User talk:Betty Logan/Archive 13

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Betty Logan. 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 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

A beer for you!

Hi Betty, just wanted to drop a barnstar for you - I probably don't comment enough to the guys I know do a lot of great work, but I do appreciate all of your work. I hope everythig is ok with you in this new year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^(talk • contribs) 15:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ronnie O'Sullivan's first maximum break.webm

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ronnie O'Sullivan's first maximum break.webm. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Betty

Hi Betty how are you doing ? I have a question for you please, will you reply when you get this ?. Thanks 89.204.232.97 (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I am doing to very well thanks, what would you like to ask? Betty Logan (talk) 14:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

New BOM issue

Hi, just to let you know there is a new (big) issue from BOM, $66 million added with no reason.... they went from this to this--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 02:23, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah it's clearly wrong because it is the initial release gross that has changed. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Snooker season points/2020/2021

Template:Snooker season points/2020/2021 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:38, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bond girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Scottish Masters Challenge 1993

Hi Betty, Please can you take a look at this discussion on my Talk page. It all looks highly dubious to me! Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

That's really not what CNN said

CNN's statement about their sources is, "The groupings below are based on studies by the US Census, Pew Research and demographers Neil Howe and William Strauss." Since Pew uses 1981-1996 and the Census Bureau doesn't define generations, this apparently means Howe and Strauss use 1980–2000. Although a source further down in the Wikipedia article says that Howe used something else. "Studies often use 1981–1996 to define millennials, but sometimes list 1980–2000" is still wrong, since saying "often" and "sometimes" is meaningless if there are only three sources. Probably CNN's statement about their sources is just not true, but obviously we'll never know. Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this. I'm done. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

CNN has picked out these three sources probably because of the influence they carry. I don't know whether the dates they give come from just these three sources, or if they looked beyond them. I don't think it's really possible to say that CNN is "wrong" without knowing what their terms of reference were. We take the other sources at face value so I don't see the problem with doing the same here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for an edit

Hi, an user made this edit, but I disagree with it, I think it is not an important information, and maybe we should have a consensus for this. Also, some of that information are incorrect, because for example "Avatar" and "Star Wars I" were distributed by 20th Century Fox, not Disney, what do you think about?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And also the distributor for "Incredibles 2" is missing, "Titanic" wasn't distributed only by Paramount (but also by 20th Century Fox) and "Skyfall" wasn't distributed only by MGM (but also by Columbia), so I think we should delete this edit, there are many mistake--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A consensus already exists for not adding a distributor column. It doesn't really make much sense in a global article where films typically have many distributors. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, have a nice day--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You too. Thank you for all your hard work maintaining the List of highest-grossing films. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Hi, what do you think about this edit I reverted? He used The Numbers as source, but the source for the entire table is BOM, so can we use The Numbers just for one film?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The user also opened a new discussion, but the gross was updated just a few days ago, can you check if The Numbers gross is correct? Thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think The-Numbers is correct either. I will take a closer look at it and post a reply in a while. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Batman Returns BOM

Hi Betty, just a quick Q in case you might know. I'm looking at the NA Box Office for 1992 Domestic Box Office For 1992 - Box Office Mojo. Do you know the difference between Calendar Grosses option and the In-Year releases option? I'm guessing In-Year is just any film released in 1992 even if it made most of its money in 1991 or 1993, and calendar is exclusively money earned in 1992? I'm just trying to understand since "calendar" puts Batman Returns as the highest-grossing film and "in-year" makes it third behind Aladdin (released November) and Home Alone 2 (also November) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, calendar covers just the calendar period. It's a very arbitrary metric when you think about it because it disadvantages end-of-year releases. When people talk about the "highest-grossing film of 2009", what they tend to mean is the "in year" release for films released in 2009 (where Avatar is the easy winner), but under the calendar system Avatar only scrapes into the top 5, and wins 2010. The calendar gross also requires very exact tracking because you need to know exactly when the gross for the year breaks off, which isn't available for many older or foreign films. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree although it's frustrating sometimes, Ghostbusters dominated 1984 and then Beverly Hills Cop comes out in December and earns 5 mill more than it overall. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Film currently playing

Hi Betty, I agree with you for No Way Home, but what do you think about "Morbius" and "The Batman"? They are still playing? Thanks for your time--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

