User talk:Betty Logan

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

SEMI-RETIRED

This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

Don't undo my stuff... please...

Please :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.147.79.168 (talk) 00:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Armbrust has given you a brownie! Brownies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a brownie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. To spread more WikiLove, install the WikiLove user script.

Rule of the shorter term

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Rule of the shorter term.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

For your eyes only...

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

In film

Hi Betty, Can I ask another favour? I've made a stab at the opening section of the production history article and just want to check I'm not putting in too much info, (or missing the point entirely!) Could you have a look over the following sections to see if you think I'm on the right track?

1.1 First screen adaptation
1.2 Eon Productions

1.2.1 Albert R Broccoli and Harry Saltzman (1962—74)

1.2.1.1 Dr. No (1962)

Feel free to chop out any bits you think are excessive, or highlight any issues you see, and I'll use those bits as a sort of template for the rest. Cheers (yet again!) - SchroCat (^ • @) 15:09, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

By and large it seems to be coming along well. It is certainly distinct from the film character article with its focus on the production side of things. I won't fiddle around with anything yet, it's best to let it take shape before tweaking anything. Betty Logan (talk) 21:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great: many thanks! - SchroCat (^ • @) 04:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry - one more piece of advice, of you could! I've used the chart from the JB in film article (see User:Schrodinger's cat is alive/litter tray 4#Recurring crew) which is particularly pertinent. Should there be others listed in there, such as production designer, editor, second unit director or others? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It probably depends on what the rest of the article covers. If the editing and second unit photography is discussed in detail in the prose then it might be a good idea to include them, if not then there isn't much point. Off the top of my head I would say the production designer should probably be covered since Ken Adam's sets have always been pretty integral to the series. Ideally, tables in articles should support the prose, so it's always better to avoid arbitrary inclusion. Betty Logan (talk) 04:30, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK thanks - I'll drop the prod designer in there and ensure it's covered throughout. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

BTW, when do you think is best to go to the talk page on this - when it's done, or before I spend a week or longer finishing it off only for someone to throw it out?! - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Well you tried the 'look ahead' approach before and editors didn't understand the distinction between the series and the character. I appreciate it's easy for me to say—since it's not my work being chucked out—but I would get both articles ready first. When they're done I wouldn't even start a discussion, I would just WP:BEBOLD and transfer them in, since we both know there is at least one editor who will challenge their existence. I expect the "in film" article will be reverted quick smart, but the "film character" article will have to go to AFD again (since it will be sufficiently different to the stub that was redirected under the Speedy deletion, so the speedy criteria won't apply). There is no way the film character is not notable, so they won't delete it. If they want to get rid of the article then all the new content would have to be merged into another article, and on that basis we can argue that the film series and the film character are distinct topics that warrant their own articles (which is why it is important to have the "in film" article ready to go). We can also use WP:SIZERULE to our advantage too. Betty Logan (talk) 06:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

List of actors by total box-office gross

Hi, I removed the prod tag you placed on List of actors by total box-office gross, since I didn't see any obvious reason why the article should be deleted. You linked to WP:INDISCRIMINATE as a reason for deletion, but I didn't see anything there that looked like it would apply to that article. I certainly don't think the article is "long and sprawling" or would be confusing to a reader. Also, the article seems to be cited to a reliable source, and from a common-sense perspective, actors' total box office gross seems like a topic that would be notable. Is perhaps your concern that the article appears to contain gross from the "domestic" (U.S. and Canada, I think) box office, not worldwide box office? If so I'm not sure if that is a reason to delete the list rather than rename it (or rewrite it). Anyway, if you still think it should be deleted, perhaps you could explain in more detail why in an AFD discussion. Calathan (talk) 16:50, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It just seems to be a completely arbitrary list, in terms of what films are included: The Numbers (which also uses domestic grosses) has a completely different set of figures to BOM, and likewise with Guinness. It probably should be based on worldwide figures too, or renamed to to List of actors by total US box-office gross. I'm not opposed to it enough to AfD it, but I don't think there is much value to it in regards to how it currently stands. Betty Logan (talk) 20:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Request to move Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism to Adolf Hitler's diet

Your comments would be appreciated at Talk:Adolf_Hitler's_vegetarianism#Requested_move. Nirvana2013 (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Players Tour Championship 2012/2013

Could you take a look at Players Tour Championship 2012/2013. An IP insists on adding that the 7th player on the Asian Order of Merit qualified for the PTC Finals, but this wasn't officially verified yet. Also he add meaningless background colours to the table. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 14:24, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added my thoughts at Talk:Players Tour Championship 2012/2013. We can't make assumptions about who has qualified, but we must remember it is the purpose of the article to provide readers with as much information as possible. It might be useful to readers to know that Yupeng (and indeed Guodong) are the next players on the Asian Order of Merit should it be used to allocate the remaining places to those players. Betty Logan (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

FYEO!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your neighbourhood stalker

(It's beginning to look like I'm stalking you with all these comments! I'm not really: I just need your advice again.) I've started a thread at Talk:List of recurring characters in the James Bond film series#Revamp?; I'd appreciate your thoughts, if you could spare the time and have an opinion. It revolves around replacing the current table with this one, which is out of place in a production history article. Any thought you have would be much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#Further improvement of Princess Mononoke article

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Princess Mononoke#Further improvement of Princess Mononoke article. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

You are now a Senior Editor. Congrats!

Many, many congrats to you on becoming a Senior Editor. This is a huge milestone, that you have reached. This, that you have achieved, is truly amazing and remarkable. All I can say is: "You deserve it". After all you have made such tireless contributions to Wikipedia, for a very long time. Congrats once again! Surge_Elec (talk) 12:06, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Prod Hist

Hi Betty, I've finally finished the production history, although I did feel as if I was going round in circles towards the end of it. When you have a little free time, is there a chance you could have a look over it for me? Many, many thanks! - SchroCat (talk) 06:25, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I promise I'll get onto it, but I'd like to go through it thoroughly so I'll set aside Thursday evening for it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

That's great - thanks Betty. There's no huge rush on this, so feel free to take your time. I'm still not 100% sure I've covered everything I should have done (or even gone too deeply in places) so feel free to cut out anything you see as extraneous. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:33, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

One thing that jumped straight out at me was the omission of the editor from the recurring crew. I think this should be included since it was a key 'promotion' position, with both Peter Hunt and John Glen going on to direct films, so by including the information it shows the career trajectory of some of the core crew. Betty Logan (talk) 14:39, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Yep - good point. I'll drop it in there shortly. Ta - SchroCat (talk) 14:45, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

File:The Perfect Game.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:The Perfect Game.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Armbrust ^{The Homonculus} 13:43, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

GCD

Hi, Betty. As a valued colleague of mine, I hope you've keep an open mind about one aspect of Grand Comics Database. If you'll read my 19:58, 21 November 2012 post at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, I think a credible case can be made that we CAN assess the editorial expertise, since each title's editor(s) are listed and everyone goes by their real names — there's complete transparency of what is, in essence collated information from primary sources. I hope I can make you willing to reassess that particular part of your feelings toward the site. With regards as always,--Tenebrae (talk) 20:05, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Rise of the Guardians

There looks like an incipient edit-war brewing at Rise of the Guardians over a familiar concern: Fans of the movie changing "mixed to positive" to "positive" in the Reception section, even though Metacritic was only a 57, etc. A knowledgeable and experienced WP:FILM editor might want to weigh in. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Cache

Hi Betty, not trying to drag you into another battle, but the agreement to leave the country section blank in the Cache (film) article isn't sitting to well with Ring Cinema. Lil help? Andrzejbanas (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I had noticed, but I don't see what else I can personally do. I mean, you both know where I stand on this: where the sources are not clear cut then it's best to not use the parameter in the infobox, but Ring obviously disagrees which is his prerogative. If an admin catches whiff of all the reverting you'll probably both get clobbered for edit-warring. At this stage it is probably best to file an WP:RFC, since the dispute isn't going to be resolved by the editors currently involved in the discussion. If you do file one, make sure it is neutrally worded so it doesn't get closed on a procedural point. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

JB in film & Character

Hi Betty, I'm fairly happy that both these articles are close enough to standard that they can be launched fairly soon. I'm off on a business trip to the frozen climes of Norway for a couple of days so I propose to move them to their rightful locations when I return (either Tues or Weds) so I can deal with any of the inevitable issues that arise subsequently. There are still of few of FT's hidden comments in there which I will leave there and they can be sorted as and when the cites come up (I've had a hunt round and can't find anything, but I'll do another sweep before I launch). Does that sound OK with you? Thanks also for your comments on the other matter - I knew I shouldn't have logged off when I did, but it was nice to see it all done and dusted overnight! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds great! Just ignore that fool from yesterday evening. He's entitled to dislike it, and everyone approaches articles differently, but he's pissing into the wind complaining about somebody overhauling an article and promoting it from a B class rating—which in reality was probably more a C-class article anyway—to FA status. Betty Logan (talk) 10:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

