Talk:The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones

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

Sequel?[edit]

Should there be a "Sequel" section? Because, I heard some talk about a sequel based on "City of Ashes". Zuko Halliwell (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is talk. The Hollywood Reporter says a sequel is planned and that Sigourney Weaver may be cast. Can you start a "Sequel" section with this information? Erik (talk | contribs) 16:07, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources[edit]

TMI Source calls itself a fansite. Fansites are not normally accepted as reliable sources but it is used repeatedly in this article. Also it is not a very well written source, mostly repeating other sources or referencing twitter.
For example the mention of Benjamin Stone is based on an interview with We Love Soaps so that article should have been referenced instead of TMI Source. Also the actor comments that he would have been interested in the role but it was already cast, there is no source that says he auditioned for the role, so that section needs to be rephrased or removed.
Please help removing TMI Source references, replacing them with better sources where possible. -- 109.76.238.157 (talk) 18:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All references to TMI Source have been removed from the article. Any edits that reference TMI Source should be removed and only added back when other sources are provided. -- 109.79.97.234 (talk) 18:09, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's Quite A Sentence![edit]

"Clary is shocked to learn that her mother is also a shadowhunter and that she too has the powers of one and to remember she goes to the City of Bones and in her dream sees memories of her mom and herself in the shadow then she writes a name unreadable with her not knowing it and Jace decodes it and traces it to Magnus Bane a warlock and he says he blocked her memories and he is the mysterious person who bought all her mom's paintings."

Whew! Read these pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Full_stop --68.41.20.17 (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be WP:BOLD and fix it. Or cry and die a little inside as you come to accept that Wikipedia often gets worse before it gets better. -- 109.76.238.157 (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Country[edit]

This film is produced by Constantin, a German company. That much is clear (the budget citations in particular make this clear).

It is less clear if any other countries should be there. At various times others have added British and American to the infobox. Why? Do existing references cover this assertion. Editors who have made these changes have not shown enough good faith to follow the simple rules, and provide an edit summary so it difficult to know if they have the slightest clue what they are doing. -- 109.78.174.180 (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notes at the end of the LA Times review calls the film a Canada-German co-production. I'm going to tag the infobox as needing a citation, it is not clear the existing information is correct. -- 109.76.48.95 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Still not clear it is correct to call this an American film. -- 109.77.235.200 (talk) 00:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Article has been changed to Canadian and that is what the LA Times source above supports. Unless any further changes include a proper reference I would recommend reverting them. -- 109.78.140.11 (talk) 15:00, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted WP:GOODFAITH change, suggesting it was a US/German co production. The source is behind a paywall but it looks like German production (with Canadian co-production/locations) and US distributor (Screen Gems) has confused matters again.
Further to the above source of the LA Times calling it a Canadian German production, the New York Times also indicates it a Canada, Germany production. -- 109.78.244.176 (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've found seperate sources that don't refer to it as a Canadian production:

However, I have also found CBC article noting it's Canadian status.

I think we should go with [this German site which explains the production status:

Production company: Constantin Film Produktion GmbH (München), Don Carmody Productions (Toronto) in co-production with Unique Features (US)[3]

what do you guys think? The German site seems to explain things the best. Can we use that as a source? Andrzejbanas (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the only person likely to respond to this (previous attempts to get discussions about this article got almost no response).
Constantin is a German company, that is a certainty. The only doubt is about the other countries.
People have added United States to this article repeatedly, but I'm fairly sure you are the only one who even tried to properly source it. I understand why people might interpret it as an American production but I don't think it is technically correct. If you want to include it in addition to German and Canada I'm not going to argue about it either.
If you look at the high resolution version of the poster it says Canada Germany Co-production (near the bottom, to the left of PG-13, under Soundtrack on Republic Records).
FilmPortal.de looks fine, it doesn't seem any more authoritative than any other source but so long as we're clear the primary country is Germany, go for it. -- 109.78.244.176 (talk) 12:44, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I never said it's considered better, but it displays the information more clearly. I'll add it now. Cheers. Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gross[edit]

