User talk:TropicAces

TropicAces, you are invited to the Teahouse

Hi TropicAces! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! SarahStierch (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Movie pages

Huh, I guess it is true. We do kinda maintain these movie pages for updated box offices. Good work and let's continue contributing! Easy4me (talk) 10:40, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you add Willam Belli to the cast details of A Star is Born? Eliza946 (talk) 06:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Jurassic World

The deadline article says it hit 584 m overseas and I saw an other article that it hit 416 m in the states earlier today so that means it's now at 1 billion Giggett (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Martin (American football)

Thank you for cleaning up Jonathan Martin (American football). I had a feeling that the Panthers might need listed in his infobox somehow. That's why I commented them out rather than delete them entirely. —C.Fred (talk) 19:51, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

A cookie for you, for being such a great user! Congrats :) - Minionlover2015 (talk) 16:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Revenant film description in lead

The Revenant film description has been going back and forth in the Lead section there. "Ämerican" and "western" are redundant it seems and I wonder if you would take a look. What about "2015 western revenge film" which is consistent with the book title of the adaptation? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 17:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There were more changes to the description again in the lead. TIME magazine article version of January 18th looked good so I will try it with 2015 American frontier revenge film to see if it helps. Have the Gloden Globe announcements been added yet? Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

More additions made by others over the week-end to the plot section at the Revenant, what do think of the size issues? Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Suicide Squad villian

Hey bud. I just wanna give you a heads up that Common is indeed cast as Tattooed Man. Proof: Look at the set photos of Common on set... see the tats on his hands and the back of his head? Now look at the trailer where you see the subway cuts. The back of his head shows the same powers as tattooed man. Just wanna let you know and see if it's okay for you to edit in. 69.141.67.53 (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Kylo Ren

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Deadpool reviews

I saw you redid the section and since it's easier to follow, I should be the one thanking. ;) Out of curiosity: not referencing reviewer X in statement about/from reviewer Y is a policy or a matter of, IDK, taste? Unconnected text is easier to maintain for sure but I'm not entirely sure what's the benefit beyond that. The reason I'm asking is that I'm pondering whether I should add Christy Lemire's summary too. It's very topical, entertaining and connects to what Duralde stated but I haven't convinced myself that it's entirely wikipedic just yet. Here's roughly what I originally planned to add:

Alonso Duralde in his The Wrap review calls Deadpool a "funny, bloody comedy is the Marvel Universe’s biggest breath of fresh air since Guardians of the Galaxy" praising it, amongst other things, for its self-aware wit. This wit is summarized by Christy Lemire in the What The Flick?! review as "beyond meta" and "up its ass and back out its own mouth again", which prompts Duralde to elaborate that self-awareness can "completely shut down the plot" by "reminding that it's a movie" and consequently failing to engage the audience. He further notes that Deadpool "somehow finds this very tricky balance" and despite "goofing around" audience cares for the revenge plot and the romance.

References

Tom Brady and appeal

I believe the NY Times mis-stated the court's ruling. It overturned Berman's decision, but does not itself re-instate the suspension. That takes a separate action by the NFL (which they are now allowed to do), which might be week 1, but doesn't have to be. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Timothy John Smith

Hi TropicAces. Thanks for your edit to the Timothy John Smith (Actor) page I created. Yes I'm a fan (and friend) , but I'm also a history writer/filmmaker, so I would welcome any suggestions on how to make the page more substantial/appropriate/conforming to guidelines. I think Tim's role in the upcoming movie Central Intelligence will likely raise him to a higher level of visibility, which is why I took the initiative to create this page.

Rck Beyer (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Rick Beyer

The haves and the have nots article

Could you please add the character Mitch from the haves and the haves nots as recurring in season 3 in the table of characters, please? Someone only listed him as main in season 4 and forgot Zhyboo (talk) 07:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Rose trade

I saw your edit about Derrick Rose's trade not completing until July 1, which someone else had reverted. Do you have a source for that? AFAIK, only free agent signings need to wait until July. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 21:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Violation of 3RR

Look, I know you're a heavy contributor in WP:FILM, and I don't want to report you for three reverts in 24 hours, but you've got to work with me here. I notified you on the talk page prior to your third revert, and I'm not sure why you haven't discussed the issue yet. I'm assuming good faith, but my patience is running thin. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Name mentioned in Sock Puppet case - GoneIn60

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/ContentEditman GoneIn60 has not called you out directly yet and is now back peddling but wanted to make sure you knew in case GoneIn60 starts to accuse you as well. ContentEditman (talk) 17:17, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Seems GineIn60 can't stop themselves. They are now labeling you a "biased" user.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ContentEditman&diff=prev&oldid=727389669 ContentEditman (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up(? Haha) I really don't know what's going on (I'm only going to read so much of those pages haha) but I assume I'm involved cuz of my editing/"issues" with Independence Day's reception tab last week. If I'm accused of having two accounts, it's likely because sometimes my Wikipedia app logs me out without alert, so I'll edit something and it'll be logged as an IP address. So if anything needs to be clarified let me know, otherwise I'm just gonna go back to creeping Rotten Tomatoes and Box Office Mojo... cc ContentEditman TropicAces (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Ignore GoneIn60 and her false accusations. I am the 'other' editor she falsely accused of a number of things. I only came here because I caught GoneIn60 trying to dishonestly convince you that I was somehow messing with you. That is a lie and she knows it. GoneIn60 falsely claims I tried to reach out to you to help me in an ongoing S.P.I. which is untrue. For the record: I never reached out to you until now. Even then, I am only reaching out to you now in order to set the record straight. I would rather do better things with my time but it is what it is. If you ever read up on any of this, I have to give her credit- she has this knack into forcing me into wasting my time on her drama. It's a skill, for sure. Moving on. As you already know, I did 'not' try to rope you into anything. True, the other editor under the name 'contenteditman' tried to canvass you into helping 'HIM' out on the S.P.I., which I agree was an inappropriate thing for him to do. I said as much in the S.P.I. and I was quick to condemn it. However, that didn't stop GoneIn60 from alleging collusion anyways between me and the other editor. To elaborate: she is making the false accusation against me that I was trying to "solicit" your help. If it needs to be said again, that is 100% untrue. I did briefly mention you in the S.P.I. for the purpose of providing context for the dispute. However, that was the end of it on my end. Normally I would've ignored his latest conspiracy theory about me but GoneIn60 is ironically and hypocritically trying to con 'YOU' into taking 'HER' side by dishonestly painting me as a disruptive troll. She's cunning enough and an experienced enough editor that she should know better by now than to rely on lies and unsubstantiated assumptions toward that end. She is clearly trying to trick you. Don't take the bait. I hope once things return to normal we can continue to edit the article with an impartial mindset. sorry that they dragged you into this.174.29.191.40 (talk) 02:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Update: In an effort to cover all my bases, I tried to set the record straight on Gonein60's page in your discussion with her. No surprise, she quickly censored it [[1]] even though she had no problem gossiping about me to you on the page. Interesting. If a person is going to talk about another person, let alone make serious accusations about them, you would think they would be invited to the conversation so they can have their say. Unless of course, the person making the accusations has an agenda to protect. And she called me "a fly." ***sniffle*** I happen to like flies :( Used to collect them as a child.174.29.191.40 (talk) 02:36, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

The Legend of Tarzan (film)

Re: your recent reversion there - I was combing through the reviews at Rottentomatoes trying to see if *any* of them had even mentioned Margot Robbie in their blurbs...no, no and no. So thx for saving me the trouble of reverting that particular edit. Shearonink (talk) 06:14, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ghostbuster reviews

Note that you're over WP:3RR on this. Would be more constructive to pick apart the three overview sources on the talk page and explain exactly why they amount to "mixed to positive" rather than "generally positive". --McGeddon (talk) 10:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

the film is clearly receiving mixed reviews. Here are 3 more sources that clearly indicate a mixed reception, and now Metacritic is "mixed or average reviews." I've tried to start a dialogue on the Talk page but no one is joining in, so I don't think it's wise to purely go off a 75% RT score. (cc McGeddon) TropicAces (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

References

It doesn't matter how clear this is - WP:EDITWAR specifically presents "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" as an inappropriate way to approach a disagreement. If it's clear and obvious and you can explain this on the talk page, other editors will agree and help to make sure the article reflects it. --McGeddon (talk) 14:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The problem I'm having is whenever I try and explain it (what can be simply deduced by reading the headlines, much less the articles themselves), people (one in particular) just go back and point to the 75% on RT as only counter-argument.. I don't want to seem like I'm trying to dictate the page or heading on the Talk page by continuously responding to my own comments, ya know? (cc McGeddon) TropicAces (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Continually responding on the talk page is fine, and better than continually reverting the article. Quote as many overviews as you can find on the talk page and explain how you think they amount to "mixed to positive" rather than "generally positive". Either somebody will disagree and/or pull up a source you missed and we can take it from there, or nobody will disagree and you (or I, or anyone) can reword the article to match it. --McGeddon (talk) 14:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's America

Why do you continuously remove the July 22, 2016 wide release date? Why should only one release date be mentioned in the infobox? Is there any Wikipedia guideline for this? If not, then both dates should stay in the infobox. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I started a discussion on the article talk page, so if you would respond there, that would be great. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:53, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you disrupt Wikipedia. I have asked you before to stop adding your own original research about film receptions. I see another person gave you a level 3 warning about this very same issue last week, so this is your final warning. Stop adding unsourced editorializing about a film's reception to reception sections, and also stop placing undue emphasis on individual review aggregators, per the consensus in this discussion at WT:FILM. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:31, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate to what does this refer/what page in particular is it about? TropicAces (talk) 11:08, 10 August 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

It's not a specific article but a behavior where you have been edit warring to remove context from lead sections. Lately, you have been adding statements about "the film received positive reviews" in the lead, then citing Metacritic as the source. As I said in the above-linked thread, I do not think this is a good enough source for that statement. Others have agreed with me, saying that it at least needs to be attributed ("the film received positive reviews on Metacritic"). Metacritic does not take a representative sample of reviews, and its reviews are heavily biased toward English-language, American reviews. This makes it a bad choice to summarize worldwide reception. Also, reception sections should not contain synthesis, such as saying that a film received "mixed reviews" because RT and MC both gave it a middling score. We should simply report the MC and RT scores, not summarize them into "it received mixed reviews". NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:25, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate I haven't sourced Metacritic since you told me off a few weeks ago, and I'll correct someone's wording of its awkward/wrong but never am one to originate a consensus statement, at least not without sources like I did for Suicide Squad. TropicAces (talk) 21:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Maybe I was misinterpreting your edits. My patience level has been dropping on Wikipedia lately because of all the vandals and sock puppets that I've been dealing with, and I think it's made me too snappy and irritable. You can just ignore that warning. I struck it out. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate It's all good, man. I know what you mean, unintelligent and trolling people have been coming out of the woodwork. Best wishes to your sanity. TropicAces (talk) 19:43, 13 August 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Anthropoid (film)

See the film article talk page. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Entourage Budget

Any film that gets the CA tax credit must submit to a final audit when it's done. Entourage and other CA films have had their budgets confirmed by the film commission. Earlier "estimates" or "reported budgets" are just that--estimates. We know exactly how much was spent and we have sources that back this up. Depauldem (talk) 20:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Depauldem Those figures are pre-taxes, refunds, breaks, etc. Much like how the one article states Steve Jobs's budget was $35 million but the final figure was $30 million after their breaks. Entourage got a $9 million break after the audit. Every single other publication wouldn't be wrong or report out of date figures.TropicAces (talk) 06:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

No, Entourage got a $5.8 million tax credit. That amount is also in the Variety article and the FilmLA report. And, after lengthy discussion, we reached a consensus that the gross budget is the primary budget and, if known, the net budget can be included. But in all cases, the actual budget on Entourage was $39 million. Depauldem (talk) 16:40, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

One sentence plot summaries

One sentence plot summaries are included in virtually all peer reviewed film articles. Could you glance at Cafe Society again. Include your own version of a one sentence plott summary in the lede if you prefer. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Fountains-of-Paris well right, I wasn't saying plot summaries aren't the norm; just wording it awkwardly like "it has been described by [blank] as..." that I found trouble with. I'll write a description, cheers as well. TropicAces (talk) 15:53, 22 August 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Sam Bradford

Please don't change his team until it's official (e.g. announced by one of the teams). News reports have been wrong before. There is no deadline. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 15:06, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Jauerback I didn't change the team, I made a caption change and date correction, and it was after the Vikings team account had tweeted it, assumed I was in the clear. TropicAces (talk) 19:26, 3 September 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Partner

Hi there! I hope you don't mind me asking, but since you were the one to remove it from Dylan O'Brien and Britt Robertson's pages, perhaps you could help me out. I am unsure about when is the appropriate occasion to add a "partner"? What merits that title by Wikipedia standards? All I've found in the way of clarification is this: "For unmarried life partners (of any gender or sexual preference)", and "unmarried long-term partner" which doesn't exactly clarify it for me.

I'm asking not because I want to add it back to their pages (I was the one who initially added it on O'Brien's page, but only after seeing it was added to hers, and since the relationship is five years old, I thought it would be acceptable), but because my curiosity is piqued now. Bice24 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Bice24 it's for "life partners" which to my understanding, you label someone a partner when they have a child outside of marriage with a person (Al Pacino) or they have been a recognized couple for a long while and have just never married (Oprah Winfrey). It's not simply for boyfriend/girlfriends because then people Taylor Swift would be flooded with one year relationships haha... Hope this helps. TropicAces (talk) 18:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

TropicAces Okay, that makes more sense, especially if it involves children. I was getting confused thinking about the specifics of what would be deemed a long enough time to label a couple. You're right, Taylor Swift's page would just give constant headaches to the editors, hahahah. Thank you! Bice24 (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Readers contributions

Hi there, as someone who edits from mobile, this conversation here might be of interest to you. Thanks!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The Girl on the Train (2016 film)

That is a content dispute, not vandalism. Both phrasings are reasonable. Even if one phrasing were not reasonable, none of the exemptions from the three-revert rule would apply to this situation. Please be careful not to edit war, even when you believe (and may be correct) that your version is the better version. I've fully protected the page. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 20:37, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

BU Rob13 makes sense I suppose, although you can see my frustration when an IP kept reverting to an awkward phrasing haha. TropicAces (talk) 20:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Sully (film)

Looks like we had an edit conflict and I can't tell what the heck happened. Feel free to change, I was just trying to revert that IP's British claim. -- GreenC 13:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Green Cardamom looks like my edit is still there, so we'll assume everything is alright. Thanks for caring! Haha TropicAces (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Reference errors on 12 October

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

• On the The Accountant (2016 film) page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Allied

Hi. Some films are consider to be negative while their scores indicates them as "mixed" (such as Suicide Squad: Metacritic 40/100, Rotten Tomatoes 4.7/10). Allied is one them too. It must be listed as generally positive 'cause the scores (MC 60/100, RT 6.4/100) are mostly positive. Have a nice day. Sebastian James (talk) 21:34, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 27 November

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

• On the Nocturnal Animals page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#RFC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels/Harry Potter task force#RFC. Elizium23 (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Ages of pharaohs

There's no way we can know how old to the year, it depends upon the months of birth and death, right? Doug Weller talk 06:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Doug Weller I could be wrong, but I thought I remembered being corrected early in my Wiki days that ancient people's birthdates, since more often than not they are just years, are safe to give ages. If you're really uncomfortable, doing the range is also acceptable. TropicAces (talk) 06:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)tropicAces

Box Office statistics

I have done a bit of digging into this. As you probably know, boxofficemojo (now part of Amazon/IMDB) is considered to be the authoritative source. On its site the box office data is either "domestic" or "international/worldwide". Domestic is defined as USA and Canada. The same information is provided on the Wikipedia sites concerning box office statistics and the mojo.

