Talk:Avatar (2009 film)

Pandora of Avatar - Roger Dean's ideas?

If you are familiar with the work of Roger Dean, you will notice that many features of Pandora are his ideas. Roger Dean became famous especially for his famous 70's album covers for progressive rock groups like Yes, Uriah Heep, Rare Earth and many more. If you check the album cover for "Not necessarily acoustic" by Steve Howe, it looks just like a scene from Avatar. See the curved bows of rock in the jungle - the center of the Pandora antigravitational current - here: [1] The flying dragon is in Avatar - see here: [2] The floating rocks are in Avatar - see here: [3] and here: [4] You can see more of his ideas here: [5] His ideas create the magic of Pandora. Very bizzare is the fact, that Roger Dean is not mentioned in the credits, although his album covers are widely known. Is this really a matter of mere plagiarism? Max farmer (talk) 13:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review the first topic on this Talk page, and bear in mind that unless there are reliable sources discussing this, anything you would add would be original research and hence inappropriate for inclusion. Doniago (talk) 15:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The last link in Max Farmer's message is a reliable source. The question in my mind is how original are Roger Dean's images and whether images like those have appeared before, for example, on the covers of sci-fi mags or in the works of other artists. I think that Cameron drew on the whole genre of sci-fi for the ideas in the film, and I think that was mentioned in a reliable source, although offhand I can't remember which one. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've seen other movies and read books that could also be considered to be influenced by artwork such as this. I'd be against this under WP:UNDUE. We don't need to include EVERY single comment written by every single non-notable person who posted their opinions to "teh interweb". Trusilver 16:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting, to show proofs of what I think is plagiarism, but people prefer rules. But I agree: Rules are important. To start with reliable sources: I keep it like Roger Dean himself on his homepage [6] with "What the world is saying about Avatar". If you just simply google avatar+roger+dean [7] you find a never ending list of what notable and non-notable persons find obvious: Roger Dean is the artist of the Pandora features. Artist James White supports this idea. [8] ArtistsUK also think Roger Deans should claim rights. [9] As I said: The list is endless. It is not just an idea of some singular "non-notable persons" on the web. Rather anyone who knows Roger Dean and Avatar sees the obvious similarities. So in my humble opinion it is quite worth being discussed here. Max Farmer (talk) 18:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see your point, but a lot of us are always a little bit suspicious when truth-bearing SPAs come to an article with dramatic posts about something that is only being talked about by little-known sources and non-notable writers. Forgive us for our skepticism. Trusilver 19:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Take a look at the section "The "Roger Dean" Thing" at this link: http://io9.com/5444960/avatars-designers-speak-floating-mountains-amp-suits-and-the-dragon . Perhaps we can finally come to a conclusion about this, and even include it in the article. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I quote Avatar-designer Dylan Cole [10]: "Dean's work has a whimsical quality that we absolutely wanted to avoid." First: They knew his work. Second: When Dean's design is "whimsical", then why does everybody who knows Dean and Avatar think, that the floating mountains, the rock bows and the dragons look like Dean's? All of these features are peculiar and unique in design and no common ideas. [11] Even wikipedia itsself has an entry on that: [12] It seems a bit too easy to me to quote the maybe plagiarist, who said: "No, we haven't taken his ideas." I think Wikipedia cannot be the judge here. Wikipedia should stay unbiased. There is an ongoing discussion, which will remain. [13] [14] I agree with Aniraptor2001: It should be included in the article. And just to say this: I like the film a lot and saw it several times... Max Farmer (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's another interesting statement about the floating mountains, this time from Cameron: [http://www.ew.com/ew/gallery/0,,20336893_10,00.html (10th slide) AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So what is going to happen in the people's encyclopedia? I think it would be good to put in a few phrases just to inform, that there is a discussion and deliver the sources, so people can judge themselves. There are sources pro and con, which would keep the entry unbiased as wikipedia should stay. (At the moment the chapter "Themes and inspirations" reads a bit like a fully positive pr-text as seems based just on Cameron-quotes. Not good for an encyclopedia in my opinion.) Who decides here and takes action? Max Farmer (talk) 13:09, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that the 4th paragraph of critical reception discusses similarity to previous work. So if a sentence about Roger Dean is included, that may be the appropriate place to put it. Max, you or someone else might consider trying something there. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Our friend Max has added the following over at Roger_Dean_(artist)#Film_project:

Some fans of Yes and Dean's work have noted that some of the backgrounds in James Cameron's Avatar, such as the floating mountains and the arch rock formations, may have been inspired by two album covers, An Evening of Yes Music Plus by Anderson Bruford Wakeman Howe and Keys to Ascension by Yes .

While io9 is a reasonably reputable source, Signalnoise constitues one Canadian artist's opinion, and I'm not very pleased by the use of this very discussion as a source. From some googling, it seems that we've got:

• The Yesfans.com forum
• Stupidfuture, a blog
• Roger Dean's own website, which limits itself to calling the same google search I just did "revealing"
• io9 post, which cites comic book artist Connor Freff Cochran as having noted the similarities
• another io9 post, where they ask designer Dylan Cole about his perspective about the matter
• 10th slide of this Entertainment Weekly slideshow, where James Cameron voices his rather casual opinion
• Vanity Fair, suggesting that Avatar's production design "seems to have been strongly influenced by the trippy album cover art Roger Dean used to supply for Yes and other prog-rock bands"

The only sources suitable for use in Wikipedia are the last four, possibly the Roger Dean site, but it doesn't really say anything. I'd like to include this, but I'm not sure of the best way to. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 00:00, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've added it in as part of a paragraph on production design under Themes and Inspirations. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 02:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You just can't have a footnotes as a source that points back to this discussion. I also agree with the above about what are suitable sources and what fans do or don't think is of little importance to Wikipedia unless their complaints become notable in their own right - what is needed there is what Dean thinks, some reliable sources to back it up and a quote from Cameron and the designer (who says he didn't use it, except as an example of what not to do). That would give you balanced coverage without having to write a lot or plot the ins and outs. (23:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

Fixing the inflation adjusted issue

I just thought of a simple fix to the debate about the inflation adjusted issue. Instead of mentioning the inflation adjusted gross, Wikipedia already includes a list of movie by tickets sold and places Avatar at 32nd (List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States). We can just say that "Avatar ranks 32nd domestically by estimated number of tickets sold." No one can argue against such a statement as invalid or inflated. Dante2308 (talk) 08:01, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I've got a good mind to delete that entire chart because it uses Box Office Mojo as a source but Box Office Mojo doesn't give the ticket sales, so presumably all that is original research. What is more if they have simply worked out the Avatar ticket sales by dividing the gross by the average ticket price then that is false economy given the fact that Avatar tickets cost more than average. Betty Logan (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dante, the List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States is wrong. See the talk page of that article. Avatar is not 32nd on the Box Office Mojo list. It is 26, as this article stated before all this debate started. That Wikipedia list needs to be updated. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Dang. I was so close to finding a solution. I would assume that you are right because Avatar's inflated ticket prices would result in a greater discrepancy between the "inflated adjusted" ranking and total ticket sales ranking. The total number of tickets sold are not in the public domain. Please delete that chart if you find that the numbers are simple division. Dante2308 (talk) 16:47, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

A 7-8 Million discrepancy probably isn't going to make that much difference to its chart position soon. If its drop-off rates stay under 20% then 600 mil is a foregone conclusion, 700 mil is probable and 800 mil is possible. If it hits 720 (which is actually very likely now) then all the films above it and below 940 are separated by at least 10 mil so a small difference won't have any impact on its ranking. Betty Logan (talk) 17:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in the end it wont matter much, but there is quite a bit of discrepancy between assuming a ticket price of $7.35 and the actual average nearer to and probably above $10. This makes the chart just as useless as the inflation adjusted gross. Dante2308 (talk) 22:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is still very unclear as to which figures are inflation adjusted and which are not. The statement "highest grossing movie of all time" and the figures are meaningless without knowing how they are measured. We know the industry and the media love trumpeting headlines. This article is not about headlines. At the moment it sounds very much like spin. Is working out adjusted figures so hard? I'd say not. Is it important to give a real sense of the picture? I'd say - absolutely. Spanglej (talk) 04:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Is working out adjusted figures so hard? I'd say not."

Actually it is troublesome.

"Is it important to give a real sense of the picture? I'd say - absolutely."

If you have a better source other than Box Office Mojo, yet that does not require WP:OR, please propose it. Its only listed several times in the article I believe, the remainder of the figures are the actuals. DrNegative (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I see a problem with what we've got going on in the lead right now. "The film broke several box office records during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing Titanic. (Avatar is the twenty-sixth highest-grossing film in North America once adjusted for inflation.)" It doesn't specify that the 26th-highest statistic comes from BOM's own particular (and some have said rather flawed) method of adjusting gross, which is important and is in mentioned in the Box Office section. The THR reference basically only says, [other movies made more money after inflation adjustment]. That's not a useful backup. I'm going to go ahead and take it out, and just leave behind "The film broke several box office records during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time, surpassing Titanic." If the reader wants to read more about the box office records, they can go down to the appropriate section. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, It doesn't belong in the lead. DrNegative (talk) 16:15, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing the problem with it. We use Box Office Mojo for everything else. Why act as though it us unreliable about this? Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Because there's a clear difference between using the worldwide official numbers that Box Office Mojo posts, which will be the same on many different sites because they are verified and factual, and using their own estimated domestic-only inflation adjustment numbers which requires a lot of (some like me would say flawed) guesswork and will be different from site to site depending on their formula and estimations - basically their opinions. It's not official. It'd be like putting "Avatar is considered one of the best films of all time" <reference random well known reviewer> in the lead. We have an appropriate box office and reception section for those sorts of things. Exodite (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

3D Ticket Prices Just as Important as Inflation Adjustment

3D tickets cost more than traditional movie tickets so this needs to be taken into account as well when talking about all-time highest grossing movie. Some mention of this should be made in the article to qualify and quantify box office numbers. Comparing Avatar grosses Titanic grosses is a bit of comparing apples to oranges. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.87.86.50 (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Highest Grossing Film of all time" in Intro Needs to be Qualified by Mentioning Inflation

Folks, saying something is the highest grossing film of all time without mentioning that inflation is not taken into account is frankly misleading. We need to say something. 75.101.11.171 (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is stated. In the "box office" section. DrNegative (talk) 17:34, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter. The statement in the intro is misleading without qualification and we have a cited reference to qualify it. What is the justification for removing a cited reference? Cshay (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Information about inflation can be found at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States and doesn't need to be splashed all over the lead of an article about a single film. If the ambiguity still is troublesome, then perhaps a short, sweet, and simple "before inflation" could be added to the line, e.g., "...during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time, before inflation, surpassing Titanic." But I think that even this might be overdoing it. If inflation is too tangential even for the list of highest-grossing films, then how could it possibly be more germane to the lead of an article about just one film on the list? As an aside, please be careful with bulk reverts. This edit introduced a whole slew of changes that were not explained in the slightest by the edit summary. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cosmic, I apologize for the bulk revert, it was unintentional. Please see how this has been handled for opver 2 years in the opening of the Titanic article. The problem is that the movie industry never mentions inflation adjusting because they want the marketing advantage of always saying a new movie is in the top ten. However, we do not need to rely on their press releases because we have inflation adjusted sources. Cshay (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The current statement that this film is the highest grossing film of all time is misleading without mentioning inflation. Please do not revert the cited qualification to that statement. There is precedent for including this information -- it has been included for over 2 years in the opening of the Titanic article - see for yourself. Either do not make the unqualified claim or mention that the claim is inflation unadjusted. Cshay (talk) 19:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is already displayed in the "box office" section with a link, the statement in the "lead" is a record of the worldwide gross record, YOUR statement explains the US inflation calculation . Consensus thus far is against this being in the lead section and YOU are going against it. Your edit also had a full load of other edits throughout the article and your edit comment did not address ANY of these changes to boot. You cannot get a unadjusted claim for a "worldwide" gross, no box office analyst has even tried to attempt it. The calculation would be impossible. Your statement would probably be ok if we were talking about the domestic record, but this is the worldwide record. Follow consensus here about this article, this isn't the Titanic article. DrNegative (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "highest grossing" doesn't have to be qualified with a "before inflation" because it's a qualifiable fact. Avatar has earned more dollars than any other film. The dollar is worth less now and adjusting for inflation is a necessary measure for comparitive analysis, but in such a comparison it is only adjustments for inflation that need to be accompanied by a contextual setting "adjusted for inflation" because it's a re-interpretation of the raw data. To simply say that Avatar is the highest earning film is a verifiable fact, and inflation is not relevant unless the analysis is comparing its relative success to older films. Betty Logan (talk) 19:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, I disagree that inflation adjusted numbers that compare items over 100 years do not need to be qualified. In fact it is essential. We have a cited source to qualify this so we need to include it. Cshay (talk) 19:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, without mentioning inflation, the statement is misleading. It is indeed relevant. We have a cited source that makes this statement more accurate and alerts the reader to this fact. Why should we make the statement less accurate and meaningful by removing this important information? Cshay (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What do y'all think of this? CNBC is a reliable source, no? Doc9871 (talk) 19:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not less accurate because it's a fact. If you are worried about it being mis-leading about its relative success I would alter the sentence so it reads something like "Avatar is the highest grossing film of all-time, and Box Office Mojo charts it at 26th in estimated ticket sales" or something to that effect, which actually gets to the crux of the matter. To say that it's the highest earning "before inflation" is redundant because it's the highest earning full stop and it's a verifiable fact. Betty Logan (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Everyone, if you want to remove a cited reference that qualifies an otherwise misleading statement, there needs to be a solid argument for this. There is a precedent for this in the former #1 Titanic's intro as well. Reputable media adjust for inflation all the time when talking about gas prices for example. Cshay (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Your building a snowman here. DrNegative (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You are not providing an argument for removing a cited reference that qualifies a misleading statement and provides more information. You are the one who is deleting the content. You need to provide the argument why. And there is precedent in the Titanic article. Cshay (talk) 19:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, the List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States is wrong. See the talk page of that article. Avatar is not 32nd on the Box Office Mojo list. It is 26, as this article stated before all this debate started. That Wikipedia list needs to be updated.

As for it being in the lead, if Titanic's unadjusted gross gets to be in the lead, I do not see why this film's unadjusted gross should not be. Flyer22 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that it's not just a matter of the industry not wanting to talk about inflation adjustment. The Box Office Mojo adjusted inflation figures are difficult to respect, because it's not clear how they were calculated. As you can see at List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States#Factors in determining an “adjusted gross”, determining an adjusted gross is not a simple matter; the best we can do is say "box office mojo has stated that Avatar is the 26th highest grossing in the U.S., inflation adjusted", which is what we've put down in the box office section. The reader can decide for themselves if they agree with BOM's methods. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Difficult to calculate or not, Box Office Mojo is a source that has been used all over Wikipedia. Without qualifying for inflation saying that this movie is #1 grosser is misleading. Cshay (talk) 19:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello? "When adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind remains the highest grossing film, both internationally and domestically, of all time.". This is confirmed by now four sources. I don't care what Box Office Mojo or some incorrect WP list says... Doc9871 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo indeed says that Gone with the Wind is the highest grossing film of all time when adjusting for inflation. That is not the issue here. I don't see your point. Cshay (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess that "The film broke several box office records during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide, surpassing Titanic..." in the intro is wrong... Doc9871 (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We can say that, but we just need to qualify it by mentioning the inflation adjusted info. That is a compromise we reached on the Titanic article. Cshay (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Not entirely sure what you're saying. Are you saying that Avatar "became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide..." if we qualify it... how? Doc9871 (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You and I are in agreement I think. You qualify inflation unadjusted comparisons (from movie industry press releases)by including the inflation adjusted comparison. Inflation unadjusted comparison over 100 years aren't very meaningful, but if we qualify them with the inflation ajusted comparison I am ok with that. Cshay (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has made any argument why we are reverting a cited source that qualifies an otherwise misleading statement. Please stop removing this material until we have a solid argument why. I reiterate that the same info has been part of the Titanic intro for over 2 years. Cshay (talk) 19:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Inflation adjustment grosses are not facts so don't belong in the lede. There many different ways you can take account of inflation. For instance, Gone With the Wind had 10 re-releases compared to Avatar's one. Back in 1939 the population of the US was less than half of what it is now. Fewer people as a percentage of the population go to the cinema now. Cinema tickets in 1939 cost a higher percentage of the average salary than what they do now. The Box Office Mojo chart doesn't present a fact, it presents an expert opinion based on the approximate number of ticket sales. Opinons do not belong in ledes, they belong in an appropriate section where the opinion can be put into a context and qualified. As for Avatar's claim that it is the highest earning film, this is an indisputable fact that can be sourced as a fact. It only becomes misleading when you apply an interpretation to it - that is compare it to films from 50 years earlier. That's why it should be left as a simply satted fact in the lede and all box office discussion should be put in its own dedicated section where the context for the various figures and comparisons can be made clear. Betty Logan (talk) 20:14, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, inflation adjusted figures are not facts??? Even if they come from an external referenced source? I think you don't understand what inflation means. By definition, inflation adjusting is the only accurate way to compare prices acrosss decades. Cshay (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

