Talk:List of biggest box-office bombs

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Trimmed list

The list is currently limited to a soft limit of around 100 films. Films cut from the list will be maintained here in the event that we need to re-add one or in case the decision is taken to extend the list at some point. Betty Logan (talk)

Trimmed list

Title	Year	Production budget	Gross	Estimated loss		Ref
				Nominal	Adjusted for inflation
All the King's Men	2006	$55,000,000	$9,500,000	$45,500,000	$69,000,000
Aloha	2015	$37,000,000	$26,300,000	$65,000,000	$84,000,000
Battleship	2012	$209,000,000	$303,000,000	$58,000,000	$77,000,000
The Bonfire of the Vanities	1990	$47,000,000	$15,700,000	$31,300,000	$73,000,000
Can't Stop the Music	1980	$20,000,000	$2,000,000	$18,000,000	$67,000,000
Catwoman	2004	$100,000,000	$82,100,000	$52,900,000	$85,000,000
Delgo	2008	$40,000,000	$900,000	$39,100,000	$55,000,000
Ghost in the Shell	2017	$110,000,000	$169,800,000	$60,000,000	$75,000,000
Gods and Generals	2003	$55,000,000–60,00,000	$12,900,000	$47,100,000	$78,000,000
Hello, Dolly!	1969	$25,300,000	$33,200,000	$10,000,000	$83,000,000
Hero	1992	$42,000,000	$66,500,000	$25,600,000	$56,000,000
Honky Tonk Freeway	1981	$24,000,000	$2,000,000	$22,000,000	$74,000,000
Justice League	2017	$300,000,000	$657,900,000	$60,000,000	$75,000,000
The Last Castle	2001	$72,000,000	$27,600,000	$44,400,000	$76,000,000
Lost Horizon	1973	$12,000,000	$3,000,000	$9,000,000	$62,000,000
The Lovely Bones	2009	$65,000,000	$93,600,000	$58,000,000	$82,000,000
The Majestic	2001	$72,000,000	$37,300,000	$34,700,000	$60,000,000
Man on the Moon	1999	$52,000,000–82,000,000	$47,400,000	$34,600,000	$63,000,000
Mary Reilly	1995	$47,000,000	$12,900,000	$34,100,000	$68,000,000
Mr. Peabody & Sherman	2014	$145,000,000	$275,700,000	$57,000,000	$73,000,000
Nine	2009	$80,000,000	$54,000,000	$57,000,000	$81,000,000
North	1994	$40,000,000	$7,200,000	$32,800,000	$67,000,000
Nothing but Trouble	1991	$40,000,000	$8,500,000	$31,500,000	$70,000,000
One from the Heart	1982	$26,000,000	$600,000	$25,400,000	$80,000,000
Penguins of Madagascar	2014	$132,000,000	$373,000,000	$49,000,000	$63,000,000
Quest for Camelot	1998	$40,000,000	$38,200,000	$40,000,000	$75,000,000
Revolution	1985	$28,000,000	$400,000	$27,600,000	$78,000,000
Ride with the Devil	1999	$35,000,000–38,000,000	$600,000	$37,400,000	$68,000,000
The Scarlet Letter	1995	$46,000,000	$10,400,000	$35,600,000	$71,000,000
Son of the Mask	2005	$84,000,000	$57,600,000	$42,400,000	$66,000,000
Timeline	2003	$80,000,000	$43,900,000	$36,100,000	$60,000,000
Yes, Giorgio	1982	$19,000,000	$1,400,000	$17,600,000	$56,000,000

Other flops with unknown losses

Filmsite.org

• Paint Your Wagon (film)
• Zabriskie Point (film)
• The Message (1976 film)
• Sorcerer (film)
• Raise the Titanic (film)
• Lion of the Desert
• Roar (1981 film)
• Dune (film)
• Howard the Duck (film)
• Shanghai Surprise
• Leonard Part 6
• Last Action Hero
• Judge Dredd (film)
• Money Train (film)
• Batman & Robin (film)
• Speed 2: Cruise Control
• The Avengers (1998 film)
• Meet Joe Black
• Wild Wild West
• Snowpiercer* ~ 74m [1]
• Transcendence (2014 film)* ~ 68m [2]