The previous formulation for presenting the box office data is incorrect because a) 'North America' is not an accurate description for 'USA & Canada', since the former includes Mexico and a number of other smaller countries, b) the wording "other territories" implies that 'North America' is a territory, which it isn't in any meaningful sense, being a whole continent, and c) calling the other countries of the world "territories" is potentially belittling.

It's important that the data on here is not only accurate but presented accurately: I cannot see a better way of doing it than using the boxofficemojo descriptor "USA & Canada", since "domestic" clearly doesn't work for an international site like this one, and then "other countries" for the other nations for which box office counts are aggregated.

If you have a better formulation to suggest, please go ahead?

Also it would be very helpful if you could stop inserting the apostrophe (using the less preferred format) into the Arrival (film) page each time you update the data - one (anonymous IP) user has already been blocked for repeatedly making the same edit that you have been inserting, which is why we settled on the non aposostrophe format of the sentence concerning Adams's performance, to end the edit war. Thank you in anticipation! User:IanB2 1 December 2016

Stop changing correct grammar to incorrect grammar

I'm going to ask you once more to stop changing correct grammar to incorrect grammar, as you did in this edit. I have explained before why "with" is incorrect grammar in this sentence. I even gave you a citation to an academic journal that discussed the issue. This is really starting to annoy me, and I don't understand why you persist in edit warring over it. Stop being disruptive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 17 December

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

• On the Passengers (2016 film) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Please be careful! You also broke the references in the article Bleed for This. You left the article with two different named references for Box Office Mojo only one of them was actually a reference to The Numbers.com. -- 109.77.156.149 (talk) 11:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Collateral Beauty panned

You changed the Collateral Beauty article to say it was panned. Another editor paraphrased that as "negative reviews". In some film articles I can see how that might be a fairer description and provide a more neutral point of view and I made a similar edit myself before, but in this case I do think your description was better and well supported by the source (although another source wouldn't hurt). I would encourage you to restore your previous wording. -- 109.79.146.209 (talk) 23:31, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 January

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

• On the Prometheus (2012 film) page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

country of origin of Silence

Regarding this edit, please see Talk:Silence (2016 film)#Countries of origin. The most reliable source, Variety, lists the film as a US-Taiwan-Mexico coproduction. Sight & Sound includes the UK. Mathew5000 (talk) 22:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Deepwater Horizon page

Hi! I was hoping you could help me out on the Deepwater Horizon page if you're interested. There's an IP user who's consistently adding cast members who did not figure in the end credits billing; sometimes also adds random people in the infobox, sometimes adds performers who don't even appear on the film's IMDb page... After receiving a warning on edit warring (which I did receive myself too; I was unaware of the three-revert rule, but if you go over the page's edit history, you'll see whose edits were justified), they still reverted the page to their liking completely ignoring said warning. I tried engaging in conversation with the editor who relayed the warnings, but they haven't been online since.

Anyway, it's been two days since that and I left things be, but since there was new content to add to the page today, I took the opportunity today to make the appropriate changes in the cast list again. And now this user seems to be changing IPs in order to again edit the page to their liking. As always, no explanation for their constant reversions. I've been explaining on the notes every time I reverted this situation, but I feel like no one's paying attention on that page, so I fear if I reverted once more their edits, even if I opened up a topic on the talk page, I would be the one who'd end up being accused of edit warring again. I'm clueless as to how to proceed from here, honestly. Bice24 (talk) 21:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Bice24 I put in a semi-protection request (for future reference, can be found here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection), so hopefully that gets accepted and put through. Yeah IP users can be a pain, your best bet is to just request protection and not get into an edit war, because that can result in you getting in trouble/"talked to" (you know, like we're in middle school haha). Hope this solves your dilemma. Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 01:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Thank you, for both the help and the advice! Yup, this finally solves it. Bice24 (talk) 13:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film#"Lists" vs. prose about lists. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
(Notification per WP:CAN.)

"Certified Fresh"

Hi, is there a reason why the "Certified Fresh" recognition should be avoided in the case of film articles having it? Bluesphere 15:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Blue to my understanding, it's because it's "site specific" terminology. Like if you had never been on Rotten Tomatoes before and went to read a Wikipedia article that said a film is "certified fresh" you would have no idea what it meant or what it was in reference to. So Wiki should just stay "basic" ya know? TropicAces (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Xxx2poster.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Xxx2poster.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 00:50, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sakuura Cartelet when I went to the poster's page it said there was a smaller version of the poster already on the Wiki archives, so I replaced it with that. I get *what* needs to be done about my uploaded xXx poster, however not sure how to do it. Movie posters are free use and promotional material, so I assumed basic info would suffice (I literally copied and pasted the required info from a different film page's poster description). If the current poster replacement will do the job then I see no reason to fix mine; but if that too is at risk for being removed I would appreciate your help telling me what/where needs to be changed up. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 01:38, 21 January 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

From what I saw the rationalle itself looked okay. The possible issue that I saw was that the image itself could probably be reduced in resolution so as to be better in line with the policy on fair use. As for the template, I probably should've used a custom (non-templated) message to get my point across, however the one I used seemed to be the best fit for what the (perceived) problem was. Sakuura Cartelet ^Talk 02:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Pro Bowl

Hi TropicAces, thanks for your edits. I just wanted to let you know that only players who accept their invitation are officially considered Pro Bowlers. Thanks WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiOriginal-9 ah, gotcha. But by that logic, shouldn't every one of Tom Brady's be removed? He's never accepted an invite... TropicAces (talk) 18:36, 24 January 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

The difference there is that Brady was selected on the original ballot. The replacement players who decline invites don't count. Thanks WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

WikiOriginal-9 cheers.

Critical acclaim

What constitutes a "critically-acclaimed" film? Bluesphere 05:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blue the way it's been described to me on here is a film should rarely be described as "receiving acclaim" unless it is a genuine, well-accepted fact (Moonlight) and/or the film has cultural impact and has stood the test of time (Godfather). Films like Arrival or The Nice Guys may receive almost nothing but positive reviews from critics, but that's different from the film being lauded. "Critical acclaim" is also such an subjective term it should be used sparingly, and not thrown around just because a film gets a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes. Hope this clears some things up. Was there a film you were specifically putting into question? TropicAces (talk) 05:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)TropicAces

Yep, I was updating the critical reception section of John Wick: Chapter 2 and I had read that the film garnered "critical acclaim". I'm not surprised someone would write that since the reviews have been mostly positive, thus generating 95% aggregate rating in Rotten Tomatoes. Bluesphere 05:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Blue yeah, that's an example of a film I would (personally) constitute as positive, not acclaim (no one is claiming this is high art like Social Network or Chinatown despite having similar RT scores haha). I personally like including "summarizing lead-in" lines to start the Reception tabs, but there are some "higher up" editors who don't, and they require a 3rd party source at the very least (a review roundup from Variety, for example). Check out the thread right above this one on my Talk page to get a feel what I mean. Hope all this helped and you have a good rest of your week, bro. TropicAces (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Please add the reviews of Maleficent: Mistress of Evil in its article please please Meenama hussain (talk) 12:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Summary statements

I know you're a veteran editor and make a ton of helpful contributions, so I wanted to let you know that I wasn't trying to step on your toes with this revert. I have argued for and against summary statements in the past. I believe most of the time, they are unnecessary. However, when a blockbuster film is universally panned by the press, it makes it very hard to deny its inclusion. In past discussions at both WP:FILM and on article talk pages, there has always seemed to be a split consensus on whether or not we should allow them.

The discussion I've linked to several times in the past is this one: Talk:Mad Max: Fury Road/Archive 3. There are a lot of good viewpoints in this one, and in the end, we decided that a properly-sourced summary statement was permitted. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but the last discussion I saw at WP:FILM was to decide it on a case-by-case basis at the article's talk page. So in this situation, it was taken up by several editors shortly after the film's release: Talk:Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice/Archive 3#Constant Revision of Critics' Response section. --GoneIn60 (talk) 14:45, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

GoneIn60 I did make an edit to the BvS page yesterday, but that one actually wasn't it. I think earlier in the day I had gotten rid of the "received mostly negative reviews" line and just left the "received praise for its action and acting but criticism for its script and narrative blah blah" line. I get what you're saying though, and do think on things like that a sourced response is necessary. Hope you have a good rest of your day, cheers. TropicAces (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Just so there's no confusion, the revert I linked to above undid several edits, including this one from you: Critical response edit. I apologize if that wasn't clear before. Thanks! --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:25, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

GoneIn60 [puts on reading glasses and squints at screen] ...yup, ok, that one looks familiar... TropicAces (talk) 15:51, 26 March 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Discussion at Talk:Power Rangers (film)#Plot edit war

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Power Rangers (film)#Plot edit war. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:35, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

The Zookeeper's Wife

Please don't advance the use of aggregator sites that are notoriously inaccurate and do not represent authoritative reviews. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

FWiW Bzuk I'm fairly certain that RT and Metacritic aren't "notoriously inaccurate" and do implement top critics into their scores. That didn't even make sense... TropicAces (talk) 03:01, 3 April 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

You do know that both sites are not moderated? At the very least, IMDb and Turner Classic Movies employ independent reviewers that serve as moderators. Aggregator sites have a long-standing problem with fanboys and a lack of reputable critical reviews. There was a "push" decades ago to eliminate their use entirely as wiki sources. I can see their inclusion as secondary to other more authoritative reference sources, for example, "dedicated" film reviewers such as those employed at Variety and The New York Times; that's the reason that they are still left in place in the above-named article. Full disclosure: I am one of those MSM types who writes film reviews for publication in local and national media. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:04, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Please do not blank citations and make unsourced changes, as you did in this edit. I don't understand why I have to keep leaving these warnings for you. Are you trying to get yourself blocked? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate I didn't know release dates needed to be sourced, and the production companies are purely American/German so logic dicated to me it wasn't a French/British film...obviously not trying to needlessly vandalize pages. TropicAces (talk) 23:08, 4 April 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Move request

A request to change the title and content of a comics article has begun at Talk:X-Men (film series)#Requested move 7 April 2017. Any interested WikiProject:Comics editor may comment there within one week. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:01, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

And here, Black Kite Tenebrae is tainting and invalidating his own RfC movement by Wp:CANVASSing to users who are not A)Doing so in a central location (i.e. the RfC list, though it is there) B)Notifying editors that are not mentioned in nor involved in the discussion prior to his notices, and C)By Spamming.--DisneyMetalhead (talk) 02:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Caution about edit warring at Fifty Shades Darker (film)

• Fifty Shades Darker (film) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

An admin responded to your complaint at WP:RFPP and advised you to use the talk page. Please consider doing that before reverting the article again. In your report at RFPP, you seem to have incorrectly charged your opponent with vandalism. It just looks to me like a disagreement as to which numbers to use in the article; i.e. it's a content dispute. Neither side has done much to explain their preference. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 14:51, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston haha I didn't think I really needed to make a case, I'm going off the figures presented in the attributed source, the other user isn't. Guess I'll just make note of that if it happens again. Thanks. TropicAces (talk) 15:17, 8 April 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

The difference between 378.8 and 380 could be a difference of opinion on whether to round off the number. And you have never tried to contact the other party (on any talk page) to discuss the situation. He may be unaware that you filed at RFPP because you didn't notify him of that either. EdJohnston (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston the guy doesn't have a talk page or even leave trolling edit descriptions, literally nothing about this situation is standard haha... TropicAces (talk) 15:33, 8 April 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

I just left a notice at User talk:Biskovski7 so his talk page definitely exists. This is a rather typical edit war between registered accounts, even though you have much more experience. EdJohnston (talk) 15:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston I mostly do edits off my phone, and when I go to his edits on the Fifty Shades page his name is red, which kicks you to the "this page does not exist, create one!" indicator. I left a message on the film's talk page. I don't think any of us are going to lose sleep over the box office gross on a Fifty Shades sequel, though... TropicAces (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

EdJohnston he changed it back to $380 and didn't leave an edit summary/address the talk page. Seeing as this is one of the few edits he actually makes I think it's safe to say he's trolling and I don't want to get into a full-blown edit war, is there no way to block him from vandalizing that page? TropicAces (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

OK, I am prepared to block whichever one of you reverts the 378.8 number again. EdJohnston (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

EdJohnston haha I'm not about to get blocked for a Fifty Shades page, guess I'll live with whatever it says TropicAces (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Lead-in for the critical reception sections

TropicAces, regarding this, lead-ins are allowed as long as they are supported by WP:Reliable sources. WP:Film has been divided on lead-ins, but there is consensus there that if we include a lead-in, it should be reliably sourced. The review aggregators don't always agree with each other. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:01, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Above, in the #Summary statements section, I see that GoneIn60 also addressed you about this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn regarding the above section, if the film is massive or controversial, or goes against the basic Metacritic indication, that's when a lead-in should be used. Beauty and the Beast has 71% and 66, which are complimentary of each other. Also, the sources should be critical roundups and articles about consensuses, not two individual reviews; every film ever produced has at least two positive reviews about it. That's the main reason I was reverting it. TropicAces (talk) 11:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

We can use lead-ins for any case. They are not prohibited; that's my point. We don't simply use lead-ins for cases where the film was panned. We use them for films that were generally well-received or critically acclaimed as well. But I agree with you that the source(s) should not simply be two individual reviews; the source(s) should be commenting on what critics generally thought. I didn't revert you on the addition; this is because I didn't feel like taking the time to check and because one of the sources was from the Daily Mirror, which is sometimes removed from articles as a poor source. But, as you likely saw, I did revert you on the hidden note, per WP:Hidden note and because lead-ins are not prohibited. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 11:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I've always been a fan and supporter of lead-in summaries, but on numerous occasions was reverted and warned by Admins, so adapted the "can't beat em, join em" mentality. I won't lose sleep either way on this. TropicAces (talk) 13:11, 2 May 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Maybe your additions at those times were unsourced or poorly sourced? Either way, I don't think it was admins who were reverting you, not usually anyway. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

"Space typo"

LOL!! --Tenebrae (talk) 13:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

INRConvert

Hi there, re: this, per consensus established here, we don't use INRConvert templates in Indian film infoboxes anymore. That's been the norm since at least November 2016, and there were previous discussions like here circa June 2016. The chief issues are:

1. There's no need to arbitrarily convert to US dollars. That promotes pro-US bias, and there are 1.3 billion people living in India, so it's a major currency.
2. INRConvert in its default state creates problems with inflation. For instance here, in an article about a 2008 film, we're converting a 2008 value of ₹234 million (23.4 crore) to 2017 US dollars, which does not tell us anything useful.
3. Even if we use the inflation option built into INRConvert (which most casual editors don't know about) we still wind up with far too much information in the gross parameter. Ex: {{INRConvert|234|m|year=2008}} yields ₹234 million (equivalent to ₹650 million or US$7.8 million in 2023). This clutters up the gross parameter, and again, why are we arbitrarily converting to US dollars? I should also mention that there have been numerous discussions among Indian film editors expressing dislike for the inclusion of US figures in general, and also for the exclusion of INRConvert even in articles like List of highest-grossing Indian films.