They were a major pain in the backside during the editing process too, wanting to wipe out everything bad about Sellers and giving totally the wrong impression of the individual behind the public persona. A very strange stance for an encyclopaedia to take! The strange thing is that I can't see the ratings (they come back from time to time and appear only periodically on some articles and not others. I presumed WW was correct in the scores he gave, but I have no idea why I can't see them half the time! - SchroCat (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW, I'm sure you've probably seen already, but I uploaded the new versions of the two pages. I had some spare time and the internet access in the hotel is better than I thought it would be, so I've gone and lit the blue touch paper... - SchroCat (talk) 18:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm positive the film character article would survive the AfD now since the sheer amount of sources demonstrate that the casting of James Bond is a notable topic, and if that survives the AfD there is no point reverting the "in film" article. You've done a terrific job on them, I'm pretty sure anyone viewing these articles objectively would see that. Betty Logan (talk) 02:21, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

There is so little overlap on these articles that only someone who has a personal issue or a point to prove would want to go down the AfD route again. The only thing that concerns me is seeing the Bond-focussed editors revert parts of the Bond in film article back in there. It's sort of happened with the re-addition of the "Happy and Glorious" section, but I was in two minds when I took it out and I can't think of anywhere else for it to go, so it may as well stay there!. - SchroCat (talk) 05:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I wondered about removing it myself, but it isn't really doing any harm so it's best to not be too aggressive about things like that. After it settles down what really should be there and what shouldn't can be reassessed, and the editor does have a sound point that it should go somewhere. Betty Logan (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Practical Magic#refinement of genre categorization

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Practical Magic#refinement of genre categorization. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:35, 4 December 2012 (UTC)Template:Z48

Disambiguation link notification for December 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Maximum break, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 2008 World Championship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Another prod

I've also prodded the rather pointless List of James Bond title references. Feel free to revert if you think it has any merits. Cheers SchroCat (talk) 13:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

How has it managed to survive for 8 years?? Betty Logan (talk) 16:41, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

lol - I have no idea! Probably because very little links to it. I only stumbled across it earlier today and I presume that few other people know it exists. I'm surprised that 100 people a day manage to look at it! - SchroCat (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

De-prodded, so I've gone down the AfD route again. - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Here's another one List of James Bond novel locations. Revert if you think I'm wrong. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

No complaints from me! I've also got the Quantum article at AfD at the moment - another pointless one for the chop hopefully! - SchroCat (talk) 05:26, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Deleting them both is fine by me. It's amazing how much fancruft there is. Betty Logan (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Nuveen Investments RFC Reboot

I see that you contributed to the original RFC for this article. As a member who is working on RFC's, I have closed the first one as unresolved, and rebooted it with a more compliant RFC question. I would appreciate your feedback on this new RFC. Thank you Tiggerjay (talk) 07:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Citebundling question

Hi Betty, I wonder if you could advise on a cite bundling / coding point? I'm re-working the Skyfall reviews at the moment, trying to slim them down and make them more sensible, rather than just re-gurgitating the critics opinions. I've managed to bundle a group together (see fn 14) but I also want to quote one of the reviews separately on a different point (it's the red error message at fn27). If I try my usual technique of <ref name ="krupa">{{cite... full details}}</ref> then the cite bundle breaks down. Do I have to keep the refs entirely separate, or is there a way of using the "ref name=" facility of covering all the info. (I suspect that I'll have to duplicate as it's not possible to bundle up the info and have it fully displayed elsewhere, but my head is starting to hurt thinking about it now!) Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible in the way you mean, because the software expects to match each separate cite to a separate footnote—it's a drawback of bundling. You may be able to hack it in a similar way to page cites, but it won't be exactly like what you want, but I'll have a fiddle with it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that: I'll see if it works or if it looks sort of misleading (like Krupa had written a book) and maybe have to double up on the refs - I'm not sure which is best. Thanks again! - SchroCat (talk) 04:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

I had another attempt, but the problem with this one is that you have to label the ref manually. I've labelled it 14 so it matches up to the cite bundle, but if that changes due to the automatic numbering you'll probably have to change the label. If you want a direct cite to the review then just duplicating the reference is probably the most robust solution; however, what is actually wrong with just citing the review bundle again? Since the prose explicitly names Krupa, then it's easy enough to identify the relevant review in the bundle. Betty Logan (talk) 08:58, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this: I went for the robust solution in the end, largely because it's a high traffic, highly edited article and the manual numbering would get knocked out of line fairly soon. I also used a second cite bundle with an slightly differing set of reviews, so I duplicated the overlapping reviews into the bundles. It means that for a couple, there are three entries in the refs (one stand-alone and one each in the bundles), but I don't think that's too much of an issue really. Thanks again - SchroCat (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic as derivative works

I hope to persuade you that these services are entirely derivative works, and not original, and inconsistent, and therefore don't qualify as reliable sources, or even as reliable primary sources. But I don't want to fight, because we've agreed on several things in the past. Not sure how to proceed. --Lexein (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks again for your constant advice and guidance: your help is always appreciated and very welcome! SchroCat (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

"Edit-warring"

Given some of my recent experiences with alleged "edit-warring", I fear I'm starting to gain a deeper understanding of some of your WP frustrations. Doniago (talk) 16:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it is becoming increasingly frustrating for good editors to create and maintain good content. I've taken a back seat these days. I tried quitting but I couldn't stand seeing stuff I had developed compromised by low quality editing (God, that sounds pompous but you know what I mean), so I mainly overlook my previous work, maintain templates and carry out some article assessment. Personally I think admins are too handy with the blocks and procedural adherence, and Wikipedia would be better served if they provided more support to the collaborative process. My bone of contention was that in my altercation I actively sought help, but an admin just washed his hands with "if either of you revert I'll block you" threat, whereas I think both of us would have been better served if he had advised a clear course of action to resolving our issues. Leaving editors stranded in a situation that has clearly broken down isn't going to encourage them to continue their involvement at Wikipedia. It's a volunteer project, after all, so the only currency is goodwill and if that seeps away so will the editors. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In my case, and I'll grant I'm not necessarily being the "nicest" editor or following what some might call "best practice" here... I find a fairly technical article that's been tagged for needing citations for over six months. I move some of the unsourced material to the article's Talk page, nothing that the article's been tagged long-term. An editor comes in and re-adds the material w/out sourcing, so I remove it again, as they're in violation of WP:BURDEN at that point (if you want to add challenged material, source it). Then a 3rd editor chimes in, calls my edits "unconstructive" and gives me a warning for edit-warring. I've started a discussion at Editor Assistance which is either drawing little attention or which people are actively shying away from, because I'd love to know what exactly is supposed to be done about unsourced material if editors are going to be accused of edit-warring when they try to address it in ways that policy does support. Anyway, I'm not asking you to get involved or anything, I just needed to vent a bit. I'd love for someone else to chime in, but, again, not soliciting. We'll see what happens. Very frustrating. Doniago (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Those etiquette and assistance boards are dead zones. The best thing you can do is start a discussion on the article talk page explaining why you have removed the content, citing the relevant policies/guidelines etc. Notify both of the editors of the discussion on their talk pages. If it's been in six months it doesn't matter if it stays in for a couple more days. Give it until Monday evening and if they don't respond remove the unsourced content providing a link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary (to cover your ass). If they do respond but you find you need an independent opinion then drop a note at the relevant project pages and also on my talk page too, and I'll come along and offer a third party opinion, and we'll see how it develops. Betty Logan (talk) 20:42, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wow Betty, thanks for the offer! :) I feel obliged to give you a chance to review before you dig in though. Article in question is Synchronous motor, my Editor Assistance request can be found here. The individual who warned me for edit-warring has already chimed in there; Andy Dingley. The original reverting editor is User:Wtshymanski. You're welcome to just chime in on the EA conversation, stay out of the situation, or we can proceed as you suggested; whatever your comfort level is. Again, thanks for the offer to wade into the mud with me...I sincerely hope you don't end up regretting it! Doniago (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Because I kept getting pushback anytime I attempted to keep the unsourced sections out of the article (and the editors even acknowledge that I have the right to remove the information), I've opened an RFC...admittedly part of me thinks I should just move on and let people keep the article in its current...condition. I suppose my problem is that I care too much. Heh. Anyway, thanks for chiming in at EAR. Transporterman left some pretty awesome comments as well. I appreciate your help, especially given your semi-retired state. Doniago (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Film ratings

I shall assume that nominating {{film ratings}} for deletion was a temporary aberration. Please be more careful. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

You should probably have checked the facts first. I nominated a template that had previously been deleted following a TfD discussion, so was eligible for speedy deletion. Please be more careful. Betty Logan (talk) 18:16, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Box Office Bombs

I have an issue at Dredd with users who insist on adding "It was a box office bomb" to the opening of the box office and lede and I wanted your input on what constitutes a bomb because I've read the article and the list of bombs and Dredd doesn't seem to fit it. It didn't make its budget back but it made 60% of it at least if you use hte lowest gross and the highest budget and was critically well received and its budget was relatively low at 45 million and it made at least 30, while two sources say 36 million. This doesn't seem comparable to the bombs where they seem to have lost on average 50%+ of the budget, but there doesn't seem to be any definition of why the films on the list were included as Bombs. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

It's basically editorializing. A "box office bomb" is a subjective term that means different things to different people, so personally speaking I don't think it should be used on Wikipedia. In today's market there is nothing remotely special about a film not recouping all its outlay from a cinema release because the income from the secondary markets and merchandise often supersede the box office, it's factored into the business plan. I had a similar dispute with someone on the Vertigo article who insisted on calling it a "box office disappointment", and I was like what is considered a disppointment? It made its money back so why not just state the facts rather than imply innuendo? My view on this is if you can source how much it cost and source how much it made then you can just give readers the facts, they don't need it dressed up in non-neutral language. Betty Logan (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Betty, that is how the article is at the minute; what it cost, what it made. But the user just wasn't having it, might still not be, not heard back from him yet. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:04, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for wading into the pool.