If a source provided a solid fact like the number of tickets sold then that would be a fact and could be included. Adjusting for inflation is at best an expert opinion because it depends on the expertise of somebody else in selecting which inflation measure to use, and how to convert an amount that has been accumulated over many different release periods, and in the case of foreign grosses, different exchange rates too. Betty Logan (talk) 22:16, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, inflation adjusting by a cited external source has to be regarded as a "solid fact". Box Office Mojo is used as a source all over Wikipedia. Also, comparing films across 100 years with no inflation adjusting is obviously invalid to anyone who understands the mathematics behind inflation. So why do we let those movie press release act as sources if this is obviously an invalid way to comparisons? The answer is to compromise and include both so that no one is mislead. This was the compromise we reached on the Titanic page. Cshay (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

In any event, this edit broke WP:3RR and is thus procedurally invalid, so I have reverted to the pre-3RR version. If you would like to have the information added, please wait for a resounding consensus that it should be included. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

For other editors following this, in case the material gets reverted, here is the content. Note that the same type of lede in material has been included in the Titanic article for over 2 years, and that Box Office Mojo is a cited source that is used all over wikipedia:

The film broke several box office records during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide, surpassing Titanic.(Avatar is the twenty-sixth highest-grossing film in North America once adjusted for inflation.) http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm Cshay (talk) 22:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No one has made any argument why we are reverting a cited source that qualifies an otherwise misleading statement. Please stop removing this material until we have a solid argument why. I am not the only editor who reverted this so the 3RR is not in effect. I have provided sourced, referenced material and you are reverting it with no good argument why. As it stands comparing movie grosses across 10 years without inflation adjusting is definitely misleading and I have argued this. Yet my arguments are being ignored and the cited material is being deleted. I am sorry to say that I think I am being reverted because of a NPOV issue. Cshay (talk) 21:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit conflict] Actually, everyone has made good arguments. This source is already in the article, it's right there at the end of the Avatar_(2009::_film)#Box_office section. As Betty has said, BOM's calculations constitute an expert opinion, not a verifiable fact; the former does not belong in the lede. It is a verifiable fact that Avatar has earned more US dollars than any other film in history, the "value" of a dollar notwithstanding. Please, quit reinserting this into the lede; there is no consensus for it. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 22:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The statement that this movie is the "#1 grossing movie of all time" is misleading unless we mention inflation right there in the sentence. It doesn't matter if this material is included elsewhere. That statement is misleading unless qualified explaining that inflation is not taken into account. I already argued that. See how we did it 2 years ago on the Titanic article. Cshay (talk) 22:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of who is involved, it is still an edit war and you are still not in compliance with the 3RR (see Wikipedia:3RR#The_three-revert_rule). If several are in disagreement the article should be left in the form prior to the edit war and you should seek Disputed Resolution before anyone gets blocked. SpigotMap 22:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The form prior to the edit war included the inflation adjusted information. So that shall stand Cshay (talk) 22:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of what you think is fact or not or what should be included in the article, it is a matter of opinion. You are breaking rules and causing disruption. You need to get more editors involved in this and see what the consensus others is. Taking matters in to your own hands like this will do nothing but get you blocked. SpigotMap 22:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see from this talk page, no one is discussing this. This is NPOV reverting. Cshay (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have filed a complaint against Cshay for edit warring.[15] --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Wonderful. Now, does anyone want to actually want to discuss this or are you going to continue reverting a cited source, without discussion? Cshay (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid you've got it all wrong. When multiple editors delete the same content from one editor, and that editor just keeps reinserting it, that editor is edit warring. I'm sure you'll be blocked soon. Good luck... Doc9871 (talk) 22:28, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Look I have sympathy for you Cshay, but there are a few different inflation measures and these film grosses are accumulated over many different years. These are not factual figures since they have to calculated, and top economists would probably come up with different amounts. If you could find a source that gave the total number of tickets sold then that would be factual information that could perhaps be worked into the lede. But inflation adjusted figures have to be contextually qualified and the lede isn't the place for it. Betty Logan (talk) 22:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

t;ldr. Can someone please explain why the ranking after adjusted inflation should not be included? The argument of fact vs. opinion is strange to me and should not have any bearing on this dispute. Like it is worthwhile to indicate that Gone with the Wind (film) is the top film after adjusting for inflation, it seems valid to indicate that it is the top-grossing film in today's dollars and ranked lower when adjusted. Erik (talk) 22:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason to leave it out, and the amount of tickets sold is a solid number, given inflation and all the rest the one true figure that can not be argued with is ticket sales. Forget inflation adjusting, talk ticket sales. Darrenhusted (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with including ticket sales provided it can be sourced. The number of tickets sold is a quantifiable fact, rather than based on opinion and interpretation. AS for Erik's question, I will try to address it. The way Box Office Mojo claims to work out inflation is to estimate the number of tickets sold and multiply by the current ticket price. But this is just one way. Another would be to use a proper inflation measure like the consumer price index which is the official inflation measure: [16]. Tony Jacskon from the Financial Times says that inflation should be calculated via the per capita cost of a ticket - as a percentage of the average salary a 1939 ticket would cost something like $40, and that would put GWTW's true domestic gross at almsot $6 billion: [17]. Another argument applies that the increasingly population size and the average cinema ticket purchasing rate should be taking into account making The Sound of Music the highest grossing: [18]. Different perceptions, different methods, different interpretations. You can't present inflation as a fact in the way you present this week's box office figures because it's basically an economic argument that is being presented. There are two indisputable quantities that can be presented as fact: the real gross, and the number of tickets sold. These are facts taht can be factually sourced and can go in the lede. Inflation adjustment is an opinion and opinions don't belong in the lede. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is whether it merits being included in the lead. The information is included in the Box Office section. The 26th "adjusted" place is based on (from BOM's website): "the estimated number of tickets sold. Inflation-adjustment is mostly done by multiplying estimated admissions by the latest average ticket price. Where admissions are unavailable, adjustment is based on the average ticket price for when each movie was released (taking in to account re-releases where applicable)." As we discussed above, this is one expert opinion of the film's ranking, based on an unknown number of assumptions. The THR report is lifted from the BOM website, where the column header reads "estimated tickets sold". In fact, the THR report says that Avatar has sold 76,421,000, while BOM reports 74,823,000. No indication of where 76,421,000 came from. Gone with the Wind is *clearly* the most-ticketed film in history (and accomplished this through a large number of re-releases), so I would say its article merits the mention. I feel that inclusion of the BOM adjusted ranking in the lead is not merited for films where number of tickets sold is much more of an estimation. It should, however, be included in the Box Office section, for relevant films. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 23:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not the editor's responsibility to "analyze" a reliable source like what is being done here. Remember that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Too much effort has been made on the editor's part to dispute a reliable source's information as if the person was a better reliable source him or herself. We as editors write in articles what is reported, and it seems that there is unnecessary nitpicking when it is clear that the "adjusted for inflation" ranking is being reported as credible. So we need to put aside our excessive analysis and determine without talking about "facts" and "opinions" if this piece of information is worth including in the lead section. If we talk about how Gone with the Wind (film) ranks both ways, then it should be reciprocated both ways here as well. Erik (talk) 23:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

No-one is analysing reliable sources. If you look at the Box Office section you will see this is documented. But at the same time if a reliable source presents an opinion, it should not be presented as a fact. If Roger Ebert proclaims Avatar to be the greatest film ever made, should be present the information as "Avatar is the greastest film ever made [3]", or should it go in the critital reception setcion? Inflation adjsuted figures are not facts, they are opinions and it would be preposterous to pass it off as such. Betty Logan (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, great! Theremes is back! This should be fun ;> Doc9871 (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

My feelings of this were simple. I don't think it belongs in the lead, especially directly after mentioning of the film's "worldwide" record because none of the other countries (UK,Spain, France, Russia, etc...) have any adjusted figures of their own. Why should we prose in the US adjusted figures in parenthesis after this statement when the other countries that all fall into the word "worldwide" don't have any figures of their own? In fact, why not mention the unadjusted US gross? I feel its mentoning in the box-office section more than enough in this case. Thats my opinion, I'm not going to edit-war with anybody, I'm against it. DrNegative (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I am against it as well, and here's why. It says right on the front page news Avatar is the highest grossing movie of all time, because it is. It's a fact. The total amount of dollars Avatar has made is more than any other movie. That doesn't mean it's the most popular movie of all time or whatever. The only other thing I can see being put in the lead is the official worldwide ticket sales IF we actually had that official information. But we don't. What we have are estimated domestic ticket sales and estimated domestic inflation adjustment based on attempted extended analysis on the official domestic gross numbers. There are flaws with these methods and estimations and they are not official. Even Box Office Mojo itself says their domestic inflation adjustments only gives a general idea of what a movie would have made if it sold the same number of tickets today (even though that's misleading in itself because the tickets for older movies were sold over a period of many, many years with re-releases and not in one swoop, but I digress) So basically, 1. It is US, and to a lesser extent Canada, only (and it uses the same "average ticket price" for both...). 2. It is complete guesswork, it's an economic argument, it's not official like Avatar being the world's highest grossing movie of all time. It deserves to go into the box office section where we can talk about extended analysis, not the lead.

And Cshay, no "consensus" was ever made in the Titanic article. It's basically you and one other guy reverting it back every single time. You can clearly see in the discussion over there that there was not a consensus, as well as here. We have it in the box office section here, there's your "compromise". Exodite (talk) 07:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Exodite, if by "one other guy," you meant me, I point out that I am female and that I only reverted twice. I did so because BalticPat22's revert, in addition to Cshay's two reverts,[19][20] led me to believe that there was consensus for the inflation mention on the Titanic article talk page. I read that discussion yesterday, however, and, like you, see no consensus for it. I am now okay with you removing it. Cshay is likely to revert you, though. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try again. Exodite (talk) 01:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to the main issue, this topic was actually caused by me kicking up a fuss about Avatar's adjusted gross being higher than its unadjusted gross, which is impossible unless you have deflation, and still very unlikely just a month after release. As you can see from the chart [21] this issue has now been resolved and the adjusted gross has been fixed to Avatar's current gross. Now Box Office Mojo has corrected its figures the orginal problem no longer exists. Unless Cshay gains some support for his position too the consensus on that looks resolute also. Betty Logan (talk) 19:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Betty, after Avitar has been out a while and is not increasinig so fast, there will be fewer mistakes on the Box Ofice Mojo list. It will likely settle in for good at around 15th or so. Give it time. See below for my main concern related to not mentioning inflation in the intro sentence. We need to do *something* about it. That sentence is misleading. Cshay (talk) 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I may not have been clear enough. The phrase "became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide" is misleading and needs to be qualified. Why? Because we don't mention whether or not inflation is taken into account and we are ranking across decades. We need to clarify that in that sentence. Reputable media sources do that (google "highest gas price of all time" for examples). If you don't want to quote Box Office Mojo, here are some alternatives: "became the highest-grossing (inflation unadjusted) film of all time worldwide" or "became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide (without adjusting for inflation)". As to why CNN and some media outlets have not mentioned inflation -- they are simply copying the Avitar press release, and the movie studios have never mentioned inflation. It is in their best interest not to for marketing reasons (I don't blame them). But we don't have to parrot their press release. We should clarify, in the same sentence, that we are using the inflation unajusted ranking. Including this information later in the article is not good enough because the person may not read that far. Cshay (talk) 23:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed - As stated above, we are not lying, it is a fact that it is the highest grossing movie of all time worldwide. This does not mislead the reader into a lie because it is not. It is the truth, we may be ranking across decades but its also international. There are many things in a article that a reader may miss if they only read the lede. As stated before , there is no "adjusted" worldwide ranking, only a domestic adjusted rank. Therefore, it is pointless to place the adjusted domestic gross next to the worldwide statement. Exodite also made some very good points in his reply as well to further the reason it should not be in the lede. DrNegative (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed - It appears that Cshay has stated a personal opinion regarding reputable media's use of "highest grossing film". Note Cshay's remark, "The phrase "became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide" is misleading and needs to be qualified. Why? Because we don't mention whether or not inflation is taken into account and we are ranking across decades. We need to clarify that in that sentence. Reputable media sources do that (google "highest gas price of all time" for examples)." I noticed that when it came down to giving support for that position of what reputable media does regarding film gross, Cshay came up with "gas prices", rather than film gross. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed - I stated many of my reasons above, in addition to the reasons others have mentioned. In fact I really think in the box office section where it is mentioned next to the US and Canada official grosses, it should be specified that it is Box Office Mojo doing those estimations. Because they are not consistent from source to source. Exodite (talk) 03:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. Just want to let you know that I responded to you a little above in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - As I've stated above, only hard facts should go in the lede. Inflation adjusted figures are specialist opinions so I don't believe they belong there, and should remain in the performance analysis section. If Cshay can find a reliable source for worldwide ticket sales I would be happy for that to go in the lede. Betty Logan (talk) 14:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - It seems that Cshay's main argument point closely resembles this same unsourced paragraph[22] that he himself inserted into the List of highest-grossing films article. It seems he uses the same argument for the Titanic article as well. DrNegative (talk) 05:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Here is a source critical of the motion picture industry's use of inflation unadjusted rankings that folks might find useful. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3582132/How-the-motion-picture-industry-miscalculates-box-office-receipts Cshay (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed changes to introduction to account for inflation & North American record

Avatar will break Titanic's record either on Tuesday or Wednesday. I propose changing the text at that time as follows (adding the caveat of "in constant dollars"):

Current text: The film broke several box office records during its release and became the highest-grossing film of all time worldwide, surpassing Titanic,[19] which had held the record for the previous 12 years. It also became the first film to gross more than $2 billion.[20]

Proposed text: The film has thus far grossed over $2 billion in worldwide box office receipts, becoming the first film to do so.[20 from above] In constant dollars, Avatar is now the highest-grossing film of all-time, having surpassed the previous record holder Titanic (1997) in both worldwide and North American box office[new 19 link, retrieved when it breaks Titanic's other record].