Naturally if you disagree with any of this, you're free to open a discussion at WT:ICTF to seek a new consensus. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:30, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on MonsterVerse talk page

Hey there, I've noticed your contributions on the MonsterVerse article. Anyways, I've brought up an issue that should be addressed on the MonsterVerse talk page regarding the lack of concrete confirmation whether Ken Watanabe has indeed signed on for King of The Monsters or not. I've invited others to discuss this and your two cents would be greatly appreciated before this issue potentially turns into an edit war. Best regards! Armegon (talk) 01:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Armegon I'm afraid you have my edit confused someone else's, I never touched the MonsterVerse's page, much less anything regarding Watanabe. Hope you find your man. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 04:13, 20 May 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Fairly plain at this point about the production companies

For Alien: Covenant it is becoming fairly plainly evident that Scott Free Productions is listed in the credits of the film as a British company participating in the Production, and further supported by both Variety magazine [2] and Deadline magazine [3] as reliable sources. My plan is to bring this into the Lead section in the next day or two since it has been placed on the Talk page there, and in the Finance section of the Production details of the film. The Lead section should preferably now be read as referring to an Anglo-American film or British-American film at this time. Why are we reverting? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity two things. (1) if a film is produced by multiple countries, then no countries get listed in the opening. (2) just because one of the production teams behind a film are of a conflicting nationality doesn't always mean the film is a multi-country film. For example, Scott's The Martian was produced by him but is purely American. Hope this clears things up. TropicAces (talk) 19:41, 22 May 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

If you're agreeing that it is multi-national then it would be preferable to id it that way in the Lead section, with the other countries added as well. The closer examples are the films for Prometheus and for AVP, and not The Martian. Both of those, Prometheus and AVP, decided not to list the Producer in the Lead sentence. The Infobox and the Lead section in the Covenant article are currently out of sync and if either option above works for you then it could fix the out of sync issue. What would your list of the multi-nation Production look like (the peer review article for AVP does this fairly well)? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 19:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity I'm not agreeing, BFI and AllMovie have Covenant as just USA, *but* since multi-country listings don't go in the opening lines (otherwise it becomes too crowded), you can slip it in before a casual sentence. Like The Great Wall says, "The Chinese-American co-production stars Matt Damon..." If you can source Alien being U.K. beyond just Scott being a producer, I'm all for working it in, but from what I see it's purely US. TropicAces (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks for adding those links just now into the article. You might want to look at 2017 in film to see a four country attribution being maintained at Wikipedia for this film. This four country version is the description which matches the current Production section within the article for Alien: Covenant the best. But what about just dropping the "American" adjective? With four countries involved in different ways in different places in the production of the film, what does "American" add that's notable? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 21:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity I don't want it to seem like I'm anti-films being non-American or trying to shut you down and prove you wrong. lol, but. Both sources on the 2017 in Film page were out of date, and one didn't even list countries of production. Also, just because a film is filmed in a country doesn't automatically make it via that country. There's a lot of technicalities that go into this, and it's actually well explained on the Covenant talk page from a few months prior. TropicAces (talk) 22:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Your edit toady listed only Britain and USA in the article while Sight and Sound, your reference, lists four countries involved here: [4]. Should all four be listed in the infobox? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity no, I think those other two were merely finding, not genuine production. UK and US should suffice. TropicAces (talk) 17:17, 8 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

That seems to mean that you are comfortable going with the two country version, and not follow verbatim the 4 country version in the Sight and Sound citation? ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

ManKnowsInfinity well the two credited production companies, Scott Free and Brandywine, are British and American. It's possible Australia helped fund the film, or the Sights and Sound is citing them because filming took place there. But much like Baywatch or Kong: Skull Island, filming in a location or strictly receiving funds doesn't necessarily give it the right to be listed as a country of production. TropicAces (talk) 18:19, 8 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Regarding your edit to the Wonder Woman page

I appreciate your willingness to edit, however, I have noticed a large amount of errors in the plot summary. The outlying issue are the links to other Wikipedia pages. You simply inserted a link on the word "Ludendorff" to the page "Ludendorff" on Wikipedia. However, this is a disambiguation page. The proper thing to do would be to redirect it to the page "Erich Ludendorff." Similar things happen across your edit. You put a link on the name "Ares," however, this directs users to the Greek god Ares, not Ares from DC Comics. Also, you put a link on the word "sword," which directs to the page "God killer." This, however, is a redirect page that redirects a user to the page "Deicide." There is no Wikipedia page for the Godkiller sword that Wonder Woman uses. You also put links on "shield" and "armor," however they all redirect to pages that do not exist. "Sameer" and "Charlie" redirect to pages that detail the names themselves, not the characters. Overall, this is horribly edited. I'm telling you this to request that you fix the edits immediately. I do not have the authority to do so, so please fix this. --Kevingar117 (talk) 22:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Kevingar117 you must be confusing my edit with someone else's, as I haven't seen the movie/edited the plot summary. I'll look at dead and misleading links, but can't edit as far as correcting plot points. TropicAces (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Twinkle

Hey. Since I encounter your work regularly in the Film project and you seem to come across Joseph's sock more often than I do, I would recommend adding the Twinkle gadget to your editing. I personally enjoy many of the features it offers as a whole, and as I stated, it gives you a super easy way to tag a user as a sock (in this or any case). The instructions for adding it are in the green box on WP:TWINKLE. If you do decide to add it, I can let you know specifically about the SPI tagging. I would also recommend reading its documentation WP:TW/DOC before fully taking it out for a ride so you understand all of its features and how and when it should be used (especially in terms of the additional "rollback" buttons that get added). They also have testing spaces so you can experiment with the features outside of the mainspace setting. Let me know. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:47, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: sounds good, man, I'll give it a look next time I'm on my desktop. And question for ya, is there no way to block this guy's IP from creating an account or something? Just because obviously he's getting blocked and creating new accounts on a weekly basis, seems fruitless on the Admins part to keep needing to track him (or any) sock down, if you know what I mean... just curious. TropicAces (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

@Favre1fan93: also, I installed the Twinkle gadget, which of these options do I click to report a sock puppet? Thanks again and have a good weekend. TropicAces (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

I've inquired about it, and it appears to be a "hopping IP" (ie moving to a new one each time), so we unfortunately can't do a range block. Yeah, so here's what you would do. You would go to the user page of the sock (we'll use the recent as an example, so User:OntheNatureofDaylight). If Twinkle installed correctly, you'll now have a "TW" drop down menu next to your search bar. If so, scroll over it and select the first option "ARV". This opens a pop up window. In the first drop down option, select "Sockpuppet (WP:SPI)" because there is already a "master" user SPI file, so all the ones we'll be finding are "puppets" of the "puppeteer". For the next field, Sockpuppeteer, you'll put in "Joseph Fanai" as that is the master account (here is the SPI page). For Evidence, with this user specifically, if you are absolutely certain you feel it is them, you can simply put "{{duck}}". The field will auto-sign for you. You also do not need to check the final two boxes, at least with this user. The first, because we don't need the additional evidence to support our claim, and the second, because we do not want to notify them (as you've been cautious of as well). Finally, hit "Submit query" and you're good to go. Let me know if you have any questions about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: alright, looks good. And oh goodie, I already got to try it out because he's back. But I'll give him credit, his edit summary (to one of his old edits, nonetheless) was as sly as anything: "totally support the other guys’ view. this is a more polished and updated and more informative article". His newest name (I think) is DennisHrangchal. This should be a fun summer haha...cheers. TropicAces (talk) 19:36, 9 June 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Looks like it worked out correctly for you. Yeah following along week to week with 2017 in film should be interesting to find the next target articles. Cars 3 is most likely next where they'll try to contribute. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

The Mummy movie runtime

Hello. I was discussing the movie runtime at the talk page of Template talk:Infobox film. But I think you won't side with me since you already removed my Chinese runtime reference with your American imperialism.Supermann (talk) 05:03, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Fantastic Beasts Box Office trim

Hi. I was wondering if you could help me determine which bits of the box office section of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them. It was suggested that the section needs a trimming as its a bit excessively detailed. Rusted AutoParts 18:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@Rusted AutoParts: I took a swing at it, let me know what you think...don't think I took out anything too vital, mostly buzzwords or very specific stats, but feel free to revert if desired. TropicAces (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Would you please put the plot summary of the Tupac movie all eyez on me on there please

No one has written the plot summary for this movie All Eyez on Me (film) and the sypnosis is not enough people got to know the whole story of this movie. I don't know why the page is protected to prevent disruptive editing.73.115.89.32 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Transformers budget

Please stop deleting the budget range, which includes multiple citations to current sources listing the budget at $260 million. I understand one article claims the studio said the cost was $217 million, but studios like to bend truth, if not lie. If accurate, we also don't know if its the gross cost or net. Many articles have links to the actual final budgets, yet ranges are still listed. I started section on talk page, so take this issue there before deleting valid edits backed up by multiple reliable sources. Foodles42 (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

RT and Metacritic

Why wouldn't RT and Metacritic be sufficient for the summary that you deleted in Cars 3? It lists all of the details I refered to, not to mention that Metacritic is a CONSENSUS of all reviews averaged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummerrocket (talk • contribs) 16:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Hummerrocket well first off, the Metacritic consensus states reviews were "mixed or average" for the film, so it debunks your "critical success" claim. Second, it's been explained to me that sources giving a consensus and roundup about a film must be a third party, as RT and Metacritic have their own scoring systems and a film like Sing can have a 73% despite receiving generally mixed reviews. If your heart is set on saying Cars 3 was well received, find a site with a review roundup (like Variety or LA Times) claiming so much. Hope this helps. TropicAces (talk) 19:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Thank you for your explanation. The only thing is that I understood that the reviews weren't entirely positive, which is why I wrote "generally positive reviews," not "critical success." Would that be synonymous with the mixed or average reviews that Metacritic claims, or is it not quite similar, since the reviews themselves had a positive outlook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hummerrocket (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Hummerrocket oh maybe someone else did the edit and wrote "critical success" and I just assumed it was you. If you were to find and cite a review roundup that said reviews were generally positive (*cough* http://ew.com/movies/2017/06/12/cars-3-reviews-pixar/), and say something like, I don't know, "Cars 3 received generally positive reviews, with most critics noting it as an improvement over its predecessor" then I'm sure that would be more than sufficient. Sometimes, like with Jurassic World or The Shallows a film will get a high 50's on Meta but still have an overall positive reaction from critics, which is often where the 3rd party sources are needed. Let me know if you need anything else, cheers. TropicAces (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2017 (UTC)TropicAces

The Divergent Series: Allegiant

Hi!

I see at bottom of page </noinclude>, but I can't find where problem is. Can you help me? --Nickispeaki (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

This bug can be in any template. But in which template?--Nickispeaki (talk) 17:27, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Nickispeaki I gave the page a quick glance and I too can't seem to find out where the issue lies. Maybe it was made in a recent edit that would be easy to stand out? TropicAces (talk) 17:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Ok. It's about 40 templates. ;-) --Nickispeaki (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

We fixed it! ^-^ --Nickispeaki (talk) 20:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Valerian

Hello, It would be great if you could stop writing false information on this page. Thank you very much.

Herve.toullec (talk) 21:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Herve.toullec well I have multiple citations from official sources to bank up my edits, so... TropicAces (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Hello, You're picking up some US-centered "sources" containing mistakes and saying what you want them to say, whereas all the other say the contrary. I was involved in the creation of this page more than one year ago. The informations have remained correct during all that period and you come putting wrong informations. It seems you don't even ask yourself if you're doing well. Can you tell me what American production company was involved in this film ??? Everybody knows it is a 100% French film... And the only reason why we indicated the release date in the US was because we thought it would be the first country for the film to open. You can't find more reliable source than the CNC (Centre national de la cinématographie).

Herve.toullec (talk) 09:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Herve.toullec just because there's not a US production company doesn't directly mean that the US is not involved (Besson did crowd sourcing for funds). Also just because prominent publications like Variety, AllMovie and Hollywood Reporter all are US-based doesn't mean they have an agenda to take away the French peoples' right to a blockbuster. If you can find multiple sources to indicate that this is a purely French film, great, we'll be in business, but until then listing one French page to try and counter a half dozen other established sources seems counter-intuitive. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 10:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

What we indicate on ALL wiki pages about films is the "nationality" of the film, that is to say the country where the production company's social siege is located. Like any production company, EuropaCorp raises funds everywhere, as it is their job. I don't think some "have an agenda to take away the French peoples' right to a blockbuster". YOU removed established sources. You say "one french page" : this is the CNC/Unifrance, the most offical source you can expect. You obviously don't want to take into account what I say. If you did not have bad intentions, you would just google "valerian french film" or something like that and you would get all the reliable sources you want, but you don't want to make useful edits. Herve.toullec (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.

I reported Herve.toullec, but your name was mentioned in messing. For the sake of completeness, I'm also alerting you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate alright man, thanks for the heads up. Yeah, I didn't want to get into an edit war but sometimes you just get caught up on them. Let me know if you guys need anything from me, I'm not risking getting blocked over Valerian... TropicAces (talk) 16:38, 19 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Metacritic and Allocine

Hello,

Considering this: is it a policy in en.Wikipedia to mention the nationality for non-American websites, while not mentioning it for American websites? I thought that was contrary to Wikipedia:NPOVFAQ#Anglo-American_focus (Metacritic is bigger than Allociné, but both ignore more than 90% of the world), but I may be wrong. Seudo (talk) 06:18, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Seudo this is far from my area of expertise, but I think since (1) America is biggest media market in the world, (2) most people know what Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are, but not AlloCine, and (3) English Wikipedia usually is for Britian and American readers (where most mainstream critics who appear on Metacritic reside) that's why clarification isn't needed. If that's what you were asking. TropicAces (talk) 10:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)tropicAcES

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Silence (2016 film) in which you've been a major contributor, and has been nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Farang Rak Tham (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
· · ·

On Multiple Citations

Hi, I've noticed that while you were editing The Emoji Movie on two seperate occasions you chose to delete some of my citation tags. The problem is that in most of these cases I cited them after a different thoought. These tags are not randomly placed, they are so readers note that we got this piece of info from this article and also that piece of info from this article. The problem with just putting one tag after the entire paragraph is that it can be confusing for readers wanting to learn more later. This is especially important to wikipedia due to the collaborative nature. I want to ensure them that, yes these are actually verified facts and you can find them at the link. Please, in the future refrain from removing them. --Deathawk (talk) 05:20, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Deathawk Sorry, wasn't done vindictively. I've just seen some pages where people put same source after every sentence in a paragraph and to me it looks sloppy. I get what you're saying though. Have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 11:08, 8 August 2017 (UTC)tropicaces

Notable cinematographer worth a red link

You twice deleted a red link to the cinematographer Sean Porter but "doubts" are not enough as a reason. I gave a few hints for simply checking. He was the director of photography in some award winning films, e.g. Eden (2012 film), It Felt Like Love, Kumiko, Green Room (list not complete), was nominated for "Best Cinematography" at the 30th Independent Spirit Awards and won the "Golden Strands" for "Outstanding Cinematography" in 2015. Further on in 2014 he was listed as one of "25 New Faces of Indie Film" in Filmmaker Magazine[5], had interviews in several known media, e.g. Variety.com and so on. This is substantial enough. -- MovieFex (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor requesting your help - Erik, on article Dunkirk (2017 film)

Hey there. I just wanted to let you know that this user needs some help, and thought that they had Pinged you about it. They're in a bit of entrenched Edit Dispute with another Wikipedian over the film's status as being an international co-production and what sources being used are reliable. Thing is, he's decided to report the user he's in a dispute with for committing a 3RR breach, and an Admin just recently put a 12-hour temporary protection on the article. Could you take a look into the matter and help these two users out? I'll get into contact with another they tried to Ping, so they can help as well. :-) GUtt01 (talk) 19:16, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

GUtt01 hey man, so I gave the thread a look (yikes) and did my best to give my thoughts. Not even sure if I supported your side or not, so sorry if I only made your case worse haha... cheers! TropicAces (talk) 22:03, 8 August 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Your submission at Articles for creation: All Saints (film) has been accepted

All Saints (film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 08:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Box office

On Dunkirk (2017 film), it has admittedly gotten to the point where I expect only you to update the box office section. Are you planning to continue? There hasn't been an update in a while, which makes me wonder when I see this. Cognissonance (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Cognissonance haha awww, I'm flattered. I typically do figure updates, first and second weeks of US box office and foreign news if I see it on Deadline or something. That being said I can make an edit for this weekend if you like, I just view it that once you get past the 4th week of release or so it starts to become filler and random numbers, you know? TropicAces (talk)tropicaces