I just wanted to more concretely express my thanks for your thoughtful comments regarding what I'm rapidly coming to think of as the "Synchronous Motor Debacle". I very much appreciate your getting involved in this boondoggle. Doniago (talk) 21:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Can't help wondering whether I should have just unwatched the page and let it remain as it was until an editor came along who both had the resources to cite the information and cared more about doing that than arguing over the matter. Sigh. Thanks again for your involvement in what's rapidly becoming the most bruising experience I've had here. Doniago (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it's kind of sad that after all the fun at ANI, the whole conversation simply gets wiped due to inactivity without anything being done about the problems. Makes me wonder whether anyone learned anything from the situation, and whether it's really a great policy to let topics be archived simply due to nobody saying anything for two days. Oh well. Unfortunately at this point I'm kind of glad just to see the whole thing go away. Thanks again for your involvement with it. Doniago (talk) 13:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

It's frustrating when discussions just go stale without resolution, but there isn't much you can do without sounding like a broken record. The upside is that the Synchronous Motor article is much better sourced than it was, which is a start, so the discussions were productive to an extent. The bottom line though is that if you erode the sourcing condition it just becomes a hobby site rather than a real alternative source of reliable information which would be a shame. Betty Logan (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, to the extent that I care at this point, I'm glad the article was improved (admittedly I don't think I've looked at it since the improvements started). I would have appreciated it if the editors who apparently felt WP:CIVIL didn't apply to them had been called on it though...I particularly didn't appreciate having the situation painted as a "me against everyone else" scenario even after other editors had spoken up in defense of my actions. That was, after all, the point of my going to ANI, though other editors were quick to derail it and paint the ANI filing as a content rather than conduct dispute (even accusing me of misrepresenting my goals in some cases). Even if I was inclined to re-open the discussion (and only about 5% of me is), I freely acknowledge that it most likely wouldn't be a good idea or yield anything helpful. So there it is, I guess. With any luck I won't deal with some of those editors ever again, or at least not soon. Anyhow, thanks again for your input and contributions to the discussion throughout. Doniago (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For making me laugh at ANI! - and sorry that I can't find a star that spells humour correctly! ;) Cheers SchroCat (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy Happy

Season's Greetings, Betty Logan! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

• Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-) MarnetteD | Talk 16:50, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 02:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

• Happy Christmas chaps, have a good one. Betty Logan (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

James Bond (film character)

I've started the GAN on this one - I just hope it's a nice quiet and simple one! I'm going to wait a little for the other one as I've got the John Le Mesurier filmog at FLC at the moment, and hope to have John Le Mesurier going to FAC in the next few days, so I don't want to be doing too much heavy stuff all at once. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Tenebrae (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

For Your Eyes Only!

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

A pie for you!

Merry Christmas Betty, have fun. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:00, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you are still 'minding the shop' - Merry Christmas,Betty!

Greetings! Gareth Griffith-Jones – The WelshBuzzard – is wishing you the season's greetings.
Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's solstice or Christmas,
Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus,
or the Saturnalia,
this is a special time of year for (almost) everyone.

Hi! –  – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|
gives you this puppy!
Puppies promote WikiLove and I hope this little fellow/girl ^{(your choice)} has made your day better.
Remember! Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever.

Merry Christmas and a happy 2013
05:55, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your example and guidance during 2012 –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard| 07:37, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

In the nick of time

I wanted to also wish you a happy holiday, and peace in the New Year. May we disagree on a few things, and yet agree on many others, peacefully. (heh - almost midnight in my time zone) --Lexein (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Les Misérables (2012 film)

There seems to be a bit of concern over at Les Misérables (2012 film): whether we should present the cast in all-bullet form or just a bullet-form where we should use simply prose format. I was wondering if a more experienced WP:FILM editor would weigh in on this matter. The discussion is at Talk:Les Misérables (2012 film)#Cast billing. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:07, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Happy New Year

File:Happy New Year 2013.jpg		Have an enjoyable New Year!
		Hello Betty Logan: Thanks for all of your contributions to Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:09, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2013}} to people's talk pages with a friendly message.

• Thanks Lord, hope you had a good xmas, and see you around Betty Logan (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Thankyou ________ and happy New Year!

Thanks to everyone who left seasonal greetings. Hope you had a good time and look forward to seeing you around in the new year! Betty Logan (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Mervin avoiding his ban?

Hi Betty, I don't know what the procedure would be for this? I think that Special:Contributions/190.198.26.57 is clearly him, one is a non-indented reply to something he started on PotC (Non indent is like his mark of cain), and the other two edits he has made are entirely revolving around nationality. He's clearly evading his ban but where would I complain? Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

You shop socks at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Open the case in Mervin's name and add the IP number as a sock. Provide a few diffs like you would at 3RR. Betty Logan (talk) 19:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

K, done, thanks Betty. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 19:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Speaking of socks...

Many thanks for your kind words at ANI in a rather ridiculous, Kafka-esque turn of events! It was much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

It was pretty weird by Wikipedia's most absurd standards. You wake up one morning to find a full blown debate on your talk page about a dispute you had no part it in up to that point, and then you get accused of wiki hounding the editor who came to your page. What sort of sanction could they even impose? Ban you from your own talk page? And then the guy who requested that you prove you weren't a sock merely because the editor you supposedly wiki-hounded on your talk page had once got into an argument with a sock?? And then you get asked to remove the evidence of not being a sock because it violated the sock's privacy lol. You couldn't make it up. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Words cannot describe the annoyance I feel at the hounding Gimmetoo subjected SchroCat to. While part of me wants to say that I regret asking SchroCat's opinion on a partly-questionable edit, on the other hand what has Wikipedia come to if you can't ask a senior experienced editor with a solid grasp of the rules to provide an opinion without worrying about the consequences. I find it ironic that SandyGeorgia defends Gimmetoo without addressing his malicious behaviour yet on her talk page she has the following sub-heading "What should be said about admins chasing away good contributors?" Fine words indeed. I see from SchroCat's talk page Gimme won't let the matter rest. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The $750,000 question

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thunderball v Skyfall

Hi Betty, Have you come across any solid figures for the comparison between the various films in the bond series? The numbers don't have a global figure that takes into account inflation, which is something of a pain. I suspect this edit is factually correct, but it sits alone in the lead and is unsupported by the irritations uf citations or similar. Any thoughts? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

It's possible it has overtaken Thunderball, but I haven't seen any confirmation. I suspect it probably hasn't as yet (Thunderball had already hit a billion a couple of years ago) but possibly will do once it is released in China. I would revert the edit with a slight alteration: Prior to the release of Skyfall, Thunderball was the most financially successful movie of the series after adjusting for inflation. It basically states the same thing but acknowledges it may have been beaten. Betty Logan (talk) 22:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I reverted both edits before I read this discussion. Sorry! According to several websites Skyfall must reach either 1.03 or 1.04 billion to claim #1 when adjusted for inflation. I've checked several large Bond fan sites but they have no information about this other than what I've quoted here. As usual, I defer to SchroCat about this. - Fanthrillers (talk) 22:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

If it does overtake Thunderball I'm pretty sure it will be widely reported by the industry media, I can't imagine Sony and Eon passing up a golden marketing opportunity like that. With any luck we'll get a fresh inflation list for List of James Bond films. Betty Logan (talk) 22:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you familiar with Bambifan101 vandalism and talking style?