'The Batman is still playing in Australia. It is winding down now but there will probably be a final update at some point. Morbius was still playing up to the June 23; that looks like it has closed, but I think we should wait for next week's updates to be sure. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, we will see next week, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi :) I think we can remove "Morbius" from the "film currently playing", what do you think? The movie was still playing up to the June 23, so 3 weeks ago--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it looks played out. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, done, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it is me again (sorry), but I want to know (again) your opinion about "No Way Home", because after the end of the last weekend it seems clearly not in theaters anymore, can I remove it from the "film currently playing"?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

But don't worry, I watch this page every day, so if they change the gross I will update--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Trusted Box Office sources

Hi Betty, Thank you for weighing in earlier today (yesterday?) on a user discussion elsewhere regarding sources cited for box office numbers. Your words about the ledgers (Schaefer/Warner, Mannix/MGM, Tevlin/RKO) and the relative accuracy of the Variety lists were spot on. I hope the user heeds your words. I was alarmed to see that user had previously been blocked for a long period of time for altering data regarding music chart articles, and it appeared the same thing might have now been occurring recently with movie articles. I also saw possible but not conclusive evidence regarding motive. I'll continue monitoring and hopefully steering the person in the right direction.

You mentioned in your comment that there were also Fox ledgers? Can you point me at a reference to those? The only source I've found to date for those are the Aubrey Solomon book 20th Century Fox - A Corporate and Financial History, but I was disappointed to see in his appendix that he derived his figures from Boxoffice magazine, The Motion Picture Almanac, and Variety, as the rest of us are doing when ledgers aren't available. I'm also hitting dead ends for better information on Paramount movies, other than books about individual producers that sometimes reveal useful information.

Related, I am also curious about how you all feel about using books such as Joel Finler's The Hollywood Story (Wallflower Press) as citations. He mentions in his appendix that his figures are derived from Motion Picture Almanac and Variety, which made me think that it would be a reasonable alternate option if the issues of the original publications could not be found, even though I'm finding minor inconsistencies with his numbers that sometimes match neither of those sources nor the related ledger, if available.

You probably saw in the other discussion my opinion about sources such as the Kindle book by Leonidas Fragias, Annual US Top Film Rentals 1912-1979, which lists none of its sources. The author has several other Kindle books with movie charts. But the fact that none of the information is sourced and they appear to be self-published Kindle eBooks make me very leery of using them for citations. Do you concur? Thanks! Addy Addypreston (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Fox I was indeed referring to the Solomon book. I had just assumed his access extended beyond the regularly available sources (it just goes to show you should always corroborate your assumptions). I am pleased you have told me about this, because it means his figures should not automatically take priority over somebody else's. I am happy with Finler because he at least states where he gets his information from. We can assume he is reporting his data correctly, although we should bear in mind that the underlying sources may not be accurate. As for Fragias, I would be very wary of using a self-published work that does not cite its sources. Generally I would be against using such a source (a secondary source should always state where its information comes from), although there may be individual circumstances where it might be ok. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! You all have been at this longer than I have, so I don't want to make assumptions or miss decisions that might have already been made well before I arrived here. I got here by looking for potential sources to corroborate or fill holes in data I'd been collecting for years. Along with indeed locating some intriguing new sources I also started finding gaps in a few articles. I felt it was only proper to give as well as get, and thus found myself going down another of my rabbit holes and spending more and more time checking out the articles and adding or improving data :) Addypreston (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Um... please re-visit the discussion mentioned in my opening line. 3 hours later, more of the same?! Not sure how to handle that. Addypreston (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

E.T.

Hi, I saw your edit, the issue is that BOM updated the domestic gross after the re-release, but they didn't update the worldwide gross, this is the reason why I added The Numbers in the section--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I realised after I looked at the diffs. It looks like a new type of glitch in BOM. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Hi, I recently noticed that the Jurassic Park franchise page has incorrect box office totals. I’ve tried correcting them but I don’t know as much about box office totals as I’m sure you do. If you could check out the page that would be great. Zvig47 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll use this section since its relevant and to not clog up your talk page. Can I ask your opinion on this edit? It seems like trivia to me, more relevant to the article of the film that broke it, especially since it's only a year later. I know before I rewrote The Dark Knight, the box office section was filled with records and then who subsequently broke that record. It's not as big a deal on Batman Returns because I think that's the only record it broke, but I can be a bit resistant to change, especially when someone throws an in-line reference into my carefully organized referencing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very borderline, you can probably make a case either way. These weekend records don't usually last that long and they are fairly trivial records at that, so personally I probably wouldn't have included it. It set a record at the time, and that's probably sufficient. You could revert the edit and see what happens. If it gets restored it's probably not worth the hassle to take it further. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Betty how are you