That's a good point. I am trying to find WP:GA film articles with the same budget to see where they stop updating it. Expendables 2 ends at the third weekend, but both paragraphs seem more fleshed out. American Gangster is also more fleshed out, but this time with its foreign box office, as far I can see ending with the sixth week. Django Unchained's coverage looks very slim. I guess as long as we update it with care, it's not going to matter much in the GA review. Cognissonance (talk) 18:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Cognissonance my typical rule of thumb (for my edits, which I would say are 75% of Box office sections for mainstream films) is to do opening weekend and second, then as long as it stays in top 4 spots and/or sets records. Like I did an edit for Baby Driver today because it got a re-release, despite coming out two months ago. Dunkirk finished 6th(?) in the US this week so to me that isn't newsworthy. I'll keep adding and updating as I see fit/interesting though! TropicAces (talk) 18:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)tropicaces

Reggie Ragland

Noticed you removed Reggie Ragland's number. I understand why because normally IP addresses like to add random numbers. I added that. B.J. Kissel who is the Chiefs inside reporter on their website tweeted shortly after the trade that 90 would be his number. Here's the tweet [6].--Rockchalk717 21:49, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Leatherface

Hello, TropicAces. I maintained the majority of your changes to Leatherface (2017 film). The only ones that I reverted were you listing the premiere a second time in the Release section (which I assume was an accident), and I re-added the critics you removed. Although they are not all listed on Rotten Tomatoes (which often takes time to add reviews, BTW), they are all reliable, as I was very selective in this regard. If you think they aren't properly listed in order of importance, you are free to re-arrange some of them. Your change in section heading, breaking it into multiple paragraphs, ETC, was maintained, though. Cheers. DarkKnight2149 00:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 hello. Yeah, removing the reviewers was nothing "personal", but a lot of the time when users add critics/reviews where both do not have Wikipedia pages tolink to, it is a small/personal blog. If you're vouching for them though, that's good enough for me. Have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 01:07, 5 September 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Yeah, I can understand that. The original note was meant to keep that from happening. I'll continue to watch for this, in case anyone adds stuff like that. Cheers. DarkKnight2149 01:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Darkknight2149 I figured someone(s) just ignored the note and added random reviews regardless so I was like "well, at this point this seems like a waste of characters" haha... TropicAces (talk) 01:38, 5 September 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

BvS

Hey, just wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your edits. While it is great that you added another viewpoint to the home media section with a proper citation, I don't feel it's needed in the lead. The most significant part of the film's reception came from its box office theatrical version, and while we are able to find some sources that re-reviewed the film's extended version, we don't have a Rotten Tomatoes or Metacritic to tell us for sure how it was received overall. If you disagree and would still like it to be mentioned in the lead, I'd be willing to discuss further on the BvS talk page. Thanks, and hopefully I didn't step on any nerves in the process. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: no nerves stepped on here. I personally think it’s worth noting but can see why it’s a little too detailed for the lead. Bigger fish to fry on here haha... cheers! TropicAces (talk) 12:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TropicAces. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Spoilers

Have you seen WP:SPOILERS? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

I can see above that you have been told about this before and I'm not sure why you think that deleting spoilers is somehow valid or that it trumps WP:LEAD, which is a fundamental part of our Manual of Style that applies to every article on Wikipedia. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:22, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

The Greatest Showman

Hello. All of the critical reviews that has been added on this page are from reliable sources. They're featured on Rotten Tomatoes & Metacritic. Please look up before undoing the edits. Thanks. CerberaOdollam (talk) 14:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

CerberaOdollam hey. They’re not on Metacritic (I double checked to be sure I wasn’t stepping on toes), and any blog can be on RT if they’ve been aroung long enough. Based on your edits it’s clear you’re (for one reason or another) tied to this film, so feel need to add glowing reviews. Don’t mean to sound vindictive, but feel some of these sources aren’t worth mentioning. TropicAces (talk) 14:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

They are on Rotten Tomatoes. Check out TropicAces

CerberaOdollam (talk) 15:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

CerberaOdollam but again, just because you’re on Rotten Tomatoes doesn’t make you reliable; anyone with a WordPress can get on there. If the critic or outlet doesnt have a Wikipedia article, its fair to assume they’re not a promenant source. TropicAces (talk) 16:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

If Rotten Tomatoes' reviews are not reliable then how is that you mention to website's average rating & critical consensus??

And no, I am not 'tied to this film'. These are the IPs that constantly attempt to damage the article which is quite obvious from the page history. One of them has searched to find the most harshly aggressively negative review and added to the section It's OK since we also refer to the positive reviews in order to balance it up with neutral point of view. CerberaOdollam (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

CerberaOdollam how is adding a harshly negative review (only the third on the page) any different from you adding numerous glowing ones? Right now the balance is about 7-2, which doesn’t seem neutral for a film with mixed reviews. TropicAces (talk) 11:32, 21 December 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

numerous glowing ones?? numerous? glowing? CerberaOdollam (talk) 11:35, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Hello TropicAces: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 17:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Pending changes reviewer

I don't really like getting stuck reviewing pending changes for lots of film articles, and you're probably more active on those articles than I am, anyway. If you're willing, I could grant you the pending changes reviewer user right. Take a look at the policy pages and let me know if you're interested. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate yeah that would be cool, thanks! Seems straight-forward enough, let me know what I need to. Thanks and have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2017 (UTC)tropicAces

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

That's a standard, templated explanation, but the process mostly consists of clicking on either "accept" or "revert" when an article has changes pending (you should see it at the top of the article, in the article history, or at Special:PendingChanges). You primarily have to watch out for copyright violations (in film articles, it's mostly copy-pasted plot summaries) and vandalism, but if you see other problems, you can exercise your own discretion about how to handle them. Just keep doing what you've been doing. Remember that sometimes you'll see a queue of several edits. Sometimes it's better to review them individually instead of all at once – that way, you won't accidentally revert a useful edit that was made between two vandal edits. Let me know if you have any issues or problems. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:04, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 31

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited X-Men: Apocalypse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)

International co-productions

Please can you point me to the guideline about not listing multiple countries in the lead? Thanks. — Film Fan 18:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: sure thing, it’s described in detail here —> WP:FILMLEAD Have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 18:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

It doesn't say not to have it in the lead - it just says not the first section of the lead, so rather than removing the info, it should be moved to a second paragraph. Cheers. — Film Fan 14:05, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Film Fan: right. I’ve written lines like “A British-American co-production....” on films like Baby Driver and Dunkirk in sentences that follow (which have since been re-worded), it just shouldn’t be in the very first line alongside the year. TropicAces (talk) 14:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Orphaned non-free image File:DeathCurePoster.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DeathCurePoster.jpeg. 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) 18:19, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Countries in film infobox

With regards to this edit, we don't determine the nationality of a film by looking at any details ourselves, such as what nationality the production companies are. This is original research. Instead, we go by what reliable sources say, and, in this case, one of the most reliable of the sources we have for this information, the European Audiovisual Observatory, says it's an international co-production. The reason why a lot of these infoboxes have sources in them is because people have been using their own original research to make sweeping changes to the production companies, countries, etc. Then someone else comes around and says, "No, according to my opinion, it's something different." This repeats until someone looks it up and adds a source. I hope you can see how removing the source and going back to, "No, I think it's this." is not constructive. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Winchester

(1) You're now edit warring. (2) I asked in the edit summary for you to go to the talk page of the article - did you? (No, you did not - you reverted instead). (3) If you want to argue WP:UNDUE, why are there three negative reviews in the critical reception section with great detail and only a snippet of a fairly good review with many other positive things to say as a result of your edits? You've got some 'splainin' to do, Lucy. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:56, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I've started a discussion at the article talk page. If a resolution is not possible via discussion, I will start an RfC. Your choice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:32, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Love, Simon, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Degrassi (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

A Wrinkle in Time (2018 film) screenplay writing credits

Greetings! I see that our article for A Wrinkle in Time (2018 film) only has one screenplay writer listed. Can you point out, at the article's talk page, the reliable sources that show she is the sole writer for the project? Since real estate on a poster is limited, there should really be something else more definitive and ideally in prose. —C.Fred (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

C.Fred hey, I started a bit on the Talk Page, hopefully it clears the air. Have a good one! TropicAces (talk) 19:10, 9 March 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Malcolm X

I noticed your recent revert at this article, and restored the hidden statement explaining the simplified lede which has been discussed, extensively, at Talk:Malcolm X#Opening sentence of article. — Neonorange (talk) 23:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Neonorange I went to the Talk Page and only two topics on there were requests for protection TropicAces (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

TropicAces, the discussion is archived at Talk:Malcolm X/Archive 10#Opening sentence of article. — Neonorange (talk) 16:49, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey there.

Hello tropicaces, you are a very experienced editor so i have a question for you. Does you are alotted the page of ready player one by wikipedia. Means i just want to know what happens when someone becomes extended confirmed user or pending changes reviewers. Hope you will answer me. DCEU (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

DCEU yeah so as I understand it, you become an ”extended confirmed user” when you have both (a) 500 career edits and (b) have been registered for a month. Pending Changes Reviewer is a different title, given by an Administrator and isn’t something every user gets. Hope this helps! Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 21:31, 5 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanking

Very very thanks, yes your answers help a lot.DCEU (talk) 11:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Star wars new budget figures

The UK treasury have released the latest (exact) Star Wars costs if you are still working on budget info: https://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2018/01/04/star-wars-the-billion-dollar-blockbuster-for-britain/#728af21a99ce. It looks like The Force Awakens has set a new record for most expensive film. I am covering the Snooker world championship over the next couple of weeks so won't be doing much budget work until May, but if you want to update this stuff before then feel free. Betty Logan (talk) 04:43, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Betty Logan yeah cool, I’ll do a little research myself and figure out how these should be categorized in the infobox (range, net/gross, etc). Thanks! TropicAces (talk) 09:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Box office projection.

Hello there. Doesn't avengers infinity war opening to $235 million or something is also an estimate. There is no guarantee that it will open to that numbers and sometimes projection dramatically goes wrong. Like sometimes a film earns double the projection or largely underperforms. So that is also totally estimate. And now you deleted the box office projection of thursday night previews that avengers is projected to earn $45 million. It is projected by deadline and all estimates are projected by deadline or variety. So if it is an estimate then that is also estimate then delete both on wikipedia. So please kindly clarify why you deleted that information because there are billions of people reading wikipedia so adding any necessary information is important. If i have asked in bad way then please forgive me. So please don't think it as a misbehave or something. Thank youDCEU (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

DCEU no offense taken. The reason this estimate is different than a opening weekend projection is that Deadline (a site I love and check religiously) was guessing a figure based off a small amount of figures. It’s like how they make Friday estimates based of matinee sales, but we don’t list that as the Friday total until Saturday morning, ya know? Hope this helps clarify my thinking. TropicAces (talk) 14:49, 27 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks for your respectful reply. But what did you mean by small amount of figures had gone over my head. Big amount or less amount, this doesn't matter, i mean wikipedia has nothing to do what amount does a film earn. But if deadline predicted opening weekend or revised opening weekend one or two day before release then that is added on wikipedia, so thursday previews estimates before a day should also be added on wikipedia. And forbes also started saying that deadline predicted $45 million so i think it should be added. And you said that we don't put friday totals until Saturday morning, but that is thurday previews total which i am adding on friday morning. Hopes you understand my concern. With all respect, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCEU (talk • contribs) 16:32, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

DCEU right, so again, it’s a little different between long range tracking projections and mid-day estimates. I’ve since added the official Thursday figure, but when Deadline initially posted their article they were guessing what the Thursday preview number would be solely based off East Coast returns, which isn’t a solid enough figure to put into Wikipedia. TropicAces (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Okay TropicAces, i think you know better because you are very old and certified user on wikipedia and has a vast knowledge what to post or not. I remember you were the same person whom i asked what it takes to be an extended confirmed users and you replied it nicely. So can you answer me another question: many people are editing on avengers infinity war page, but you seemed to be the only person who has edited 30k to 40k and is a pending changes reviewers. Why is that so? Does you are alloted this page or something like that. Hope you answer me back. Thank you DCEU (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

DCEU yeah yeah man, no problem, I'm glad to help. Um, I’m not quite sure I know what you mean (Marvel film articles typically are “established editor” heavy since they stick pretty close to the vest on formatting) but there is a semi-protection lock on it, so the IPs and “low ranking” newer users can’t troll it. If I were you, I’d create a user page for myself so you look a bit more professional (like I have a quick dumb bio, my date of creation, sports teams and a movie quote) and that’ll add to your “brand” and honestly make people a little less inclined to disregard your edits. I could even set you up a template to work off based on your interests of if you like. Hope this helps(? haha)... TropicAces (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks TropicAces for your right suggestions, but what does 'set you a template to work on interest' means. I totally didn't understand it at all. Hope you elaborate that to me and thanks for the concern for me.DCEU (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

DCEU like on my page I have a movie quote, that I’m a Kings fan and like Batman. If you like a certain movie or team they have a bunch of User:UBX (user box) you can search to “decorate” your page with. TropicAces (talk) 21:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Hey there. You answer me always, that's so nice of you. Okay this time i understanded what you are trying to say, but where can i get a userbox. And one more thing, someone edited the whole format of avengers infinity war reception box office article. He totally edited it by his own personal style and its looks rubbish. In previous format there is very necessary information and its interesting to read, but now he tried to shortened the article. Is this necessary to shorten a aritcle on Wikipedia if many necessary information is deleted.DCEU (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

DCEU like I think I said earlier, the Marvel pages typically are monitored by Admins and written “by the book” and in basic format, which in my opinion does look and flow poorly. Not much you can do short of starting a convo on the talk page about changing it. And I’ll create your userbox and you can build off it how you see fit. You’ll be able to get to it by clicking on your name on an edit you make. TropicAces (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Hey very very very thanks for creating my page. But i am thinking to create it after i will become a extended confirmed user. But no problem. But how did you know that i like to edit film articles and i read dc comics. And how i can get more userbox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DCEU (talk • contribs) 14:54, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

DCEU You should get the extended user thing any day now since it’s been 30 days since creation (unless the rules changed) and I just took a guess based on your name/edit pattern. You can Google “User:UBX” then [a topic] (or search on here) for all sorts of things. TropicAces (talk) 15:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Okay, i got it where to get userbox. Thanks for all your help. Did you get a barnstar which i gave you. Means i tried to give you one but not sure did you get it or not.Thank youDCEU (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Avengers Budget

Not sure why you insist on ignoring consensus and insisting on cherry picking a budget when the rules are clear for a range. You love the net budget estimate from Deadline...guess what, it's just an estimate. The Russo Brothers were interviewed this week and the budget given was "more than $320 million". Should we list that??? No, multiple sources so we give a range. Foodles42 (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

And Variety, from 10 days ago, pegged the budget between $300-$400 million. Huffpo and the NYT also gave the range. Foodles42 (talk) 21:50, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

John Williams credit on Solo infobox

Hello, not looking to get into an edit war with you over this but I'm just trying to make sure we're getting across the actual contributions and authorship of the score clearly. The Powell/Williams situation is unique and seems hard to define.

My main reasoning on this is that for the Rogue One infobox, it was decided that only Michael Giacchino should be credited for the film's new music, while references to Williams's old material could be elaborated on in the Music section. The Solo infobox should be kept consistent with that and emphasize the film's new music.

I made a comment on the Solo talk page as well but basically I think the infobox should either distinguish between the new Solo theme and the classic themes, or simply credit the new theme while the old ones can be listed at length in the Music section. That way the infobox just makes it clear that Powell composed the new music except for one new theme not written by him. This is also how, for example, My Week with Marilyn's music credits are handled.