It seems that you know him, so I would like to ask you if you're familiar with his older incarnations or talking style. I do not know where he operates, so I can't check anything back then. From the list of people who report his socks on sock investigation, most users who have dealt with him more than once have retired. The current suspected sock has respond to my message. Can you take a look at [1] and tell me what you think? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:49, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I never conversed with Bambi. It may not even be him/her, it could just be another editor with a similar MO. It's best to let the SPI run its checks, and if it is Bambi they'll be dealt with in due course. If not, we need to tackle the situation at an educational level, so I have left Redcoyote a message explaining how running times should be approached. Betty Logan (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Let me apologize to you for reverting three times. --Smartie2thaMaxXx (talk) 23:17, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your RT top critics proposal for MOS:FILM

I have been editing Wikipedia articles for many years, but have not previously been involved in any discussion about changing policy. So I don't know what to expect of the process with regard to your proposal on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film. Over the last four days since you made the proposal there have been three people who have commented, all supportive, so that bodes well for the change being ultimately accepted, but I have no idea how that ultimately is decided. Will some admin be brought in eventually to assess the proposal and discussion and make a decision or does something else happen? And what is the typical time frame (if there is a typical one) for that to happen? Any information about the process you can give me (since I have none) will be helpful. Thanks. 99.192.83.116 (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2013 (UTC) (= the other 99.192's)

We don't need an admin to change the guideline. Typically we give people a week to comment on the draft, then incorporate any suggestions and then give them another week to ok it. I appreciate it drags out, but if nothing else it stops editors challenging it a later date on the basis that there wasn't enough discussion time. Betty Logan (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I appreciate that it does take time to do things right, and I don't mind that it does. It just was a bit worrying to not be sure that the wheels are still in motion. Thanks for putting that to rest for me. 99.192.83.116 (talk) 18:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Reply to Franchises

Hey, just letting you know I've replied to your message on the inconsistency of crossovers and franchises. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 12:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Gone with the Wind

I like what you did with the photos I added to Gone with the Wind in the past couple of days. I put Gable's trailer shot at the top of the cast listing instead of the bottom since he was billed above Leigh, Howard and de Havilland, and I reversed the other pictures of Gable and Leigh in order that they face the text instead of looking away from it since I think that generally makes a better presentation when it's feasible. I never knew that photos aren't added to plot summaries but it makes sense since the summaries are often confusing enough, and in any case I think your rearrangement is much better and I wish that it had occurred to me from the start. Thanks, Betty, and I hope to encounter you in Wikispace again. I'm happy that we managed to do this since the page looked so bare with absolutely no cast photos whatsoever, which was the case, counterintuitively enough, a few days ago. Accubam (talk) 01:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It's basically a convention, I don't know if there is a strict rule against it: the idea is that images are supposed to support the sections, but since the plot covers the whole film and should not include any interpretation images are simply decorative rather than supportive. I'm going to try and push for a GA over the next few weeks so I'm working through each section bringing it in line with the MOS. I'm going to upload the overture for the music section so we have something more than just pictures as well. Betty Logan (talk) 03:12, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Great idea to upload the overture. The music remains generally so important to this particular film. Accubam (talk) 09:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

User talk:31.18.250.39

Hello, Just wanted to reassure you as there seems to be some confusion as to who my message was addressed to, that it was not meant for you. I was going to warn said user about mislabeling edits and vandalism but saw you had already. So its all good. But he assumed I was talking to you, which I was not. Happy New Year by the way. MisterShiney ✉ 10:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it's ok, he was confused because your reply simply came after mine. Betty Logan (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it better to add to rather than give them another warning in case it was interpreted as us all ganging up on him. MisterShiney ✉ 11:09, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Iowa Film Critics

This AfD may be of interest to you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Iowa Film Critics Awards 2003. You can see my comment there. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:38, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Sourcing question

Would you be able to weigh in here? Thanks — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for the answer, replied in full there. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:18, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

No jpegs

Oh no, not again! - SchroCat (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I nipped it in the bud. Although I think the Commons crew screwed up. There is lots of stuff that is PD in the US but under copyright outside of it where the rule of shorter term doesn't apply, but for some reason the Bond trailers are being singled out as a special case. I think they realized that we were right but didn't want to back down, so we ended up with this farcical situation where US PD content has to be hosted here. I don't care where they put it, but I refuse to end up back where we started. Betty Logan (talk) 12:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Top critics

I don't mean to pester, but has the time come now to add the "Top Critics" change to the Film MOS? The proposal seems to have safely survived without any objection. Thanks. 99.192.77.50 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, editors have had long enough to challenge the revisions so I've transferred them in. Betty Logan (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will now bravely venture off to remove top critics scores from pages that have them! 99.192.92.87 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk: Verifiability.
Message added 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, I have a query regarding a specific sources. Cheers! Till 13:33, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for all your helpful and insightful comments to the verifiability discussion :) Till 14:15, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

You really don't get enough of these you know: you really should have a lot more for all the work you do! - SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

A thanks

I'll like to thank you for correcting my edit in the list of most expensive films article. Also I'll like to tell you that i've corrected the problem with the Sound-era record holders. The problem was caused due to using the command colspan="2" due to which 1 title will span 2 columns. Please don't use this command in the list again. Thank you again. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Another Thanks

Thank you for your help with the 1967 re-release Gone With The Wind poster Fair Use - It has been difficult navigating through what is needed for these types of images.Jobrjobr (talk) 21:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed the work you did under Later Releases for the Gone With The Wind (film) article - Great addition to the article - Good to see this iconic poster referenced on Wikipedia.Jobrjobr (talk) 21:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

You had fulfilled all the FUR requirements, but when I added it to the GWTW article I switched the template for the multiple article set. Also, the licensing is unsual for this film: there seems to be an explicit court decision ruling that GWTW and Wizard of Oz publicity material is in the public domain; technically you don't need fair use rationales for PD content, but the court ruling placed restrictions on its usage so I thought it was best to keep them. Without the court ruling your license would have been correct. Betty Logan (talk) 21:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

OK, but Wow what a mess - Thank you for the response.

If you have any interest(yes, here it comes), I have done a lot of work documenting the art of the designer of this poster, Tom Jung. Any help you can provide on his Wikipedia article would be appreciated.Jobrjobr (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently in the process of revamping Gone with the Wind so I'm not really looking for another project to take on at the moment, but if you need any technical assistance or peer review I'm happy to help out that way. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

IMDB external links?

I need your opinion on an edit. link I thought linking to someone's IMDB page was acceptable, even though we can't use IMDB as a RS. Seems rather strange to have Wikipedia:IMDb, if the user's edit were correct. Thanks. - Fantr (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC) (former fanthrillers)

I don't really work on the actor articles, but picking a few FAs at random and Kirsten Dunst, [[Brad Pitt] and Cillian Murphy all have IMDb links so it seems to be a regular feature. The reason for removing the link seems slightly suspect too, because while IMDb is not permitted as a source it is a regular external link on the film articles, since they aren't subject to the same criteria as sources. Personally I would revert the edit on the grounds it isn't being used as a source. Betty Logan (talk) 07:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. - Fantr (talk) 21:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

STIiD

Per WP:SUBJECT, that information shouldn't be in that article. xkcd might work, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:45, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

That's ok, I wasn't aware of the policy. Maybe the Independent article can be added to the talk page as a "mention in the press" thing? I've seen them on several talk pages. Betty Logan (talk) 02:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use of images

While I'm uploading images with better quality than the ones that exist, they are still of much lower resolution than the source I took them from. For example, I've uploaded File:Battle Droids.png (and most other screenshots) from a 1920x816 source and reduced it to 720x306, and the purpose was to show the subject more clearly since the original is too blurry and pixelated to begin with. I've already explained in each one of them that they are for illustrating the subject of the page, so I'm not sure what's missing. Is the resolution still too high? What would be the appropriate one? Thanks in advance. Alexrdias (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

It's a judgment call when it comes to resolution. It doesn't just have to be lower than the original, it has to be the lowest it can possibly be to serve the purpose. To be honest, the Battle Droid one is a bit blurry so you have a reasonable argument for keeping the clearer image. However, in the case of an images like File:Palpatine ROTJ.jpg and File:Emperor RotJ.png that goes in the infobox at Palpatine, the lower res one is sufficient because it's clear and because it goes in the infobox it doen't need to be as high resolution as the one you uploaded. My advice is to up load them at just the size they need to be, and at the resolution they need to be so they are clear at that size. I'm just a normal editor though, not an admin, so if you disagree with any of my decisions just request a third opinion at Wikipedia:Non-free content review and they will review them for you. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Then I'll lower the resolution of the infobox pictures I've uploaded and remove the speedy deletion notices. Alexrdias (talk) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What do you know about Lobby Cards...?

Hi Betty, Long time no speak and I hope you're well. These lobby cards must be a colonial thing, as we don't have them in the UK! I've had some questions raised against the images used on the H. C. McNeile article at the Peer Review. The points raised are all spot on and I'll have to deal with them now or at FAC. One of the questions was against File:Bulldog Drummond Poster.jpg. While this is probably the original poster, I can't find any data to collaborate the fact, to I thought I may as well drop in a different image and two have come up which may suit:

1. first 1922 Lobby Card
2. second 1922 LC

Would these be OK to upload at Commons, do you think, based on the fact that they are over 90 years old? Cheers - ????