Hi Betty Can do me a favour please can you add non WST invitation events staged by Snooker Legends that are referenced and have a citation from the well respected Snooker.org website. which is the go to site for Snooker these days. If I give you the info will you add them to the players wikipedia pages please?. Because I don't have a log in and it would only be removed if I added it. Is that OK with you please ?. I will give you all the info you need it is only three events. I hope you can help me as you are very well respected here. If you help me out I would gladly help you out anyway I could in the future. Is that OK please ?

Kind Regards Snooker fan 92.251.171.158 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi betty can you help me out with this project please ?. Are you involved in helping out ?. Many Thanks SS 89.204.183.102 (talk) 01:12, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The Legends events are exhibition events as far as I am aware, which are not included in player profiles. Betty Logan (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Video game content rating system article

Hello, I disagree with your actions of reverting my edits of the Video game content rating system article, the Roblox help article about the Age Recommendations, (which I cannot link to because Roblox.com domains are blacklisted) clearly explain what each rating means (if you actually spent the time looking), also the same reason you removed my addition can be applied to the Newgrounds entry, it explains nothing about the ratings ratings, it has no references, it is not mentioned on the main Newgrounds page nor anywhere else on the Video game content rating system page, so it doesn't seem logical nor fair to remove my edits nor Gamingfann1234's edits since they were the person who originally added the age ratings to the table. Aeyeu (talk) 03:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

The entry isn't much help if there is no explanation of the ratings. They aren't even covered at the Roblox article. Also, all content needs to be verifiable; readers should be able to check the veracity of the information per WP:TRUTH. Betty Logan (talk) 04:54, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Exact numbers of Jurassic World Dominion

Well Betty u can find the exact numbers on https://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Jurassic-World-Dominion-(2022)

So can u pls update it.. Harharshit (talk) 04:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Superman film edits

Hi Betty, can I ask why you reverted me here? The category that you re-added appears to already be covered by the article being under Category:Superman films and there's no indication that the higher-level category is intended to be non-diffusing; if anything, the opposite appears to be the case. Thanks for clarifying! DonIago (talk) 20:11, 5 October 2022 (UTC)

I have self-reverted. If you look at my recent edits you will notice this editor added this redundant category to a bunch of articles which I then reverted. Unfortunately yours appears to have got caught up in the purge. Sorry! Betty Logan (talk) 02:57, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

That was what I surmised had happened in light of the other editing activity going on with the Superman films, but given that I generally consider your edits beyond reproach I didn't want to revert without checking first. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 03:18, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

The Shark Is Broken

Per the Manual of Style:

"In titles (including subtitles, if any) that are the English-language titles of works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized."

This includes verbs like "is". The correct title is 'The Shark Is Broken'. Please restore the correct title at your earliest convenience. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:13, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

I have reversed the page move as requested, but in the future please provide a clearer explanation in the edit summary when renaming an article. It was clear what you were doing, but not why you were doing it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have been editing Wikipedia as long as it appears you have, you should be aware of basic rules like that. Also, since I *did* say "correcting capitalization", a quick check of capitalization rules would have told you it was the correct move. Before undoing veteran editors' changes, please make sure you know what you are doing. Rhindle The Red (talk) 15:20, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is perfect and even veteran editors sometimes make mistakes. There is nothing "basic" about naming conventions, since there is no universal approach. If you are specifically enacting a guideline or policy then WP:EDITSUMCITE gives the following good advice: "If you believe a Wikipedia policy or guideline justifies the change then you may include a link to it in your explanation." I have done what you have asked and corrected the error so please be gracious enough to take on board my comments about providing full and informative edit summaries in the future. Betty Logan (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia changes

