User talk:BornonJune8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, BornonJune8! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking Insert-signature.png if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Jojhutton (talk) 11:39, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines

The community

Writing articles
User talk:BornonJune8/Archive 1
User talk:BornonJune8/Archive 2
User talk:BornonJune8/Archive 3
User talk:BornonJune8/Archive 4

List of box office bombs (2000s)[edit]

There is a discussion about what criteria we should be using for the List of box office bombs (2000s). You might want to participate in that discussion as it is forming a consensus as to what criteria is needed for a film's inclusion on the list. Also when you copy over a citation please make sure you find the full citation. For many of the entries, including what you added today, the citation you've copied only included the <nocode><ref name></nocode> which produces a citation error. Best, Barkeep49 (talk)

Hello again (apologies for not originally signing the above comment). I see that you are currently undertaking similar work to the one above at List of box office bombs (2010s). Please slow down your additions. The citation errors you're causing will require massive and time consuming clean-up. An emergency consensus is developing at Talk:List of box office bombs (2000s). I would ask that you please think about contributing your point of view to that discussion but in all cases to please be more careful with citations and to consider a pause on your work until a consensus about what films belong in these lists can be reached. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

As you've probably seen I have been steadily working away at List of box office bombs (2010s). However, I don't think it was unfair of Onetwothreeip to revert your adds to List of box office bombs (2000s). I wouldn't want to do the research you're doing to come up with the films in the first place or collate the data and so to the extent that these lists have value, that work is necessary. But these data dumps create HOURS of work for other editors to clean-up. From what I've seen, about 1/4 of what you dump into a letter is ultimately salvageable; it would be helpful if you could do some of that narrowing down in the first place. There seems to be consensus around the criteria for inclusion in these lists, at minimum could you do your own screening to make sure films either have clear citations for being called a bomb (or flop or disaster or other related term) or have clear citations to losing money? The sources you're drawing from don't meet Wikiepdia's standards of WP:RS and by listing them in the edit summaries you're now disregarding what's necessary for a copy-paste edit, which has been trouble for you in the past. Slow down. There is no WP:NODEADLINE. See to it that your hard work in assembling these lists comes to something. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 05:08, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Let me first make this clear that I've been using this particular site as a main point in reference. I've used the site Bomb Report as a further point in reference. And then there's this site to better supplement the list had what justifies going on there. The way that you're phrasing about how data dumps create HOURS to work on for others to clean-up, it to me sounds like it's my singular responsibility to make it more legible or consist. As long as you claim that it takes for you to try to clean up these lists, it takes almost as long for my to create the list in the first place. It's difficult for me to figure out how to operate at another editors desired pace. That would just put too much pressure and self-doubt on my shoulders for what I can or can't do to contribute to an article. It's only so much to just look for movies where the article literally spells it out that it was a "box office bomb". And when you bring up the edit summaries that I'm disregarding, bare in mind that I've tried to be conscientious in adding an Attribution note. BornonJune8 05:30, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
By reverting more recent edits or additions that I made, you're basically denying me a right or a chance to finish a list. Onetwothreeip never seemed to show me more patience over my additions. Instead of actually giving the time and the thought to properly analyze what has been added, just because it was crowding things up so to speak, they had to be rejected. Keep in mind that the notes section is there to give better context (whether its too much of a context for other people is up for judgement on its own) for why said movies are considered box office bombs in the first place. BornonJune8 05:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)
First of all you could have notified me by mentioning my name as an internal link, like User:Onetwothreeip, as I'm very willing to discuss this with you. I believe it is actually more fair to you that these edits are reverted now rather than being progressively deleted over time. The important reason to revert your edits is because a consensus does not believe you additions are described as box office bombs by reliable sources.
If you are saying now that your research has changed, I certainly welcome this but I would like to see you remove the wrong information you've put on the articles first before more information is added. When you add entries to these lists, it is certainly your responsibility to reference them with reliable sources that explicitly describe them as box office bombs. I'm certainly patient enough to analyse the entirety of the article(s) as much as I've can, and you've certainly made a lot. I will therefore remove the latest additions again, and as a courtesy to you I will retain the section to which I made those removals on my user page. With you, I and User:Barkeep49, we should be able to cut the articles down to acceptable criteria in an orderly amount of time, as long as there are no more big additions made. Thank you. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:58, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
You're also quite obviously jumping the gun based on a preconceived personal feeling that whatever has been added is inevitably or ultimately going to be deleted anyway. So by your logic, it's better for everybody's sake and time to just cut to the chase and remove whatever you feel doesn't belong before somebody else can. What makes you guarantee that such a thing is going to ultimately happen elsewhere or beyond your hands? BornonJune8 05:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
For the sake of the argument User:Onetwothreeip, I'm going to provide links the go into why the movies that you won't allow me to add are regarded as "box office bombs in the first place: Land of the Lost, The Lovely Bones, Leatherheads, Lions for Lambs, Love in Time of Cholera, Lucky You, The Last Legion, Lady in the Water, Lassie, Last Holiday, Little Children, The Last Kiss, Lord of War, Lords of Dogtown, The Libertine, Laws of Attraction, Little Black Book, The Life of David Gale, Life or Something Like It, Life as a House, Little Nicky, Loser, Lost Souls, Lucky Numbers. Again if you say that you're patient, then it's kind of ironic that you'll immediately remove any additions without much questioning. I don't fully understand what you're implying or suggesting when you talk about an "acceptable criteria" (either entries or what goes into the notes section for how they performed at the box office). BornonJune8 05:09, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: The biggest box office bombs from the 2000s:

BornonJune8 06:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@BornonJune8: I could have been clearer by what I meant by slowing down. As the person adding content to the article (which again is of value, as I think both Onetwothreeip and I have said) there is an obligation that's incumbent. Adding HUGE chunks of information, larger than many pages, and which goes against the consensus, such as it is, about what qualifies for the lists, is not collaborative or good editing. So when I say slow down my hope would be that before you add the content you take time to evaluate whether your additions qualify. That you take more time to not dump such huge amounts of text onto the page. This will slow down your edits, that's why I used the term slow down. Like Onetwothreeip my hope is that the volume of content you're adding slows in pace and the three of us (and drmies and any other editor who desires) can polish these into great lists (maybe even Featured Lists). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
User:BornonJune8, I implore you not to take any of this personally. It does not matter what you or I think are box office bombs, what matters is whether they are considered that by reliable sources. However I am inclined to include lesser known films that are blatantly box office bombs as well. Your edits have been reverted because they are against the consensus determination that they are not properly attributed, especially when there are clearly many misattributed entries in the articles. When edits are reverted in good faith, it takes a consensus to determine what should remain in the article. It's not simply a matter of who is most vigilant in making their edits the current version, otherwise that's simply an edit war. The website is not considered a reliable source. Would you at least agree that films that have higher box office revenue than their budget are not generally box office bombs and should be removed? If we don't continue removing false entries instead of adding more, we risk continuing to have published false information on Wikipedia. Please remove false entries from the articles before added more. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: There's so much that goes into the calculation of how much a film actually makes and some films depending on how much they actually spend want to make a huge, huge, huge profit, not just a big one. BornonJune8 07:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Sure, but generally it's not the case that a film that makes a profit is considered a box office bomb, right? I think you can agree to this. Many films you've listed were profitable, and most of those weren't considered box office bombs outside the sources like that you've used. Onetwothreeip (talk) 07:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Maybe not generally, but let's say Avengers: Infinity War had only made a 50 million dollar profit all the calculations included, it would be considered more or less a bust and very disappointing. BornonJune8 07:33, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Please stop your disruptive editing.

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia, as you did at List of box office bombs (2010s), you may be blocked from editing. Drmies (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

"Would you prefer this list to be left unfinished just so you can personally appease one particular Wikipedia editor?"--I'm not trying to appease anyone, and "unfinished"--I still doubt the validity of this in the first place, given the original research. Drmies (talk) 06:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

@Drmies:, you're taking what I said completely out of context and then make it essentially about yourself (without any other justification for why you feel they don't belong there besides what somebody use on Wikipedia may have suggested to you) when you complain about how you can't read the article on your cell phone or on your personal computer because you may or may not have a slower connection then mine. BornonJune8 06:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies:: My primary sources: TVTropes, Bomb Report, Greatest Box-Office Bombs, Disasters and Film Flops. And since you brought up the film 3 Generations...