I would think the lobbycards would be ok to upload since they are pre-1923. However, the poster has been authenticated as the 1922 version at http://www.liveauctioneers.com/item/5439184. I'm pretty sure auctioneers flogging off a poster for $2000 would have had an expert verify the dating. To add weight to it, the poster clearly says the film is being distributed by "Hodkinson Pictures", which was a major distributor during the silent era, and there are no mentions of it existing from the 1930s onwards. Even if the auction site got it wrong and the poster was from a reissue a few years later, it would still qualify as public domain content as per not having a copyright notice and being pre-1978 artwork. Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Fantastic news—and I'm not sure how I missed the auction site, but that should be good enough for the poster. I now have a delightful embarrassment of riches as to which of the three I use! Thanks very much—as always you have lived up to your oracle status! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 12:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

A Good Day to Die Hard

Betty,

I need a third party opinion from you. There is issue of spoilers regarding the plot of A Good Day to Die Hard. It has been released in certain East and Southeast Asian territories on February 7th, but it will be released in America and Canada in February 14th. The user from Singapore name Bonkers The Clown has setup the full plot of that movie before the American and Canadian release in February 14th. I understand he did that since he followed WP:Spoilers as faithfully as possible, but I worried how the full plot of this movie on that page might affect the box-office results in US and Canada. We would like your opinion on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Apols on the rollback - I hit the wrong damned link on my phone! - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) There is absolutely nothing that says we have to wait for the film to be released in certain territories before putting up the full details of a plot. We had exactly the same situation at Skyfall recently, with the UK release date some time before the US one. Despite putting up the full plot a couple of weeks before the US & Canadian release, the film has grossed over $1 billion, so I guess the box office wasn't hit that hard. - SchroCat (talk) 08:27, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

SchroCat is right. Once a film is released to the public anywhere in the world then its plot is verifiable and meets the criteria for inclusion. As well as Skyfall, this also happened with The Avengers too and they ended up as the two highest grossing films of the year. Betty Logan (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I get it now. Thanks. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:53, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

History

Re children's film: "nothing from the current article is being retained,so it is better to retain the edit history of the new page". So why could we not retain both histories? I haven't checked - have we now got two histories hopelessly jumbled? — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A history merge doesn't make any sense in this case, because there has been no merge. Robin has written a completely new article without using any of the material from the old article. The old article needed to be deleted and the new article moved to the available name. The edit history now does not make any sense in regards to the new article. It looks like other editors have contributed to the new article when they haven't done, and it looks like Robin contributed to the old deleted article when he didn't. Betty Logan (talk) 13:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Betty and RHaworth,

Thanks for making the move on Children's film. I understand what Betty has written about the article edit history. But I am at least glad that people would be able to at last read more material dealing with children's film. I put up the rewrite on sandbox 7 months ago and waited for this move all along. I am happy for your help though I feel some one could have done this much earlier. This is a highly visited page and to think that people have not been able to access information which they sought even though it was worked on rewritten is something that we all need to work on. I read the conversation between Betty and RHaworth at this talk page when I came to the talk page of Betty Logan in order to thank her for the page move. I thought it would be better to explain that. Thanks once again for your help. Robin klein (talk) 13:53, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

There is certainly more information now, Robin. The reason it hasn't happened sooner is because a request had to be filed to move your page since only an admin could get rid of the old article. I have also redirected the Family film article per the discussion at the Film project. Betty Logan (talk) 14:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Betty Logan, thanks for redirecting the page family film. Robin klein (talk) 01:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of snooker players investigated for match-fixing, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Robertson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Bond grosses

My finger was hovering over the revert button for this for being unsourced. It may well be true by now, but have you seen anything we can use to back it up? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

All I can find is this. I'm not sure if that is RS or not—I'd have to take a closer look—but it looks like a reasonable to me. This chart also seems to indicate that Thunderball is probably still in front: Casino Royale grossed 600 million selling 90 million tickets, so 1.1 billion at 2006 prices would equate to roughly 165 million tickets, still less than Thunderball, and 1.1 billion would of course buy fewer tickets now than in 2006. The admissions chart looks the most authoritative because it seems to be published by Sony, but obviously we can't use it because it's been posted in a forum. That admissions chart looks very interesting if we can soure a reliable copy. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

And yet this says third! I'm going to take it out for the moment as it's not clear yet and there is certainly nothing in the press about it (my media searches have shown nothing), so it'll have to wait just a little longer. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I did some rough calculations (using Casino Royale's adissions and gross as yardstick), and Skyfall has sold about 130 million tickets worldwide, making it a dead heat for the second place. I think it is probably for the best to leave out such claims either way unless an authoritative source analyses it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:10, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad you said that - I've taken it out already as a precaution! I am fairly sure there will be some nice reliable sources at the clear-cut point it all happens. I'm sure you'll know the answer to this (and excuse my ignorance) but are DVD etc grosses also included in our figures, or do we just rely on cinema grosses only for this? - SchroCat (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gross figures apply to just the cinema box office. It doesn't really give an accurate picture of financial success, but it is probably the best way of judging the popularity of a film because the problem with DVD and TV is that you are then just looking at income rather than assessing how many people watched it. For instance what many people don't realise is that the most profitable film ever made is not Avatar or even Gone with the Wind, it was actually Pixar's Cars, which was one of Pixar's worst performing films. The reason: it made 10 billion off toy licensing, but most people would probably agree that Toy Story was more popular. If you are interested in the other revenue streams: box office figures, video revenue and TV income, and that is leaving out product placement and merchandising. Betty Logan (talk) 15:30, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I thought that was probably the case, but just wanted to check. Many thanks, as always! (ps. Nice work on GWTW!) - SchroCat (talk) 15:58, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Re: this... I hope you're in agreement with the reversion. Let me know if you think otherwise! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For all your help in getting James Bond filmography up to its new GA standard, despite the attempts to delete it from Wiki altogther - SchroCat (talk) 07:26, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Another petering question

Sorry to bother once again. Just clarifying this: as far as I was aware, United Artists are a distributor of Skyfall, rather than a production company. Is that your understnading too? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

{{Infobox film}} states to "Insert the company that produced the film". In the case of Skyfall that would seem to be Eon Productions. The BFI entry lists the film as being 'presented by' and 'made by' Eon productions, and lists Danjaq, United Artists and Columbia as "copyright owners". Our guidelines ask for the company that produced the film, not the companies that financed it or own the copyright, it's a different role. This distinction is mirrored by the American Film Institue, which doesn't have an entry for Skyfall as yet, but in the case of Quantum of Solace lists Eon as the production company and Sony as the distributor, with Danjaq, United Artists and Columbia as "copyright claimants". Betty Logan (talk) 23:48, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That's great, thanks. I've reverted and also taken out Danjaq, which doesn't appear to warrant being there either according to that classification. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 05:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Rocki II edits

Greetings Ms.Logan

What appears to be the problem with my edit to the plot of Rocky II? I've seen the films enough times to know what is what but you've reverted me twice now. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 19:53, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My problem with your edit is that it very much reads like an interpretation of what we see, rather than what we actually see i.e. you are imposing your own reading of the film. Now, it's many years since I have seen the film so I would be lying if I said I could remember it in utmost clarity, but I vaguely recalling Apollo congratulating Rocky after being counted out: that is what we actually see, unless there is something else I have forgotten. I will ask at the Film project for a third opinion though because as I said I haven't seen it for along time. Betty Logan (talk) 01:19, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

You won't need to watch it again specifically for this because how you remember it vaguely is exactly how it was - unlike in the third and fourth films where post-match congratulation was not a part of the story (opponents Clubber Lang and Ivan Drago respectively), we did see it here and the reason I felt it worth mentioning is that unlike in the original Rocky, Creed is officially the antagonist for this movie (the first film was about Balboa's rise from a nobody so there was no real antagonist other than society itself!) and it is clear that as the fight gets longer and longer, it is no longer the case that Balboa having gone the distance in the last fight was a fluke. That said, Apollo still promises Rocky, "you're going down!" when knocking gloves at the start of the final round. So when Creed is finally beaten via knock-down, it is only right that the mere gesture of congratulating his opponent should be included otherwise we leave those not to have seen the film with the impression that the man who led a smear campaign against the protagonist was still a bitter figure by the end. Whether it was known to Stallone at the time remains a mystery but the sportsmanship of Apollo coupled with his love from the fans and his showman persona in the first film would fit neatly for the third and fourth films where he is "on the side of the good" - his character was introduced properly and he wasn't seen to have changed in any way, it was consistent with the character you knew from the first two films. Asides that, I know plots are supposed to be short and not include elements not truly necessary to the story-line. Let me know what you think here. Evlekis (Евлекис) (argue) 18:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance

Hello! This is a note to let the main editors of the article List of highest-grossing films know that it will be appearing as the main page featured list on February 25, 2013. You can view the TFL blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured list/February 25, 2013. If you think it is necessary to change the main date, you can request it with the featured list directors The Rambling Man (talk · contribs), Dabomb87 (talk · contribs) or Giants2008 (talk · contribs), or at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured list. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions of the suggested formatting. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. Thanks! Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 04:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Traditionally, the highest-grossing films have been war films, musicals and historical dramas, but franchise films have been the best performers in the 21st century, especially the Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings and Pirates of the Caribbean series. The only films in the top ten that do not form a franchise are the top two, Avatar and Titanic, both directed by James Cameron. Disney has enjoyed success with its Pixar brand, of which the Toy Story films have been the best performers. James Bond, Star Wars, and Indiana Jones are still among the highest-grossing franchises, despite starting over thirty years ago. Gone with the Wind (poster pictured) was the highest-grossing film for 25 years and, adjusting for inflation, would remain so.

