Jump to content

Talk:2022 in film

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 223.233.58.183 (talk) at 17:21, 9 January 2023 (→disney's total worldwide gross: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Source for Battle at Lake Changjin 2

I believe the source for the gross of the latter film needs looking into. On entgroup's English daily box office page, it is at $624M (so the website contradicts itself), and on Box Office Mojo it's $626M.76.11.114.137 (talk) 19:52, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion

The content of this article should actually be in the List of American films of 2022 article, which already exists in the main namespace. --Numberguy6 (talk) 17:39, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A dead person's best films...

Who are we to pick-and-choose? Several filmmakers have more than 2 notable films. There's no point in listing only two, or any at all. WP:CHERRYPICKING. I added this comment to the edit summary in which I removed the "films" column from the table in #Deaths. It was reverted by @EclecticEnnui: without explanation, a violation of WP:REVEXP. I don't feel like reverting that reversion, so I'll start a discussion. A hidden comment in this article reads, "Do not add people who have done only 1 film: always add 2 films." I am against this. Should Wikipedia be choosing [and only adding] 2 of the most notable films of a person who has passed away? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Some Dude From North Carolina: I know it may sound like a childish reason, but it has been done like this on every page of "YearX in film" (which, moreover, does not have a column for references in the death tables). I believe that when there is an archetype that works, it can be used again and again, just as it has been done so far. I am in favor of transcribing only 2 films in order to avoid an overly large table and because perhaps an individual may have been important in his profession, but perhaps he/she didn't manage to make more than 2 or 3 films; so I consider the choice of the 2 films as a fair compromise. AleCapHollywood (talk) 17:19, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AleCapHollywood: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS – We can change the way we format articles. Adding citations and removing the "films" column makes the content easier to look through. We shouldn't be picking 2 films to summarize a person's career. We should be making the table easier to read by eliminating WP:CHERRYPICKING. A lot of "Year X in film" have become outdated and it is time to fix the way we create these tables. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:49, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: I fully understand these reasons, I really do, and yet (I can't explain why) I don't feel convinced. Perhaps it would take the opinions of other users to find a solution or a compromise. AleCapHollywood (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I also think that the column for films should be kept. I don't think it needs to be the subject's "best" films, but merely those that are representative, and that readers would be most likely to recognize. BD2412 T 20:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: How many films should be listed? What about actors like Joan Copeland who had a variety of roles but none that stood out or represent them (most sources simply list her entire filmography)? What films represent filmmakers such as Peter Bogdanovich, who had a large filmography? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:41, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would say two or three, though two seems to be the standard here. We could literally have this content autogenerated based on pageviews. BD2412 T 20:46, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
... and how could we do that? The point is that Wikipedia should not be choosing what films represent someone in the film industry. That's what newspapers and online magazines are for. We are supposed to inform. Day of death, name, age, and a citation. That is all a reader needs to know. If they want to learn more, they can read the independent Wiki-articles. "YYYY in film" should not be a place where we try to summarize a dead person's life with a mere mention of two or three films that were popular. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:28, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's fine. Let editors pick what they think is best, by whatever measure they think is best. If there are disagreements, they will be settled by consensus. BD2412 T 23:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@BD2412: Let editors pick what they think is best. How is this encyclopedic? ... by whatever measure they think is best. And how will we settle on that? Most popular? Most profitable? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
They've managed to do this for every year up to now. I would suspect that most actors have a couple of clear favorites. How do we decide which films in a long career to mention in the lede? BD2412 T 23:54, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As you said, most actors and filmmakers have films in their careers that stand out. Some don't. What will we do when one of these actors or one of these filmmakers passes away? What do we choose? What about people with large filmographies, such as Peter Bogdanovich? What about foreign actors with films that do not have Wiki articles? Or those without films that stand out? For recent examples, what would you choose for Mohamed Hilmi, Vladan Živković, and Mario Lanfranchi? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typical wikipedia double-speak -- We list the films associated with a particular film personality for every year through 2021, and then Some Dude from North Carolina unilaterally change that process. So typical.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcd30319: I agree that unilateral changes are contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and only fuel the edit wars. With that said, I think it is urgent to find a solution. If it were up to me, as I said above, I would stick to the archetype of the table used in previous years. Before we find ourselves waging a useless war, either we find a shared solution or we will have to call a vote. AleCapHollywood (talk) 14:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Country flag