 • The Numbers later removed Snowpiercer and Trancendence from their list so it is unclear how much they lost. Betty Logan (talk)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

lowest grossing film list

is there a lowest grossing film list like the highest grossing film list? the list would be different from box office bomb list since that is just the box office earnings while this is about profit. examples are The Worst Movie Ever! ($11) and Zyzzyx Road ($30) which are not even on this list -155.69.160.77 (talk) 02:08, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of. I think it would be virtually impossible to construct such a list because there is nothing to prevent me making my own movie and hiring a theater to screen it at. There are probably thousands of films that have grossed something like $30. Betty Logan (talk) 11:22, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

The Book of Henry

The Book of Henry was a box office bomb, costing $10 million to make and making back less then half its budget. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Losing $10 million these days doesn't make a film a box-office bomb, just unprofitable. All films on this listed have lost over $70 million. Betty Logan (talk) 14:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Geostorm

Resolved

Geostorm reportedly lost about $71.6 million. http://www.deadline.com/2018/03/king-arthur-geostorm-monster-trucks-the-promise-the-great-wall-box-office-losses-1202354934/ --Fladoodle (talk) 06:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Missed film

For reasons that I might not understand, the 2012 film Dredd (film) has been left out of the list. If someone could explain why it doesn't appear on this list, then I'd be happy. Cypher7850 (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Um, perhaps because it didn't bomb? Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

It did bomb. Sites like The Numbers have its worldwide box office total as less than its production budget [3], so it must have lost a lot of money. However, it still probably didn't lose enough to make it onto the list, which requires an inflation-adjusted loss of about $70 million. Calathan (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Ahh ok. Thanks for explaining Calathan. Cypher7850 (talk) 16:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I think the name of this article may need to be changed to List of largest box office bombs. With no qualifier in the title, this problem might keep coming up. --Blemby (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think that is a good suggestion. Or should it be List of biggest box office bombs? I can't decide which is grammatically correct. Betty Logan (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Every list i've seen on WP has "largest." --Blemby (talk) 02:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

I think "biggest" sounds better. JMHO - ^theWOLFchild 04:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

For what it's worth (and this doesn't really settle the debate over which is the correct adjective to use) the article used to be called List of biggest box office bombs but was renamed in 2012. If we did move the article back there we would need to get that redirect zapped. Betty Logan (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, but that's not a big deal. This site seems to indicate that "biggest" is the way to go. This was the first hit in a Google search of "biggest vs largest". FYI - ^theWOLFchild 04:38, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Movies that might eventually be added to the list

A Wrinkle in Time has to make at least $400 million to break even. https://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2018/03/08/review-a-wrinkle-in-time-delivers-weird-fun-and-heartfelt-family-entertainment/

Pacific Rim Uprising has to make at least $350 million to break even. http://deadline.com/2018/03/pacific-rim-uprising-black-panther-weekend-box-office-1202352184/

Rampage has to make at least $400 million to break even. http://deadline.com/2018/04/dwayne-johnson-rampage-box-office-weekend-a-quiet-place-1202363694/ Fladoodle (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the numbers provided, it's unlikely that Pac Rim 2 will be added. Entries on the list have lost at least $70M. PR2 would need to earn less than $280M (350-70), but it's currently at $286.5M and still in theatres. Likewise, Rampage will need to earn less than $330M (400-70), and it's currently at $334.6M, also still in theatres. Wrinkle in Time however might become an entry. It needs to earn less than $330M (400-70) and it's only at $125M. Still in theatres, but nearing the end of it's run. So, again, based on all the numbers provided, it looks like PR2 and Rampage likely not, but Wrinkle in Time likely so. - ^theWOLFchild 03:25, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Tomb Raider has to make at least $275 million to break even. http://deadline.com/2018/03/tomb-raider-black-panther-i-can-only-imagine-love-simon-weekend-box-office-results-sunday-1202341517/

Fladoodle (talk) 13:41, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

It's already at $273M and still in theatres, so another unlikely candidate for the list. - ^theWOLFchild 20:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

A Wrinkle in Time lost $86-186 million. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/lone-loser-disneys-big-quarter-wrinkle-time-220638977.html --Fladoodle (talk) 08:31, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

That figure only considers box-office and does not factor in home video and TV rights, so it's not a true reflection of the loss. If it did indeed cost $250 to produce and market then it will probably make the list with a loss of ~$100 million, but if only cost $150 million then it is highly unlikely it will lose enough to make the list. We need to wait for a more authoritative figure before adding to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 11:18, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Solo: A Star Wars Story --Fladoodle (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but is there a point to these "potential additions" you keep listing that might or might not be added? Either they will or they won't, but that will be determined by sourcing and not by any of these prognostications. This isn't really what these talk pages are for. (imho) - ^theWOLFchild 15:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

People have been listing movies that they think should be added to the list for a long time on this talk page.