The text needs to be changed. It takes a POV as to what constitutes the highest-grossing film of all-time, when in fact, as this discussion indicates, there is division as to the terms definition. Some think that Gone with the Wind holds the title & some think Titanic (now Avatar) holds the title. It is not for Wikipedia to determine which side is right, and it therefore needs to be changed for NPOV. Arkane2 (talk) 08:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

We've had the discussion above and as you can see there was a firm decision to keep adjusted figures out of the lede. Given the overwhelming consensus I don't think there is much point debating it again a week later. Being the higest grossing film is not a point of view it is a fact. Whether it is the most successful or the most popular is a point of view - but highest grossing means it has made more dollars than any other film which is a verifiable fact. There is no such thing as "constant" dollars - a dollar is a dollar unless the currency itself is one day renumbered like the British old penny/new penny. Betty Logan (talk) 08:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You bring up a few points. 1. I am not suggesting we put adjusted figures, in fact I only added 3 words besides rearranging the text (as its clumsy right now). 2. Consensus is irrelevant if the text has a POV. Obviously the consensus in an article frequented by those interested in Avatar is going to skewed. As currently worded, the article takes a POV that Avatar and NOT Gone With the Wind is the current record-holded for all-time box office. This should not be in a Wikipedia article. Sticking purely to facts rather than speculation/original research: Avatar holds (will hold) the record in nominal US dollars. Gone with the Wind will continue to hold the record in real dollars. The fact that the nominal dollar record is more publicized is immaterial to whether or not we can factually state that one is the "highest-grossing movie of all-time" and the other is not. In keeping with NPOV, the text either needs to be deleted entirely or altered slightly (as I've done). 3. There is such a thing as constant dollars. Please see the Wikipedia entry entitled constant dollars.Arkane2 (talk) 08:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The constant dollar article is completely unsourced, but following the definition in that article Gone With the Wind would be ahead of Avatar in "constant" dollars. It's still irrelevant though because the lede presents a fact not a POV. Avatar holds the record for the gross, Gone With the Wind in ticket sales. Those are the two facts of the issue. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced or not, it is correct. Alternatively, you can read the article Real versus nominal value (economics). The sentence as currently construed is not a fact. "Avatar holds the record for gross box office revenue in nominal dollars" would be an indisputable fact. To use an example to help make the point, it would not be a fact to say that Bill Gates is the richest American to ever live despite the fact that he has the current highest net worth. That's because, at the height of their wealth in REAL dollars, John D. Rockefeller was considerably wealthier than Bill Gates. As such, Wikipedia clarifies their listing of wealthiest historical figures as "non-inflated", see here: List_of_wealthiest_non-inflated_historical_figures. Similarly, all references to differing dollar values across differing time periods for the purposes of "records" should be clarified as to whether they are adjusted or not adjusted for inflation. The alternative for not clarifying is the Wikipedia article taking a POV on the record. Putting in wording such as "In constant US dollars" or "In nominal US dollars" or "Unadjusted for inflation" would be acceptable changes here, and I'm not sure why there is so much push back about it. Arkane2 (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From [23]: Constant dollars are derived by applying a price deflator to convert expenditures displayed in a time series to a price level that existed at a certain point in time (the base year). Constant dollars eliminate the changes in the purchasing power of the dollar over time. The result is a series as it would exist if the dollar had a purchasing power equal to the purchasing power in the base year. The "constant dollar" is therefore the adjusted dollar and you've just gone and stuffed the James Cameron article with your misunderstanding of this term. I would suggest putting things right there before doing anything here. Betty Logan (talk) 09:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure why you are being so combative...but why not use the James Cameron discussion page to bring that up? That's how I went about making changes to that article, and that's what I am doing here again. The definition you provide is perfectly correct. Although in revisiting the term, I suppose that the wording would have to be a bit more complicated. The wording that I would prefer to use is "in nominal dollars" as that is the most common term. I'll propose new text switching out nominal for constant:

Proposed text v2: The film has thus far grossed over $2 billion in worldwide box office receipts, becoming the first film to do so.[20 from above] In nominal US dollars, Avatar is now the highest-grossing film of all-time, having surpassed the previous record holder Titanic (1997) in both worldwide and North American box office[new 19 link, retrieved when it breaks Titanic's other record]. Arkane2 (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposed - As many editors stated above, we are listing the facts in the lede, and we elaborate on estimates and speculation of adjusted grosses in the Box Office section, regardless of whether the reader chooses to read it or not. The omission of your proposed adjectives does not violate NPOV, its still a fact without them, and one notable enough for the lede. DrNegative (talk) 21:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Opposed - Sorry about being ratty with you Arkane, but it was late and I felt we'd covered this ground already. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How do I elevate this issue to someone who can arbitrate it fairly? I'm positive the current verbiage violates NPOV as it makes Wikipedia the determinant of a subjective record. Arkane2 (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Some historians say "Germany barely lost World War 2," some others say, "Germany thoroughly lost World War 2." Those are both POV. Based on your logic, simply saying "Germany lost World War 2" violates NPOV, even though it is fact. In actuality, your pushing POV with the adjectives. DrNegative (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Arkane2, I too would like to see this issue elevated for review by other editors (perhaps those well versed in inflation related topics). I think the sentence that mentions the ranking as it stands is misleading and should be corrected to qualify what is meant by "#1 of all time". If it is not against wikipedia policy,, maybe we can ask for help from editors over in talk pages of one of the inflation articles. I don't think that those that have weighed in so far fully understand what the issue is and why it must be corrected. Cshay (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with DrNegative's example. Arkane2, there is nothing "subjective" about stating what is the highest grossing film. It's the one that makes the most dollars at the box office. NPOV. The reasons behind it - whether they be favorable exchange rates, inflation, more theaters, 3D premium, whatever, is further elaboration, speculation and not official. What being the highest grossing film actually says about the movie's popularity, significance, etc. is speculation and not official. What is official and factual is that it's the highest grossing film. It's how it was stated on Wikipedia's front page in the news article. Exodite (talk) 05:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Still, you (and the others here) have not seemed to address inflation and what it means when talking about rankings across decades. PLEASE, all of you, read the following article and see if you understand the issue better: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3582132/How-the-motion-picture-industry-miscalculates-box-office-receipts If you have questions about what this paper in the link above is saying, please ask. Cshay (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"Still, you (and the others here) have not seemed to address inflation and what it means when talking about rankings across decades."

This kids is an opinion, the ancient Greeks had alot of those, didn't mean they were right. How much mainstream or actual notable research journal attention has this 7 page report from 3 grad students actually received? Looks like somebody became desperate at the hands of Google. DrNegative (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please address the issues raised in the paper. Thank you. Cshay (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The paper provides three alternative charts that adjusts for inflation, ticket price, and population growth. That is they consider three possible ways to gauge performance, so it offers three interpretations of the raw data. Journal publications are verifiable so I would have no problem with something along these lines for Avatar going into performance analysis, but the key issue here is that they are all interpretations of the raw data: it's dollar gross, ticket price, inflation (there 3/4 inflation measures too such as CPI, average earnings and GDP), number of releases, population sizes. You are insisting that the lede interprets the data, and we are saying the lede just stipulates it and the interpretation comes later. There are two quantities we can measure: gross and ticket sales, so we state them factually and analyse them in the appropriate section. Betty Logan (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Betty, I have no problem with using the "unadjusted gross" in the lede, but we need to label that it is unadjusted so that there is no confusion, and to keep a NPOV. The paper I linked to details why the movie industry press releases do not label their rankings of grosses as unadjusted for inflation. It's for marketing reasons. But we can and should be more accurate here by simply adding the words "inflation unadusted gross" in the lede so that it is not misleading. Cshay (talk) 18:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such currency as the adjusted dollar, or the constant dollar, these are just made-up economic definitions used for analysing market performance across the years. Avatar has made 2 billion dollars, not 2 billion unadjusted dollars. Betty Logan (talk) 18:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

True, but that is not the issue being debated. The issue is not the dollar amount, but the ranking. The ranking, over all time, is based on unadjusted grosses. If we don't state this, people may assume that the ranking is inflation-adjusted beause this is normally how prices are ranked across long time periods (as another example, see how the New York Times reports on gas prices reaching #1 all-time highs). The movie industry does not disclose that the rankings are inflation unadjusted for marketing reasons, but we are not their marketing arm. Thus, to keep it NPOV, and to avoid being misleading, we need to disclose that the all time rankings are based on inflation unadjusted gross. To understand the NPOV issue better, read the article I linked to above, in particular the first several paragraphs. Cshay (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You just countered yourself for me. "The issue is not the dollar amount, but the ranking." The ranking itself is based upon the dollar amount. It is fact regardless from thousands of sources. You are bringing up your exact same argument that consensus opposed above. There is no adjusted worldwide gross. It doesn't exist. Why mislead the reader by saying it is unadjusted for inflation when there is not an adjusted worldwide gross to compare it to? WP:DEADHORSE as far as I am concerned. Consider my opposition to this unless I say otherwise on this page. DrNegative (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranking, implies comparing, and comparing pricing data across decades normally involves some kind of inflation adjusting. Since a reader would expect that, we need to warn them that in fact these rankings are NOT inflation adjusted. The reason inflation data is less available with movies as opposed to say gas prices, is because the motion picture industry has a vested interest in marketing by misleading. We don't need to follow their lead however, and there are some sources we can use, hence the NPOV issue caused by editors denying us the right to use those sources. Sure, some of the soures may not be perfet, but I argue they are better than nothing in terms of alerting the reader to the issue. It seems like you are missing some of the point at least, and seem to enjoy being combative, so I guess I am not going to be able to educate you on how inflation works here in this forum. Let's wait until some editors from outside this article have a chance to weigh in over on the NPOV page. It will take a while for this issue to gain attention I think. Eventually some inflation knowlegable editors will chime in. Cshay (talk) 05:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Its not knowledge that is the issue (I have a minor in Economics btw, Macro being my favorite if you want to take stabs in that area, I'm game), but its the simple fact that your trying to compare apples with oranges....even though you have 7-8 editors against your proposal now and counting. It doesn't matter what our knowledge on the subject is, because thats WP:OR. I agree with you there though, lets wait for more to chime in. DrNegative (talk) 06:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if more people than not do not understand inflation. After all, that was the conclusion that the paper I linked to came to -- that the motion picture industry is taking advantage of ignorance of mathematics to market movies. Have you read that paper with an open mind? In an earlier comment, instead of responding to the paper logically, you simply denigrated the authors as graduate students and me as desperately googling. You mention that 7-8 editors are against me, and even if that is true, you are still not allowed as a majority to violate NPOV, which is what you are doing presently by censoring clarifying material from the lede. Cshay (talk) 06:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you will find that reporting box office figures was borne of its historical context. Films back in the 30s and 40s charged different admission rates, prices weren't uniform as they are today. Reporting ticket sales would have have been viewed as more misleading because the major studio pictures often charged for tickets many more times than a cheap B picture. A B-pic thanks to its low ticket prices could sell as many tickets if not more than the big studio pictures despite only generating a fraction of the box office, so obviously this wasn't an acceptable way of measuring a film's success. Reporting box office was actually perceived as fairer in marketing a film. As a result the movie industry just reports box office because that's the way it's always been done. This, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand though. Betty Logan (talk) 06:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Original research is interesting, but did you read the paper I referenced? They clearly accuse the motion picture industry of intentional deceit and of relying on consumers ignorance of inflation issues as reasons why they do not release ticket sales or inflation adjusted rankings. You are right that the motivation for why inflation adjusted figures or ticket sales are not publicized by them really doesn't really matter for this argument about NPOV. What I want to have addressed is why we are censoring the information from the lede when we can just give fair treatment to both. It is skewing the POV of the article towards the motion picture industries marketing aims. Cshay (talk) 06:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have spoken with some other members of Wikipedia and they recommended a few steps to get this arbitrated. The first step I've taken is posted a notice that to the NPOV board, which I think clearly outlines the problems & the debate (if perhaps a little bit too wordy). Arkane2 (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please ask them to post all their comments at this discussion. We don't really one two different discussions going on because if they arrive at different conclusions that doesn't really resolve the matter. Betty Logan (talk) 06:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, Box Office Mojo themselves just called their method of estimating the adjusted gross "iffy".[24] DrNegative (talk) 04:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the link - it contains some very useful admissions data than we can uses to qualify the "adjusted" rank in the Box Office section. It puts its admissions at about the same as Spider-Man 2 and Star Wars Episode 3 which both lie outside of the top 50 in terms of tickets sales, so it shows how much the rank fluctuates depending on the methodology. It would be completely arbitrary to pick just one and stick it in the lede! Betty Logan (talk) 05:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution: put in a footnote comment so something like "...highest grossing film of all time<ref>Unadjusted for inflation.</ref>. I will put it in and see what you guys think. Quicker that way.Lambanog (talk) 16:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Punctuation

Re. [25] and [26]: First of all, please do not mark a revert as minor. If it were minor, it would not be in dispute. Secondly, I don't see how it is relevant that the line in question is or is not a sentence fragment. The idea of WP:LQ is WYSIWYG: If it's not in the alphabet soup, it won't end up in the spoon; if it's not in the source, it doesn't go inside quotation marks. Sometimes a period in the source will have to be dropped in the quotation because it would interrupt the sentence flow; this is why one needs to use some common sense when deciding where to place sentence fragments that, in the original source, end with a period. There is no period in the source that would interrupt any syntax in the article, so I fail to see how the nature of sentence fragments is the least bit germane here. One may omit punctuation that would be disruptive (after all, except when quoting full sentences, the act of quotation is an act of omission), but one may not add punctuation where it would be...well, just what would it be, anyway? I still do not grasp the rationale for adding it. If it's not in the source, it doesn't just get to materialize within the quotation. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this. That works. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed this comment. First, reverts can be marked as minor, such as vandalism or other clearly wrong edits. Not saying that yours was vandalism or clearly wrong to others. Just saying it was reflex to me. Second, you clearly sometimes read WP:Logical quotation differently than I and others do. It is relevant that the line in question is or is not a sentence fragment; this has been brought up time and time again at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. WP:Logical quotation is all about what is and what is not a partial quote. The line you reverted me on is a full quote, which just so happens to have had the word "said" in the middle of the sentence instead of at the end. This is no more a partial quote to me than if I had originally presented it without the word "said" as a pause. Also, I fail to see why you felt the need to bring this to the article talk page. Did I bring your recent wrongly-formatted edits here to this talk page? No. Because they were minor, and I knew that you would be able to see what I stated in my edit summaries. As you can see, this discussion only pertains to the two of us, and could have easily been had on my talk page. This is not the first time we have disagreed on a WP:Logical quotation matter, as I am sure you remember. Perhaps it should be taken to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, since people are clearly interpreting WP:Logical quotation differently at whatever time. And before you come back at me with the "Clearly, you are wrong" speak again, I again point you to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, where people often disagree on matters as well, even this. I would also appreciate you not saying how "one needs to use some common sense when deciding where to place sentence fragments" in regards to me, as if I am without it (common sense) or do not use it enough. Flyer22 (talk) 03:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, I like using article talk pages because 1) WP is ultimately about community, and the more feedback one receives, the more nuanced one's understanding can become; and 2) article talk can be seen as a repository of reflections that can be of use to future editors. I sometimes use article talk even when I don't expect anyone to reply, but nonetheless suspect that future editors might benefit from viewing the comment. And in this case, you mentioned that other editors had agreed with you, so it would seem fair to bring the issue to the attention of other editors. But if you'd prefer that I use your own talk page when a matter seems to be primarily between the two of us, I certainly can do that. Also, in my line about "common sense", I did not mean that you weren't using common sense when placing sentence fragments (recall that I didn't see how this was about sentence fragments in the first place); what I meant was to restate my understanding of a part of WP:LQ, so as to clarify why saw no connection between that part of LQ and the matter at hand. Anyway, sorry that a misunderstanding occurred. Perhaps there ultimately is something to be brought up at WT:MOS, but I fail to see any ambiguity in the line, "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." Therefore, because a period in that spot was not part of the quoted material, the period would go outside the quotation marks. That's why it's called "logical quotation": If A, then B. If not-A, then C. If no-period-is-in-quoted-material, then period-goes-outside-quotation-marks. Affirm the antecedent, thus accept the consequent. Pure, albeit prescriptive, logic. The exception occurs when logic has to step aside for pragmatism: If there is a period in the quoted material, and if the quoted material is a sentence fragment, then quoting the period along with the sentence fragment could disrupt the sentence flow, especially if the quotation is spliced into the middle of a new sentence. However, in this case, in the line in question for this article, there was no problematic period in the source, so the section of LQ about problematic periods would not seem to apply. Perhaps I'm reading too much into this, but I think that the confusion arises from your having done the same: LQ is, in my estimation, as simple as, "If the period is in the source, then it (maybe) ends up in the quotation marks; if the period is not in the source, then it (always) goes outside of the quotation marks." Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:39, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I would rather continue this discussion here than on my talk page. I would not want this discussion completely wiped from here or left as something that was discontinued. But whether you like using article talk pages or not, clearly some things are not for the article talk page. This is not the place for this discussion, in my view, because it is not necessarily about the article and certainly not as much anymore. You could argue that other editors will benefit in some way from this, such as learning about WP:Logical quotation, but I state that most of them will either not remember this discussion or will ignore it and its meaning. I say that because I have learned that most Wikipedia editors either do not pay attention to WP:Logical quotation or do not know about it, which is why I am always having to cite it and insert it. And when some do find out about it, they reject it; this is usually if they are American, like I am. They do this because it is "wrong" American-wise. There is also the fact of, as I stated before, editors interpreting WP:Logical quotation differently. You and I clearly do on this particular matter. The line "On Wikipedia, place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." needs to be rewritten or at least expanded upon after that for clarity, because people obviously do not look at it the same. I do not take it as literally as some, and rather focus on what is after it (the stuff about sentence fragments). Let's take the debated line for example:

"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side," said Cameron, "and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting."

How is the period that I left right where it is (at the end of the word "interesting") not a part of the quoted material? And if one wants to switch this focus to the commas before and after the words "said Cameron" and say that they are not a part of the quoted material, the same goes for when we relay these types of lines: "Cameron said Avatar is a genuine epic." When we write this, we may relay it as "Avatar is a genuine epic," said Cameron. In that case, the comma is also not a part of the quoted material, but we do not write it as "Avatar is a genuine epic", said Cameron (with the comma outside of the quoted material. Likewise, if a punctuation is a part of quoted material, but we relay it as a sentence fragment, the punctuation should still go outside of the quoted material. This is what I have seen done by editors quite familiar with using WP:Logical quotation.