Otherwise I think leaving it at "Star Wars themes" or "Star Wars music" is too vague and doesn't separate the fact that Williams made an actual, direct contribution to the film.

Hope that makes sense to you. -- Dlh9690 (talk)

Dlh9690 I didn’t even see that in the billing block on the poster, you're entirely right. I assumed that much like Jurassic World (since changed) or other spin-offs/sequels we were just giving Williams his due for being the original composer, but he’s credited for both the Solo theme and the Star Wars music, and should be credited as such on the page. That’s my bad, thanks for the clarification. TropicAces (talk) 10:14, 10 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Nice! Looks good, glad we cleared it up. Cheers. -- Dlh9690 (talk) 16:18, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Help again!

Hey there mate. I have a problem so i thought maybe you will help me. In quiet place article page it is written 'That represents the sixth-best ever second weekend for a scary movie, behind Jurassic World, It, Jurassic Park, The Lost World: Jurassic Park, The Mummy Returns, and I Am Legend' and the reference is scott mendelson from forbes. And i know that writer always writes on his owns style. I don't have a grudge against him, infact i read many articles of him and enjoys it. But my concern is that is that information is right for wikipedia, means jurassic world and mummy returns are scary movie? There are written as action adventure film on wikipedia. Hope you understand my concern well.DCEU (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC) DCEU (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

DCEU I saw that a while back and thought it was odd too, but assumed someone would weed it out. I reworded it. TropicAces (talk) 19:20, 10 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks for your help. I think you and i have same business on wikipedia; film articles, specifically box office.Ha ha haDCEU (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

An important thing.

Hey mate. Look you edited one of my edits and that is a quiet place page and you put cinemascore audience poll on release section rather than reception section and especially critical section. I know you know a way better than me about wikipedia, but mate don't cinemascore audience poll should be on reception section like all other films pages and also box office on reception section like all other films articles. Don't take it to seriously but i am just asking so things should be placed on right place. Hope you are understanding me and not taking it too seriously. Thank youDCEU (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC) DCEU (talk) 21:25, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

DCEU normally yes, and that’s the way I prefer it, but it was decided a while back that for that page it would go in the Theatrical run section, for whatever reason. TropicAces (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

That's okay. But i don't understand what do you mean by it was decided a while back, means who decided it .Can you tell me please.DCEU (talk) 21:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Rampage box office break even.

Hey there. In rampage film page it is written that it has production budget of ($120 million + $140 million advertising which is equal to $260 million), and there is reference of deadline. I have read the whole deadline page and nowhere it is written that $400 million is a break even point. So on which basis it is written that $400 million is a break even point? Hope you understand what I am trying to say because many people are reading that information and it is not written in the reference page. I hope you reply soon. Thank youDCEU (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC) DCEU (talk) 19:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

DCEU just like with Ready Player One (film) or Justice League (film), the breakeven point is usually a bit higher than combined cost, because studios don’t get every penny from ticket sales. Just one of those things. TropicAces (talk) 20:19, 14 May 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

One more thing.

Ok mate, but who decides that it is $400 million, since it is not written on deadline reference page. Combined budget is $260 million, so breakeven point maybe $350 million, $370 million or more than $400 million, for example $450 million. I think you may understand what i am pointing is that how can it be written $400 million if it is not in reference page, no editor can judge what number it should be without a good cite or add anything which is not referenced. I don't know who written that but doesn't that should be deleted. Please try to understand my concern mate, that shouldn't be written on that page if it is not cited. Hope you understand me better and i think that i have written respectfully to you. Thank you.DCEU (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC) DCEU (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: RBG (film) has been accepted

RBG (film), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

joe decker^talk 15:43, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pope Francis - A Man of His Word has been accepted

Pope Francis - A Man of His Word, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 18:50, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Solo

In solo: a Star Wars story i put Rogue one because Rogue one is set before a new hope Matías2028 (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Solo is a pure canon character that appears in A New Hope, so reverted it that takes before a new hope ignoring the events of Rogue One. Carl Tristan Orense (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Interview request

Hi, I'm a journalist who's been working on a series about interesting stories on Wikipedia and Wikipedians. For example, I wrote about these two teenagers who edit articles for the NY subway and why St. Patrick's Wikipedia page is excellent. I'm working on a story about notable individuals who have passed away in 2018 and wondered if I could interview you about Anthony Bourdain's page. Could we by chance connect over email via stephenbharrison at gmail dot com .... Thank you! Stephenbharrison (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Sicario 2

Anon IPv6 user removed the article text explaining the budget range for no reason. The budget range was also removed from the infobox (didn't track down exactly which edit). I have restored both. I notice you restored that previously.

I hope you will revisit the article occasionally and revert any other idiot deletionists too lazy to even explain their deletes (which shows a serious lack of goodfaith). If you feel the article should be locked please try to get it semi-protected and not fully locked, flagged edits are a much better compromise. Thanks. -- 109.76.232.154 (talk) 14:24, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Nice. -- 109.76.232.154 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Metacritic's "normalized" scores

Hi TropicAces. Thanks for your contributions to film articles. I notice that you follow a pattern that goes back many years of describing Metacritic's scores as "normalized". I'd like to ask you to consider using weighted average instead. It's far more accurate. Please see the discussion at WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores. The word "normalized" was used years ago on Wikipedia to describe Metacritic's scores, and editors have duplicated the wording since then without actually understanding the meaning. Some of us have been trying to correct this over the years, and we've made some headway. Many articles now do not use the word "normalized". If you could use "weighted average" instead, it would save us the trouble of having to fix it. Thanks! 75.182.115.183 (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Ready Player One (film) -- Box office

Hi TropicAces. I saw you just removed a line I had written: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ready_Player_One_(film)&diff=854409969&oldid=854354345 . I agree with you that the line shouldn't be necessary... but another user recently changed the $440 million number to $325 million; presumably because the user didn't understand how break-even numbers work. (His/her reasoning was: "corrected maths". See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ready_Player_One_(film)&diff=853323891&oldid=853273995 .) Should we reinsert my line, should we make it a hidden comment in the article... or should we just move on and hope the user doesn't change the number back to 325? Fethry fan (talk) 09:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Fethry fan hey, yeah obviously it wasn’t anything personal haha. Sometimes people troll or are just wrong (like you said) so I think making it a hidden note sounds good, and can deal with it if it happens again. TropicAces (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

I've now added a hidden note. Feel free to improve it; I'm not 100% satisfied with it myself. Fethry fan (talk) 10:24, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Fethry fan I moved it right next to the $440 figure and added a line of it being in the source. Otherwise I think your line works. Pleasure doing business with you. TropicAces (talk) 10:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)tropicaces

Likewise. (And I like your changes.) Fethry fan (talk) 11:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The WikiProject Film Award
		I, SamHolt6, hereby award TropicAces the WikiProject Film Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject Film. Awarded I am truly impressed by the speed and quality of your work at God Bless the Broken Road. I created the article with the intent to do a little bit of expansion as reviews rolled out, but you greatly surpassed my expectations for the article in just under an hour. Well done! 23:06, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

SamHolt6 thank you, was my pleasure! I had been debating creating the page for a few days (since the link from The Nun kicked to the song's page) so was glad to see the hard work of creating the the Page was done. Getting info from The Hollywood Reporter’s review and adding the poster was the easy part, I do that every day. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

THR change

Yep, they changed the wording for the critical reception. See old version. Thanks for catching that! A bit annoying that this can happen. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 15:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Erik I assumed so much. Happens with Deadline and RT consensus’ sometimes. Also, while I have you here, I see you’ve made a “unique” format of the Rotten Tomatoes layout. Your revert explanation makes sense to me, but why suddenly make it different than most other pages, including Death of a Nation which you were active in editing? Just curious. TropicAces (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2018 (UTC)tropicaces

I have to say I am frustrated with the approach that the way to present RT has to be the exact same everywhere. It runs afoul of WP:OWN in this regard, that no variation in language is ever allowed anywhere. In this case, the most important part missing from the so-called standardized wording is the percent being based on reviews only being assessed as positive or negative. The other aspects of the presentation are relatively minor. As an encyclopedia, we have to write for the wider audience and for the long run. It's easy for you and me to know how RT works, working so closely with movies, but that knowledge is not possessed by everyone. There shouldn't be only one way of wording the RT information. I will always have a small problem with the cookie-cutter wording for this reason, but I am not going to go about rewording it everywhere. But I do find it unnecessary to, in every possible instance, change the whole sentence to the so-called standardized version instead of just updating the numbers within. I was thinking about having a wider discussion about this because I think there is too much standardization going on. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Question about 1 edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fantastic_Beasts%3A_The_Crimes_of_Grindelwald&type=revision&diff=868334856&oldid=868334733

When would be the best time? I am thinking of when it leaves theatres. Hayholt (talk) 20:33, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hayholt yeah, think that’s usually the time to do it. It’ll be updated hourly for next few weeks so to archive it is somewhat pointless (and Rotten Tomatoes isn’t shutting down or blanking that page anytime soon). TropicAces (talk) 20:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Awesome. Thank you. :) Hayholt (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Venom

Please stop changing the foreign gross. It does not say that on box office mojo. Thank you very much. --Evope (talk) 06:37, 18 November 2018 (UTC)Evan Kalani Opedal

Evope right, BOM doesn’t list it, but it does say $730M on The Numbers, which is accordingly sourced. TropicAces (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000 film)

How the Grinch Stole Christmas (2000 film) had a section about the 2018 film, I notice you were the one who added most of what was there so while I've mixed feelings about it being summarily deleted I thought you might have an opinion about keeping it or not? (No comment needed, a revert or non-revert of the delete will be indication enough.) -- 109.78.208.32 (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, TropicAces. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	For all the good work with films. Hayholt (talk) 16:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Opening scene of Crazy Rich Asians

Not contesting your decision to remove the description of that opening scene, but just a comment which I thought I'd let you know. The staff are indeed racist; they suggested for the Young family to stay in "Chinatown", and the novel explicitly portrays them as racist by describing their thought processes. I felt that the scene was significant as a standalone preface for the film, as it illustrates the sheer wealth of that family, but I can understand that it may not necessarily be very relevant to the plot. Cheers, Weslam (talk • contrib) 17:05, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Weslam I must be misremembering (I saw it in August afterall) but I thought I remembered it being an Asian concierge and manager, so not being racist against themselves as much as misogynistic and assuming; thanks for the clarification. I still don’t think it’s needed in the Wiki plot, there’s plenty of other examples throughout the summary to show their wealth/influence, but sorry(?) for my incorrect recollection. Merry Christmas! TropicAces (talk) 17:43, 25 December 2018 (UTC)tropicAces

Nope, definitely not Asian. No worries though, I suppose it's easy to forget film details. And don't apologise, I just wanted to point it out. I'm impartial on whether or not it should be included, and aren't arguing for it, so if you think it's not necessary, I'll go with that. Thanks and cheers, happy new year to you too! PS: You may want to fix your signature :P Weslam (talk • contrib) 10:47, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Adam McKay/Dick Cheney film listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Adam McKay/Dick Cheney film. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled Adam McKay/Dick Cheney film redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Metacritic

Metacritic isn't a source. It's an aggregator that collects sources, using an algolrism hoping to gauge all the sources. It is in no way a piece of journalism, or a reporter analyzing anything. It's also deeply flawed, as it leans biased toward English language reviews. You keep triangulating this in your edit war. I see from your history here that other editors over the years have already lectured you about what is wrong with this. If it needs repeating, wikipedia actually doesn't like it when we use aggregators like RT or Metacritic to come to conclusions in these movie articles. I suppose it doesn't hurt if the movie truly is getting all "mixed to average reviews" or is being called "rotten" by the press. But you make it clear you have an agenda, to be some sort of anti-critic apologist hoping to defend popular films against those pesky critics. There is already a prevailing consensus on the talk. Even without that, this is pretty cut-and-dry: what is notable about Glass is that it had high expectations and across the board critics were disappointed and gave "generally unfavorable reviews." If you can't respect this, then please move to arbitration so an admin can explain this to you. The only value to include Metacritic's unquotable quote is to mislead the readers. Please stop. I say this as a fan of the movie, but I'm not a critic and sadly the majority of them don't like it, even if "audiences" are polarized and "mixed". Will thank you in advance for respecting this. First warning.Luciusfoxx (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Luciusfoxx you still report what Metacritic’s findings are, even if it goes against the (single) source you provide. You also don’t put a summary in first line of the Critical response section, you let reviews speak for themselves. Both are written in the template. Appreciate your concern, though. TropicAces (talk) 17:10, 17 February 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

No one said you don't report what Metacritic says. But you can't use it to quote in the way you are doing. And Metacritic isn't even saying what you are saying, using it's mere sample of 50 some reviews when there are hundreds. Also, the rest you said simply isn't true. There isn't a hard or fast rule about how to word an article. So please start backing up your -ahem- concerns with actual citations or direct sources. It's clear you don't appreciate our contributions with your obtuse behavior. Luciusfoxx (talk) 17:38, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Captain Marvel box office

What should be done with this edit by SSR.220 (talk · contribs), who has since been confirmed as a sock puppet and banned? He made this addition including the ref tag "<ref name="DeadlineWknd3" />", but failed to cite an actual reference. Since you are pretty knowledgeable with box office sections, I was wondering if you could verify the claim or remove it all together. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat off the top of my head those stats/rankings all seem accurate (Marvel is over-performing like no one expected) but not sure if the Deadline article (which mostly deals with domestic figures) would make note off all those. I’ll give it a quick skim and/or find a better source. TropicAces (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

TriiipleThreat ok so what I did was add a fluid chart to support the overall superhero claim, but couldn’t find a non-article for the MCU rank (Box Office Mojo usually only makes domestic charts, so that doesn’t help us). The Deadline article doesn’t make note of either of these things, however I think he was trying to ref tag my “DEADWk3” link and just used the wrong name (“DeadWknd3”), that’s why it appeared to lead nowhere. Hope this all helps! TropicAces (talk) 15:27, 27 March 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

It does, we'll just have to keep updating it, or we can archive the peak position. Thanks!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:32, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Caillou Pettis Article Creation

Hi, can you create an article for actor Caillou Pettis? He is in Shazam! (2019) and Dora and the Lost City of Gold (2019). For more information, you can find a lot on Google.

IMDb: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm6569371/ Sources: https://www.airdriecityview.com/article/airdrie-filmmakers-debut-feature-shooting-this-month-20180823 https://www.pophorror.com/filmmaker-caillou-pettis-announces-cast-crew-additions-for-omnicron-2019/ https://www.pophorror.com/caillou-pettis-takes-over-omnicron-2019-screenwriting-duties/ https://guacamoley.com/the-scoop/2019/01/23/toni-collette-oscar-snub-hereditary/ http://www.mtv.com/news/2060962/taylor-swift-bullied-fan-tumblr/ https://www.billboard.com/articles/news/6451041/taylor-swift-sweet-message-bullied-fan-tumblr https://www.rottentomatoes.com/critic/caillou-pettis/movies https://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/caillou-pettis-34420.php https://www.flickeringmyth.com/author/caillou-pettis/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.0.216.163 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Hellboy

I'd appreciate if you would take another look at the Hellboy 2019 article, the article intro, and the Critical response section particularly.

I note your April 14 delete "Critical response: let sources speak for themselves" and similarly your April 16 revert. I fear my attempts to improve the article (and the deletes of another editor that followed it) may have been misinterpreted simply as repeating that attempt at WP:SYNTH that you deleted already, and that if I explain it you might understand some of what I was trying to do.