meanie

you dealeated my page so i dont like you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.242.242 (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't delete pages. However, if your "page" was deleted, it was because it didn't meet the WP:Notability criteria. If it was deleted because I proprosed deletion, you can submit a request to have it restored at WP:UNDELETE. Betty Logan (talk) 07:33, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Disney Vault

I need to pick who I have arguments with better! [2] --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:04, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

List of abandoned and unfinished films

Clarityfiend persuaded me to begin a draft article in my user space: User:Fantr/List of abandoned and unfinished films. I'm backlogged with articles I'm drafting. I encourage you to work on the draft article. The linked category in the draft article lists other unfinished films that can be added to the first table. Thanks! I've also invited SchroCat and Erik to join. - Fantr (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm currently busy prepping Gone with the Wind for a GA push, but I will have a look at the article once I have finished up on that. I was just reading an article last week that may be of some use to you: River Phoenix - Dark Blood. Betty Logan (talk) 14:05, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The Entertainer (film) running time

re: this edit [3]. IMDB which as we know is not a reliable source claims that Turner Classic Movies' print runs 105m. The Turner website claims 97m. The BFI claims 96m. I can find no evidence that additional footage exists although I note that the 1976 American remake runs 105m according to IMDB. - Fantr (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally I would say revert straight away, but my default reference for running times is the BBFC, which actually measures the film. They give the running time as 107 minutes. So is this a mistake? Well, if you click on the "full information" tab it gives you the exact length in feet: 9686 ft. You get 16 frames per foot on 35mm film, which translates to 154976 frames of film; film plays at 24 frames per second, which works out to 107.6 minutes. The BBFC measurement does indeed seem to indicated that they rated a 107 minute cut of the film. It was X rated, so is it possible the 97 minute cut is an American version? Back in the 1960s American censorship was tough, you effectively could only release films for family viewing, so any X rated British films would have needed to be cut prior to 1968. It's possible the American version is the only one that exists now, which is why all sources list the shorter running time. Personally I would use the BBFC time and source them since they measured the film, but it's your call. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll change it to 107m. - Fantr (talk) 19:09, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Really great work on Gone with the Wind! Keep it up! Icarus of old (talk) 17:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, it is almost ready for its GA nomination I feel. I am going to rework the lede this weekend and then hopefully it will be done. Betty Logan (talk) 18:59, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Klan in Gone with the Wind (film)

Hello, I saw your edit where you added "—now members of the Ku Klux Klan—" to Gone with the Wind (film). Based on your other edits I know you know this film far better than I, but I've checked with a couple other fans of the film and none of us remember any reference to the Klan. I see that it is explicit in the book, but I wanted to check to make sure you were sure about it being in the film. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I just checked my DVD, and Melanie simply refers to it as a "political group"; I've never actually noticed that before! However, the context of the scene remains the same: the "political group" still undertakes a raid on the shanty town after the attack on Scarlett, and, you know, there was only one "political group" raiding shanties in the 1860s. So I guess the question is how do we document it? I guess we could change the Klan to "political group" as the film references it, but are we being unnecessarily oblique about something which is pretty obvious? Perhaps a solution would be to use the film's terminology but link it to the Klan, so readers don't necessarily lose the context of the description. Alternatively, the group is generally recognized as the Klan in critical analysis so we could just bring in a source such as this one: [4]. I mean it's not a huge deal for me, it's really just a question of how to best convey the events of the film, especially to someone who possibly hasn't seen it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

It's an interesting question. I think my reluctance to mention the Klan stems from my affection for the movie and the characters - and that's a terrible motivation for editing an article. If the movie shades it by calling it a "political group", but the scholarship makes it clear which political group it is, then it seems to me that that conclusion should be described in the article, but it should also be clear that the movie did not explicitly say it was the Klan. You are doing a wonderful job with the article and I trust your judgement to handle it well. Thank you. SchreiberBike (talk) 22:15, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I think I've come up with a sensible compromise: on one hand I think it's important to not lose the context of the raid, on the other I think it is important to recognize that Selznick did make a creative decision to not explicitly represent the KKK in the film. I've reintroduced the vague terminology into the plot section and framed it as a creative decision in the analysis section. I think this is the best approach for dealing with this sort of thing. A pre-existing source actually covers this aspect already, so it seems like an organic solution. Betty Logan (talk) 03:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#RfC: Is listing every speaking character actor in the cast section relevant?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit#RfC: Is listing every speaking character actor in the cast section relevant?. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)Template:Z48

YGM

Hello, Betty Logan. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at El duderino's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

here

Gone with the Wind

Hi Betty, I've begun the Gone with the Wind GA review. It looks strong on my first pass, but I'd like your input on a few points--you can see them at the review page. Thanks for your work on this one, I'm very glad to see it improving! -- Khazar2 (talk) 14:25, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, your copy-editing looks fine to me, I don't have any problems with it. I will work my may through your points. Most of them are easily fixable, a couple of others are a bit more complicated so I will come back to those at the end. Betty Logan (talk) 06:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		As God is my witness, I'll never be C-class again! -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for contributing this one. I end up reviewing a lot of X-Files episodes and 2012 movies over at GAN, and while that's both fun and important, it's always great to see a lasting classic come down the pipe along with them. -- Khazar2 (talk) 12:51, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing it. It gets 4000 hits per day which is an amazing figure for a pre-War film (even more than what recent hits like the Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings films get), so I reasoned it was about time we gave it that final push. It was a very smooth review, you picked up on points where I had become unfocused and didn't get caught up in minutiae. I will drop a note to User:Walloon since he contributed as much as I did, but unfortunately he seems to be no longer active on Wikipedia. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Fantastic effort on getting Gone with the Wind up to GA. I'm not jealous that you got picked up for a review after 24 hours, while I'm still waiting for someone to have a go at James Bond in film, even though it's been waiting since last year, no I'm not, honestly! - SchroCat (talk) 12:54, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

It probably does help your cause when you have just nominated the most iconic American film ever made though. Still, I am surprised it has taken this long for a Bond article to get picked up, they are usually snapped up within days aren't they? Betty Logan (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Normally yes, but I think it's such a big article with a lot of text there. Still, I'm on leave for a few days, so I suspect that'll be the time someone picks it up! -SchroCat (talk) 11:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Wow

Frankly my dear, that is a Good Article Gone with the Wind in 60 seconds Prairiegrl (talk) 11:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, that's really good. Thanks for your copy editing on the article last week too. Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

James Herbert

Please don't accuse me of misrepresenting the source in the edit I made. I make all my edits in good faith. In this case, I put the name in as the paper reported it as it was sourced information and I didn't want to introduce my own POV by editing it. I can accept that I misread/misunderstood the source as the way it was written introduced an element of ambiguity, at least to my reading. But saying I've misrepresented the source implies intent and shows bad faith, which puts me on the defensive and makes me less inclined to be civil. On top of which, I'd made further changes to the article since to make it have fewer and more clearly-defined sections instead of many scattered little ones, and your undo undid those edits too, meaning I had to reinstate them. In such a situation you should've just edited to remove the surname rather than undoing. I wouldn't have re-added it - as you can see, while I've undone your edit to restore those changes, I've removed the surname to preserve the change you made as I accept I may have misunderstood (but not misrepresented!) the source. 90.221.243.46 (talk) 12:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't realize my edit had undone other changes until after I had made it and I was about to restore the other stuff before you reverted. My edit was not doubting your "faith", it was an attempt to summarize exactly what was wrong with the edit. I had already explained in a previous edit the problem with the wording and you hadn't understood so I was trying to make the problem clearer. If a source describes her as "Eileen O Donnell" in a current day context then fair enough, that is what we go with, but we can't draw that inference from the way the source uses it, unless we phrase it the same way. Anyway, keep up the good work, it's good that this misunderstaning has been cleared up. Betty Logan (talk) 13:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

from, From, fRoM etc

Hi Betty, I'm just starting to peer review the Julianne Moore article when the name Far from Heaven stood out of the text. Moore's article has Far From Heaven, the film's article reads Far from Heaven. Before changing one of them and starting a mini Star Trek-style tsunami, I'm wondering which one has it right... Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 06:38, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe the whole issue over Star Trek was whether "Into Darkness" was supposed to be a subtitle or not. No such ambiguity exists in this case, and according to WP:NCF I would say that it should be Far from Heaven, so the article is correctly titled, and the Moore article should follow the naming conventions really. Betty Logan (talk) 11:01, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks - I'll let them know. Are you going to go through PR and FAC with Gone with the Wind at any point? - SchroCat (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Probably not, at least not before next year. It's the 75th anniversary in 2014 so I'll maybe put it through then. Betty Logan (talk) 00:51, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd be tempted to go for it now, while you've still got the momentum. If FAC say there is more to do, then you'll have time to get everything sorted before next year. It doesn't matter if it gets its star now and waits until next December before getting on to the front page. Worth a thought, at any rate! - SchroCat (talk) 07:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

request?