Section removed from article:

There was some confusion as to how much money the film had made. Martin Moszkowicz, one of the producers, mentioned that the film had made $50,000,000 worldwide. However, as he is German, the sum was in German marks, not American dollars. Although the official currency of Germany is the Euro, the Deutsche Mark is still widely used, with $1 US dollar equalling 1.48 Deutsche Marks. 50 million DEM x 0.676 (the conversion) = 33 million US dollars, which is what Box Office Mojo reports.}}

This is not notable so I removed it. Even if it was notable there is no citation to verify Moszkowicz ever claimed the film had earned 50 million dollars (or deutchmarks), and there is no citation to show anyone was confused either, but that is all irrelevant because this alleged confusion simply is not notable to begin with. -- 109.79.97.234 (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

guys, when considering the bx office, do not just consider north america. city of bones has made it up to 50 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.204.16.32 (talk) 14:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed. Again see above section titled "Gross" and read the information provided by Box Office Mojo and if you still do not understand then find a reliable source to prove the box office is more and the existing sources have been slow to update. "The Numbers" an alternative source to Box Office Mojo sometimes updates their figures first and they also put the worldwide total at $32 million.
As of writing (Sept 6) Box Office Mojo has the total at $34 million and TheNumbers already has the film at $46 million. I resisted going with higher figure, I expect Box Office Mojo will soon update to that too. I'm sure the film will earn more than $50 million but it has not done so yet and the article needs to stick to reliable sources. -- 109.78.24.155 (talk) 17:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Box Office Mojo sucks[edit]

Wow, I knew they got the budget wrong (or rounded it off) on a regular basis but I had no idea Box Office Mojo sucked quite this badly. Finally an editor has followed the WP:SIMPLE rules and explained in the edit summary what they are doing: Box Office Mojo fails to update it's own subtotals. At the time of writing the list they list $37 million worldwide, of which $9 million is listed as foreign (or international) but if you look at the tab for Foreign and look down below the subtotal you can quickly see there is quite a bit more than $9 million listed there.

