has made. What I would simply state would be where it falls in "unadjusted" dollars, which is completely fine, then state where it falls in "adjusted", and then also compare ticket sales if that information is available--which someone (not us, but someone in that field of work) could calculate based on what they know ticket prices to be back then, compared to how much the movie made. We wouldn't have to re-adjust every weekend, heck, not even every year. Inflation doesn't go up that much, and generally whatever ranking you are currently (if you're top dog) you're going to be there still. Only new films are going to creep into the list, no old films are going to surpass some film that that have sat behind for the past 30 years. Do I think we need to ignore completely the unadjusted figures Cshay, no I do not, so please do not delete things that have been common practice without discussing it first. I appreciate you being bold, and I completely understand where you are coming from, but listing a film's ranking in unadjusted dollars is not wrong so long as it is clear that it is unadjusted dollars. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- I'd rather not link to a Wikipedia article as a source. It's far too easy to mess with that information, as well as the fact that we cannot say that that page will be around forever. Someone might find problems with it years from now and delete it. It's best to link to a real source. That's fine that they o nly use NA grosses, just make sure that the sentence clearly states that this is ALL TIME NORTH AMERICAN, and you'll be fine. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 11:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- The link I provided above is a third party source. I'd like to add that I believe that Alientraveller still doesn't comprehend that the inflation adjusted figure is the only meaningful figure. Even now, he is editing articles in such a way that the inflation unadjusted figure is trumpeted as the most important, with the inflation adjusted figure being a sort of bit of trivia. I would request that he try to read a bit about what inflation adjusted statistics really mean. Cshay (talk) 11:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
- Never liked maths. Alientraveller (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Inflation is great, but that doesn't mean we should remove unadjusted figures. If it is relevant to include inflation adjusted, then it is probably relevent to include unadjusted and state in simple "dollar for dollar terms" this is the number. Personally, I like to see what it made in unadjusted dollars, in comparison with others, and then followed by the "But if you adjust it really is this". That's my personal preference for reading. Include everything that is relevant, and to me that is both of those rankings (unless the film is so far down that it doesn't matter for either one). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
I found direct away links to IMBd in cast list?
That's the q. As in Dreamlanders. I've edited several film articles but never came across this rather than a red link, but I won't change it if it's something thats allowed. Thanks. Mike P (WHAT?) 02:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
- Nope, external links should go at the bottom in an "EL" section. See WP:EL for more info on using them. Specifically: "External links should not normally be used in the body of an article; this applies to list articles as well. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." BIGNOLE (Contact me) 02:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)