BornonJune8 06:32, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

  • Sorry not sorry, but if anyone is making this about themselves it's you, and I note that other editors on those article talk pages are being extraordinarily lenient with you, even though you keep piling up material after a half dozen editors are objecting. I do not believe those sites you link are reliable sources, and that which you cite doesn't even mention "bomb", whatever "bomb" even means--I have no doubt there is no one single definition of the term. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
@Drmies: If these aren't more "decidedly reliable sources" than I don't know what are! And if I need to defend and explain myself, of course, in a round about way, it's going to be a case of making it about myself. And please spare me the sarcasm and amble threats. The Biggest Box-Office Bombs of 2010, 10 Biggest Box Office Flops of 2010 (So Far) - Parade, 15 Biggest Box Office Flops of 2011: THR Year In Review, 2011 By The Numbers: The Year In Box-Office Flops, The Biggest Box-Office Bombs Of 2012 - Business Insider, The 15 Biggest Box Office Bombs of 2012 - Pajiba, The Biggest Box Office Flops Of 2012 - Forbes, Hollywood's Biggest Box Office Bombs of 2013 – Variety, The Biggest Box-Office Bombs Of 2013, The Biggest Box-Office Bombs Of 2014 - Business Insider, 19 Biggest Box-Office Bombs and Bummers in 2014: From ‘The Giver’ to ‘Winter’s Tale’ (Photos), Biggest Box Office Flops of 2015 |, biggest box office bombs - Telegraph, 2016's Biggest Box Office Bombs | Hollywood Reporter, 20 Biggest Box Office Flops of 2016 - IGN,The 10 biggest box-office bombs of 2017 so far, 10 box-office bombs from 2017 | Fox News BornonJune8 05:14, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
I just don't think you really understand what WP:RS is all about. Entertainment Weekly? Fox? "Pajiba"? And how do you get from ten or twenty supposed flops in some article to over 600k of borrowed material? Drmies (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, I understand that BornonJune8 is being disruptive. But how does Entertainment Weekly not count as a WP:Reliable source? We use it all the time for film and celebrity information. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:00, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
EW is fine for some things but not for all. As a celebrity and entertainment tabloid it's not bad, but for anything more complicated, anything that requires a longer view than what happened last night, I think we should look elsewhere. Drmies (talk) 16:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Drmies, yeah, of course it's not reliable for everything. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and all. But as its Wikipedia article currently states, "EW primarily concentrates on entertainment media news and critical reviews." It's not primarily focused on the lives of celebrities. It's not what I would call a tabloid. But even regarding sources primarily focused on the lives of celebrities, remember that RfC we had on People magazine? Some considered People a tabloid as well (and some no doubt still do), but most editors stated that it's really not, at least as far as the traditional, typical and narrow senses go. And Entertainment Weekly is different than People magazine, as currently noted in its Wikipedia article. My point is that we commonly use it on Wikipedia for film information. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Drmies and Flyer22 Reborn, I would use Entertainment Weekly if it stated a film was a box office bomb on its own, but I would be more sceptical if it appeared on a list of box office bombs. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:50, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: You've mentioned that a couple times now. Curious why that is? From my perspective if it's just about movie X, great because it considered movie X, but if it's a list, also great because it's considering the topic of bombs. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, Entertainment Weekly does analyze box office matters. We generally use sources such as Box Office Mojo for straightforward statements about a film's box office data. But for analyses, I don't see Entertainment Weekly as an issue. Not even on a list of box office bombs that briefly comments on it, and where there's not much analysis. You can ask about the matter at WP:Film and/or MOS:Film. There have been WP:Film issues regarding what is a box office bomb. Betty Logan, one of our top film editors, got involved with watching the Box office bomb article. And I think that GoneIn60, another film editor, has been involved in one or more box office bomb topics. On a side note: Regarding this, WP:Pings only work with new signatures. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
I also see that Betty Logan is involved in box office disputes with BornonJune8. No need to ping me to this talk page, by the way. I'll keep checking back for comments. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip and Drmies: Granted, I wouldn't necessarily say that box office analysis is Entertainment Weekly's forte. For movies from the early 2000s or before, we probably should be wary of Box Office Mojo's budget listings - most are not based on anything resembling reality. We can check archives of Variety or the the LA Times. Also, check quarterly investor reports for write-downs and info on losses. All of the major studios are owned by publicly traded conglomerates. But I would like to think it's something you can only know for sure if you worked on the film its self or in the profession. BornonJune8 011:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