So much of this trouble could have been avoided if editors made even a tiny little effort to explain their edits. This mess makes it clear that Box Office Mojo only just barely counts as a reliable source. -- 109.76.241.16 (talk) 13:01, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the warning, this note explaining the situation, the note on my talk page and for the work you've been doing on this article. I'll keep the pending changes in place, as they have an expiry of two weeks and I think the article is still disputed enough to keep them active for their set duration (some people might still ignore the hidden note and keep changing the figures, anyway). Acalamari 14:52, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I want the article to be consistent, and use the same figures in both the infobox and article text. If there is a consensus that Box Office Mojo is unreliable or misleading and do not think that figures add up I'm okay with that too. I accepted the amended Box Office Mojo figures once it was explained where they came from and there was enough information to WP:VERIFY. If editors want to instead use The Numbers in both places, that would be great too. Find the consensus, do the same thing in both places and we can deal with the fans who will continue to gripe about the figures.
If someone could get Box Office Mojo to fix their website that would be even better.
Actually this seems like an ideal time to ask for a 3rd opinion -- 109.76.241.16 (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gone with the gross figures from The Numbers for now. It seems clearer and less ambiguous that way. At least it is consistent. -- 109.76.94.227 (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable to me, although I still expect some people to continue to change the figures, regardless. In response to your edit summmary here, I have been reading what you've been saying but I have been limiting my involvement because I protected the article. Acalamari 17:17, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree it should be the same in both places (infobox and article body) If the consensus is that Mojo is not reliable than replace the citation in the infobox. Meanwhile, as a reviewer I'm approving an edit which changes the total to Mojo total which is the current citation in the infobox.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:57, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for commenting. About half the IP edits on this article are mine (usually the same subnet, not hard to notice), and I'm trying to get some sense of what people want but the lack of feedback makes that very difficult so I've increasingly made a decision and tried to be consistent. It is very hard to get consensus when other editors are not discussing the changes or even making the most basic simple efforts to follow the rules and at least show the smallest bit of good faith by providing an edit summary.
I like to use multiple sources. A lot of Wikipedia editors do not like this for some strange reason, one even going so far as to suggest "Box Office Mojo" was an official source. When there was doubt over the figures it reinforced the fact that the film had not yet reached $50 million, even though they did not both match each other exactly. I also added a note (to the Infobox, and later a second note to the article) recommending The Numbers be used.
Going with the higher figure from The Numbers also helps deter fans from repeatedly trying to delete the whole sentence, as I probably already mentioned the disputed gross figures were the reason this article was protected in the first place. -- 109.78.155.122 (talk) 01:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We can discuss if we should give priority to Box Office Mojo or The Numbers but I consider it rude to remove the secondary source, bordering on vandalism. -- 109.76.106.236 (talk) 20:57, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to see some more discussion here, too; so far there's just endless back and forth reverting. At least you've provided plenty of rationales, both on the talk page and in your edit summaries, for your edits. Acalamari 21:02, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated again to the latest figures from The Numbers (in both the article text and infobox). Box Office Mojo lags behind by about $6 million. To show good faith I made the effort to check and see if Box Office Mojo was doing the right thing and properly updating their totals. I went to the page for "foreign" (sic) box office gross and copied the table to a spreadsheet, and then I used the spreadsheet to calculate the totals for the column. Result, stated total $38,300,000 but actual total was $39,381,216.00 so I will stick with The Numbers.
Also the editor determined to use Box Office Mojo needs someone to politely teach how to use named references, I don't understand why others are accepting edits that repeat references when named references were already in place. -- 109.76.106.236 (talk) 21:40, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As of 2013-10-17 The Numbers puts the total gross at $75 million, Box Office Mojo gives $80 million, and an anonymous editor introduced another source BoxOffice.com that puts the total at $82 million. I reverted that edit as because instead of actually adding the new source separately, it was inserted into an existing named reference, so not only did it remove a source it made a mess too. Failing to follow the simple rules and explain with an edit summary also shows a lack of WP:GOODFAITH.
Is BoxOffice.com a good source? After reverting the mess should I add it in too? It claims the budget for the film is $90 million, but both The Numbers.com and Box Office Mojo say $60 million (the usually reliable LA Times also puts the budget at $60 million). Not a good indication of it being a reliable source.
Again I've gone to Box Office Mojo and taken a look at the international gross, which lists a total of $49 million but again after cutting and pasting the totals into a spreadsheet, it comes up with an actual total of $51 million. So again Box Office Mojo fails to update totals, and the total gross is probably $82 million which is what BoxOffice.com gives.
I stand by the recommendation to continue using The Numbers, unless there is a discussion to use other sources. -- 109.76.48.95 (talk) 14:34, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Flop[edit]

I removed comments from the Sequel section calling the film a flop. If anywhere this information belongs in the Box office section. Some of it could be moved to that section but there is a risk of giving it undue weight so proceed with caution.

I previously cleaned up and tidied various bits added to the box office section that seemed a bit harsh (possible NPOV or UNDUE) but there were sources that supported it and when rephrased to avoid some of the hyperbole it seemed reasonable. More sources could be added from the bit above I removed but I think the Box office section has enough coverage for now. -- 109.76.241.16 (talk) 20:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bleurgh. Typo in edit summary, should have read: Discuss on Talk page. The poor performance is already addressed in Box office section, redundant to add it under Sequels but okay to add under box office if you must. -- 16:59, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Sections about Sequels always suffer from WP:CRYSTAL and issues of "he said she said". I could argue that claims from THR and TheWrap are speculative and encyclopedic and do not belong at all. We have to wait and see if a sequel is made. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not news. Do not get ahead of the information.
Banging on about the film being a flop in the Sequels section is inappropriate, repetitive and gives undue weight to criticism of a film that is still showing and still earning. I've already made several efforts to tone down the hyperbole and cleanup the early sources that called the film a flop. If you insist on adding more I hope you will add them to the Box Office section and make more effort to clean them up and present them as citations with the details properly filled in. -- 109.76.94.227 (talk) 16:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editor asked again about calling this a flop/bomb and again I asked editor to read the talk page, so again I'll say: include them if you must, but the Box office is the appropriate place to add it, alongside the existing comments from Forbes magazine calling the initial 5 day weekend gross a disaster. -- 109.77.130.205 (talk) 13:37, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Although I agree that this removal was odd, I do however need to mention that the reason why I did (and will do it again now) is because the archive redirects to dead link: http://web.archive.org/web/20150210180455/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/threeup.php?threeup=yes&VerticalName=Entertainment&entry_id=3780375&v=1&h=12