Hey can you run a webcite comb on The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) Not sure how you did that on X-Men: First Class so I am requesting you to do it. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

I had a go but I got a time out messgae. I'll try again later on. Betty Logan (talk) 15:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Ext link copyright board

Hi there Betty - Since you suggest raising the issue at the WP copyright board, do you have a link for it? - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:08, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

I would try Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Make sure you make it clear to them you only want to link to the page, not that you want to reuse the images on Wikipedia. Don't let them get sidetracked into a general debate about linking to an open wiki either, you just want to know if WP:ELNEVER prohibits linking to the site in regards to the images. Betty Logan (talk) 02:35, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll do this tomorrow if time permits. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:37, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

And now -

Notice of External links noticeboard discussion

Hello, Betty Logan. This message is being sent to inform you that a discussion at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard is taking place regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Gothicfilm (talk) 18:28, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

• The discussion goes on. I did as you suggested - we just need the intention behind ELNO#12 elaborated on. I suggest raising the issue at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard, and standing by the outcome. I posted it there using those words (first half), the issue was addressed, and yet the editor who did not get the consensus he wanted continues on at Talk:Planet of the Apes (novel)#EL. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed some reverting earlier today; the problem though is that only two people who weren't involved in the debate added their opinions at the EL discussion, and only one of those was "weak support", so it wasn't exactly a decisive judgment. This is part of the problem on Wikipedia: there are half a dozen admins ready to jump on you if you break 3RR, but when you use the correct procedure for resolving the issue no-one can be arsed! I think there are a couple of options left:

1. Post a request at WT:NOVELS asking for more comments at the EL noticeboard.
2. If that doesn't work file a RFC asking a very simple question: should the link be included or excluded from the article.

Betty Logan (talk) 01:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

An RFC where? - Gothicfilm (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

You can find a step-by-step guide at Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Betty Logan (talk) 12:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Pacific Rim

Hello, there is currently a discussion in place re the title of "Pacfic Rim" on the Article Talk Page, that if you could swing by and provide some input that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 12:39, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, and question

Hi Betty, I've been seeing your good work popping up all over the place lately, it seems. How did you generate a full list of cached sources in that WebCite report on The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film)? I use WebCite a lot, but only know how to do one source at a time, which gets time-consuming. Thanks for all your work on film articles, it's much appreciated. -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:17, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You can archive a whole bunch of URLs using the utility at Webcite comb. It brings up a checklist of all the links it finds on the page. You have to check each one (although it can bring up the same link more than once depending on its usage in the article) and on a page of 100 links or so it can take several minutes to work your way through the checklist, but it still beats archiving them one by one. Also, when it's busy it "queues" the job, so sometimes your tab can seemingly freeze for 5-10 minutes after you start the archiving process; I thought my browser was crashing originally but it turns out you just have to patient. Unfortunately it won't add them to the cite templates on the wiki page for you, but if the links die editors can check the Webcite archives using Checklinks as and when. A very useful resource, hopefully we won't lose it at the end of the year. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Good to know--thanks. -- Khazar2 (talk) 20:31, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Another Bond-related barnstar for the collection, this time for your tireless work on James Bond in film‎, which reached GA today. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Like -- Khazar2 (talk) 17:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure I warrant a barnstar for adding a caption, but thanks all the same! Betty Logan (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

You did a lot more than that during the article's development: it only got as far as it did because of the development undertaken by you and Fantr! - SchroCat (talk) 20:18, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It's been so long I can't even remember doing anything on it. Congrats on getting it promoted anyway, it's been a long time coming! Betty Logan (talk) 20:23, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Dr. No revert: Espresso-con-pana

Betty, if you have time, please see SchroCat's comment on my talk page about "vandalism" of article Dr. No, April 2013, and my reasoned response, which he instantly reverted from his talk page. —I did not expect such a strong reaction! Thank you. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

I left a fuller explanation for my reverts at Talk:Dr. No (film). I fully understand why you don't appreciate your edits being reverted—no-one does—but when there are problems sometimes it has to be done. At From Russia with Love (film) I thought your edit was reasonable at first glance and I actually tried to integrate it into the article better, but when I realized it was also unsourced I felt it was better just to pull it. Likewise with your edit at Goldfinger, there is no logical reason to pick out Thunderball either; what distinguishes it from You Only Live Twice or The Spy Who Loved Me in this particular case? As for SchroCat removing your comments from his talk page without a response, he probably didn't appreciate your Wikipedia:POINTY edit at Dr No and most likely didn't want to escalate what is starting to become a deteriorating situation. It would be better if the discussion relating to your edits remain in one place, so if you would like to continue this discussion let's keep it off SchroCat's talk page and keep it at the Dr No talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 19:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

E-c-p

And it continues... - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Template talk: James Bond films

I read your "options" proposal response to SchroCat on the James Bond Template talk page and I think it has a great deal of merit. I can't think of anything more to add, so give it a go! Appreciate your experience. Thanks. I wish you well. --Espresso-con-pana (talk) 22:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

AfD

As someone who has worked on an article whose content is duplicated, the following AfD may be of interest: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nominations & Wons in the James Bond film series. I'd also be glad to hear (either separately or on the AfD thread) your views on Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's comments regarding the naming of the "Critical reception" section. - SchroCat (talk) 07:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Distributor in film infobox

re: this edit. Do we include the home video distributor in the film infobox? I'm fairly certain we don't but the infobox template page is ambiguous. I figure if anybody knows the rules and can point me to them it's you. Thanks! - Fantr (talk) 00:25, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Generally just the main distributor is recorded: for films that had a cinema release that would be the theatrical distributor, and the video distributor would only be recorded for films that were direct to video. A good rule of thumb is to make sure the distributor is recorded for "notable" releases, which we also record the release dates for, so the distributors and the dates should match up. Betty Logan (talk) 09:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

All my edits are in good faith

Betty Logan at the reliable sources noticeboard you said I'm misrepresting the discussion and that I called you inexperienced. I apologise for the insult but that doesn't mean I was trying to bully you. Believe me all my edits are in good faith. Also please notice that a reliable source noticeboard is no place to complain about someone's attitude. Apart from that my English is my own problem. I request you to only focus on the matter at hand and help resort this situation peacefully. The decision of which source to use and not to is now in hands of administrators. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I have not complained about your attitude at the noticeboard (although I do think you need to adopt a less combative approach in discussions). I have simply explained the circumstances of the disagreement as I see them. Betty Logan (talk) 11:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts

If you think that the list of films should be culled, please start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded pbp 20:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion is not required for articles that indisputably do not belong on the list. The instructions state Please don't remove articles which have some reasonable chance of staying here upon completion. Be bold, though, and if something was added which seems obviously not able to stand as one of the 10,000, remove it, with discussion if necessary, assuming good faith always. Mass deletes of articles should always be preceded by discussion. Within the spirit of the guidelines I acted appropriately. There was no mass deletion here, I removed three film that are not listed on the Film project's core list. If an article isn't listed as a core article it certainly doesn't belong at Vital articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Vital articles/Expanded/Arts.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Invitation on the AN/Incidents

You are invited to discuss this issue on the AN/I. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Mediation note

Hello, Betty Logan. You were recently involved in a discussion on the RS noticeboard. I've been mediating this dispute, and I thought I'd let you know that one of the editors has put forward a proposed resolution. I'd just like to notify you of this opportunity to build consensus. The proposition in question is here. Regards, m.o.p 18:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Betty Logan. You have new messages at Talk:Iron Man (franchise).
Message added 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Mkdw^talk 00:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion of Prometheus portals

Hi! Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Use_of_Portals_in_film_articles WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

FAC

Could you take a look at the FAC of Ra.One? Your input would be much appreciated. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 10:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussing Incredible Burt Wonderstone

Hello again Betty Logan. Acting upon your advice I will like to start a discussion of replacing BOM with Boxoffice.com for the box office gross of the film Incredible Burt Wonderstone when the consensus has been reached. So I will like to invite all.intrested parties to this discussion. Also I would like you to advise on which points should I keep in mind while trying to prove that BOM should be replaced with Boxoffice.com. Also I would like your opinion on whether I should start a new discussion to replace BOM with Boxoffice.com where this "N/A" problem is present and make a case-by-case approach. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

It's best to start a discussion at the article talk page and notify other regular editors of the article about it. If there isn't an obvious consensus (say within a day or two) then notify the Film project of the discussion to get some objective opinons. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 15:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

In this regard: I am sorry, I did not want to come over as critizising so much, as just making an observation; the problem is that in hindsight one may find many a fault when scrutinizing edits. So, sorry about that, I did not want to sound so ascerbic. I think Dispute resolution should be the way forward. Cheers. Lectonar (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. The worse that can happen is I get topic banned from the article. It's not an area I'm hugely invested in anyway, but these animal rights articles are the focal point of huge POV pushing. I suppose people will always find fault if they go looking for it, but these lists have benefitted from someone enforcing a sourcing standard. Betty Logan (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