--Fladoodle (talk) 05:01, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Sure, there were some other films mentioned before that also should not have been, while yet some other films were mentioned after they were at the end of their run (or near it), and had sources attached with numbers confirming losses bad enough to be listed as a bomb. Solo: ASWT is no where near that yet (if at all). Some of the other movies listed above were also noted prematurely and in some cases did not end up as entries on this list. Trying to start a chit-chat about movies you don't personally like and/or think will become a box office flop is basically treating this page as forum, which it is not. - ^theWOLFchild 05:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter says that Solo is expected to lose $50-80 million. http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/solo-will-post-first-loss-disneys-star-wars-empire-1116927 I don’t know if it’s too early to add it to the list or not. The only country it has left to open in is Japan which it will open in on June 29, but I don’t know how much longer it will be in theaters worldwide. Fladoodle (talk) 05:34, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

They are using a global gross of $400 million as the basis for that estimate, so if it finishes within 10% of that figure I'd say add it then. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

It's at $353M now. Nergaal (talk) 17:48, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

It is still making decent weekly money and it opens in Japan on Friday. It looks like it will cross 400 mil but not by much. We will have a clearer picture once it has opened in Japan. Betty Logan (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Still under 380M. Nergaal (talk) 16:24, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Now it’s at $384,931,925.

Fladoodle (talk) 22:07, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Sindbad : Legend of the Seven Seas

Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas is listed as the highest estimated loss, adjusted for inflation, with a loss of $125,000,000 (in 2003, adjusted to $166,000,000). Its is well attested and sourced that its net budget was $60,000,000 and its worldwide gross is $80,767,884, thus earning a benefit of $20,767,884. It makes literally sense to attribute to it a $125,000,000 loss that is mathematically impossible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monsieur Meuble (talk • contribs) 16:25, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

If you read the lead of this article then it would be clear to you why your Math does not stack up. The accompanying source that is provided along with Sinbad's entry states "The company nearly went bankrupt twice, Geffen said during a panel discussion in New York this year, adding that when the animated film "Sinbad: Legend of the Seven Seas" flopped in 2003, the resulting $125-million loss nearly sank his company." If you are correct then that means that David Geffen—who co-owned Dreamworks—is either incorrect or dishonest, and we would need independent reliable sources for either of those cases. Betty Logan (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There's a book about DreamWorks called The Men Who Would Be King. There's a whole chapter in there called "What Sinbad Wrought". From what I can see (since I can't get the whole book) Sinbad caused severe cutbacks at the whole company. The big loss seems accurate. --Blemby (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Monsieur Meuble - the math with films is never that simple and straight forward (box office minus budget equals profit or loss). There are always other factors to consider, chiefly among them advertising costs. Studios and/or production companies spend millions, (often tens of millions, sometimes hundreds of millions), to promote their films. These expenditures are almost never included in the disclosed budget (and the disclosed budget is not always accurate either). You will often read of "blockbusters" with $200M budgets that actually need twice that just to break even. It's the mysteries of 'Hollywood accounting". Listen to Betty Logan, she maintains these pages and knows what she's taking about. - ^theWOLFchild 23:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Problem with Filmsite

Filmsite is a well-researched site that this article depends heavily on. Unfortunately the box-office bombs section has been overhauled so that its numbers now match Wikipedia's i.e. they are now using Wikipedia as a source. This creates a problem for us, because per WP:CIRCULAR it now means we can no longer use Filmsite as a source for this article. From now on there must be an embargo on using Filmsite as a source; I don't want to just rip out the current citations to Filmsite because this will leave some films unsourced but we do need to start looking at replacing its existing usage in the article because it is in technical violation of the verifiability policy. Betty Logan (talk) 10:44, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Could you clarify some of this? Who overhauled the article? And when? When you say; so that its numbers now match Wikipedia's, I take it you mean so that each entry here matched each individual film article? I thought using WP as a source was not permitted. What sources are being used in those articles? Are they suitable? Can they be used here? Why is there a difference between them and Filmsite? Sorry for all the questions, I'm just trying to follow what has transpired here. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 11:38, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