My concern was that the article intro attempts to summarize the reviews as follows "The film was met with negative reviews from critics, with many comparing it unfavorably to the previous films and criticizing the story and the amount of gore, though Harbour and Jovovich's performances and the makeup received some praise." I can see this attempt at a summary is based on three summaries sourced from Cinemablend, Gamesspot, and Gamesradar. I don't think this is a particularly good summary, and moreover it doesn't reflect at all what is actually written in the Critical response section of the article. Let the the reviews speak for themselves, I thought and attempted to expand the section.

So one of the smaller changes I attempted for example was an edit so that the Critical response section of the article actually included praise for Harbour (as several reviews do praise Harbour, while in most cases not saying much nice about the rest of cast). Despite reading various reviews of the film I didn't see much praise for Jovovich though. Praise for Jovovich seems to be based almost entirely on a review from the AV Club (and I did attempt to add that review to the Critical response section, but it was deleted). It seemed undue for the intro claim Jovovich received praised based on so little positive evidence and with so many reviews being generally critical of the most of the cast. As for makeup, again there is nothing in the Critical response section praising the makeup. (The AV Club review did praise the character and set design, admittedly there were some cool visuals).

I did already try to explain my reasoning in my edit summaries and on the talk page Talk:Hellboy_(2019_film)#Criticism but User:Sebastian James didn't understand at all what I was trying to do and reverted it and on top of that deleted some of the reviews others had included too (I don't get why he's so happy about deleting reviews). Hopefully I explained it slightly better this time, and maybe you can get a better idea of my intentions, and think of how to improve the article in your own way. -- 109.79.75.218 (talk) 05:32, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

"I think you just misunderstand"

Please drop the insulting edit summaries. I understand perfectly well what our article says: Deadline speculated that the film would make 600 mill net profit over its whole run (and maybe then some -- the text before I blanked it the first time said something quite different from the second time), and it actually made about that much in a single weekend. If you want to rewrite the text I blanked to say something different (a better reflection of what the source actually says? I don't actually know or care) that's fine, but if I see you make another edit summary like your last two insults directed at me, I will request that you be blocked; it is simply unacceptable for someone who has been here as long as you have to still be addressing other Wikipedians in that manner. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:41, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Hijiri 88 I didn't mean to insult you, I was just saying that you seemed to misunderstand what the article is talking about; there is just no other way to word it. Deadline isn't saying the film will GROSS $600 million, it is saying that the film will turn a net profit of $600 million by the end of its run. Like how Infinity War grossed $2 billion but turned a profit of "just" $500 million. Movie studios don't get every dollar that a film makes, and then still must factor in the P&A cost against the dollars they do get (in the case of Endgame, that number is about $200 million). So again, didn't mean to insult you or come off as passive aggressive and if I came across that way I apologize, but wasn't sure how to word it different since you appeared to confuse "gross" with "profit", that's all. Cheers. TropicAces (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Please help me review a page

Hello, I see you're a experienced contributor here in Wikipedia and especially in the film asepct, so I hope you can help me on this. I'm new to Wikipedia and it's still not clear to me how sources and links works here. Another contributor has heavily edited the infobox of Children of the Sea (film) and I'm not sure if he/she was doing the right thing. The whole info box for the movie just looks weird to me now, but I don't know if I should remove it, please help me review and change it back to a acceptable infobox and page, thanks. Tray Framework (talk) 13:55, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Tray Framework I made a few edits as I saw fit, explained in the edit description. Let me know what you think. TropicAces (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Toy Story (franchise)

Hi, why did you remove the average ratings in the Critical and public response section? --Mazewaxie 12:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mazewaxie I’d never seen single other franchise article include the average ratings, it seemed superfluous to me. But I’ve got no ill will against it, won’t fight a revert. TropicAces (talk) 14:10, 22 June 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

I will re add it ok? --Mazewaxie 14:21, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Budget

Great Job on Budget Buddi09432 (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Margaret Gibson (actress) into Deathbed confession. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

21 Bridges editing

Hello, I saw you put a release date that is not official yet or confirmed by STX entertainment, so I reverted it. Plus I am not a troll. Please do not put a random release date on the 21 Bridges page. Thank you. Blackhawksfan1445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Blackhawksfan1445: That seems dishonest. You removed an uncited release date but restored other content without consensus. I am not a troll, either, just a bad-faith editor with no compunction. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

How did I remove uncited release date? If you go to the STX Entertaiment website and the 21 Bridges page, It says coming soon. There are reports but not official though. Not trying to be rude or anything man and I'm not being dishonest. Blackhawksfan1445 (talk)

You removed info from deadline.com. That's a reliable source, even if you think they're wrong. Please discuss on the article's talk page, not here. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:35, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I did discuss it on the talk page... Blackhawksfan1445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Blackhawksfan1445 they announced it as the September date in May when they moved it out of July. Saying “coming soon” on a website or teaser poster does not combat that, plenty of films say that. You’re going against industry publications here... without an article that says “there is no release date” you have no leg here and I’m going to go back to the sourced release info. TropicAces (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

It was not announced, never if so where? No release date was seen anywhere what you are talking about bud... I do have a leg son. Show me REAL proof where it was "announced" and IMDB doesn't count my man sorry. Blackhawksfan1445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Blackhawksfan1445 never cited IMDb, used Box Office Mojo and Deadline, two reputable sources. TropicAces (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

I cited the STX Entertainment website sir. Blackhawksfan1445 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

TheFamousPeople.com as a source

Hi TropicAces. I noticed that you recently used thefamouspeople.com as a source for biographical information in Robert Graysmith. Please note that there is general consensus that thefamouspeople.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for such information. (Discussions here and here). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Ronz oh I wasn’t aware of that. No no, I’m not inclined to defend it, more than fine leaving it be haha. Thanks for the heads up. TropicAces (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Yesterday controversy

Hello,

you've just deleted a paragraph about "Yesterday" controversy arguing "there is no controversy". What about this article in Variety? https://variety.com/2019/film/news/beatles-graphic-novel-yesterday-free-online-danny-boyle-1203253302/ I give you a clue: the most important word in this title is not free, it's similar :) Why did you erase that paragraph? Even if controversy seams too strong, it deserves to be mentioned. --EdouardLacan (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The Dirt article repeated vandalism

Re. Your repeated edits to delete sourced Audience Score from Rotten Tomatoes website at this article. You wrote there’s no way to verify the Audience Score.

This matter has already been debated and settled to INCLUDE The VERIFIED Audience Score from Rotten Tomatoes. See Article TALK page.

“When you see "Verified" Audience Score, it means we've (Rotten Tomatoes) confirmed a user bought a ticket to the movie.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

StutzTCB per MOS:FILM: "Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." If that’s not enough, The Dirt not only pre-dates Rotten Tomatoes’ creation of the audience verification but it wasn’t a film that had tickets to be purchased as it’s a digital Netflix release. Hope this clears things up. TropicAces (talk) 22:44, 5 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

TropicAcres:

The Dirt premiered at the Hollywood Arclight Theater where tickets were PURCHASED by fans and cinema patrons! Additionally the decision to KEEP the Audience Score review intact at the articles talk page predates your any of your skewed biased and ongoing detrimental article vandalism of this point. Vandalism reported. Hope this clears things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 23:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

StutzTCB that’s not how premieres work, tickets are given to cast, crew and guests (note the lack of box office revenue), and there is no discussion about including the RT audience score on the Talk page except an IP wondering where it went, and then responding to himself. Again, refer to the MOS:FILM for all these rules and guidelines. TropicAces (talk) 23:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

The premiere was on March 18. The film remained at Arclight Hollywood Cinemas through March 28th. For 10 days fans and general cinema patrons PUTCHASED TICKETS.

The film then went to Netflix, where it was the most viewed film on Netflix during the entire month of April. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StutzTCB (talk • contribs) 00:02, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood

I can't edit the page and I noticed you were the last one to edit it. There are some mistakes. It lists a Daphna Ben Chabo and an Allen Kincaid as real people being portrayed. These are not real people but rather fictional characters. Also the spelling of the first character's name is Daphna Ben-Cobo. In the film Ben-Cobo is an Italian actress and Kincaid is a tv personality. I hope you might be able to make these changes or unlock the page so I can. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:40, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Hello again. This is concerning the editor joker157 who is the one who keeps changing the billing block. He did it again but I have undid his edits. He also keeps removing cast names and he butchered the plot section as well. I've tried to communicate with him twice about it in hopes of understanding his motives and reaching a compromise but at this point it just seems like vandalism. I've even encouraged him to post on the talk page which he has also ignored. I'm not sure how to properly report him. I'm not sure if you'd be willing or able to. Thank you but he's definitely completely ignoring both of us. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Do you know how I can add a "List Defined Reference Name"? I've been trying to add a reference but this is standing in my way. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Samurai Kung fu Cowboy I’m afraid that’s not a term I’m familiar with, much less how to go around setting it up. Sorry... TropicAces (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

No worries. Figured it out with another editor. Thanks for getting back to me. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 05:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you request the page be protected? It's being used by an anonymous user to push their narrative. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 00:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Wanted to give you a heads up that Joker157 is messing with the billing block again. I hope all is well with you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I felt that British-American seemed misleading, as it doesn't take part in Britain. However, if technically I'm wrong because of the co-production please re add it. It just seemed strange when I read it. Thanks. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: yeah the opening line is about countries of production, not necessarily “countries where production took place”. So some of OUTIH’s production companies (through Heyday) are British, so it’s by definition an international co-production, despite being filmed purely in LA. Same reason something like It is purely American despite filming in Canada, or The Imitation Game is American even though it’s set in England. No harm, no foul. TropicAces (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Thank you for the explanation. I still think it's confusing to the reader but so be it. It's important to give credit where credits due. I'm curious about your opinion on something. I noticed you recently deleted an archive url. I'm not yet familiar with how to archive. Do you think it's important? Is it complicated? In what instances do you use it? Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Samurai Kung fu Cowboy: It’s used to make sure articles and sources are always there, even if the author deletes it or the site shuts down. Since Rotten Tomatoes is at no true risk of either, and someone had corrupted the citation, it felt useless at that specific point. But it could be fixed, just weird RT was archived but not Metacritic. TropicAces (talk) 20:33, 5 September 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Thank you. I'm wondering what you think about me archiving sources I've added though. Do you generally think it's worth it? Is it complex or simple? Do big sites have much of a risk of fading away? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also there's a new talk page section asking about something you added to the Box Office section. Someone wants to remove the sentence about the break even point. I explained as much as I knew about it but it seems like a response from you might help add some clarity. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 15:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your contributions on film articles. Mazewaxie 13:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

I want to add my affirmation to this, as it is very clear to me that Tropic holds his articles to high standards. As well—and @Mazewaxie:, if you want to add another Barnstar on my behalf, please do—I have to say I have found Tropic to be among the most open of editors I have experienced, to allowing two thoughtful but not always agreeing editos to edit side-by-side, each taking the best that the other has to offer. Cheers to him. This engagement and openness seems to me to be a separate Barnstar, and could I offer it, I would.

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited John Wayles Jefferson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Memphis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Space Jam

I'll take another look and keep an eye on it, but please don't edit the RFPP archive. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ivanvector oh my bad, I wasn’t aware that was a rule. Thanks/sorry. TropicAces (talk) 14:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

I don't think it's a rule, more of a convention that you should never add anything once something has been archived. Thanks for the note, though, I left a reply to your comment on the article's talk page. Hopefully the IP responds, if they don't then we'll have to do something else to get their attention. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Care to take a look?

I reverted four edits to Academy Awards articles today including this one which had deleted information you had originally added way back. If you check out that link the reason given for reverting me seems nefarious to me. However, I'm not au fait with the Academy Awards world. Would you care to take a look? The other articles involved are here, here and here.Moriori (talk) 03:27, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

@Moriori: I guess I don’t get why we wouldn’t include Rotten Tomatoes. Like any show, it received reviews from publications and RT assigned it’s aggregsted approval rating, and I think the consensus adds context. I’m all for putting it lower in the section, but its complete omission seems superfluous. TropicAces (talk) 05:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

The Irishman (2019 film)

Thanks for your edits regarding the film's budget. I totally agree with you, the $200 million figure always seemed exaggerated and only a rough estimate to me. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding this edit, I want to clarify that the cast list I added is based on the traditional billing block featured here. This is a strange situation because we haven't received the "theatrical release" poster, but just the "teaser" one, so we don't actually have a billing block there. Anyway I agree that for now is better to stick to De Niro/Pacino/Pesci in the infobox for now, hoping that we might receive a theatrical poster that clarifies everything. I wish you a nice day. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

That image right there screams “fan-made” to me, not sure we could go off it without an official Netflix or Scorsese source posting it... Roma got an official poster so maybe Irishman will down the line... TropicAces (talk) 15:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

It's not fan made. It was given to people that watched the film at the Egyptian theater. There are many of artworks like that posted on Instagram (see this, this, and this), that have been gifted to the attendees. I hope they will post something on the official accounts of the film though. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BadBoys3Poster.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BadBoys3Poster.png. 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) 17:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:JaySilentBobReboot.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:JaySilentBobReboot.jpeg. 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) 17:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Downton Abbey Film

I don't get your need to overwhelm the Downton Abbey (film) article but some of your edits are Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You may not continue to remove US dates from the article. That is biased editing and a little odd to me to be very honest. If you continue to disrupt the article by removing sourced content you could be blocked from editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong. Not all of your contributions are objectionable. I especially like that you got the plot further trimmed down further. I don't see the use of a piped link to the series with so much additional wording as an improvement and certainly not the very first thing in the lede. Piping it through the mention of the series works.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Mark Miller name some of my tendentious edits? Because I know it’s not adding the release date to the lead, the word “film” to clarify a film article, or CinemaScore or box office information to the Reception section. So guess I’m a bit confused is all... TropicAces (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

I don't wish to go into it now as I have truly tried to back away from the article as more people became involved. If you wish to know my opinion in more detail, I would rather it take place on the article talk page where it is more appropriate. Aloha.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

The Irishman (2019 film)

Hi. First of all, thanks for your edit. You are right about the fact that Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic shouldn't be in the reference list. I didn't think about that. Anyway, isn't "[...]" better than just "..."? I don't know if there is a consensus about it, but the first option seems better to me. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 14:38, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Mazewaxie I’m sure there’s some sort of official way Wikipedia prefers, to me the first option just looks kind of clunky and takes up extra space. But it’s certainly not a hill I’m willing to die on, feel free to revert it haha... TropicAces (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

I asked because there are instances in the article in which I used "[...]", so I think it's appropriate to choose one of them to make it uniform. --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to "[...]". Per MOS:ELLIPSIS: "square brackets are placed around an ellipsis to make clear that it isn't original to the material being quoted". I wish you a nice day :) --Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Joker (2019 film)

To ensure Wikipedia is applying the same standards of information capture, like was done for Avengers: Endgame where once the Box Office Mojo production budget was verified that article used this as the defacto reference point. The same should apply with Joker (2019 film). Changing the results just to continue edit warring is only going to lead to each of us being dissatisfied and not friendly co-contributors. At this point Box Office Mojo finally confirmed the production budget was $55 million. And since even :WhiteAngel has also clarified a final budget has been validated, this is more than just my opinion. Be consistent with standards and posting expectations. Thanks.

Yamla and 331dot will clearly be able to observe I am attempting to talk through this with you like a respectful adult. Hopefully you can do the same so we do not experience pass-aggressive reverts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bosco685 (talk • contribs) 11:36, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

You are also disregarding that Box Office Mojo (the defacto film box office tracking site) has now confirmed $55 million as the final confirmed production budget.

@WhiteAngel: and others are clearly attempting to reference the fact like was done with Avengers: Endgame where once Box Office Mojo (the defacto film box office tracking site for the entire industry) posted the confirmed production budget, that became the number referenced. Changing it back to what you want it to be out of whatever motivation right now does not follow consistent Wikipedia practies, and will lead to disruptive co-contributor engagements. :@Yamla: and :@331dot: may want to assist directly in sorting this out to ensure standard practices are followed as was applied to Avengers: Endgame (2019 film).