If I am partly wrong in how I use WP:Logical quotation, I can accept that. We cannot all be right about everything. But perhaps we should bring in one of the considered experts on this topic from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style or at least post a message there about this discussion? A I told you last time, a similar discussion like this was brought up before at Talk:The Twilight Saga: New Moon/Archive 1#WP:Logical quotation, and one of the considered experts stated that I was right. Flyer22 (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm American as well, and I was completely oblivious to logical quotation before I started editing on here. But I (now) accept it as the most faithful way to represent quoted material. But if exact representation is the goal, I don't see how LQ can be interpreted in anything but the most literal sense--as if it were almost to photograph the quoted line. The period at the end of "interesting" is not part of the quoted material, for the simple reason that there is no period at the end of "interesting" in the source. There is, instead, a comma. Now, had the source itself used LQ, it wouldn't have put either a comma or a period there--no comma because Cameron's line per se wouldn't have ended with a comma; and no period because, although Cameron's line is a full sentence, it is followed in the source by the words, "he explained", and so does not end the source's quotation of the line. Perhaps you are saying that we should end Cameron's line with a period because his line was a full sentence that would properly be quoted with a period before the right quotation mark. This would be true if we were citing Cameron. But we're not citing Cameron; we're citing Eric Ditzian and MTV, who incidentally happen to be quoting Cameron in their source--and their source is of the secondary variety, which WP ideally treats as the source material. And Ditzian/MTV didn't put a period in the disputed spot, so neither should we. Finally, I realize that this discussion has become more about grammar than about Avatar, and I certainly don't want to detract or distract from more pertinent threads. But ultimately, I agree with you: The discussion started here, for better or for worse, so it might as well come to fruition here as well. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean on some points. You say that "had the source itself used LQ, it wouldn't have put either a comma or a period there--no comma because Cameron's line per se wouldn't have ended with a comma..." I ask, "What?" Nobody's actual comment ends with a comma. People are the ones to supply the commas when using "he said" or "she said" (or some other variety of it). Again, I point out that we relay full sentences as full sentences, not as sentence fragments. We state, "' Avatar is a genuine epic,' said Cameron," not "'Avatar is a genuine epic', said Cameron." The comma goes within the quoted material, not outside of it, even with logical quotation. I do not see how it matters that we're citing Eric Ditzian and MTV, who incidentally happen to be quoting Cameron in their source. WP:Logical quotation says nothing about "secondary variety." With most online interviews, we are citing the interviewer's interview of the subject. The way the interviewer presented things does not stop us from presenting full quotes as full quotes and sentence fragments as sentence fragments. In fact, we may choose to present a full quote as a sentence fragment. Saying that since "Ditzian/MTV didn't put a period in the disputed spot, so neither should we" is like saying we should always present a quote in the same structure as the source. Well, as I just stated, that simply is not true (we do not have to always present full quotes as full quotes here at Wikipedia, for example). As for reading WP:Logical quotation literally, did you read any part of the discussion I linked to above? In that discussion, I asked, "Also, in using the logical quotation guideline, should the period go outside of the quote for any type of sentence fragment (as I mentioned above)?" Editor Finell, the considered WP:Logical quotation expert I was speaking of above, clearly said, "Yes." His "yes" covers sentence fragments that may end with a period within the quoted material instead of outside the quoted material. That is how American style sentence fragments are done, but we do not do that here at Wikipedia (even if the interviewer chooses to). Thus, why should I go on your word about how WP:Logical quotation works, when others do not see it exactly as you do? This is not something that can be resolved between us, because people's interpretations of WP:Logical quotation differ; I need the thoughts of others on this matter, preferably the ones who are considered experts on it from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. Flyer22 (talk) 20:18, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how you infer, "the comma goes within the quoted material, not outside of it, even with logical quotation" from "place all punctuation marks inside the quotation marks if they are part of the quoted material and outside if they are not." The latter line seems to suggest, quite plainly, that if a comma at the end of a line is not part of the quoted material, then if a comma is needed on here, it would go outside the quotation marks. Again, I'm American; I was not taught this stuff in school, and I certainly could be missing something. But if I am, then it appears that WP:LQ is missing it as well. WP:LQ doesn't explicitly address the use of commas in the first place. I'm just going by what the current wording of the MoS says. Since it says that the placement of "all punctuation marks" on WP must reflect the placement of those marks within "the quoted material", and since commas fall within the category of "all punctuation marks", I assume that outside in the source means outside on WP, and likewise that inside there means inside here. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

When I said that "the comma goes within the quoted material, not outside of it, even with logical quotation," I was speaking of that example. Wikipedia goes by logical quotation. We do not cease to go by it, simply because a source does not go by it. If a source were to have made a mistake in that example, by putting the comma outside of the quote, that does not mean that we should copy that source's mistake. As for being American, the British style places punctuations inside or outside the quotation marks according to whether or not the punctuation is part of the quoted material. I take "quoted material" to mean the format of the words, not how the source may have formatted the quote. Take, for example, when a man says, "I thoroughly enjoyed Avatar, but Titanic made me want to walk out of the theater." If a person knows even a bit of grammar, they know how that is supposed to be formatted; they do not need a source to tell them. It should be formatted just like I did it, unless it is delivered as a sentence fragment. If a source were to have put two commas after the word "Avatar" there, that does not mean that we should do the same. That is what I mean. The way that a source has relayed a quote does not stop us from following WP:Logical quotation. If it was simply about following how the source formats the quote, then the formatting explanation that WP:Logical quotation gives would simply tell us to format the quotes the way that the sources do. If a source ends a sentence fragment with its period within the quote, which they would likely do if American, I do not see how we are supposed to do the same...when we are supposed to be following WP:Logical quotation.

I am going to bring in editors from Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style in on this. Hopefully, some of them will help. Flyer22 (talk) 01:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The self-proclaimed experts help?

I saw Flyer22's post at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style, and I'm here to help. This is a rather lengthy and heated argument over punctuation. You have to be careful what you mean by "format". Punctuation is a matter of writing style, but not format. Punctuation is as much a part of text (including quoted text) as the words. Further, Wikipedia faithfully reproduces quoted material as is; Wikipedia's Manual of Style governs what Wikipedia's editors write. If you quote a block of text from a source, and the source places a comma inside quotation marks, we don't change that. If you quote sentence fragments, whether to include a trailing comma or period (i.e., full stop) depends on the context.

If you give the source text (or a link to it) and show me how it is being in quoted in the article, I can answer your question. I would rather not have to wade through this long argument or the article's edit history. Thanks.—Finell 02:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would not say that it was a heated discussion; I was annoyed at first, but still managed not to get so annoyed that I was being harsh. Either way, Finell, thank you for weighing in. You say that Wikipedia faithfully reproduces quoted material as is. I have always followed that when it comes to words, unless altering a word with a bracket. If a source misspells a word, for example, I have seen that it is perfectly acceptable to correct the spelling with a bracket. Likewise, with other types of instances. An example would be if a source referred to James Cameron simply as James. If the source said, "James and I are friends," we could substitute that with "[Cameron] and I are friends," for consistency of WP:SURNAME. We are also allowed to relay quotes as sentence fragments; we do not have to relay a quote in its full format. Thus, I am not seeing how Wikipedia always faithfully reproduces quoted material as is. As for punctuation, no, I have not always reproduced text faithfully when it comes to that, seeing as I felt that the whole point of WP:Logical quotation was to have punctuations regarding the end of sentence fragments exist outside of the quotes (not within them). Linked above is a question I asked you some time ago. I asked, "Also, in using the logical quotation guideline, should the period go outside of the quote for any type of sentence fragment...?" You said, "Yes." Well, I took your "yes" to mean any type of sentence fragment, even those that may end with a period within the quoted material.

The debated line we were discussing above is this one:

"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side," said Cameron, "and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting."

I had the word "interesting" end with the period inside of the quote, because it is not a sentence fragment. Another editor changed it to go outside of the quote. Then so did Cosmic Latte. I cannot see why the period should be outside of the quote, since it is not a sentence fragment. In that case, should it be...and why? Flyer22 (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I too an coming here because of Flyer22's post at WT:MOS. If I understand the discussion above correctly, the indented line above is from an interview with Cameron. That is, it is MTV transcribing Cameron's words. I'm going to assume that this is the only source, and that the source was originally printed (i.e., that it is not a transcription of someone talking about his interview with Cameron).

Logical quotation specifies that the sequence of characters that appear inside the quotation marks must be the same as the sequence of characters outside the quotation marks, excepting omissions at the beginning and end to make the sentence grammatical and a very few other cases. One of those other cases is editorial clarifications using brackets; another is correcting typographical slips such as misspellings (except when those slips are somehow important to understanding the text). None of these cases seem relevant here (but again, correct me if I don't understand the context). But usually, you can't change or insert characters. Thus:

Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting."

Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting".

Avatar is "kind of interesting", according to Cameron.

but not:

Avatar is "kind of interesting," according to Cameron.

Now, in the first sentence above, I would rather have the period inside the quotation marks because I think that's more aesthetically pleasing. But both are allowable under logical quotation because the period appears in the source. Contrast this with the last example, which is not allowable because a comma appears between the quotation marks but there's no comma in the source.

Does this help? Ozob (talk) 05:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The question couldn't be answered without the context (i.e., based just on what Flyer22 quoted in his last post. However, I looked at the source interview. Wikipedia is quoting MTV quoting Cameron. Wikipedia is not quoting Cameron directly. This really isn't a sentence fragment question. It appears that MTV quoted an entire sentence that Cameron spoke, but replaced the "spoken" period with a comma (which is valid typographical, not logical, quotation) and appended he explained to the end of the quotation. To avoid confusion, it is preferable not to interject said Cameron in the middle of a full-sentence quotation.

I would not complain about the article's current solution, which keeps the comma at the end of Cameron's sentence inside the closing quotation mark (as it is in our source, which is MTV), and adds said Cameron at the end. A slightly more precise solution would be to block quote the entire paragraph from the MTV article.

Hypothetically, on the other hand, if Wikipedia were quoting Cameron directly (instead of quoting MTV) and if Wikipedia interjected said Cameron (which I would still advise against, although it is less troublesome without an intermediate source), the period would belong inside the closing quotation mark, because Cameron's full sentence would be quoted. Personally, I would not approve Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting." Even if the period were in the printed source, we would not be quoting the sentence as such, but only three words, so I would put the period after the closing quotation mark because it ends Wikipedia's sentence; that it also happens to end Cameron's sentence is mere coincidence.—Finell 06:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I actually disagree with one part of this. Wikipedia is not quoting MTV quoting Cameron. Wikipedia is, quite explicitly, quoting Cameron, and using MTV as a reliable source for its information about what Cameron said. (Notice that MTV is not mentioned anywhere in the article proper, only in the footnotes.) So any trailing punctuation that goes inside our quotation marks here is an assertion, by us, about what it is that Cameron said. That is, with a trailing comma inside our quotation marks we assert that this was not the end of Cameron's sentence, or, with a trailing period inside our quotation marks we would assert that this was the end of Cameron's sentence. And because the MTV article is using typesetter's quotation, we really don't know whether or not this is the end of Cameron's sentence. We only know that MTV didn't reproduce any more of Cameron's words. Spoken language does sometimes lend itself to long meandering sentences that just keep tacking more clauses onto the end. Since we can't tell, any trailing punctuation inside our quotation marks can only be speculative. --Pi zero (talk) 07:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The period is not present in the original source, so placing it inside the quotation marks is not consistent with LQ. Ozob is correct (and has aptly demonstrated) that LQ does not require a Wikipedia editor to remove closing punctuation that is present in the source, though it remains an option in almost all cases.

That being said, if the point of having LQ as part of the MoS is to preserve the quality of the quotation, then we should also preserve any original punctuation contained within that quotation, even if it is not a popular style. It is perfectly in keeping with Wikipedia's mission to preserve the punctuation as the source's writer saw fit to put it down. If Cameron did not feel that he was misquoted, then why should Wikipedia?

I would like to add that while WYSIWYG might be important in computer programming, it is less so in prose writing. While some of the edit in question aren't LQ, they also aren't in the least confusing or misleading about what Cameron said or how he said it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of the point of using LQ. The point is to maximize the accurate information that we provide (while not providing any inaccurate information), about whatever it is that we are providing information about. In a quotation, we are providing information about what was said/written by whoever it is that we ascribe it to. In this case, we are ascribing it to Cameron; that is, we claim that Cameron said it; that is, the sentence ends with the words "said Cameron", not with the words "said MTV". The quotation marks mean that, according to us, Cameron said exactly what is between the quotation marks. It would have been possible (though not reasonable) for us to quote MTV, in which case we would be providing information about what MTV said/wrote. Here is an example of what that would look like:

According to MTV,

It's a storytelling similarity that even Cameron acknowledges. "They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting," he explained.

A critical point here is that, exactly because MTV is using TQ, MTV is not ascribing the trailing comma to Cameron. Under TQ, any trailing puncutation mark is part of the surrounding prose in which the quote is embedded, not part of the quoted material. (In fact, it would be impossible for MTV to ascribe any trailing punctuation to Cameron, even if they wanted to, unless they resort to a block quote.) So the trailing comma would be included when we quote MTV, but not when we quote Cameron. When we are quoting Cameron, including the trailing comma within our quotation marks would be purveying false information — it would be asserting that we know the comma is due to Cameron, when in fact we do not know whether Cameron ended his sentence there. --Pi zero (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

But the source isn't Cameron. It's MTV. I feel that the tag and citation make that clear enough, but if not, we can always add the words "in an MTV interview."

Including closing quotation marks is not consistent with LQ, but it neither is it "purveying false information." It is by definition a style of punctuation in which it is understood that the comma or period is part of the process. Darkfrog24 (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who or what the source is, as long as we have a reliable source, and as long as we faithfully convey to our readers what the reliable source conveyed to us... about what Cameron said. The reason we have written this sentence in our article is that we want to tell the reader what Cameron said. Our information about what Cameron said comes from MTV, and we are bound to faithfully reproduce what MTV told us about what Cameron said. MTV did not tell us whether or not the quoted words were the entirety of Cameron's sentence, therefore we cannot truthfully claim that MTV did tell us whether there was more to the sentence. When using TQ, as the MTV article does, the closing comma is not part of the quoted material. That is, the closing comma is not part of what MTV told us about what Cameron said. LQ preserves the quoted material, and therefore the trailing comma is not part of what LQ preserves. --Pi zero (talk) 23:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

If we say that the MTV article is a reliable source, then we're saying that we're trusting the interviewer's judgment to the point where we assume that he or she wrote everything down correctly. While we do not know whether Cameron would have used a period or comma if writing down the sentence himself, we can reasonably expect that the MTV interviewer omitted only irrelevant information such as "ahs" and "ums." If we assume otherwise, then we must discard the source as unreliable. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am assuming that the interviewer did not misrepresent Cameron's meaning, and that therefore if the sentence actually went on in a meaningful way beyond what is quoted, then the meaning of the addendum was such that its omission does not alter the sense of what was included in the quote, and does not compromise the validity of the paragraph in which the quote occurs. That is, in the usual idiom, the interviewer didn't take Cameron's remarks "out of context". This does not preclude the possibility that there might have been something substantive in this hypothetical addendum to the sentence — I'd give it maybe a seventy or even eighty percent change that no such addendum actually occurred, that Cameron did end his sentence there, but that's speculation on my part. And if there were a substantive addendum, we have no way of knowing how the interviewer would prefer to see the whole sentence punctuated. --Pi zero (talk) 02:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is not an LQ vs. AQ/BQ issue. It's an is-the-author-reliable issue. The problem is neither created nor solved by the punctuation. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this particular subthread is in the final stages of shifting its center of mass from here to the MOS thread. --Pi zero (talk) 13:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you all for weighing in. I really appreciate this help. But even though you all have done great at explaining, I am even more confused about who was right on this matter because of the different views. Does this not mean that WP:Logical quotation needs a bit of a rewrite? Right now, it seems that Cosmic Latte and I were both correct. I am female, by the way.

Ozob, you say that Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting." would be allowable under logical quotation because the period appears in the source. But wouldn't that go against WP:Logical quotation, since we would be relaying that as a sentence fragment with the period within the quote? And if it is allowed because that is the way the source did it and we should present the period that way as well, then how is putting the period outside of the quote also allowed (as seen in one of your other examples)? Further, now that it has been addressed to you that the period is not in the source at that part, but rather a comma is, does this mean that we should not put the period there within the quotation marks even if we present the full quote? Not ever in this type of case? I ask all of you...is this true? If so, it would seem that Cosmic Latte was correct. For example, I am sure that it would be acceptable to start the sentence the other way, with the "Cameron said," part first, and then end it with a period.

Pi zero, I agree that "Wikipedia is not quoting MTV quoting Cameron. Wikipedia is, quite explicitly, quoting Cameron, and using MTV as a reliable source for its information about what Cameron said." That is what I basically stated above: "I do not see how it matters that we're citing Eric Ditzian and MTV, who incidentally happen to be quoting Cameron in their source... With most online interviews, we are citing the interviewer's interview of the subject." (A small percentage of online interviews are video only interviews, is what I mean.)