The List of box office bombs uses a variety of different sources for its figures. One of them was Filmsite. If you look at the source section in List of box office bombs you will see many references to Filmsite. The problem though is that Filmsite was overhauled some time in the last couple of months and they changed all their numbers to match the numbers at List of box office bombs. So List of box office bombs used Filmsite as a source, and now Filmsite has decided to use List of box office bombs as a source. This has created a circular reference. As an example as to why this is a problem, if I made a mistake and incorrectly changed John Carter's loss figure to $400 million then the next update to Filmsite will probably change the figure too; I could then use Filmsite as a source for the figure, essentially making wrong data verifiable using "circular referencing". It's banned on Wikipedia for good reasons. Betty Logan (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see now... it was Filmsite that was 'overhauled'... I thought you meant this article was (that's why I was asking about "who" and "when"). I read that wrong, hence the confusion. Thanks for clarifying that for me. One more question, would it be possible to contact Filmsite and explain the problem to them? Maybe they could resume using their previous sourcing. Just a thought. Anyway, thanks again. - ^theWOLFchild 12:24, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Name change

@Betty Logan, Blemby, Thewolfchild, Barkeep49, BornonJune8, and GoneIn60: There seems to be agreement that the name should be changed, with the proposals being "List of biggest box office bombs" or "List of largest box office bombs", unless anyone else wants to suggest another. I believe it should be 'biggest', since largest feels more for something with a quantifiable size whereas box office bombs are more theoretical. There is also a discussion at Talk:List_of_box_office_bombs_(2000s)#Long. over what to do with the box office bombs by decade pages (keep, change or delete) for anyone interested. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

I support having a quantifier in the title. I suggested "biggest" above but it really doesn't matter to me whether it is "biggest" or "largest" because both would be an improvement. Betty Logan (talk) 17:05, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Put me down for "biggest", (as above). - ^theWOLFchild 23:54, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

I think "biggest" sounds fine. --GoneIn60 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Should we also tack on something to the end, like "...in history", or "...of all time"? Eg: "The biggest box office bombs ever"...? Thoughts? - ^theWOLFchild 04:53, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a need for qualifying it with all time, is that normal? So is it cool for me to move this to the name we've agreed on (List of biggest box office bombs), or should we wait for more, or what? Should there be some tag on the article about this discussion, or should we just go for it? Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Of course you can move it... that's what WP:BOLD is all about. (and WP:IAR if necessary). If someone disagrees or feels some protocol should have been followed, you'll hear about soon enough. And it can always be moved back if it needs to. - ^theWOLFchild 06:09, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

These lists don't usually append "of all-time" or "ever" (see Lists of highest-grossing films). Also, if we move this article to List of biggest box office bombs it will require a formal request because the redirect at the new title will need to be deleted. Betty Logan (talk) 16:51, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

That's what I was wondering. I've moved articles before but not into where there exists a redirect. What if we just moved the redirect article somewhere else? Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 3 August 2018

List of box office bombs → List of biggest box office bombs – There has been ongoing discussion regarding this change and consensus seems to favour it. Posting RM to make it official. (FYI: new name already exists as a redirect.) - ^theWOLFchild 22:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. - ^theWOLFchild 22:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support per previous section. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Support for reasons outlined in the above section. Betty Logan (talk) 23:10, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose - adding "biggest" seems unnecessary, and overall the "box office bombs" title reads more like clickbait/Buzzfeed than an encyclopedia article. Can't we find a better solution? Something to mirror List of highest-grossing films like perhaps List of lowest-grossing films or maybe more accurately List of lowest-netting films? -- Netoholic @ 13:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

List of lowest grossing films? What?? Quite frankly if you think it's a clickbait title, you don't think much of the topic either. Onetwothreeip (talk) 13:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Netoholic: - "As "gross" refers to "gross profit", "List of lowest-grossing films" would be a list of films with a (difficult, if not impossible to find) gross of zero, (or as close to it as possible). This is a list of films that lost money (lost the most, to be specific). So your suggested title would not fit at all. As for your 'oppose', the whole idea that this article is "click bait" is basically ridiculous and I'm sure your vote will be given the weight it deserves... - ^theWOLFchild 14:32, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand the meaning of gross vs loss - my suggestions were examples as I don't have a firm alternative in mind that captures the proper scope, but I would welcome someone to propose a decent alternative . The last line of your reply is intolerably rude. I didn't say the article is clickbait, I said the current (and proposed) title of it is. And as for the weight of my vote, these RM discussion are not a vote, but a discussion and all viewpoints should deserve consideration. -- Netoholic @ 16:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