@Bovineboy2008: Please explain your recent removal of the flags, which I added to inform readers where a film was made. Is that not one of the purposes for Template:Flag icon (which is commonly used in tables and infoboxes)? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the flags is putting to much emphasis on the country of origin of the films per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. Using words is equally if not more efficient in identifying the country of origin. And as a side not, please see MOS:INFOBOXFLAG as to when flag use in infoboxes is best used. BOVINEBOY2008 18:09, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bovineboy2008: What about MOS:WORDPRECEDENCE, which says that though words should be the "primary means of communication", "Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself." In this article, the flags represent where the films were produced. It makes it clear to a reader that China and the US are the highest-grossing countries at the box office. The flags are also visually appealing. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the intention of the section is to show the nations that are most represented in the top ten list, it is to identify the films that have the highest gross. The country they come from is secondary information. I really don't think the column needs to be there in the first place, but bringing flags into the table highlights a feature. It seems to be saying that the nationality of the film is the most eye-catching and important information for the reader. This goes against WP:NPOV. The film's do not represent the country, they simply come from the country. BOVINEBOY2008 18:21, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with unilateral changes

@Marcd30319:, @BD2412: & @Bovineboy2008:, I'm sorry I'm bothering the three of you right now, but since you and I have been trying to argue unsuccessfully with the user who unilaterally imposed structural changes to some sections of the page, I'd like to consult with you on what to do. I had previously proposed, in order to find a feasible and acceptable compromise by all, to proceed with a majority vote to establish the format of the tables (in particular I am referring to the one of the deaths), suggesting to stick to the format used in the pages of the previous years. Sound off if you like to talk about it. 🙂 AleCapHollywood (talk) 08:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I concur and wish your success. It is jarring going from one article in an established series, and see an entirely difference format.Marcd30319 (talk) 14:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcd30319: I wouldn't consider it MY success. As long as we work together, in harmony, respecting everyone's point of view, keeping on a shared decision (that's the reason why I'm asking to start a vote), we can ALL be successful. (PS. Yeah, I find that jarring too. And I'm pretty excited, cause I've learned a new English word. 😄) AleCapHollywood (talk) 22:26, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct. I just want information displayed in a consistent format, particularly a series as well established as the YEAR in film.Marcd30319 (talk) 13:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With that said, I suggest to check if there is a consensus of the majority in order to restore the Deaths table in accordance with the tables of the previous years. Before doing that, I'm still waiting to read what @BD2412: & @Bovineboy2008: think about it: it's better to involve as many people as possible. AleCapHollywood (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AleCapHollywood: Why did you remove every citation and over 50 people from #Deaths? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Some Dude From North Carolina: Fine, I'll try my best. As I restored the table format in accordance with the tables of previous years - which I remember being the way the table was conceived when the page was created, then changed unilaterally without the consent of the majority - I inserted the disclaimer at the top (always present in the tables of previous years) with the necessary requirements to add a name. Some of the names have been removed because they did not meet those requirements, others are missing because I surely have forgotten them, and nothing can prevent anyone from re-entering them, as long as they are properly formatted and respecting the requirements of the disclaimer. As for the references column, the answer is even simpler: in the tables of previous years, that column wasn't there. I don't want to be a parochialist, but, as I said in a previous section, when there is an archetype that works, it can be used again and again, just as it has been done so far. AleCapHollywood (talk) 19:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, with your edit, you still removed ninety notable people. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 20:35, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Some Dude From North Carolina: Reproaching won't get you or anyone else far. I repeat, nothing prevents you from re-entering the missing people that respect the requirements of the disclaimer on top. If we get stick to the instructions that are written there, we can add (or put back, in this case) all the missing names. Other users are already doing that, as you can see if you check the history. PS. I don't want to make any controversy, since I'm trying to keep the tones low in order to work in harmony and peace, but being just notable may not even be enough in some cases. A person can be notable or famous but can't be added because he/she has done only TV stuff. I hope you are getting my point. AleCapHollywood (talk) 22:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Table editing

Okay, so I tried to move Sonic 2 up a rank, because its box office mojo numbers were updated, but I caused a problem with the table. Does anybody know how to fixe this? BlueBlurHog (talk) 21:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC) Thank you, whoever fixed the chart. BlueBlurHog (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

T. Rama Rao

Hello, AleCapHollywood. May I know the reason why you have removed the Indian filmmaker T. Rama Rao? -- Ab207 (talk) 06:42, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Must've been an editing error while I was adding a new name. AleCapHollywood (talk) 18:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jujutsu kaisen 0