Hello Betty I want to talk to you about recent changes on wikipedia that i am concerned about. Can you reply to me on this talkpage please ? Thanks R 178.167.158.228 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to give a little bit more information i.e. article, what the changes are (preferably with a diff). Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to talk in private as there are page watchers as you know. Can you email me at [e-mail] thanks for your reply betty 178.167.158.228 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that ok please Betty ?. 178.167.158.228 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Betty can we talk in private please ?. 92.251.151.134 (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss an article then you should do so on publicly visible pages. I am not going to engage in private conversations with strangers on Wikipedia without first knowing what it is about. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There are changes to snooker articles, events and pages that i am concerned about. You never seem to contribute to that sport anymore.92.251.151.134 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia that much in general, other than what pops up on my watchlist. I haven't created any articles for ages. Over the last three years I have been engaged in legal action against the Government who want to steal my family's land and that is taking all of my spare time. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. I am concerned about events and the way that event formats have been changed. Is there anyway we can discuss this in private please ?. Can you email me on that address i want to run a few things by you is that ok please ?. 31.200.177.198 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to talk to you about the concerns that I have for snooker on here and I would like to hear your opinions because I know you are a very valued member of this site and community. Is that ok please ?. Thank you Betty 31.200.188.109 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't discuss Wikipedia articles off-site. If you want to discuss concerns about a particular article then you should start a discussion on the article talk page. If you want to discuss snooker articles in general then you need to start a discussion at WT:SNOOKER. The whole point of Wikipedia is that editing decisions should be transparent. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok but the question I want to ask you is, Do you think events like Power Snooker and Tenball should now be removed from the non-ranking events finals ?. Six Reds has been rightly added as non ranking events as they are recognised by the WPBSA and The WST Tour as non ranking invitational events so players that win these events are invited to the Champion of Champions. Would you agree Power Snooker and Tenball are stand alone Cue sports and should not be included in with non ranking finals sections. These are hybrids of other sports including pool and the scoring system in both games are off the charts compared to snooker, double points, double fouls and extra points for making 100 breaks, the scoring in Tenball was the same thing making scoring in the event a different game. can you just give me your opinion on these events please ?. 31.200.175.110 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not include Power Snooker and Tenball in the lists of finals. For a start, unlike 6-reds and Shoot-Out they are not included in the official rules of snooker. Secondly, if you include these events in the list of titles and finals then there is a case for including them in other stats too. Would we replace a player's high break with a 500-break from Power Snooker? I don't think so. These are novelty events and should be treated as such. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree so strongly about this it is wrong. How do we go about removing tenball and power snooker absolute nonsense. Keep the 6 reds and shootout. Can we speak up because they are ruining players pages adding these nonsense events you agree ? 92.251.171.158 (talk) 20:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Betty you would not include Tenball or Power Snooker but others decided they should be included why is that ?. What would the process be to get them removed would it have to be discussed on the snooker talkpage or will they never be removed now because they have been added ?. I don't know much about it 178.167.220.179 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Coco (2017 film) § Plot summary revamp. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Also, if you are interested, there's a discussion regarding the plot summary of Grave of the Fireflies at Talk:Grave of the Fireflies#Plot summary format. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy belated Thanksgiving!

	Happy belated Thanksgiving!
	Happy belated Thanksgiving! I hope you have/had a great Harvest Festival over in the UK! We haven't communicated in a long time, but you should know your past kindness will be remembered for a long time to come. An elephant always remembers! Huggums537 (talk) 16:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

The Dark Knight shows that it grossed over $1 billion, so why not the same for the movie in the article 2008 in film ? Aceusa (talk) 03:41, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

The figure at The Dark Knight article is a "lifetime" total, not a "release" total. As explained by the note, the "Year in XXXX" articles exclude re-release income. Compare the grosses for Avatar at 2009 in film and Avatar (2009 film). Same reason. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

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) 00:39, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for your comments at AN - they were much appreciated! It’s nice to be back. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

It's great to have you back Schro! Just in time too, have you got any views on this >>>> Talk:List_of_recurring_characters_in_the_James_Bond_film_series#A_new_proposal? Betty Logan (talk) 09:39, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
Have a great Christmas, and may 2023 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You too SchroCat, it's great to have you back! Betty Logan (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

—El Millo (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

—El Millo (talk) 07:31, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Hope you had a nice one too, El Millo. Betty Logan (talk) 09:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)