@Bosco685: I’ll tag you in my post on the Talk page but as I said in one of my reverts, Box Office Mojo isn’t the end-all/be-all for budgets; they’re actually in the minority a lot of the time or get figures incorrect (see: Age of Ultron since we’re on the Avengers front). Plus, the Wikipedia guideline of listing all budgets presented by publications, which I’m sure you’re more of aware of at this point, still applies. TropicAces (talk) 14:57, 12 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces:Show me an example where as a trend Box Office Mojo is wrong. They are actually getting their results directly from studio and theater data as it is collected up, and are quoted by all credible sources as the defacto system of truth. That is why with films like Black Panther and Captain Marvel they never published a production budget final tally as the studios wouldn't report the details. So no, your opinion on this is not consistent.

@TropicAces:Quick question (and opinion) on box office reporting dates. I saw you corrected my box office reporting today by backdating it to the actual box office day (when the sales occurred). With that date shown in the article, does that reflect the date in which the box office sales occurred, or the date the details were published? I thought it was the latter, and was applying that logic to my edits. But if it is the former, I can go with that one instead. Bosco685 (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

@Bosco685: it’s the date of which the sales occurred. Obviously we don’t know how many tickets/dollars-worth the film made today (the 15th), so it would be as of the last reported day (14). Once BOM updates their “as of” date will be from the previous day. The only time there is an exception is on Sundays, which are estimated for weekend total purposes (with actuals being announced the following day). Hope this helps. TropicAces (talk) 20:51, 15 October 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces:That makes sense. Thank you.Bosco685 (talk) 16:56, 15 October 2019 (UTC)Bosco685

Stars

Nice catch! (Preachy ate chew.) --Brogo13 (talk) 21:24, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Bombshell

Hey there, TropicAces! I don't believe we've ever interacted. I'm KyleJoan. Nice to make your acquaintance! I wanted to discuss this revert on my edit. On Template:Infobox film, it says Insert the approximate production budget of the film. From my understanding, if the source states that the budget is upward of $35M, then isn't the $35M figure the approximate production budget? I also have never seen a "+" be used in a film infobox, therefore, I felt inclinced to remove it. That aside, MOS:UL states: In general, links should be created for . . . Articles explaining words of technical terms, jargon or slang expressions/phrases . . . I believe the casual reader would find it helpful to link principal photography since it is essentiall a technical term for filming. Regarding categories, I have not seen a guideline that states it needs to be alphabetical, but I've seen precedents for doing so, and that was why I reorganized them as such. Looking forward to your response! KyleJoan^talk 03:09, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@KyleJoan: hey man! So the reason for my revert/inclusion of the plus-sign is the (year-old) article says "Word is the production cost of $35 million was soaring upwards from that point..." implying the final cost was above the initial $35 million. Since that's the last we heard of the production budget, all we have to go off is the original $35 million was the low-end of things. With it getting released this week, Deadline or TheWrap will likely have an actual/more concrete figure to go off of (probbaly around $45M if I was a betting man). Hope this makes sense, and maybe I read the article wrong. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 03:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)tropicAces

Understood! It was just the + sign that threw me because I had never seen it before. The $45M projection sounds plausible as well, so I'm right there with you, and we shall see if we're correct on that. Thanks for clarifying! KyleJoan^talk 04:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Peg Entwistle

Hello. I've seen your name in the edits section for the Peg Entwistle article, and so trust that you may help. I wrote a published biography ("Peg Entwistle and the Hollywood Sign Suicide", McFarland & Co., 2014) and over the years have added some content to the article. I now see that some "in popular culture" content has been added. Apparently, in light of a new Netflix series which centers on Entwistle's life and death, there has come much interest about her. My gratitudes notwithstanding for the spike in book sales, I wonder if current pop culture references to Peg are in line with the Wikipedia standards? I could literally add dozens of songs, TV shows, works of art and so on in recent popular culture featuring Peg in one way or another. Can you (or another trusted Wiki editor) please have a look at the Entwistle article and let me (us) know if what's recently been added in the "In Popular Culture" section is okay?

Thank you! Jameszerukjr (talk) 21:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Jameszerukjr to my understanding, the pop culture sections on people’s pages typically revolve around them being prostrated or noted in media, like how her death is the focus of the Hollywood show. So if there’s a biopic or TV episode about her, then by all means note it. But just saying “there was once an episode of a show on History Channel” does not make the cut. If the difference makes sense to you? Congrats on the sales! TropicAces (talk) 21:51, 5 May 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

TropicAces Thanks for the input. And thank you for the nice thought re my book! Indeed, I actually have an entire chapter dedicated to much of Peg's pop culture influences in the arts and literature. I may include some of the more notables into the article. At any rate, I appreciate your insight. Be well. Jameszerukjr (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello TropicAces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 15:58, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello TropicAces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:11, 23 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Some peaches for you!

Sdkb has given you a bowl of peaches! This delicious and typically non-allergenic fruit promotes WikiLove and has hopefully made your day juicier. Spread peachiness and WikiLove by giving someone else some peaches, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend, by adding {{subst:Peach}} to their talk page with a friendly message!

Thanks for your contributions to Parasite! - Sdkb (talk) 07:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

BBFL film

I noticed you reinserted "Mexico City" as a filming location in Bad Boys for Life. As of right now, it's not sourced in the article and I briefly checked for one but couldn't find anything. If you have one, feel free to reinsert it back into the article. Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Brady

Just a heads up in response to your edit summary here, the {{TOClimit}} template restricts the depths of section headings appearing in the table of contents to only level 3 headers. Also, MOS:LEAD suggests a maximum of four paragraphs in the lead as a rule of thumb. I am not opposed to condensing Brady's lead, as it is already the longest NFL Wikipedia article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:42, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

And one more point, there is a discussion about reported signings that you may want to weigh in on at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Pending_trades_and_signings. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

i'm jealous

i want you to know that i'm jealous you were able to make the changes you did to Dark Phoenix (film) as I tried to do what were much more subtle changes and got reversed. Why they didn't do yours confounds me because i check it every night expecting to see it undone. not sure if you saw it, but on the talk page i started a rfc regarding the movie, and you might want to comment there as you're obviously interested in the film. i've scanned some of your edits and i'd like to thank you for all your effort. you truly go way above and beyond the call. ToeFungii (talk) 05:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

TropicAces:Can you move your comment to under the rfc if it's not too much trouble (you posted it directly above the rfc. I'd move it but ive already had a bunch of issues with this rfc and dont want anyone to raise an issue because i moved something). The top of the rfc is located here.

Also, on Birds of Prey, your box office disappointment addition was reversed without a reason. i undid it because they made no comment but likely it'll get reversed again. I had forgotten there was a discussion about box office disappointment on its talk page but not sure there was a consensus. This is why i want the dark phoenix rfc to be as tight as it can be regardless which way it ends up. thanks. ToeFungii (talk) 20:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Seth Rogen reception table

Hi! I just wanted to commend you on your addition of the table of Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic scores for Seth Rogen's filmography. I'd never seen that done on a Wikipedia page before and I think it's very helpful. Have a good day :) Timliving (talk) 16:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Updating Rotten Tomatoes, etc

Hey. Thanks for being so on top of update RT and Metacritic on the newer releases of films. Can I recommend you add "As of June 2020" or something similar to the sentence? It is recommended to do that by Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Film#Critical_response. I usually use {{As of}} so it gets tagged as something that might need to be updated in the future. BOVINEBOY2008 14:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: hey bro, appreciate the compliment! I’m not a huge fan of the “As of June 2020, the film holds...” because I think the accessdate in the citation acts as a sufficient-enough of a time stamp for when the review count was last updated. Plus, June (or any month) is a big spectrum, so putting “as of June” could have almost no context for something like Da 5 Bloods, which on June 10 had 20 reviews but by June 20 had 200. I’m aware it’s the suggested way of going about business on the pages, but it’s just a personal thought of mine. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Yeah, I see that reasoning. The only reason I could think of it being included would be for readers who don't necessarily know about how citations work, or for those incorrectly cited without an access date. Perhaps the MOS needs to be updated! BOVINEBOY2008 14:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

Eurovision film edit

Per Template:Infobox film only actors in the Billing Block should have their names listed in the infobox. There is a seperate section in the article to handle additional cast names. Also you may want to refreshh yourself with WP:BRD. Your made an edit that was removed and instead of discussiong, you blantantly reinserted your edit.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: I reinserted because my edit is in-line with the Template:Infobox film; if the poster does not have a billing block (which Eurovision's does not), then: "If unavailable, use the top-billed actors from the screen credits", which is what I did. TropicAces (talk) 17:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Yes it does have a billing block. Both actors who are listed are billed. You also have ignored WP:BRD as your addition was reverted and you blatantly reinserted your edit and have failed to even attempt to gain consensus for the additions. Don't double down and don't wikilawyer the template instructions. You made a mistake now just move on please.JOJ ^Hutton 17:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jojhutton: I think you’re confusing a “billing block” with simply “names on a poster”... This film’s poster (at least the one in the article) doesn’t have billing (with the production companies, editor, producer, etc), so according to Wiki’s infobox rules we have to go to the next best thing, top-billed actors in the credits. TropicAces (talk) 18:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Again, you are WP:Wikilawyering the template instructions because they don't fit into the exact definition of the Wikipedia article that is linked. But the intent is there. These are the only two actors credited on the poster, but in a different way because that's the way the studio decided to do it. Then there is the problem you still have not addressed, the fact that you ignored WP:BRD and did not gain consensus for which actors you think should be included in the infobox and which should not. Why those? Why not others? Why do you get to decide and revert anyone who disagrees with you? I think that's why we have a BRD guideline and why this should have been discussed on the talk page instead of the escalation that you decided to take it.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Star Wars

Please do not add misleading claims in articles. The link you are attributing the claim to does not support what you are saying. It only makes the comparison with “the modern era” films but does not indicate what it refers to by this label, is it the Disney films? Does it include the prequels?

What it certainly does not do is claim it is comparing ALL the live action films. GimliDotNet (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Apologies, didn’t see the additional citation. I’ve restored your edit GimliDotNet (talk) 05:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edit on Natalie Wood

When you removed "November 29, 1981|end=her death" from the "Spouse" line of the infobox on Natalie Wood, the edit summary read, "(End Not listed if it’s due to her death)".

I am curious about where that style rule is found. It seems to contradict the statement "For deceased persons still married at time of death, close the date range with death year." (See "Spouse" explanation at Template:Infobox person#Parameters.) Eddie Blick (talk) 01:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Eddie Blick it’s possible the rule changed, because several times over the years I’ve either seen or personally been reverted by admins with that explanation. I have no real dog in the fight, both ways make sense (technically their marriage wasn’t over on the their end; they were married at the moment of death). TropicAces (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks for responding. I have no vested interest, either, but if the rule has been changed, the page that I linked should be revised. I posed the same question to another editor a week or so ago after reading a similar edit summary. He or she reverted the deletion without responding to my inquiry. I might post a question on Wikipedia's Help page to seek clarification. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Eddie Blick I’m sure what you cited on the Infobox page is the correct, up-to-date version of how we’re going about things, and I was using old intel. If you do post an inquiry either tag me or let me know on here, it’s not like I’m scrolling the Wiki guideline pages everyday for fun to see if things changed haha. TropicAces (talk) 01:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

I began looking for guidance after I had seen several edits that removed the end year with explanations essentially the same as what you put. I think I will wait to post anything about it in WP Help. I'll see if other similar edits like those I saw earlier might appear. Eddie Blick (talk) 01:57, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Mulan and Disney+

Hey. Are you sure about this? Just to be sure, do you have a reliable source that confirms that Disney+ isn't the distributor of Mulan and that Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures still is? El Millo (talk) 01:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

El Millo yes. Unlike Netflix, which produces and distributes its own content under its one singular umbrella, Disney+ is not a distributor; it’s a platform that is used by Disney as a means of their distribution. There was a discussion about this topic with Hamilton; it isn’t on that Talk page, but it was discussed in some edits, and is where I took the hidden note from. You can think about it this way too: Walt Disney was the distributor 12 hours ago when it was going to be a theatrical release; it didn’t change hands or companies, just means of how it’s getting distributed. Or how Sony distributed Trolls World Tour, even though it was put onto Amazon Prime and iTunes as the platform; think of D+ as that. TropicAces (talk) 01:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Oh, okay. I thought that we listed it as the distributor for content that debuts directly there, but, as I've now seen on articles like WandaVision, that doesn't seem to be the case. Thanks! El Millo (talk) 02:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

El Millo no worries. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 02:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

August 2020

Hello, I'm TJRC. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Jeffrey Seller, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. TJRC (talk) 15:50, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOXOFFICE

Box Office Mojo has been having a lot of problems and inconsistencies. Next time you update the box office of old movies, as in the case of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, make sure the amount hasn't changed because of an error in Box Office Mojo's calculations. In this particular example, BOM has counted New Zealand's box office from 2001 as part of the 2018 re-release, which is causing an incorrect raise in the box office numbers of the film. You're invited to join the Film finance task force and check the table that has the errors we have found so far. El Millo (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

El Millo I knew they had issues, but since the re-release was only about $10 million that the old total, I assumed they had fixed it (it made $4 million in China yesterday). Thanks for the heads up, I’ll check the table! TropicAces (talk) 16:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Listed genres for Project Power page

Hi TropicAces. Hope all is well. I wanted to bring this issue to your attention. Netflix has billed Project Power on their website as a sci-fi crime action thriller film. So I was wondering, why is it applicable to add the superhero genre to encompass the sci-fi elements, considering that this film fits into multiple genres? If you could please clarify this issue via a reasonable explanation, that would be much appreciated. Elainasla (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elainasla: hey, hope all is well with you, too. So per the wp:FILMLEAD, the genre should be "the primary genre or sub-genre", and avoid having more than two because then it becomes a chore to read. Same reason when a film is a international co-production we don’t list any countries in the opening (like “Film X is a 2020 British-American-German comedy film”). At its core Project Power is an action film, with thriller and superhero elements. Much like how The Dark Knight is a superhero film with drama and crime elements. Feel free to take this up on the article’s own Talk page, and hope this clears things up. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks TropicAces, I appreciate your assistance in clarifying that issue. Have a nice day! Elainasla (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Reviewing and approving article page for Henry Gayden

Hi TropicAces. Hope you're doing well. Just wanted to request some support on this topic. I recently created an article page for Henry Gayden. Would you mind reviewing the page for approval? If you can do it, that would be much appreciated. Thanks. Elainasla (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elainasla: Article looks good to me. Well-sources, unbiased, doesn’t rely on IMDb. Good job. TropicAces (talk) 14:14, 25 August 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks @TropicAces:. I was just wondering, how long does it take for a newly created page to get approved on the site? Is the turnaround time for it pretty fast or does the approval process take several days? Elainasla (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Elainasla: when I’ve created pages, when it’s a person it usually takes 1-3 days for an admin to officially clear it. Film pages I've been able to verify myself, but I guess there just is some extra checking when it comes to people. The banner should go away in a day or so. TropicAces (talk) 20:16, 25 August 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: Thanks for informing me about the process and length of time for page approval. As always, your assistance is greatly appreciated. Have a lovely day! Elainasla (talk) 02:38, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Parasite (2019) for GA

I have decided to nominate the page, Parasite (2019 film), as a Good Article nominee. As I am not a frequent editor on its page, I have been told to talk to the editors who have worked the most on it. According to the statistics, you have added and/or edited 11.4% of the page. I wanted to leave this here when the nomination went up so you could join the discussion as soon as possible. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Notification of Rfc that you may be interested in

A discussion is taking place regarding the addition of the science fiction genre to the Tenet article. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Scream 5 page should be moved to Untitled Scream sequel or Scream (2022) film

Hi @TropicAces:. Hope all is well. I wanted to bring another query to your attention. According to Paramount Pictures, the title of this movie hasn't actually been confirmed as Scream 5. It appears that certain media outlets are making that assumption, even though the recent teaser on the official Scream Twitter account did not show a numbered Scream title. What lends more credence to the above statement is that the directors involved have not connected this project and referred to it as Scream 5 either. Additionally, Variety noted that Spyglass Media Group and Paramount are labeling this movie as a "relaunch" of the series. I find this case to be similar to what Universal Pictures, Blumhouse Productions and Miramax did to Halloween (2018 film) in that front. In light of such evidence, I suggest the idea of re-titling the aforementioned article page to either Untitled Scream sequel or Scream (2022), to accommodate the change. Elainasla (talk) 06:28, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Tenet

Hi, hope you’re doing well. I wanted to ask your opinion on whether the information provided to the article Tenet regarding the films financial losses should be included in the introduction or not, since it’s excessive and unnecessary in the intro, and that it’s already included later in the article. I don’t want to start an edit war so I’d like to ask you for advice. Also, I’ve been reported on my talk page for “disruptive editing” for some reason due to my edits on the article and have no idea why. Thanks, any help would be greatly appreciated. KaitoNkmra23 talk 21:32, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

KaitoNkmra23 I can’t speak to your User page, but as far as the financial losses go, I’d say hold off for now because we don’t have specifics on the losses. TropicAces (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Edwin De La Renta

Hello TropicAces. This is a long shot on my part, and I hope you do not mind me contacting you. I have had, over the past three years or so, two e-mails from this actor, enquiring why he has not got an article on Wikipedia. To be frank, I was not sure three years ago whether De La Renta was notable, and pointed him towards the Wikipedia section on notability. However, he now informs me that he 'starred' in three films from the recent past ie. The Informer, The Last Faust and Bharat. I presume that might make him notable enough, although this type of subject matter is not one I have ever had dealings with. To be brutally frank, I have no interest in either films or actors, and do not want to get involved in this case, beyond trying to pass his details on to an editor that may have such a passion. I noticed you have undertaken some edits on The Informer recently, so that is why I am asking you. I had enquired with another editor months ago, but got no response.