And, Finell, I would put this quote in blockquote format if it were four lines long. But it is only three lines long, on my screen anyway, and blockquotes are supposed to be for paragraphs that are four lines or longer. Besides, we are trying to avoid blockquotes in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 23:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Flyer22, you may wish to take a look at the recently added remarks on the MOS thread. If my posting there mistakes your position, please leave a note there setting the record straight. --Pi zero (talk) 00:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

With regard to Ozob's example, Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting.", this is one of the times when LQ differs from standard British punctuation. BQ would place the period outside all the time because the stop occurs outside the quoted material. However, because LQ concerns itself only with which characters were and were not part of the source material and not with the location of the grammatical stop, it permits Wikipedia editors to choose whether or not to include original closing punctuation, such as periods and commas. When the source has a period after "interesting," both Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting." and Cameron called his movie "kind of interesting". are consistent with LQ.

And yes, I would also like it if you, Flyer, and Cosmic took a look at WT:MoS. If we're going to improve the text of WP:LQ, then it would be best if we knew exactly what needs improvement. Darkfrog24 (talk) 00:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Pi zero and Darkfrog. And, Darkfrog, I appreciate you explaining Ozob's example. Also, Darkfrog, is it best to have the "in an MTV interview." part? I mean, we do not specify the source of the interviews for all or even most of Cameron's statements...and it would make for a bumpy flow if we did. Specifying "in an MTV interview." seems unnecessary, and it leads readers to believe that Cameron's comments right after that are also from that MTV interview. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Finell, I smirked at the new title you added for this subsection (the change from Section break to The self-proclaimed experts?). I did not call you all self-proclaimed experts. I was only saying that you all are the considered experts...on this matter. But if you feel that title is best, I can live with that. LOL. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Summing up

This is really a very good article: well organized, thorough, well written, and well sourced. The editors responsible for it should be proud. I hope you are planning to bring it to FA quality.

More than enough has already been said about the quotation question, but I won't let that stop me from saying more.

First, let's focus on the end result, rather than philosophy. I said above, "I would not complain about the article's current solution, which keeps the comma at the end of Cameron's sentence inside the closing quotation mark (as it is in our source, which is MTV), and adds said Cameron at the end." Is there anyone here who does complain about that solution? In the absence of substantial objection, that should be the end of the matter, and the rest of the discussion is academic.

In case some did object, I also said, "A slightly more precise solution would be to block quote the entire paragraph from the MTV article." (I said "block quote", but Flyer22 correctly points out that it is too short to block.) Rewriting the lead in to avoid redundancy, that would look like this:

For the love story between characters Jake and Neytiri, Cameron applied a star-crossed love theme, similarity to his pairing of Jack and Rose in Titanic. Both couples come from radically different cultures that are contemptuous of their relationship and are forced to choose sides between the competing communities."It's a storytelling similarity that even Cameron acknowledges. 'They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting,' he explained."^[69]

This solution avoids any question about changing punctuation. Does anyone object to this solution? Again, in the absence of substantial objection, that should be the end of the matter, and the rest of the discussion is academic.

Second, only for those of us who actually enjoy the academic discussion, I offer the following points:

1. The logical quotation style of punctuation, which deals only with end punctuation, is not the only guideline at issue here. I don't even think that it is the most important one. The main issues here are faithful quotation (the guideline on minimal change) and proper attribution (saying where we got it).
2. The purpose of the Cameron quote in this article is to show what he, the screenplay's author, said about the similarity of the couples in Avatar and in his own Titanic. Nevertheless, despite some comments to the contrary, Wikipedia is quoting MTV quoting Cameron—specifically, something that Cameron reportedly said to MTV's interviewer. Wikipedia can't quote what Cameron said directly because Wikipedia didn't hear it from Cameron (if there were a publicly available recording of what Cameron said, we could quote and cite that, and it would be verifiable because a reader or editor could listen to the same recording) and Cameron didn't write it down (an MTV interviewer did).
3. MTV is a sufficiently reliable source to use for the quotation of Cameron and for whatever else the article says. But reliable doesn't mean infallible, so we are still quoting MTV quoting Cameron.
4. Citation of the MTV article is sufficient to indicate that Wikipedia is quoting MTV, not Cameron: the reader sees who the article's author is, and that it isn't Cameron. It is unnecessary, and awkward, to introduce the quotation with According to MTV, in the body of the article, as someone suggested above. Since yesterday, someone changed the ending of the sentence, after the quotation, as follows: said Cameron in an MTV interview. That is less awkward, but still unnecessary, and a bit less precise than the citation alone. "According to MTV" would be accurate, but unnecessarily implies that we don't quite trust MTV.
5. Knowing how journalism works, we can be fairly sure that Cameron didn't utter exactly the words that MTV quotes him as saying. The article's author would have "copy edited" what Cameron said (perhaps fixed grammar or usage errors, and certainly omitted umms, ahs, false starts, etc.); an editor may have further copy edited the article author's version. Further, we know that MTV added all the punctuation because Cameron was speaking; the punctuation may have been based on Cameron's inflection, on normal punctuation guidelines, or on a combination. None of this is a problem: it is what editors do all the time, to authors of printed matter as well as to quotations of speakers. But it is another reason why Wikipedia is quoting MTV quoting Cameron.
6. Based on the way MTV presented the quotation plus the fact that the quotation standing by itself is a complete sentence, we can be reasonably sure that the quotation is a complete sentence, and MTV replaced the "spoken" period with a comma before the closing quotation mark. We would be a bit surer if MTV had written, Cameron explained, "They both ... interesting." We would be very sure if MTV rigorously used logical quotation.—Finell 05:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the solution of keeping the "he explained" with the source's comma. It is a compromise that compromises nothing. (And we should probably note that Flyer and Cosmic arrived at it before we got here, making this discussion comfortably academic.)

The issue causing confusion here seems to be not what LQ requires but whether to treat this source as an audio source or a written one.

Your point six makes me uncomfortable. This issue would not have arisen if MTV used LQ, but neither would it have arisen if this Wikipedia article used AQ. Darkfrog24 (talk) 06:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The version on the page just now is

"They both fall in love with each other, but they need to fight side-by-side, and so there's that kind of requirement to let the other person go in order to do what you need to do, which is kind of interesting," said Cameron in an MTV interview.^[69]

As I have been pointing out, this is a violation of LQ (which is to say, a violation of the principle of minimal change as applied to trailing punctuation), because it is an inaccurate representation of what the MTV interview ascribes to Cameron. The MTV interview does not ascribe any trialing punctuation to Cameron's words; in fact, the MTV interview is incapable of ascribing any trailing punctuation to Cameron's words, unless it resorted to the absurdity of a block quote, because the MTV interview is using TQ. Under TQ, any trailing punctuation is not part of the quoted material, but rather is part of the mechanical process of delimiting the quoted material.

I'm having difficulty, Finell, working out what you meant by your WP-quoting-MTV-quoting-Cameron remarks. My understanding of X is quoting Y is that X is presenting material inside quotation marks, and X is ascribing that material to Y. According to that understanding of quoting (which I realize may not be the sense you are using), in your proposed solution version, WP is quoting MTV, and in the passage quoted by WP, MTV is quoting Cameron; while in the current version I've shown above, WP is quoting Cameron, and MTV is the source of WP's information. Are you using the term quoting in a different sense (and if so, what)? --Pi zero (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Finell and Pi zero, I also brought up the "in an MTV interview." part above, to Darkfrog (just now). And, Finell, I would say that I am for letting it stay as the current solution I and Cosmic Latte worked out before I sought help from you all. But I want to point out that the MTV source is also an audio one (as it seems Darkfrog recently pointed out as well). Maybe that interview was longer than the clip we got, but the clip we got shows Cameron speaking the debated quote. Flyer22 (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and I really appreciate the wonderful comments you have made about the work on this article. Yes, the primary editors of this article have really worked as a team, and feel a bit like family. We do not always agree, and we have our little tiffs (LOL), but we work quite well together. Flyer22 (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If the MTV source is an audio one, and if he really does end a sentence there, then (obviously) you can put a period there. But if it's written, and if we don't have any audio to back it up, then all we have to go on is the comma. As Pi zero points out above, the comma really doesn't give us any information; nevertheless, it's what's in our source. This is something that the MoS doesn't really address, because it assumes the source is always and completely infallible. The easiest solution here, I think, is to either cite an audio source or leave the punctuation outside the quotation. Ozob (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Avatar backlash, and size of this article

We have these sources for the Avatar backlash:

• 'Avatar': Backlash Builds Against Film and Filmmaker James Cameron. Russians, Conservatives, Blacks and Disabled Take Swipes at 'Avatar'

• Are You Ready For The Avatar Backlash?

• Various other reliable-source "Avatar backlash" articles on the Internet.

I know that the Critical reception section of this article covers feelings about the film's sociopolitical themes, as I have often cited. But my questions about this are: Does it cover enough? Should we specifically address a bit of the backlash this film has received, like we do in the Critical reception section of the Titanic (1997 film) article regarding that film's backlash?

My other concern is the size of this article, which we really need to start thinking seriously about. We need to start trying to keep this article at a certain length. If we do include this information, we need to think about this article's size. It has already increased in size from 20/21 kilobytes to 29 kilobytes within just a few days (whether that is mostly because of text or references), when it seemed that everything we needed to cover was already covered. As I stated before, Wikipedia film articles really should not be this long. I did not expect it to surpass the length of the Changeling (film) article, but it did. How much longer do we see this article getting? We know that it will increase in size with the Home media section that is sure to come, but is there really anything else that needs to be significantly represented in this article? If so, we especially need to start cutting some things in this article down. I already proposed that the Marketing section be significantly cut down, to resemble the Music and soundtrack section in that respect, and that most of that stuff go into an individual article. Flyer22 (talk) 05:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest reading the two articles at those links and see if you can find anything in them that is worthwhile. I didn't see anything. For example, check out the part about disabled people's reaction to the film, in the section titled Disabled Uncomfortable With 'Avatar'. From the title it appears that there is a controversy, but there doesn't appear to be, just a discussion of some of the disabled-related details. Maybe the creek that this journalist has been working has been panned out and there isn't much interesting that this journalist can find to write about, so in this case the journalist tried to make it appear that there was a controversy when there wasn't. Also, note that the 2nd link's article was written in July 2009 and is not about social or political aspects. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 06:41, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not just those two articles, Bob. As I stated before, reliable sources about this film's backlash are all over the Internet. Here are two more:

• Conservative backlash against avatar

• Conservatives attack 'Avatar'. Is the movie 'Avatar' anti-religion and anti-military? CNN's Jason Carroll speaks to a Marine colonel who thinks so.

The second link (a video) is especially noteworthy, with the whole Marine colonel and Cameron responding to all this. I saw it on the news last night, which is what prompted me to address this.

And back to this article's size, what are we going to do about it? Do we set a "length limit" for this article, like a proposal to keep it at 130 - 132 kilobytes? (Yes, it is now at 130 kilobytes.) Do we instead cut some length down now, and get it below 130 kilobytes? I need help on this matter from all of you guys. I could do it by myself, but it is a lot easier to do it as a team. I might also cut something that someone else feels should stay in this article. Flyer22 (talk) 21:35, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd continue this discussion with you, but since you didn't seem to respond to the points of my last message ... --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. What was I supposed to say? For the ABC source, You said, "From the title it appears that there is a controversy, but there doesn't appear to be..." and then went on to accuse the journalist of being bored and attributing "his" story to that. I pointed out that it is not just him who has reported on this film's backlash, whether you call it controversy or not. Various reliable sources state that this film has received backlash. Certainly all of that cannot be attributed to boredom. And there was nothing else I could uniquely state about the initial second source I provided. As you stated, it was written in July 2009 and is not about sociopolitical aspects. Not that sociopolitical aspects have to be the only backlash we report on. The CNN video I provided clearly shows what I meant/mean on this matter, and I will use it for this article eventually. I felt it was better to talk it out on the talk page first, especially since you are such a prominent contributor to the Critical reception section and often revert what you do not approve of. I really do not have time to debate what is a backlash and what is not a backlash when various reliable sources describe it as a backlash, one even showing the backlash on video. I am not getting the attitude you gave me in your second reply, but if you would rather not work with me on this...there is nothing I can do about that. When I add the backlash information, at least I can state that I gave you a heads up about it. I can definitely say that taking care of this now would be better than you reverting me later.

As for taking care of this article's size, I suppose I'm on my own with that. Seems I have to go ahead and cut stuff, and then have people revert it and come here and complain about it as if I did not already try to have this matter worked out here first. If this article increases two more kilobytes in size before the Home media section is in, I will most likely do some cutting in some areas (starting with the Marketing section). Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "What was I supposed to say?" - Well, let's take it one piece at a time. The first sentence in my message was, "I would suggest reading the two articles at those links and see if you can find anything in them that is worthwhile." So, what parts were worthwhile and that you feel should be in the Avatar article? --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not big on including anything from those first two links. I had already read the first one, but skimmed over the second. After you pointed out the date of the second one, I looked at it more closely. With listing those first two links, it was simply to demonstrate that there is a backlash. I know that it would have been best if I had included other sources along with it, but I was in a hurry at that time; that is why, for the third listing, I simply chose to say, "Various other reliable-source ' Avatar ' backlash articles on the Internet." (After all, we all know how to use Google.) I was going to bring in more sources to use for the more prominent part of the piece hours later, and felt that there may be something from the first two that can be added to the prominent piece we put in. The prominent piece would be made up of the two additional links. We really do not need any more than that. I am not suggesting a large paragraph. Just a paragraph that mentions the conservative backlash this film has received, including the whole Colonel matter and Cameron's response to that. I do not see how it can really fit in the sociopolitical paragraph, but I am open to any ideas you have about that.

In addition to adding yet something else to this article, this article's size jumped back into my head. Flyer22 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re "With listing those first two links, it was simply to demonstrate that there is a backlash." - But isn't that already demonstrated in the Critical reception section in the social/political paragraph with the quotes of White, Moore, Douthat, and Newitz? --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That just demonstrates that there has been some negative criticism about the film, not that there has been significant backlash from conservatives. And not to the point where the U.S. marines' Public Affairs director weighed in negatively about the matter and Cameron responded to it all. I will eventually add something about it, most likely just two to four sentences to the sociopolitical paragraph. That is all I am interested in having further mentioned on this matter, and it can fit in the sociopolitical paragraph. We don't really need a separate paragraph just to mention the significant conservative backlash this film has received. But, yeah, I felt that it was better to work out its wording and placement here on the talk page first. Flyer22 (talk) 22:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

And in case it is not clear to all reading, what I proposed with this is not exactly the same as what the Cultural/religious paragraph for Critical reception section proposes immediately below. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, I agree that the marines' rep is worthwhile to mention. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cultural/religious paragraph for Critical reception

I do share concerns with the article's growing length. Still, cultural/religious outlook on 'Avatar', albeit sufficiently prominent in reliable media, is conspicuous by its absence in Critical reception. Since a few editors supported but never implemented its inclusion, could we please give it a focused and attentive look?

The third paragraph of Critical reception presently reads:

Avatar's underlying social and political themes attracted attention. Armond White of the New York Press wrote that Cameron used villainous American characters to misrepresent facets of militarism, capitalism, and imperialism. Evo Morales, Bolivia's first indigenous president, praised the film for its "profound show of resistance to capitalism and the struggle for the defense of nature". Russell D. Moore in The Christian Post concluded that propaganda exists in the film and stated, "If you can get a theater full of people in Kentucky to stand and applaud the defeat of their country in war, then you've got some amazing special effects." Adam Cohen of The New York Times was more positive, calling the film's anti-imperialist message "a 22nd-century version of the American colonists vs. the British, India vs. the Raj, or Latin America vs. United Fruit". Ross Douthat of The New York Times also opined that the film is "Cameron's long apologia for pantheism" which "has been Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now". Annalee Newitz of io9 concluded that Avatar is another film that has the recurring "fantasy about race" where "some white guy" becomes the "most awesome" member of a non-white culture. Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune called Avatar "the season's ideological Rorschach blot".

Please note that the purely religious pantheism quote by Ross Douthat is a mismatch for the socio-cultural context of the paragraph. I propose to place it in a separate paragraph along with some other notable religious and cultural comments:

[...] called Avatar "the season's ideological Rorschach blot".

The film’s cultural and religious overtones also drew comments. Gaetano Vallini, a cultural critic for L’Osservatore Romano of Vatican, wrote that the film “gets bogged down by a spiritualism linked to the worship of nature.” Ross Douthat of The New York Times also opined that Avatar is "Cameron's long apologia for pantheism" which "has been Hollywood's religion of choice for a generation now". Writing for Hindustan Times, Maxim Osipov commended Cameron for "convincingly" defining culture and civilization in accord with the Bhagavad Gita as “the qualities of kindness, gratitude, ... respect for all life and ultimately humble dependence on a higher intelligence behind nature.” Dalia Salaheldin of IslamOnline saw the film as reassuring Arabs and Muslims that “when the...clans are united and a sincere prayer is offered,” even “bows and arrows” succeed at expelling foreign military personnel from one's native land.