A thank you

Hello I want to thank you for helping to reach a consensus at WP:RS. Without you I think it would have been nearly impossible to reach a consensus . So I thank you for your tireless contribution. Also sorry again about insulting you at the beginning of the discussion. I still regret that. Also I commented about your behaviour at ANI because what I saw was what I said. But I don't want to repeat the same experience that happened on MarnetteD and Tenebrae's talk page to happen here too. So instead of discussing about your behavior I would like to say that if you feel I have misrepresented you in some way ,then please forgive me for that and let the disputes of the past remain in the past. Can we please be friends? Thank you.:) KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:09, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes I feel you have misrepresented me. Since I have never been involved in an editing dispute with you, you have no right to call me a disruptive editor. I am happy to work with you when there is agreement, but you have to stop lashing out when you disagree with someone. BoxOffice.com was added to the list of reliable sources and I was one of the editors who helped that happen; in fact I was the editor that added it to the list of Film resources. I will work alongside anyone to accomplish a common goal, but only if you are willing to be cordial. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if we have a common goal. Please forgive me for saying this but I somewhat don't trust you. Still since I know your edits are in good faith and you behavior is civil. But at one point it seemed in the discussion you were making things up. You said that BOM is always more updated than Boxoffice.com. That's why sometimes I get suspicious. But please let's put the past mistakes in the past. Please don't be angry just because you think I disrespcted you. Will you please be my friend,please? KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:55, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

We have to trust each other, otherwise we can't collaborate if you doubt the other person's motives. I am pretty sure I haven't said that Box Office Mojo is more updated, just that we know when it has been updated because it dates the information. At the end of the day I eventually became convinced that BoxOffice.com was reliable, and that is how you edit Wikipedia. Like being a scientist: you have to prove something is right before it is published in a book or a journal. Betty Logan (talk) 09:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Film templates

Betty, thank you for doing the coding for the merge and checking the updates like a hawk. It takes a lot of time and I appreciate your work. I haven't had a chance to look over the merge results closely so I haven't replied on the main forum. Since the old templates are being retired, what should be done with all the pages using those templates? Will a bot automatically convert them or should editors go over them and change them manually?
"In the future, just add the admissions to the box office field; it is not metric specific so can accommodate a gross figure or admissions, since it is all box office."
True. I will probably do that for the future. Thanks. ₪RicknAsia₪ 01:03, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

A bot won't be able to convert them because of the problem of using the {{Film name}} sub-template, and to do it manually would be a huge undertaking. Basically what the merge means to editors is that the film infobox can add any necessary categories, and any changes in the parameters will carry over to all the Asian film articles too, so editors just need to be aware of that. It is basically a glorified redirect: the infobox doesn't have to be changed on the film articles, and it should be a transparent process for editors. Betty Logan (talk) 01:27, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Got it. And if an editor has copy-pasted one of the defunct templates and continues to use it in the future on new articles, it will still work but is discouraged. Is that correct? ₪RicknAsia₪ 19:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it will work fine. It's not even discouraged, just like you are allowed to link to redirects if you want. I strongly suspect that many editors won't even notice the change so will continue just doing what they always did which is fine. They just need to be aware that if they want to withdraw or add a parameter or change something it has to be done at the main infobox now. Betty Logan (talk) 05:50, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Question

In the "I'm so slow, turtles are passing me by" department, it has come to my attention that your user name "Betty Logan" refers to a character from Heaven Can Wait, not to your gender. Am I wrong to assume you are a woman? Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

You are not wrong on either account. Elizabeth is my middle name, and I use the name "Betty Logan" as a nod to the film character. Betty Logan (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I thought, but I had to ask. :) Viriditas (talk) 05:09, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Betty, I was wondering if you would be willing to reach out to SlimVigin on her talk page and try to put this behind the both of you. After all, if you were both working towards the same goal of improving the list, think how much you could accomplish! I realize that's asking a lot, but it wouldn't hurt to try to reach across the aisle. Viriditas (talk) 05:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I think Slim has to first accept the consensus from the RFC, that the article will be ordered alphabetically since it seems to me that is the biggest stumbling block between us. If she at least subscribes to that common goal I am actually open to discussion on everything else, and although she has taken exception to my comments at Talk:List_of_vegetarians#Images of women it is clear I am open to her suggestions about replacing some of the images, and adding section divides to the table and things like that. Betty Logan (talk) 06:16, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

She expressed concern about the images on my talk page, so it seems like we are all on board with that. Is there any way for you to take bull by the horns and start replacing some of the images with a more representative sample? See my talk page for more detail. Viriditas (talk) 06:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I've suggested some obvious replacements and an approach, but I feel if I actually pick them myself she still won't be happy, and I don't want to add fuel to the fire in the ownership case by starting to change lots of images. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

BTW, I feel that I have to mention this: when I was a child, Heaven Can Wait (1978) was one of my favorite films (after Star Wars of course). The scene that always stuck with me was when Farnsworth (now Pendleton) convinces Max he's really Pendleton. What a wonderful scene! I also refused to ride my bicycle through any tunnels after watching that film. Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Warren Beatty is very good in it. I loved him stuff like Heaven can Wait, Shampoo and McCabe and Mrs Miller before he started taking himself too seriously. Betty Logan (talk) 06:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

RfC

Please don't edit other people's posts, move their signatures, or change the structure of the RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry, but your RFC description was very biased. It easily violates the instructions for filing an RFC. However I am ok with it provided you leave my comments where they are, to address the extremely non-neutral tone. Betty Logan (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

BOM has finally replied

BOM has finally replied to my query. I've received a reply from Ray Subers, editor at BOM. This is what they said :-

"We don't have enough people on staff to keep up with this. Simple as that. Sorry.

Ray Subers

Editor, Box Office Mojo"

This reply came 2 days back but I noticed it just today. I think.they can still be qualified as a reliable source but still it is better to use Boxoffice instead if BOM where the total foreign gross is "N/A" or is inaccurate. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:29, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I do agree it is better to use the more up to date source, but if you have three different figures from BOM, BO.com and The Numbers it may not be easy to determine which source is the correct one. Betty Logan (talk) 23:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Changed the gross of Incredible Burt Wonderstone

While still using BOM as a source to avoid edit warring I've changed the worldwide box office gross of the film by manually calculating the whole foreign box office gross and adding it the domestic gross have to obtain the true "worldwide gross". As you can see I have instead linked the box office gross to this section (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=intl&id=burtwonderstone.htm) where the foreign gross of all territories is given. The difference comes out to be more than 5 million when the whole foreign gross is manually calculated and considering the small budget of the film it's a lot. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks ok to me. If anyone reverts you though, don't get into a fight about it, just start a discussion on the talk page and leave me a note ok? Betty Logan (talk) 11:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

OK but if someone just reverts it then what I am.to do? I mean some user could simply just revert the edit without seeing the edit summary or the discussion at talk page. And if it is an IP address then it will be nearly impossible to invite them.for discussion except if a close watch is kept on the page. But a close watch cannot be kept on forever on the article. Some user might just simply copy what he is seeing and might insert the domestic gross in place of worldwide gross since total worldwide gross is "N/A". Still thanks for understanding Betty. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

If it's an IP just revert it. If it's a regular editor it would be best to start a discussion to explain the problem. It might also be worth adding a hidden note next to the figure in the infobox so it doesn't get changed by mistake:

<!--The worldwide total at Box Office Mojo does not include the foreign grosses so these have been added in manually. You can check the figures by clicking on the "Foreign" tab at Box Office Mojo.-->

Betty Logan (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Alright thanks for the advice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 22:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Enjoy your time off! Betty Logan (talk) 12:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Changed the box office gross of The Call

I have also changed the box office gross of The Call by manually calculating the total foreign gross and adding it to the domestic gross to obtain the true "worldwide gross". KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring discussion

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring about the WP:3RR violations we've had to deal with at Ian Fleming‎. It's at [5] if you want to comment there. SonOfThornhill (talk) 22:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Follow-up on FAC

If possible, could you follow up on your initial comments at the FAC of Ra.One? It's languishing at the board with no new comments, so I'd be happy if I could see some solid progress. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 12:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I will post some thorough comments at the weekend Ankitbhatt, when I have a bit of time to go over it. OK? Betty Logan (talk) 12:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for your thorough review. I'll begin work as soon as possible. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 09:57, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello BL. I wanted to stop by and say thank you for your post at ANI in the thread that I was involved in. I feel sure that you would have preferred to be editing article so I really appreciate the time that you took to look into things and to post there. Cheers and have a good week. MarnetteD | Talk 17:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. It should have been chucked out by an admin straight away. If an editor cannot be bothered raising the issue on the article talk page to find out why their edit was reverted as opposed to just templating the other editor and reporting them at ANI then there isn't a case to answer to IMO. Betty Logan (talk) 18:28, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Gosh I just remembered the huge wikidrama that you went through a year or two ago. I am sorry that your efforts to make BRD a policy did not work out. Thanks for your efforts then as well. MarnetteD | Talk 18:35, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Betty from me too. The whole incident made me so angry that this is the first time I have dared to to post on the incident. Your comment here is exactly correct. All the best –
 – Gareth Griffith-Jones |The Welsh Buzzard|— 20:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Thoughts?

Hi Betty, Your thoughts would be much appreciated [[Talk:Global James Bond Day|here] regarding the merging of the Bond Day page. Many thanks. - SchroCat (talk) 06:13, 6 May 2013 (UTC)