Please do not feel obliged to take this on - I just needed to start (again) somewhere. Thanks - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Derek R Bullamore just doing a quick IMDb search, I would guess that he does not meet the qualifications for a page. He’s only had a few roles in feature films, and isn’t among top-billing in them. How I would see it, at least. TropicAces (talk) 17:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Thanks for the speedy response. I will take your word for it and let him know according. Cheers. - Derek R Bullamore (talk) 17:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Monster Hunter

Hi TropicAces. It's a detail, but... Regarding this edit. Your edit is probably fine, but your edit summary could have mentioned that you also removed the BRWC review. It's not uncommon for Critical response sections to include not just the RT score but also a quote(s) from one or more reviews. You decided to remove such a review, perhaps because it wasn't notable (enough). But your edit summary does not reflect this. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 17:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello TropicAces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Mazewaxie (talk • contribs) 17:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

@Mazewaxie: thanks mate! Merry Christmas to you and yours as well! TropicAces (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

Hello TropicAces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

@Starzoner: appreciate it! Same to you and yours! TropicAces (talk) 00:19, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

WW 84

I agree with you about it being protected. Should we request it? Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:58, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just saw you already did. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 16:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello TropicAces: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

About The Little Things

• Hi, I noticed you removed the genre to a psychological thriller due to genre overlap. I would like to know the way of categorizing, since I checked an IndieWire post. It wrote about the genre was a neo-noir psychological crime thriller. --Beta Lohman (talk) 09:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Beta Lohman: my reasoning is that per the Manuel of Style for Film: "Genre classifications should comply with WP:WEIGHT and represent what is specified by a majority of mainstream reliable sources." Neo-noir psychological crime thriller is four genres, which is a bit excessive. A way to get around this is if we start the article "The Little Things is a 2021 American crime film..." then a sentence or two later can say "Using neo-noir and psychological thriller aspects, the plot follows a...” If that all makes sense. Cheers! TropicAces (talk) 14:03, 27 January 2021 (UTC)tropicAces

你好，这部电影更属于新黑色电影。因为有一个愤世嫉俗的主角，而且剧情更朝着悲凉的方向发展。没有一个通常犯罪片的大快人心的结局。你应该作一点修正，很多来源如好莱坞报导者、今日美国、决策者刊都指向这是一部新黑色电影。

Self-trans: Hi, this film is more of a neo-noir film. Because there is an cynical protagonist, and the plot develops in a bleak direction. There is not a happy ending to the usual crime movies. You should make a correction. Many sources like Hollywood Reporter[7], USA today[8], Decider[9] point to this as a neo-noir film.--Beta Lohman (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Dustin Diamond

On 3 February 2021, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Dustin Diamond, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Spencer^T•C 22:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Reassessment of GA-status for 1917 (2019 film)

1917 (2019 film), an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Sprachraum (talk) 05:03, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello fella

Thank you man for creating the plot of Godzilla vs kong. Theboywonder2001 (talk) 16:24, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

According to

I noticed you are adding Metacritic with the wording "According to".[10] This appears to go against MOS:DOUBT. This is different from the wording that I have seen in many older articles. There is nothing in WP:MOSFILM to suggest it should be written this way (nothing in WP:RTMC either). It is strangely inconsistent to write "According to" for Metacritic but not do the same for Rotten Tomatoes, as both are review aggregators. Why not keep it simple and write On Rotten Tomatoes ... and On Metacritic ... consistent with so many existing articles? -- 109.78.199.4 (talk) 15:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

This "according to" is not relevant to MOS:DOUBT (where it is not even mentioned), and "other stuff exists" is not a valid reason to copy paste every word. PS: "According to" with MC can also be seen in music and video game articles. ภץאคгöร 18:04, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I asked Tropic Aces for his opinion because he usually has a good reason for his edits. I did not ask Sebastian James or Nyxaros whatever fake name he is using now. Other stuff exists for a reason, but things can change. I am asking what is the reason for change and what is the benefit to making things even more inconsistent?

If people believe this wording is not just different (other stuff exists) but actually better then they must have their reasons and I hoped Tropic Aces would explain his. Maybe they have already started a discussion on Project Film to get other editors to do it too, and maybe I just missed it? Unfortunately it seems as if some editors think consistency is a bad thing for an encyclopedia and they want to mix things up. I don't always agree with Tropic Aces but he is an experienced editor and if he is doing this then he might have a good reason for it. I posted on his talk page asking for his opinion, not anyone elses. If other people think this change is such a good idea they are more than welcome to bring this to the Project Film talk page and start a discussion already. -- 109.78.199.4 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I see you are continuing to use the wording "According to"[11]. Again I would appreciate if you could explain why you think this wording is better than other possible wordings. -- 109.78.207.148 (talk) 16:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

RT, Metacritic, and Wikidata

When using the RT and Metacritic templates, the "ref" parameter sometimes does not produce a citation. This is because the information is not listed in the article's Wikidata page. If citations do not appear in the article, please go to the article's Wikidata and add the indentifiers. For example, for Blacklight (film), I added the ids for both RT and Metacritic to the Wikidata and references now appear in the article. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Some Dude From North Carolina: ok was wondering where the references were. Appreciate it. TropicAces (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)tropicaces

ITN recognition for Ray Liotta

On 27 May 2022, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Ray Liotta, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:11, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Crawdads...

In response to your deletion.... We do need some sort of audience response in the lead. Feel free to write a sentence that meets your expectations and based on the sourced content. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:07, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic World Dominion runtime

I think the Extended version runtime should be on the infobox, if not elsewhere. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:29, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: per wp:FILMRUNTIME, the runtime in the infobox should be "limited to the primary release". I see no reason why in the home media section there can’t be a line like "the home media includes 20 minutes of additional footage" or something, though. TropicAces (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)tropicAces

Black Adam box office

The Box Office Mojo and Deadline sources have the international gross as $75.9 million and since usually the higher gross tends to be used (unless there's indication it's incorrect), please don't change it to the one by The Numbers which says the international gross is $75.7 million. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 15:03, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Mummy (2017 film)

Appears it's being whitewashed. The budget is supposedly $125-195M. The Deadline source on the second value states "$195M production cost and $150M distribution/ad expenses" - $345M. Some anon is removing that the studio lost money. I reverted once. Would you please take a look? Cheers Adakiko (talk) 11:00, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: yeah this has been an odd semi-constant IP removal since the film's release, I assume it’s because someone without inside baseball knowledge of film financing looks at “the film grossed $410 million against a $100-something budget” and assumes that means it made money. I reverted it back, will request page protection if it happens again soon. TropicAces (talk) 12:43, 17 November 2022 (UTC)tropicAces

Should that 150M distribution expenses be included in the budget? That might help. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko: no, the infobox is for production budget only. I think the combined figure is noted throughout the article, though. TropicAces (talk) 03:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)tropicAces

• @Mako001: I see you've had a discussion on User talk:2A02:C7F:1910:7C00:8901:CEF6:BE75:40B5 about Dateline Hollywood. Cheers Adakiko (talk) 06:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

  @Adakiko: Their argument was basically that the Deadline source gave an outdated box office gross estimate, and that the actual takings were higher. I'm not too familiar with film financing, so I was inclined to take that at face value. I don't consider that discussion to have held much weight for actual accuracy of the contributions, it was only to determine whether I should revert them for inadequately explained deletion. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 11:52, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mako001: the counter to that argument is the range in the article is listed with a $60 million basement, and the secondary source (IndieWire) notes the losses of close to $100 million. To say the film lost no money (the implication by erasing all traces of the articles) is bit disingenuous (not you, the IP). TropicAces (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2022 (UTC)tropicAces

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

File:BlackAFlogo.png listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:BlackAFlogo.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. 2600:1700:9DD0:8FD0:C100:E3AE:EEDC:7C60 (talk) 15:17, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy New Year, TropicAces!

Happy New Year!

TropicAces,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 05:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

JW4

Noticed your edit here about the "common thread of reviews". Common thread according to whom? Your personal research or did a source provide that analysis? Please see WP:FILMLEAD which states: "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources." Thank you. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 19:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC

Indy 5

Given the Flash debacle, which also flopped fairly quickly as well, the recent trend of franchise fatigue, and the simple fact that Indy 5 is one of the most inexpensive movies ever made at 300 mil(not including the equally high marketing costs), it is not too soon to call this a flop based on its trajectory and how it’s tracking. It’s a nobrainer in fact. And the failure of The Flash likely made it easier for the press to call this, given that it’s part of a larger trend.

I noticed in reviewing your editing history you have a habit as acting as an unofficial spin doctor over the years for major corporate movies. Let’s not? We go with the citations and reflect the press consensus. And they aren’t conflicted about this movie’s disastrous debut. 2601:282:8100:32A0:1160:4C56:A617:9992 (talk) 14:52, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Last Edit War of Doom

Despite politely asking you to discuss your thinking on the talk-page—- for the unconventional and odd agenda of “a budget range” on the Indy film page when no other film article expresses itself this way—- you are persisting nevertheless on this esoteric point.

So I will ask you here.

Why?!?

The majority of sources on this say the production budget is approximately $300 mil, NOT including marketing costs.

Here is one of the most recent sources https://www.digitalspy.com/movies/a44488606/indiana-jones-5-box-office-explained/

(quote)“That insane bloated 300 mil price tag for Indy 5 doesn’t even include marketing costs, which is likely around $150+ million at least (i.e.bombing for the same reason as “The Flash” which has earned back more than its $220 mil production budget yet is still a HUGE flop when taking in account its roughly $150+ marketing budget which isn’t included in that initial $220 number).”(end quote)

I’m going to AGF that you are NOT engaging in a WP:BATTLEGROUND here simply because ‘some of us’ aren’t allowing watered-down language on the film’s “flop” status. So why this quixotic crusade?CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 05:54, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@TropicAces All the sources agree that Indy 5 costs around $300mil to make and about $100+ to market. Only a couple sources, and one as far as I can tell, decided to lazily combine ALL the costs into one number to make a larger point that doesn’t even make the case you are making. You are the one “cherry picking” in what is honestly looking like a continued attempt to spin the misfortunes of the film. Our job isn’t to (re)interpret the box office analysis by the press CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@TropicAces @Zvig47 I like your compromise, TropicAces =)

Thx you for respecting my boundaries and position here, and (hopefully) resolving this ‘debate’ for all involved. Cheers! CoffeeMeAlready (talk) 02:10, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

MI:DR

I’m fine leaving out what you consider “commentary” on the lead but then let’s leave out all the WP:Puffery, since there isn’t especially anything particularly WP:notable about the critical reaction to this (i.e. it’s not like this is a critically-acclaimed groundbreaking film like “Tar” or “Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “T2”).

Mentioning this here to avoid more conflict on these film pages. Have a good oneCoffeeMeAlready (talk) 18:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Invitation

Hello TropicAces!

• The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
• We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
• Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
• If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 07:51, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on The Little Mermaid (2023 film)

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Little Mermaid (2023 film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Not just the Infobox

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article

You should be adding budget details to the article Production section _before_ adding information to the Infobox.[12] -- 109.77.196.204 (talk) 18:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 21

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jim Morris (film producer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Total Recall.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ISeeYouPoster.jpeg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ISeeYouPoster.jpeg. 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) 17:27, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Journey to bethlehem theatrical poster.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Journey to bethlehem theatrical poster.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 2023 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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello TropicAces, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

"can let sources speak for themselves"?

What did you mean here? The sources already speak for themselves: the cited refs explicitly state mixed reviews. ภץאคгöร 19:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

If you do it one more time, I'm going to report you for disruptive editing and removing reliable references for no reason. ภץאคгöร 07:06, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

October 2024

Hello. Your edit here seems to have introduced an error, I tried to fix it but I can't see the exact problem there. Can you help and fix it if you can? Regards. Medxvo (talk) 16:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what the problem is, as all notes show up and I copied the same template as other articles. If the only issue is we get a weird flag notice, but the Reception section stays clean and the other notes still pop up, could just leave it? TropicAces (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The last "negative" reference (the Vanity Fair reference) isn't showing for some reason. If we remove it, then the reference preceding it (the Digital Spy reference) won't show up as well, so the problem isn't with the Vanity Fair reference itself; it should be with the Notes section or something else, I don't really know. I guess getting the negative efn specifically back to the reception section would be a better idea since it would solve the problem. What do you think? Medxvo (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Like, we can do that. But that opens the door for both to go back (not the worst, I just think it's incredibly messy and makes finding the review prompts to edit a task) or people who don't get how notes work may think the mixed is getting erased or something. I'm sure there is an easy fix here, notes get ref names on pages all the time, but I the meantime go ahead and fix it how you see fit so all the refs show up proper. Thanks for cleaning up my mess. TropicAces (talk) 18:09, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Your final phrasing for RT and MC

Hi, please read my latest comments in the discussion and comment there what you think the final phrasing should be for both RT and Metacritic, cos the others in that discussion are just opposing my phrasing for the sake of opposing and saying nothing else constructive: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Rotten_Tomatoes_prose#New_Wording_(Nov_2024) Cinephile4ever 16:12, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to participate in Wikipedia research

Hello,

I recently invited you to take a survey about administration on Wikipedia. If you haven’t yet had a chance, there is still time to participate– we’d truly appreciate your feedback. The survey is anonymous and should take about 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement.

Take the survey here.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:29, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

Better source request for File:SextupletsPoster.png

Thanks for your upload to Wikipedia:

• File:SextupletsPoster.png

You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete or generic. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact source (such as the web page, or printed document) where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain, search engine, pinboard, aggregator, or the direct/bare URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 14:55, 24 November 2024 (UTC)