There are a few more worthwhile religious and cultural reviews on 'Avatar', such as this one by a Jewish colimnist in The Jerusalem Post, but the proposed paragraph already balances views of two Christian, one Hindu and one Muslim sources, which is enough for a start and most probably for a finish.

Your link leads to an article that can't be called a "review on 'Avatar'" at all, let alone a "worthwhile" one. First, it's mostly a stream of unbacked anti hi-tech insinuations. Second, the movie itself is barely mentioned. Third, the author claims that some 'Avatar' fans are Neo-Nazis, but that's just his opinion. He has no statistic data that could prove his point of view. Therefore, his article is, unfortunately, FUD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.25.188.48 (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Opinions? Suggestions?

Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 10:20, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what all the fuss is about. OF COURSE 'Avatar' is anti-American, anti-military, anti-capitalist and pro-pagan-pantheistic-primitivism. It's a Hollywood movie after all. What struck me as funny was Cameron talking about making Americans the Bad Guys as if it were something new.

The suggestion that Avatar could feed into fascist ideologies came as a surprise but, come to think of it, they DO preach an organic connection between 'Folk' and 'Land' don't they? However it strikes me more as a typical Liberal-Left view of America, the West and Technological civilization in general with unusually good special effects.216.120.213.106 (talk) 15:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Roxana

• Opposed - Already covered sufficiently in Themes and inspirations section re Hinduism, and with Douthat quote in Critical reception section re pantheism. Other connections are very tenuous at best. WP:UNDUE This seems similar to previous discussions which ended in WP:DEADHORSE so I probably won't be commenting more and just consider me opposed until I say differently. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Opposed - Due weight has been given to this topic IMO. Also, the critical reception section as a whole should focus more on the reception to the "artistic" value of the film. We are already on that thin line as it is now in terms of weight. Even the GA reviewer noted that this could get out of hand if we aren't careful and I agree with him. DrNegative (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the topic is given adqueate weight, the article shouldn't become a list of every group who claims the film supports their ideological worldview. I'm more concerned about how Ross Douthat's take is misrepresented here.Ktlynch (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose no change for this section of the concurrent article. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Literary antecedents (Themes and inspirations)

I've twice [27][28] had the following material removed from the "Themes and inspirations" section:

Critics have noted antecedents in Poul Anderson's 1957 story Call Me Joe about a disabled man mentally controlling an artificial alien body, Anne McCaffrey's Dragonflight (1968), with its lifelong bonds between rider and flying beast, and in particular Ursula K. Le Guin's The Word for World Is Forest (1976);^[*] as well as Robert Heinlein's 1959 Starship Troopers, and the director's own Aliens (1986).^[*]

[*] Gary Westfahl, All Energy Is Borrowed: A Review of Avatar, Locus Magazine, 20 December 2009

The first reversion was by Bob K31416 (talk · contribs), with the edit summary "deleted critics similarities discussion since subject is covered in 4th paragraph of Critical reception section"; the second by Flyer22 (talk · contribs) with the edit summary "Revert. This is partly covered in the Critical reception section,. If you want the other stuff mentioned, move it there. These are critics' opinions, not Cameron's stated themes or inspirations." Bob K31416 also added at the start of the section the invisible comment "Please note that this section is for the filmmakers' themes and inspirations. Critics interpretations are in the Critical reception section".

It is worth recognising that this goes flatly against the guidance at MOS:FILM, which says

"Most themes are implied rather than explicitly stated, regardless of whether their presence is the conscious intent of the producer, writer, or director. Inclusion of a treatment of a film's themes – well-sourced and cited to avoid original research – is encouraged since an article's value to a reader and its real-world context will be enhanced." (emphasis added)

Discussion of how the film relates to already strongly established genre elements, regardless of whether it was the conscious intent of the production team, fits squarely under this heading.

The "themes and inspiration" section is by far the best place for a detailed examination of this -- treating it as a subject of interest in itself -- rather than the "critical reception" section, which is more concerned with less direct value-judgment of whether this makes the film seem "derivative" or not.

I look forward to what other editors have to say on this, but all being equal I would like to add the material back tomorrow. Jheald (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment - Considering the amount of weight already presented in the article on the underlying themes of the film such as this one, do you think this would be pushing WP:UNDUE? If we included every opinion or view of the film's theme, from every little online critic on the net, we would actually have to make another article for it all and that is exactly what MOSFILM advises against. With this article's already enourmous size before awards and home-media ,etc., I have to call out WP:EVERYTHING on this one. But that is just my opinion. DrNegative (talk) 21:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, what we do set out to do, according to our contents list, is to review the films "inspirations" in the genre. Locus is not just some little online critic on the net. Jheald (talk) 22:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
    • That is true and now consensus and common sense is used as to how far we go out to do it. I am not questioning to reliability of Locus as a source, but the weight of every critic's feeling on the matter being listed within the article or section. DrNegative (talk) 22:19, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, due to looking something over before replying.) I am not seeing why the Poul Anderson bit should be duplicated in two different places, and I still am not seeing why these critics' opinions should go in the Themes and inspirations section when the other critics' opinions about the plot do not. And, no, I do not feel that those should be moved to the Themes and inspirations section either. While the Themes and inspirations section could include critics' opinions, it so far only includes Cameron and the other creators' intentions for the film, while the critics' opinions are regulated to the Critical reception section. This article's themes section is not like the Juno (film) article's Themes section, and I am not seeing why it should be. We also have to think about the size of this article, and there are plenty of things this film has been compared to; it does not mean that every comparison should be noted. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm quite happy to see the Poul Anderson reference downplayed or made less specific in the "Critical reception" section. (Arguably it's misrepresented, too, because Westfahl said that Call me Joe is not the most significant ur-text for the movie). But a section called "themes and inspirations" really ought to reference how some of these themes have previously been handled in s.f. Jheald (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The article is consistent with the excerpt you presented from MOS:FILM since the article includes "a treatment of a film's themes". The treatment is in the Themes and inspirations section for the filmmakers' themes and inspirations, and in the Critical reception section for the reviewers' themes. I don't see that the organization that you are proposing is required or discussed in WP:MOS. Perhaps you can show where it is?

Please note the sentence after the passage that you quoted from WP:MOS. "A separate section is not required if it is more appropriate to place the material in the Production or Reception sections." Presently in the article, the themes and inspirations of the filmmakers is in the Production section and the reviewers' interpretations of themes is in the Critical reception section, which seems consistent with this sentence and a reasonable organization. With your organization, it appears that the filmmakers and reviewers would both be in the Production section, which doesn't seem appropriate for the reviewers' part. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One looks for prior uses of the theme because Cameron has previously used the work of others in creating his films. See the law suit over Terminator and themes used in the Outer Limits TV show. On the face of it a great many of the ideas in Call Me Joe are duplicated in Avatar. Now the central part of the film deals with the interaction of the protagonist with the natives on the alien world and this is not at all central to Anderson's novella. But down playing the reference seems wrong. No one familiar with that novella missed the connection. Nitpyck (talk) 08:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

But similarly, no one familiar with the Dragonriders of Pern series would miss the recognition of one of its central motifs; and no-one familiar with The Word for World is Forest would miss the connections that the Locus reviewer thought were even more prevalent than those with Call Me Joe. And many many reviewers have commented on the similarity of shots and whole sequences to some of those in Aliens -- as if this film is almost holding up a mirror to the other, but this time with Sigourney Weaver trying to save the non-humans, not destroy them.

All of these connections are worth noting; and as set out above, while "reception" may be the right place for an artistic judgment of whether the film is derivative or not (and whether that matters), this goes rather beyond that -- the right place to discuss themes and inspirations is under "themes and inspirations". Jheald (talk) 13:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. A couple things to keep in mind are WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. There have been a number of previous works that Avatar has been compared to in sources. One of them is Poul Anderson's work which has been mentioned in the article, along with the works of others that have been compared to Avatar in many more sources. There has been a suggestion that an article be created that discusses themes in Avatar. You might want to pursue that approach to put more about that subject into Wikipedia. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Na'vi are a race?

In the introduction it says Na'vi is a race, but shouldn't it be species? Race is only a subgroup of species - "a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring of both genders, and separated from other such groups with which interbreeding does not (normally) happen." I propose changing Na'vi to species.--TheBearPaw (talk) 12:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I went ahead and fixed that. There's also no indication that the "colony" threatens the Na'vi's existence - just a local tribe of Na'vi, nor that it threatens the planet's ecosystem. I'll go ahead and fix that as well. --Scandum (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not seeing what is so wrong with calling them a race, considering that a lot of a science-fiction works often state "alien race" when talking about a species with no shown subgroup. We also often hear the words "human race" instead of "human species." Although...I must state that it is difficult to believe that there is no different type of Na'vi. Unlike humans being distinguished by color and a few other things, maybe the Na'vi species are distinguished by something else. But, yes, calling the Na'vi a species is the correct way to word it...considering that the word "Na'vi" is not specifying a subgroup of that particular species. Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Archives

Why are the archibes only 31kb each? It would make sense and reduce the numbers if they were bigger in size. Simply south (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This was discussed here. Read the next to last paragraph. DrNegative (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that the archives should be somewhat longer, though. At this rate, we are going to have so many unneeded archives; I see that as making past discussions just as difficult to find. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes sir ma'am I agree. How many kilobytes do you think would suffice and do you feel the current archive rate at 4 days is too short/long? DrNegative (talk) 01:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A common size for archives on heavily travelled talk pages is 100k. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that 4 days is about right but i think a better size would only be double the original. Simply south (talk) 20:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, maybe eight days would be better. This article has slowed down a bit regarding new topics per day. And, guys, I would not be referred to as a "sir" in person (LOL). Flyer22 (talk) 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Flyer, I honestly thought you were a male all this time, its weird how we attach the wrong gender to usernames in our minds on here. I'll adjust the archive size if it hasn't already been done. DrNegative (talk) 00:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, well, I have been confused about my gender more than once (especially while growing up)...so no worries. You are not the first person on Wikipedia to refer to me as "he," "his," "him" (it even recently happened in the Punctuation discussion that is currently higher above), and you will not be the last. Like you basically noted, we all do the "gender assigning thing" on here. And we usually assign people to the male sex. Because of this, I have started looking at user pages first regarding editors who do not have gender-specific user names. If it does not specify their sex or gender, then I usually refer to the editor only by their user name and trade that out at times with words like "user" or "this editor." I viewed your user page the other day, by the way. Nice pose. Flyer22 (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dune?

Isn't this basically Dune ?

Planet with some vital substance - tick : A messiah figure from the outerworld - tick : messiah figure recognised by local wise woman - tick : Pesky, underrated locals - tick : messiah tames the big beast - tick : messiah marries local girl - tick : locals kick off bad corporation - tick : OK, the fairy people live in a big tree - Lord of the Rings (noticeably WETA) :

Its even made partly by "Dune Entertainment" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.35.211 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Our own observations are meaningless without proof. DrNegative (talk) 00:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Proof is verifiable fact (see film), conforming to pre-existing pattern (read book). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.71.35.211 (talk) 09:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Quote: "Proof is verifiable fact (see film), conforming to pre-existing pattern (read book)." Unquote. DrNegative (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

== PLAGIASM : This film is a plagiasm of a french comic book.... == —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.211.142.215 (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please see WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and most importantly WP:RS. Your opinion is not considered a reliable source. Trusilver 18:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So happy to see humans as villians, finally!

I am so sick of the usual sci-fi depictions of Humans as the most noble beings of the universe (Star Trek, Stargate etc.) Finally, a block buster, where the human species is the evil one. Finally.

Cameron should have included more evil acts by humans, maybe something like a Na'vi cutter, similiar to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srbosjek

But anyway, I am happy that this movie is made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.14.58 (talk) 16:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

See the 1951 version of The Day the Earth Stood Still, which portrays humans as a threat to other worlds.

"It is no concern of ours how you run your own planet -- but if you threaten to extend your violence, this Earth of yours will be reduced to a burned-out cinder."

-Klaaatu (a representative from space)

--Bob K31416 (talk) 16:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Welcome, but keep in mind that this talk page is for discussion of the article itself, and not the movie. There are approximately 74,000 web forums out there that a discussion about the movie itself would be more suited to. Trusilver 18:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah us humans should all die. After all we are so evil. Maybe the ten foot creatures with the animal fetish should take over earth. Dtmckay (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

Cinema of the United States

I meant to say in the edit summary that American links to Cinema of the United States, not America.[29] Anyways, it does go against the WP:EGG principle, and that article adds nothing of value to the Avatar film. Not to mention it just adds a line of blue links in the first sentence. I would have removed the 2009 in film link, but Avatar is listed in the first paragraph. This is been discussed before and the verdict was the same as above, what do others think? —Mike Allen 21:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. There is not much I can add to what you have already stated. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

1) The wikilink is for the adjective "American" that modifies film. So it is essentially a wikilink for "American film", which appropriately goes to Cinema of the United States.

2) I don't see how this wikilink goes against WP:EGG. Could you give some detail, using excerpts from WP:EGG, that supports your points? Thanks.

--Bob K31416 (talk) 22:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link" So clicking American, one may think (and expect) they are going to the American article, not Cinema of the United States. —Mike Allen 00:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have a suggestion. How about we just not wikilink it at all? DrNegative (talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here's the full sentence of the excerpt that you quoted, "Per the Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link."

Then at the wikilink there is, "When the principle of least astonishment is successfully employed, the information is understood by the reader without struggle. The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or overwhelmingly confused by your article."