Now compare it to: [http//web.archive.org/web/20130820004623/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/ariana-grande-almost-is-never-enough_n_3780375.html this] and you will see the reason.

I'm already on the edge when a ton of guys like you start to revert constructive edits because you want to block someone for edit war! I also will urge you to register so that I can see with which vandal am I dealing with?--Mishae (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That first link you mention in your comment is broken, I can see that.
The second link you mention and the original both work fine for me, maybe they aren't working for you, but it is strange that you would remove them from the article when they [seem to] work.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/ariana-grande-almost-is-never-enough_n_3780375.html
http//web.archive.org/web/20130820004623/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/ariana-grande-almost-is-never-enough_n_3780375.html
It is also strange that you would remove spaces from the infobox, it is formatted the same as Template:Infobox film. It is strange that you would remove strict formatting like putting quotes around named references. I understand if you choose not to use quote marks or indentation yourself, but it is strange that you would deliberately remove them.
I don't know why you are taking about edit warring, see WP:GOODFAITH and calling someone a vandal (even if I actually was one) isn't a good idea.
On the basis that there may be a redirect problem that you are seeing that is not affecting me then okay, I'll remove that archiveurl for huffingtonpost but please leave the other changes alone. -- 109.79.152.132 (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:109.79.152.132 And I need to live those changed alone, because? Every user have a privilege to change infobox and remove formatting if they do it with another edit. I personally don't see a point in them, but another revert will send you to a block.--Mishae (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I also need to inform you that your reverts are part of edit warring, and therefore might very soon be in violation of WP:3RR. I understand that your edit maybe was in good faith, but your revert indicated otherwise (and still does). I suggest you to stop edit warring, and live the article as it was before User:Sarasharkatly2003 edits. While reverting his edits was an act of good faith, reverting my edits was an act of vandalism. If it will happen again, I will demand a block for you, and this will be my final warning. Also, I would strongly advise you to register because it is difficult for me to ping you, since anonyms don't get pinged for some reason.--Mishae (talk) 20:25, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And as far as {{Infobox film}} goes, it is not a policy or guideline. Besides, there are many articles that don't follow it either way, so your battle here is useless.--Mishae (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think you are being reasonable. I do think you should ask for a 3rd opinion. There is no requirement for registration, and if you want to make comments the Talk page for an article is the best place to make them.
If I did not format a date correctly feel free to change it. If I included http:// in an archiveurl feel free to correct it[1]. But it is hypocritical of you to complain in edit summaries about formatting and then insist there should not be spaces in the Infobox and to revert edits that use strict formatting (adding quotation marks). Why remove spaces from the Infobox? Why remove spaces from the infobox but leave them in other templates through the article? For most versions of the article it had the infobox was formatted with spaces and most articles do include the spacing even if some don't.
[1] The discussion you pointed to was confusing and misleading. There is an essay that explains it Wikipedia:Protocol-relative URL that is more helpful. It appears to only be a recommendation though, not yet policy. If you want to format archiveurls like that fine, but it seems like you are making very strong comments about doing things that way even though it is only a guideline not a policy and then making very strongly telling me I shouldn't do something because it is not a policy. So please do get an admin. -- 109.79.152.132 (talk) 22:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Mortal_Instruments:_City_of_Bones&oldid=1208054865"