Where is Jujutsu kaisen 0 in the list 2409:4053:E11:A03:0:0:BB8B:CB03 (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a 2021 film. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:34, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too Cool To Kill

How did this movie go from $403M to $217M? Will somebody please explain? BlueBlurHog (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sources differ. Reverted back to info based on Chinese-box-office source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Too Cool To Kill, Again

Really? It happened again? BlueBlurHog (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It has happened again. I don’t who but somebody needs to make sure that the box office is accurate according to useful sources. AgentofChaos64 (talk) 01:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


It has happened again as Too Cool To Kill has interrupted the accurate Worldwide Box Office as Too Cool to Kill is number 7 and not number 3 according to Box Mojo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AgentofChaos64 (talk • contribs) 01:04, 6 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The Amount of Box Office that Multiverse of Madness is inaccurate as in the Box Office Mojo The movie has $688,000,000 Bigger than the Water Bridge Movie made by China. Just trying to be accurate for the integrity of the Wikipedia stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.34.161 (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]


The only thing left is the Secrets of Dumbledore thing. 6,000 It!s just rounded up. After that is done. We get a completely accurate scoreboard for the highest grossing movies of the year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.34.161 (talk) 20:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again for the too cool to kill movie. AgentofChaos64 (talk) 20:26, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki is using the Box Office Mojo source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic 2 box office numbers

BoxOfficeMojo says sonic made <$356 million, whereas The Numbers says ~$363 million. Which is it? BlueBlurHog (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update to death column

In death column update the list. Add Sidhu Moose wala and KK Nationality Indian Both Singers 103.115.124.220 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 15 June 2022

Top Gun Maverick box office is $793.9 Million 2600:6C44:7800:22FF:2D80:FEB4:C471:23E8 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2022

Top Gun Mavericks box office is $763 million which places it as the third Highest grossing movie of 2022 and not quite yet the second highest grossing movie of 2022 which still belongs to the Batman which box Office stands at $770 million. HenryLaszewski (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Brought back RRR under Box Office Records

I brought back the info on Indian film RRR; I feel that if Box office records on American films can be mentioned, so can the same be done to international films. Hence, any info on international films shall also be welcome. However, if my edit has to be reverted, please specify a valid reason on the talk page, else I'll have to assume you're being racist in reverting my edit. Bisi03 (talk) 11:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, do not make this situation a race thing, because it's not. I don't know if you're trying to make it one, but I would prefer we keep this as a civilized conversation where you don’t threaten an editors' actions by calling them racist. RRR is not listed because it is no longer in the Top 10 of the year. This is the same reason why a section about "Everything Everywhere All At Once" was deleted, because if it’s not in the Top 10 of the year, it does not meet the standard of relevance to be listed. There is no discrimination against foreign films, for instance, last year's "The Battle at Lake Changjin" was listed in the box office records of 2021, due to it being in the Top 10 of the year. Your statement, "However, if my edit has to be reverted, please specify a valid reason on the talk page, else I'll have to assume you're being racist in reverting my edit." is vastly incorrect and wrong. You are not high and mighty on this website. Please respect the standards we have here. Zvig47 (talk) 21:47, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jurassic World Dominion

If it was said that Jurassic World Dominion grossed over 1 billion, why does it change say $997 million on Box Office Mojo and The Numbers? Here's a source to prove it. "'Jurassic World Dominion' Slowly but Surely Crosses $1 Billion Globally". Variety. Sep 23, 2022. Retrieved Sep 24, 2022. 24.45.0.214 (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article is likely outdated. GoldCheddar30 (talk) 14:39, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Black adam

Well black adam hasn't surpassed uncharted so it shouldn't be there in the place of uncharted. Harharshit (talk) 05:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2022

In order to edit the total gross for Avatar: The Way of Water and update it. 77.100.78.66 (talk) 20:51, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: this is not the right page to request additional user rights. You may reopen this request with the specific changes to be made and someone may add them for you, or if you have an account, you can wait until you are autoconfirmed and edit the page yourself. Please do not forget to also cite reliable sources. 💜  melecie  talk - 23:55, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

disney's total worldwide gross

the reference currently being used for it is a bit outdated. i think we should use a more recent reference.223.233.58.183 (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_in_film&oldid=1132601547"