Bornon, what a roller coaster I went on reading the above comment. I was so with you every step of the way until the last sentence. If the reliable sources you mentioned aren't really reliable then we have no basis of criteria and thus should not have these lists at all. Since I choose to believe we do have reliable sources here we can use their findings, no WP:OR or WP:EXPERT required. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Barkeep49: My point after all of the sources that I provided, it's becoming frustrating. I'm starting to not know for sure what you personally think is truly reliable source. I keep having people immediately saying that only one of the links that I provided is in their eyes, "reliable". What I'm saying is that there might as well be some sort of fault in virtually any or every source. I never exactly determined that these particular sources aren't at all reliable. BornonJUne8 12:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Bornon, I'm going to assume the you is a plural given that several of us in this discussion seem to be in general agreement. If that assumption's wrong tell me and I'll respond differently. To answer your question, it's all about WP:RS. I have a professional background as a librarian and I still need to think about parts of WP:RS from time to time. Do you have questions about some of its content that maybe we could help talk about? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
To all, I think it's much clearer to say if we found a film on a list of box office bombs, but all the reliable profiles of that film did not mention it as a box office bomb. Being on a list of top 10 or 20 presumes that there are ten or twenty notable box office bombs from that year, when quite simply they might just want to make a list that people will read. I don't have a problem with Entertainment Weekly as a source, it's simply the lists. If a film is a box office bomb, a profile of that film would say so. BornonJune8, I really can't stress enough that amounts of money are not enough to establish a film as a box office bomb. Sources have to say they are a box office bomb, not that they lost X money. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:16, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: But the lists in general were strictly focused on movies that were regarded as "box office bombs". I don't understand entirely why you feel that a website that lists movies as "bombs" is unacceptable, but a article that focuses on a singular movie (which ironically, Bomb Report actually does) like that bombed is. Essentially, they're about the same topic when you get right down to it. And let's put it this way, if Entertainment Weekly made a list of box office bombs from any particular year, would you still consider it an unreliable source? BornonJune8 12:25, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Thanks. I now agree that giving extra scrutiny to lists to make sure that they are remaining reliable makes sense. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:28, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To solve the problem about sources, I propose BornonJune8 tells us what websites he wishes to use. We don't even need links, this should be as minimal as possible, and I don't expect to be going through massive amounts of data to surmise this. The only way this could be frustrating is if you keep trying to pass off the same sources which everyone else is rejecting. The second issue with sources is that they have to say the film is a box office bomb, but I'd like to get through the first issue first. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:22, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

@Onetwothreeip: Bomb Report, Variety, LA Times, Box Office Mojo, Forbes, and BornonJune8 12:41, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
We're talking here like we're talking to someone who has a topic ban or something. That's not the case. This whole conversation shouldn't be about one person's edits, even if that one person is the efficient cause for us being here. This needs to be hashed out on the talk page(s), where reliable sources should be discussed and, more importantly, what kind of sourcing can verify what until now looks like OR and how much content is acceptable. 600k is NOT acceptable, for instance. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
Agree. I accept some of those websites, I reject others, and that is best left for the article page. In fact, everyone here should really not be on this user talk page. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, BornonJune8. 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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.
I see you reverted twice more on the 2010 article. I have no doubt that if someone reported you for edit warring you would be blocked, so I urge you to tread more lightly. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)


I have been wondering why I haven't gotten pings from you and I figured it out. You've been writing {{Re|Barkeep49|}}. What you want is {{Re|Barkeep49}} without the second |. Also I'm unsure but I think that particular template might require an uppercase R. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:26, 21 June 2018 (UTC)