Seems like the wikilink to Cinema of the United States should be OK, considering the context. Also, note item (1) in my previous message. --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean seriously what is at that link that would interest a reader for Avatar? A partial history of the Cinema of the US? DrNegative, yes that's what I did, not wikilink it, but it's causing controversy, so I brought up here, or else I wouldn't have bothered clogging up the already congestive talk page. :) —Mike Allen 00:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From your response, it appears that your objection no longer involves WP:EGG and is now based on whether it's a worthwhile wikilink. I'll let you and others decide that. --Bob K31416 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh it has always been about the eggs, I'm just enumerating further, is all. ;-) —Mike Allen 01:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Gee whiz. And here I was thinking that you saw the reasonableness of my message before my last and that's why you didn't respond to the points. Anyhow, I guess I've gone as far as I can with the discussion with you regarding WP:EGG. Regards, --Bob K31416 (talk) 02:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bob K31416 has explained things quite well, and I haven't really seen any counterargument to what he's said. MikeAllen, if you have a further argument (in addition to the mere assertion that you do, in fact, have a further argument--"I'm just enumerating further"), please feel free to tell us what it is. I assume that this "further enumeration" has yet to come, because as of now, the fullest and latest elaboration that I see on this matter comes from Bob K31416, who has put your WP:EGG quote into context. And the context, I think, is quite clear: A link is an egg if it is counterintuitive and surprising. I do not see how Cinema of the United States is a counterintuitive or surprising leap from "American science fiction epic film". The practicality of WP:EGG is that it discourages articles that would not communicate the same ideas in writing as online. If somebody sees "American science fiction epic film" in print, are they not more likely to think of "American film" than of "America" as a geographical term? I've got ADD, and even my mind doesn't wander off from the first line of the article and start to contemplate the largely irrelevant history or topography of the Americas. IMO, a link to America or to United States of America would be considerably more distracting and peculiar and counterintuitive than a link to Cinema of the United States, considering that the article is about a major contribution to...well, the cinema of the United States. But maybe that's just me. If so--if there is any surprise at all in finding that the "American" in "American...film" links to an article about, well, American film, rather than to an article about "America"--then the surprise will be a pleasant one, because the link will have been a more intuitive match than what one might have expected. The link is not an egg at all. It's an intuitive, reasonable, and ultimately helpful link for any reader who wants to know more about the film's wider, spatiotemporal context. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it is a helpful link, Cosmic Latte. WP:OVERLINK says, "An article is said to be underlinked if subjects are not linked that are helpful to the understanding of the article or its context." Following this line of thinking, we should be linking to articles that are helpful to understanding this article or its context. When we use "American" in the lead sentence, it is a purely definitive manner. We basically say, the film is primarily American-produced. Cinema of the United States does not add any more help to this. I would argue that there is a similar problem with 1999 in film for the same reason. We're telling the reader in the lead sentence that the film was released in 1999. What does "1999 in film" tell us about the topic? It is better used in the right context, such as discussion of its performance against other films released in 1999. Erik (talk) 14:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The overlink quote strikes me as slight stretch--I'm not saying that the article is underlinked, and I'm not even arguing the converse (i.e., that it's "not overlinked"). Regardless of how well the article balances blue text with black overall, I'm saying that, in and of itself, the pipelink to Cinema of the United States is not the least bit discredited by WP:EGG. But, to run with the underlinking/not-overlinking thing anyway, how is an understanding of the "cinema of the United States" not helpful to understanding the context of an "American film"? In fact, how is it not the context of the film? The film did not just materialize inside a vacuum; it came to be in a certain place (the U.S.) and time (1999...plus ten). I'd think that time and place would be at the very core of something's context... Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would think that "film" would be the core! :) I think that Cinema of the United States is only marginally better than linking to either film or the United States. It is better applied for articles about classic films, and not even in the lead sentence of these, in my opinion. For example, "Critics have called so-and-so one of the defining American films." The cinema article to me is too general, especially in the lead sentence. If we talk later on in the lead section or the article body about how Avatar shaped American cinema in some way (maybe being the harbinger of 3D technology), the link could fit in that context. It's just that linking to that article in every American film's lead sentence exaggerates the value. We link to it because it's been linked to; kind of a circuitous argument where it could be better applied or not applied at all. Erik (talk) 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The key issue here is what exactly does the link bring to the article? How does "Cinema of the United States" inform the Avatar article. There is a certain sort of logic in linking "American film" to the "Cinema of the United States" but how does it bring a greater depth of understanding to the subject matter of the article? Will it be of side interest to readers of the article? There really isn't a strong case for including the link. For example, if there was no James Cameron article there would be a strong case for red-linking his name because there is a gap in the information being presented, but in the absence of a "Cinema of the United States" article I doubt anyone would red-link "American film". It seems it is being linked in this context simply because the article exists. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That article says absolutely nothing about 3D films. How is it helpful again? —Mike Allen 19:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Erik and Betty: Fair points. Perhaps, now that I think about it, what I find most counterintuitive is that, in not linking "American" to something, the article appears to take for granted that the reader will already know a thing or two about America, whereas an article about a film made in, say, Palau might provide some sort of link in the assumption that the reader knows next-to-nothing about the country. (I'm American, by the way; I just try to edit bias-free, as if I'd just flown in from...well, Pandora, I guess.) But yes, if a term is linked, it ought to be able to deepen--not trivially to broaden--the reader's understanding of the topic. Finally...Mike: Just for future reference, that's a fairly loaded question, because it assumes that the answer must be given in terms of the preceding assertion. It's rather like if I say, "You spilled your milk! How can you possibly be a decent human being?"--as though human decency must be explicable in terms of unspilled milk. With regard to your comment, it is as if the helpfulness of the linked article must be accounted for vis-a-vis that article's inattention to only one of Avatar's countless features. Perhaps it must be so accounted for--but you have not argued that it must, and I am not convinced that it must. Nonetheless, I'm not going to push this matter any further, because--as noted above--I do see a valid reason for avoiding the link so early in the article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just have one question. When using the word American, what does it refers to? Does it mean it's a work of studios in the many countries of America? I'm assuming it refers to works from studios from Canada & the U.S. in which case it should say "North American film". If you refer to U.S. then it should say "U.S. film", as the usage of American to refer to the U.S. should be avoided as the Royal Spanish Academy states: "...But the use of American to refer exclusively to the inhabitants of the United States should be avoided, abusive use that its self explain by the fact that the US Citizens utilize the abbreviated name America frequently to refer to their country. It should not be forgotten that America is the name of the whole continent and all the people that inhabits it are Americans: [30]." As to this, I think the word American should be changed to U.S. if referring to the United States of America. Just ask yourself this. Should we be using and teaching popular and generalized terms or the irrefutable correct terms? Douken (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of whether or not to use the adjective "American" when referring to the U.S.A. in the English Wikipedia seems like a very general issue for all of the English Wikipedia. Does anyone know if that has been settled somewhere in the English Wikipedia? --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What does it it say on a US passport Bob? If it says you're US citizen then it should be U.S, if it says you're an American citizen then "American" would be acceptable here since it is referring to the film's nationality. To draw an analogy, the British Isles encompass both the UK and Ireland, so geographically speaking anything "British" can come from UK or Ireland. But Irish passports say you're an Irish citizen and UK passports say you're a British citizen, so in that sense it is acceptable to refer to British films in regards to just the UK because it's the legal nationality on their passports and it's being used to decribe a nationality rather than a geographic region. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you misunderstood my last message. Please reread it. I wasn't making a point for either side of this issue. Like I said, it seems like a very general issue. Seems like it should be settled for all of the English Wikipedia, so that this type of discussion doesn't keep popping up from article to article. Perhaps it has been settled somewhere? --Bob K31416 (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in a similar discussion a while ago. Perhaps "U.S." or "United States" would be a more neutral adjective. The problem is, "American" really is the only accepted name for a U.S. citizen (well, apart from "U.S. citizen" itself). So if that's as good as the noun gets, then maybe the quest for a better adjective is taking things too far. But it's sort of a complicated issue and I'm not sure as to where else it might have been addressed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the term "American" is fine as the correct word in all dialects of English. Hundreds of associations use the word American to represent the U.S., including the American Bar Association, the American Medical Association, the American Federation of Labor, and of course, the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists. --Coolcaesar (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

How about this: ""Yankee" (or "Yank") is a common colloquial term for Americans in English": Avatar is a 2009 Yankee science fiction epic film...? Betty Logan (talk) 01:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you could give an example of where "American" alone, without a modifier such as Native or South, was used somewhere in an English language publication to refer to someone other than a person from the U.S.A.? Also, could you give an example from an English language publication of its use as an adjective to refer to something other than the U.S.A.? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair Bob, English language usage isn't really the issue here since English is the second language in most non-English speaking countries so possible translations must also be taken into account here - it's entirely possible that the majority of articles on the English wikipedia are read in a non-native tongue. I don't actually mind either way, but as the editor who brought the issue up points out "American" is applicable to his country too. I was under the impression that "American" was the official term, but if the official nationality of the US is US then I don't think there is much wriggle room on this one. Betty Logan (talk) 03:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Re "English language usage isn't really the issue..." - It definitely is the issue because this is the English language Wikipedia. (BTW I noticed an adjective example in a link provided by Cosmic Latte, "Organization of American States". It would be interesting if there's an example that is not in a name, like an example that uses the phrase "American woman" to refer to a woman who is from North or South America.) --Bob K31416 (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The problem, Bob, is that English language phrases will always reflect a bias towards those countries where the English language is the native tongue. Those of us who live in an English speaking country have a duty to those who don't to make sure we don't use phrases that are unique to those countries. The English language Wikipedia isn't the English speaking countries Wikipedia, it is for anyone anywhere that is English literate. Betty Logan (talk) 03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like you are asserting that somehow in some country, the term American film will somehow be interpreted to mean a film made my some country or countries other than the U.S.A. Can you give an example from a publication in any language or in any country, where the "American" in "American film" does not refer to the U.S.A.? Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't live in a non-English speaking country, but someone else does and has already outlined the problem that "American" doesn't just refer to the US. I really don't see what the problem is here. I recall you had similar issues with US/domestic and can only asume your objections are rooted in some sort of misguided nationalism because there really isn't a valid argument for referring to Avatar as an American film rather than a US film. If US nationality is US then you're arguing for a colloquial usage. Betty Logan (talk) 06:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The demonym for the United States is "American". It is not a colloquial term. I support wikilinking "American" in the lede to Cinema of the United States as is done on many film articles, to settle any confusion that may exist. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 14:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Betty Logan, Perhaps you might try to show that the use of "US film" is more prevalent than the use of "American film" inside Wikipedia. I don't think your other arguments are very convincing. Just my opinion.

P.S. Your somewhat personal attack re nationalism is neither true nor useful, if you are trying to win me over to your point of view. An apology might be helpful. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

To be fair you accused Cinosaur and myself of being socks, and that was neither truthful or useful. I don't recall an apology being forthcoming there. Betty Logan (talk) 17:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lets stay on topic guys, I found a link here and here of a very long disussion on this matter for the manual of style. DrNegative (talk) 18:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems there is no consensus either way, and it doesn't look like there is going to be one anytime soon. The thing is this isn't like American Football where it's part of the name, "American" is purely an adjective here and "U.S." is equally applicable, so taking the situation on its merits I don't think anyone would object to "Avatar is a 2009 U.S. science fiction epic...". Since "American" as an adjective is divisive as shown by those two debates, perhaps the less controversial alternative is preferable? The over-riding objective is that there is clarity for anyone who is able to read English. Betty Logan (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

In my previous message I suggested to you, "Perhaps you might try to show that the use of 'US film' is more prevalent than the use of 'American film' inside Wikipedia." It's my impression that in Wikipedia, "American film" is the prevalent form, not "US Film". --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I started looking at Lists of films and so far haven't seen "US film" used in the film articles. I've seen instances of "American film" but not "US film", although I didn't look that much. Why don't you have a go at Lists of films? And keep track of how many instances of "American film" you encounter and how many instances of "US film". Or maybe someone knows about a film in Wikipedia where "US film" is used. Also, be careful that some mischievous editor didn't change from one to the other, prompted by this discussion. That can be done by looking at the version from a week ago, for instance, if "American" or "US" is found. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The article in question is called Lists of American films. Would the "correct" title be "Lists of U.S. films"? Also, from American (word): "In modern English "American" generally refers to the United States, and in the U.S. itself this usage is almost universal, with any other use of the term requiring specification of the subject under discussion." The source for this is The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There clearly doesn't seem to be any appetite for changing it, it's basically just me and the editor who brought it up who think the alteration would be better. Unless there is some fresh input to the discussion we may as well wrap this up. Betty Logan (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Release Section

I believe the Release Section is too long and way overdone. There should be another section entitled Reception. And within the Reception section, there should be two sub-sections; one for Reviews featuring professional critique of the film and one for Awards featuring the nominations for recognizing the film on its merits by film award organizations. This particular section along with its sub-sections have nothing to do with the Release section. These subjects are not an extension of box office performance or the film's movie release schedule. What does film reviews and award nominations have to do with box office performance and the film's theatrical release schedule? Nothing. They should be separated. Numerous other film articles that have received FA status are structured and formatted in the same way.

Now as far as the Similarities sub-section is concerned, this a topic of fairly noteworthy content. Many professional critics cite similarities between this film and other films. Its not just one particular critic. Even director Cameron himself states the film has similarities with other movies. I made it into a sub-section of Reviews. Its not an entirely new section. Its like the Performance Analysis sub-section. Yertuy (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have responded below in the subsection about the Release structure. As for the similarities, I do not see at all why that should be a subsection of the Critical reception section. The sociopolitical paragraph is just as big as the similarities paragraph and yet it is not divided. We also do not want people to feel compelled to add more similarities to the Critical reception section; this article is big enough. The Performance analysis section is divided because not only does it have more to do with analysis of the film's box office performance than simply relaying numbers, it is a pretty healthy section. Flyer22 (talk) 01:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Formatting of Release section, divide or no divide?

For those wanting to know or see if this was worked out before, here is the past discussion about it: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 3#Which version is better for Reception section, per Wikipedia: Manual of Style?

But, recently, we have had three relatively new editors who prefer that the current release section be divided; they would rather the film's reception information be separated from the initial release information. These three links show that: [31] [32] [33]

I was originally for the Release section (such as things pertaining to the film's initial release) being separated from the reception information (the box office performance, reviews and awards) as well (as the past discussion shows), and I recently tried different ways of doing that. Those different ways can be seen with these three links: [34][35][36]

I reverted myself because I ultimately came to the conclusion that the Release section is fine as it is, with all that stuff combined as subheadings. It is not "too long" (not any longer than the Production section) and the film's box office performance, critical reception, and accolades are all a part of the film's release. Some people, it seems, are thinking of "release" as the film's initial release, as I did before, but "release" covers the other stuff as well.

As for the Accolades section simply being titled Accolades, Erik did that because of Talk:List of accolades received by Almost Famous#Requested move.

Anyway, thoughts on some or all of this? Flyer22 (talk) 01:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, I think its obvious that this particular section, the Release section is getting too big and too out-of-hand. If you want to remove the sub-section of Similarities fine. And the name of the other Sub-Section, "Accolades instead of Awards is fine too. But I think it should be broken up in the following:

• ==Reception==
• ===Reviews===
• ===Accolades===

These sections have nothing to do with the films business or theatrical release schedule. Countless other film articles have been structured in the same way. Can we at least do it like that? Yertuy (talk) 01:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How is it obvious that the Release section is getting too big and too out of hand? As I stated above, the Production section is bigger. No one has yet to say that it is out of hand. Reviews and accolades all have to do with the term "release" in this case. The film was released, whether through screening or official release. Then what came after it? Reviews, box office attendance and accolades. How can you possibly argue that reviews and accolades do not fit under the title Release? I also point out that "countless" other film articles have been formatted this way as well. Cameron's previous highest-grossing film of all time, Titanic, is just one example.

I also feel that I have to ask whether or not you are one of the other two editors who recently changed the Release section formatting, or both, per WP:SOCKPUPPET. I am only asking, not accusing. It is a little suspicious that three relatively new editors who have never edited this article before would pop up out of nowhere and target that section in basically the same way one after another. I additionally ask that you stop signing your user name as Bob Yertuy, when your user page does not exist under that name; there is another way that you can sign your full name without linking to a non-existent user page. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware that there are two approaches to dealing with "reception" on film articles, but my personal preference is for the structure as it is now. Its box office, critical reception and award performance are all part and parcel of its reception. If you break them up into separate sections the article will become slightly incongruous. This issue basically comes down to personal preference though since there are precedents for both versions so there isn't really a strong argument for altering the "evolved" structure unless there is widespread support for changing the layout. Betty Logan (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The Accolades section has now been retitled Awards and honors, by me, for the reasons in this edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

box office records

Shouldn't the accolades page also contain the box office records set or smashed by Avatar?

What of the records that Avatar is still breaking? (6th weekend, 7th weekend...)[37][38] They aren't currently documented here...

70.29.210.242 (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The records are noted within the Box Office section. The accolades page is more suited to listing the awards, nominations, and other notable recognition given to the film by various notable groups who award achievements in film. Record book stats do not fit into this category. DrNegative (talk) 16:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"...24 countries to date, including China, Russia, Australia, Spain, Hong Kong, Colombia, Czech Republic, Chile, Portugal, Singapore, Ukraine, Hungary, United Arab Emirates, Romania, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Dominican Republic, Latvia, Serbia, East and West Africa, Qatar, Jordan, Jamaica and Bahrain" Since when is East and West Africa a country? I've never even heard of it referred to as a single region. Sloppy!

I have changed countries to markets [39] as the source says. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Avatar script in external links

I just happened to notice this when someone deleted it and I restored it. The script should be very useful here. I don't know who originally put it in, but thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I put it in back in December but it has been deleted and reverted many times it seems from the external links. It is the official script, so I don't understand why editors don't want it there. DrNegative (talk) 17:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It was a mistake. Someone turned the EL into a link farm... it was bad. That link (and I guess the Wikia) just caught the some collateral damage. My understanding is that the EL's need to be as slim as possible. Thanks for catching it. —Mike Allen 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

2009 winners of Scientific & Technical Academy Awards

Although not explicitly stated in this article, a number of the 2009 winners of its Scientific & Technical Academy Awards appear to be related to the technical development for Avatar: Grotticelli, Michael (1 February 2010). "Scientific & Technical Award winners announced". Broadcast Engineering. Retrieved 1 February 2010. --Dan Dassow (talk) 18:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oi somente quero saber quem é Federico Duarte eu teresa li o livro dele comprei em porugal,no ano 2008 quando estive por la o libro se chama AVATAR o escritor tem 24 anos nasceu em Lisboa onde vive, e ai o Camerom d algum lugar tirou a ideia nao é? isto é o que quero que me aclarem eu nao sei o que pensar tchau, teresa, —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.114.184.57 (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Que? You might be able to find a translator at WP:LOCEMB... Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From (189.114.184.57)
Portuguese to English translation
Hi just want to know who Federico Duarte teresa I read his book Porugal bought in the year 2008 when it stood by the book if the writer called AVATAR is 24 years old was born in Lisbon where he lives, and the ai d Camerom somewhere took the idea is not it? this is what I want more clear I do not know what to think bye teresa
--Dan Dassow (talk) 03:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

New look on an old topic (inflation adjusting)

It occurred to me that a calculation of Gone With the Wind's ticket sales that factors in various measures of inflation and comparisons to Avatar are invalid for the following reasons-

-If you correct by ticket price per capita, the worldwide gross of Avatar would need to be similarly inflated for poorer and richer countries.

-The average cost of a ticket in 1937 is irrelevant to the value of a dollar in 1937. The price has no bearing on the value of the returns. Box Office Mojo's method merely estimates average ticket prices for all movies across all venues for that year. This doesn't even apply to Avatar because it plays primarily in more expensive formats. Thus the ranking as 21st has no bearing on anything and while you'll find several sources using Mojo as a guide, the figure itself means nothing.

-The number of tickets sold is irrelevant to the financial success of a film. It should be mentioned but not in connection with gross. The two concepts are fundamentally different.