I can understand why it may have that appearance, but there's a standalone article with that phrase as the title, and it's a well-established industry term used in numerous sources. The proposal here is an improvement that would help narrow the list's focus. Perhaps there's a better option, but I haven't seen one yet. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

This article was already at "List of biggest box office bombs" once before and was moved away from that for being an unencyclopedic title. The proposal isn't a "better" option, just a different one, and one that adds extra wording that is not usually needed. The inclusion criteria for this list should be those movies cited as being the least profitable (ie going into the negative) so perhaps something like List of least profitable films might be a truly better alternative. -- Netoholic @ 17:25, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The problem though is that profit is a subject term. For example, a film that makes $1 million on a $10 million investment has a worse return on investment than a film that loses $50 million on a $100 million investment, but this article is explicitly charting absolute loss. The Numbers for example, calls its equivalent chart "Biggest Money Losers, Based on Absolute Loss on Worldwide Earnings". I am actually very open on what to call the article, but I do believe a quantifier is essential and both List of biggest box office bombs and List of largest box office bombs would be better than the status quo. I don't want to fall into the trap of not improving the name of the article simply because we can't agree on the perfect name. Betty Logan (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If the current and proposed titles were the only two options, then adding "biggest" is not an improvement. It implies that we're basing the list off absolute number values, rather than based on sufficient mention in secondary sources. The new title would wrongly encourage WP:OR in determining placement in this list. -- Netoholic @ 19:17, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

If you look at the article, that is exactly what it does. It is a chart of the biggest money-losers, with a rough cut-off limit of around 100 films. And there is no OR in the list because every single entry is individually sourced. It is not OR to select a discriminant for a list. Betty Logan (talk) 19:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be less subjective and less likely to be an WP:OR issue if we went strictly by the numbers (as reported in reliable sources of course). I'm not sure I understand your opposition to that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Because to do that you must insert WP:OR to define numerical cut-offs for inclusion. Instead, the inclusion criteria should be based on what secondary sources consider to "bombs" and not what Wikipedia editors believe are bombs based on a numerical calculation. -- Netoholic @ 02:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not original research to say that we're only going to list box office bombs of a certain threshold. That's an editorial choice. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

I believe you're moving the goal posts. Your original suggestion was to choose a different name, such as "List of lowest-grossing films" (which ironically would have the same issue you just covered), but now you've moved the focus to the content/organization of the article, which is out of scope of a move discussion. I agree that the inclusion criteria in the list should be based on what reliable sources determine. There are plenty of all-time ranked lists we can define the order by, such as the one provided by Filmsite.org. There are also plenty of sources that provide production budgets, revenue, and estimated losses so that we don't have to do any calculation beyond what's allowed by WP:CALC (in fact, there are ranges in the chart to avoid going beyond any basic calculation). As an uninvolved editor that has no stake in the outcome of this discussion, any perceived issue with article content is a matter best served in a separate discussion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Support – For reasons stated here and at Talk:List of box office bombs (2000s)#LONG.. Attempting to list every box office bomb is not feasible, considering the inclusion criteria varies from source to source, and certainly not encyclopedic based on length. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:37, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• Comment The article used to be at List of biggest box office bombs and was moved without discussion a few years ago, from what I can see. This RM would just be restoring the status quo. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
  • You can't claim "status quo" from six years ago. There are a half-dozen other titles that would be considered "status quo" if we were to go back far into the article's history. -- Netoholic @ 19:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

    The article was renamed unilaterally, and nobody as yet has put up an argument as to why List of box office bombs is preferable to List of biggest box office bombs. Even in your opposition above you didn't actually show any support for the current name. If there isn't any support at all for the current title then there is no reason not to move it back. Betty Logan (talk) 19:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It seems you're missing the point here. Without a quantifier in the title, such as "biggest", the list would technically be expected to include "all" box office bombs. Because of recent discussion, it's clear that we need to limit the list or delete it altogether. This proposed name change is a step in the right direction if the list is to be retained in its current form. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Millions

WP:MOSFILM decided by consensus that budget and box office gross figures to the nearest millions. For consistency that should happen here too. -- 109.79.181.42 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)