-If you are going to mention comparisons to other films, those comparisons should be qualified as multiple releases, a 2-d only format, or a less competitive market. Otherwise the comparison or use of the word "unadjusted" itself is misleading

More importantly, a 3-d format flim is a different medium than a 2-d format film so it is worth mentioning that Avatar is the highest grossing such film. To summarize my point, I think that reference to inflation adjustments should be heavily qualified or avoided if the source is Mojo and I think that there should be a line saying that Avatar is the highest grossing 3-d format film by a wide margin using any reasonable measure and a list of the highest grossing 3-d films should be accumulated.Dante2308 (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's 3D or no D. It is the highest grossing film, but if some reliable source says other wise (that it's only on the highest-grossing list because it's 3D and 3D tickets cost more), then it may be considered to be added. Happy edits. —Mike Allen 05:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not implicitly mention that it is the highest grossing 3-d film by indicating how far along it's run it reached that milestone? Certainly it broke some record in doing so. Dante2308 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a separate chart for IMAX releases, but I'm not sure if such a thing exists for 3-D releases. If it can be sourced it can be added of course. As for the inflation issue you can't really compare today's releases to Gone With the Wind which had 7/8 releases (albeit with half the population size on its initial release), or even Star Wars and ET which have had three major releases. There are two market quantities that you can measure though: grosses, which favour later releases, and ticket sales which seem to favour films in a re-release market. Neither tell the full story, and the truth probably lies somewhere inbetween: these two units give us the bounds on Avatar's success - it puts Avatar among the top 20 or so most successful films at the US box office. It's probably not the most successful as indicated by its gross, and it would probably end up higher than 20 in a market from a different era. If you remove the adjusted rank from its analysis what you lose it the lower bound: is Avatar the most successful film ever? in the top 10? top 50? top 100? Perhaps the adjusted gross is at its most telling when comparing Avatar to Titanic, a film that enjoyed a phenomenal run in a similar market and only had the one release. I also suspect once Avatar overtakes Titanic on the gross chart later this week we will start to see more and more media focus on the adjusted chart since that will be the only tracking tool left. Betty Logan (talk) 05:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The only apples to apples comparison would be a release of Avatar alongside GWTW. Besides such a simulation, only CPI makes sense for comparison of gross and that is NOT what Mojo uses. If the issue is purely to compare gross, we should not use sources that are using other unrelated measures to adjust. If Avatar is ranked 21st by some measure in the universe, it is pure coincidence because as far as I can see ticket sales would put it below 25th, CPI would put it higher than 21st, and percentage of population would be impossible to calculate with repeat viewing and lack of data. Dante2308 (talk) 05:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just ran a cpi calculation of the BLS.gov website and Star Wars episode 1 made 555 million in 2009 dollars. Mojo has it ranked higher than Avatar which made substantially more. Just proving my above statement with verifiable facts instead of guesses.Dante2308 (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The Box Office Mojo chart isn't really comparing inflation though, it's charting the films using estimated ticket sales which is an actual physical unit which can be measured and quantified. Your argument is basically the same as those editors who complained that saying Avatar was the highest grossing film of all-time was "misleading". It's still a fact and it was only a possible interpretation of the raw data that was misleading. The estimated number of ticket sales can also lend itself to misinterpretation, but that's not a valid reason for omitting it because it is still a measurable quantity. The key issue here is that some estimates may not be accurate but that's a case for finding corroborating sources rather than just scrubbing the analysis itself. Betty Logan (talk) 06:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My argument is substantially different than that one and I fundamentally disagree with the notion that reporting a gross is misleading. My argument is that reporting Mojo's adjusted gross is misleading because it does not actually measure either the ticket sales of adjust for inflation. Avatar's "average ticket cost" is not what Mojo uses so while that list may be good for some movies, it is not for Avatar. Rather than find other lemming sources that refuse to question Mojo, it would do to find the actual source for ticket sales and use that. Unless the average price of an Avatar ticket is $7.46 as Mojo suggests, why mention it at all? There are no facts involved.Dante2308 (talk) 17:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source critical of the motion picture industry's use of inflation unadjusted rankings that folks might find useful. http://www.docstoc.com/docs/3582132/How-the-motion-picture-industry-miscalculates-box-office-receipts Cshay (talk) 09:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I move that Mojo's adjusted list be corroborated by at least one independent source before it is used as a verifiable fact. I also suggest that the line where it says "and Box Office Mojo estimates that after adjusting for inflation it would be the 21st-highest-grossing film of all time" be altered to say "and Box Office Mojo estimates that after adjusting for the rise in average ticket prices it would be the 21st-highest-grossing film of all time" until a consensus is formed on the broader issue. I'll make that change now without any immediate objections. Dante2308 (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Remember, WP:V only warrants verifiability, not truth. Box Office Mojo is highly regarded as a reliable source on Wikipedia, regardless of whether or not we think any of its content, including the adjusted figures, are true. DrNegative (talk)

I don't think Dante's problem is so much it isn't verifiable, but at the moment it potentially violates WP:NPOV. At the moment it ranks the films by estimated ticket sales so it's not presenting a fact, it's presenting a hypothesis. Someone like Roger Ebert is a reliable source for film criticism but if the criticism section was represented by his view alone then it wouldn't be neutral. The problem with Avatar is that in the absence of the ticket sale numbers, they are estimated according to the average ticket sale price. Box Office Mojo is clear about this aspect of its calculation. The problem here is that methodology applies to other films too. Gone With the Wind tickets were probably sold at discount rates for re-releases and so on. Even with something like Shrek 2 the demographic is probably skewed towards children's rates meaning it should place higher in ticket sales. So there clearly is a POV issue. I don't think it is resolved by removing the information though, POV issues are resolved by balancing the information. The most straightforward approach is to collate other independent sources about ticket sales/inflation adjustment etc. At the moment where we only have the one source, my favoured approach would be to clarify that Avatar is being ranked as if the tickets were being sold at the average ticket price, but in reality cost $3 more. In short the adjusted chart is an estimate and therefore an opinion, so the nature of the estimation should be clarified in the article and if possible further estimates should be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Essentially correct. The two issues are that the adjusted list isn't adjusting for inflation as so many people have misrepresented, it is attempting to simulate what movies like Avatar would make if the tickets cost the same as Titanic, for instance. The separate second issue is that it does it improperly and without facts. I think the first issue alone is enough to change the way the Mojo rank is represented in our article, thus the change.Dante2308 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (UTC)

Irrelevant. Even the Mojo list does not claim to be an inflation adjustment and shouldn't be treated as such. It claims to be adjusting by "ticket price inflation" which is a different term, concept, and more importantly number than the term "inflation" would produce. I don't think that second source verification is a tall order, but it's not like I wiped out the phrase or mention of Mojo. I simply made it more accurate. Nothing I actually changed reflects a personal opinion and even so, my opinion on the matter is consistent with the source link posted above.Dante2308 (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

While inflation is a tricky issue with worldwide grosses, there is another factor to think about when we make all these comparisons. It is entirely possible that Gone With the Wind's worldwide ticket price-adjusted gross is exceeded by Avatar. Also, we've had 34% inflation since 1997 and 100% ticket price inflation. Movie-goers may be discouraged more than they were in 1997 when movies are $10+ to see in 3d. Dante2308 (talk) 14:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we make the archivebot less aggressive?

It seems like archiving after only 4 days is going to lead to a lot of frequent topics getting buried and rehashed again and again. Maybe change it to 90 days? 75.101.11.171 (talk) 09:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The archivebot was actually made -more- aggressive than usual because of the amount of -original- material that was getting posted here. IMO the solution to topics being rehashed is to point users to the original discussions, not to (at least initially) encourage users to discuss the subject all over again. The arvhies are reasonably searchable, so finding pre-existing discussion isn't, to my mind, that big a deal.

I think 4 days is too short. Even though the discussion are searchable, a discussion may need to continue after a several week pause, as new editors want to chime in. For example, I think the inflation adjusting issue will be a long running debate, but I think there may be a few weeks where no one says anything about it. I suggest somewhere between 30 and 90 days. Cshay (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

30 or 90 days?? I pity the person on dial-up trying to load this page up on those settings. DrNegative (talk) 17:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Wikipedia should adopt a forum or newsgroup structure where only the subject headers are listed and you can then load the discussion you want. I imagine there must be a reason why that hasn't been implemented, but I can't think of it. The anon does have a point about the retention rate. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He does have a point but that will not completely stop the problem. We can't make them search the archives unfortunately . So the dilemma is, if the topic stays in the talk, it gets beaten to WP:DEADHORSE so badly that it takes 30 seconds just to scroll to the bottom of it, or if we archive it sooner, editors ignorant of the archives post the same argument all over again. I guess we could raise it up to 7-10 days to see how it goes. DrNegative (talk) 17:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not familiar with archivebots, but is there a way to tag a particular section of the talk page so it does not get archived? I'd like to do that with the inflation issue, since I don't think any convincing counter arguments have really been made and I think we need the time to get other editors to weigh in. I am sure there are other topics that are also going to be long running discussions as well. If there is such a way to tag a section, let me know. Cshay (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think one way is to not date-sign it with the four tildas. Maybe if you remove the dates from the postings but leave the names they won't be archived. Betty Logan (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was under the impression that our archive bot had already been changed from 4 days (to 8), per the #Archives discussion. Flyer22 (talk) 22:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

LOL, now that's ironic.. -- a discussion about discussions being lost in the archive and rehashed which is a rehash of an original discussion that was lost in the archive :) Cshay (talk) 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First ever 3D film nominated as Best Picture, highest Box Office takings for a 3D film, longest 3D flim

Nobody pointed that Avatar (with Up) are the first two 3D flims nominated as Best Picture. Avatar is the most sucessful 3D flim in the box office and at almost 3 hours the longest 3D in running time —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.25.56 (talk) 15:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

requested edit

{{editsemiprotected}} The first sentence of the fourth paragraph under "PLOT" currently reads as follows:

"RDA's head of security colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) promises Jake restorative treatment for his legs in exchange for intelligence about the Na'vi that would enable RDA to vacate Hometree of the natives and get access to the unobtanium beneath it."

This was clearly written by someone who either 1) paid little close attention to the dialog in the film, and/or 2) has a poor grasp of modern medicine. The more appropriate version of the sentence should read as follows:

"RDA's head of security colonel Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) promises Jake restorative treatment for his spinal cord injury, allowing him to walk again, in exchange for intelligence about the Na'vi that would enable RDA to vacate Hometree of the natives and get access to the unobtanium beneath it."

Thank you for considering my input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elessarrex (talk • contribs) 02:09:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Samwb123^{Please read} 00:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Elessarrex, and for implementing the edit, Samwb123, but pardon me for taking the liberty to revert it to the previous version which had paraplegia as the most succinct way of expressing exactly the same idea as your proposed "spinal cord injury, allowing him to walk again". We've got to be mindful of the word count here. From Webster's Unabridged Dictionary: "Paraplegia -- paralysis of both lower limbs due to spinal disease or injury." Regards, Cinosaur (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Themes and inspirations

The Feb 1 New Yorker p74, Peter Schjeldhl in his column The Art World writes- The movie Avatar strikes me as Mannerist through and through, generating terrific sensations of originality from a hodgepodge of worn-thin narrative and pictorial tropes.

Could and should this be tied in near: Cameron said his inspiration was "every single science fiction book I read as a kid"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitpyck (talk • contribs) 07:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

See hidden comment (viewable on edit page) at the top of the Themes and inspirations section, which is part of the Production section,

"<!--Please note that this section is for the filmmakers' themes and inspirations. Critics interpretations are in the Critical reception section. -->"

Also, please note comments currently in the Critical reception section,

"NPR's Morning Edition has compared the film to a montage of tropes, with one friend of an editor stating that Avatar was made by mixing a bunch of film scripts in a blender. In a similar vein, columnist David Brooks, writing in The New York Times, describes the story as "oft-repeated"."

Thanks for your comment. --Bob K31416 (talk) 14:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Avatar blues

I would like to see this mention in the article (if not already) but I want to first bring it up here before I add it and someone taking it off giving a reason why. What I want to add to the article is the "Avatar Blue" from CNN I think it will benefit the article because of the reception some (if not most) viewers had from it after watching the movie because of how James Cameron did everything to try to immerse the audience into feeling they are visiting a alien planet. --^҉ რɫՒ◌§ 9¤ _ॐ 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This has been discussed before and it wasn't included because it didn't gain consensus. Thanks for your suggestion. --Bob K31416 (talk) 20:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

One more reason why the arhivebot needs to be turned off. Sometimes consensus evolves over time. Just because the first 4 editors reached consensus doesn't mean the next 10 editors can't overrule it. By archiving agressively we are shutting down discussion. Cshay (talk) 06:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

We are well within the talk-page guidelines. In early January, set at 4-days, this talk-page hit 60-80+ KB at times. "Older browsers can accommodate only 32KB in edit boxes, so anything larger can be too long for those who use them." DrNegative (talk) 19:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an objection to the article covering the issue, but I think you need a high-end source if you're going to comment on mental health issues. CNN would have qualified if the article had sought a professional opinion from a suitably qualified professional, but quoting a few random quotes from an internet forum doesn't really cut it. That article reads like the journalist had spent all day surfing the net instead of doing his job and cobbled something together half an hour before his deadline. Betty Logan (talk) 03:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is the link to the past discussion about this: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 13#"Too real?". One source shows that a psychotherapist also weighed in on the matter. Flyer22 (talk) 05:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo

This is what Box office Mojo says about it's own admissions estimate "Absent proper admissions tracking, estimated admissions are determined by dividing the grosses by the average ticket prices, but this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive." If we are going to expand Mojo's "iffy" analysis, should it not be qualified as such? The paragraph uses an iffy analysis and then qualifies it with an even iffier one. Request delete. Mojo has forgone its reliable source status on the issue with that quote above. If Avatar sold as many tickets as Episode II, then why is it ranked 21st? Neither the notion that it sold 60 million tickets or that it is 21st is reliable.Dante2308 (talk) 12:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I extended the analysis to demonstrate the variation in these types of predictions. Instead of a single rank we now have a range which is better for estimates. I don't think BOM has proven to be "unreliable", what it has done is explain why these estimations are so hard to make. By referring to these calculations as "iffy" what it does is basically highlight the inherent difficulties in making such estimates that face any box office analyst rather than its own ability to actually make them. The article also included some solid estimates for ticket sales so I don't see why it would be reliable for financial data but not ticket sales. Betty Logan (talk) 12:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It is reliable for financial data because it operates on facts received from the studios. It is unreliable for ticket sales because it clearly says "this method is certainly iffy and should not be seen as definitive." Mojo didn't make a generalized statement about inherent difficulties for everyone, it clearly questioned the nature of its own method. Why do you refer to the estimates as solid? They are not and this is clear. The only thing certain about that 60.7 number is that it is "certainly iffy."Dante2308 (talk) 13:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It says the methodology for working out the adjusted grosses are iffy, and that's due to incomplete data in many cases, especially older films. It actually says the methodology works better when applied to later films with complete box office records. It's still Box Office Mojo's opinion of course, but it's a fairly well qualified one in this instance in which they state exactly how they arrive at the estimate and what data they use. You can't really ask for more than that when someone offers an estimate. It may be better off in the performance analysis section though because it's not really box office data as such, it's a patchy analysis of the data that provides a rough comparison with older films. I still think it has a place at some point in the article though. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. Because Mojo explains how the conjured the numbers but leaves the bulk of the estimate (3-d) to a guess of a round number and states that the method is iffy, it belongs in the performance analysis section because it is a performance analysis and not a body of definitive box office data. Unrelated to this, I think that the real ticket sales data is lower than Mojo is estimating.Dante2308 (talk) 19:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well let's give it a couple of days, see if anyone else has anything to add and if no-one objects the adjusted analysis can be shifted to the performance analysis section. Betty Logan (talk) 20:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing how it belongs in the Performance analysis section or where it would fit there. Flyer22 (talk) 04:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Production

Could this possibly be of any interest for the article?:

James Cameron has revealed that he shot early test footage for Avatar with Lost star.

20th Century Fox was convinced to spend $10 million so that he could film the scene where protagonist Jake Sully first meets Na’vi alien Neytiri.

“We shot a five-minute scene,” Cameron said of the early prep work. “I hired two actors, turns out one of them is now quite well-known - Yunjin Kim who is in Lost. There was Yunjin and a guy named Daniel Best. I took these two young actors and just did the scene. From that we took 40 seconds, because that’s all we could afford, and had [visual effects studio] ILM take it through to a finished product.”

Zoe Saldana and Sam Worthington went on to fill Kim and Best’s roles when the sci-fi blockbuster eventually went into production.

Link: 'Lost' star shot 'Avatar' test footage 217.68.114.114 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems like there may be more to this, but the source of this information is unclear. There's nothing about it on Popularmechanics.com, even though they're mentioned in the link you've posted. AniRaptor2001 (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Piracy

Should be included, DVD copy has hit the internet: [40]