Talk:Avatar: The Way of Water/Archive 1

Archive 1

Production section?

Why is the production section so bare-boned? Why hasn't anything been added to it other than the "filming' was supposed to take place in April 2016? Nothing on this has been done. Npamusic (talk) 00:23, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Consolidate articles

Why don't consolidate these articles of the sequels in a single article titled Development of Avatar sequels or some?OscarFercho (talk) 13:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

RfC notice

There is a request for comment whose outcome may affect this article: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#RfC on distributor of post-merger Fox films. Nardog (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Music

Hello, the current article linked in the music section is a dead link (as seen here, https://filmmusicreporter.com/2019/12/17/simon-franglen-to-score-james-camerons-avatar-sequels/) Composer Simon Franglen is reported to be composing songs for the sequel films and not the score. The site has replaced it with this new article (https://filmmusicreporter.com/2019/12/17/simon-franglen-to-compose-songs-for-james-camerons-avatar-sequels/) Nwyde (talk) 05:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Avatar : The Way of Water

I heard that the title is "Avatar : The Way of Water". Is that confirmed????? BlacKroma (talk) 02:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Not confirmed. It's an old rumour mentioned at Avatar 2#Marketing, and discussed at Talk:Avatar (2009 film)#Sequel titles. PrimeHunter (talk) 02:28, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Too many citations...

Why do certain points in this article have 9-11 citations? That is definitely not needed and needs to be cleaned up. QueerFilmNerd^talk 07:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Avatar 2 should become number 1.

2409:4052:708:78AB:F546:CF1D:7D8E:D88D (talk) 18:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Citation overkill

This Kate Winslet as Ronal, a free-diver of the Metkayina. Winslet called Ronal "a pivotal character in the ongoing story", but also "relatively small comparative to the lengthy shoot", as shooting all her scenes would only take a month. It marks her first time working with performance capture, or motion capture altogether; she, like most of the child cast, also had to learn free-diving for the film.

Is straight up WP:CITEKILL.CycoMa (talk) 14:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Disney as the distributor?

Shouldn't Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures be listed as the distributor? Per this on the 20th Century Studios page; "Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures distributes and markets the films produced by 20th Century."

I'm afraid we'll keep it as 20th Century Studios. Because Disney is Uncredited although they Distributed the Film, It's not Necessary. --Happiness is Simple (talk) 09:19, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an animated film

Motion capture performances do not make something live action. Otherwise The Polar Express would be considered live action, or even video game cutscenes, such as the ones in Uncharted 4. This film is 100% computer generated, which is even more than The Lion King 2019, which was ~98%, as some live action elements were used. Tytygh55 (talk) 05:15, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Provide a WP:RS for your claim. Krimuk2.0 (talk) 07:12, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Tytygh55: This isn't specific enough. What statement in the article do you disagree with? I see you tried to add "computer-animated" to the lead, but that's not the same thing as disagreeing with a claim. What claim are you referring to? For reference, a portion of the film features human characters that are not CGI. You can see several of those scenes in the first teaser trailer here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The Jungle Book and Lion King remakes aren't considered animated either, so this too shouldn't. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Wall-E also features live action humans for a few parts. Does that make it an live action film? At the very least it's a hybrid film. Tytygh55 (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

A closer equivalent might be Ready Player One, but it doesn't really matter. On Wikipedia, we follow what reliable sources are saying. A good resource for film is an online database called AllMovie, where you can look up each film. While genre and other stats are probably the most helpful metrics from this database, the synopsis can be as well, such as how the first Avatar is described here. If there are other sources you'd like to bring to the table, please do. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

If a large portion of a live-action film uses computer-generated effects as well as green screen/blue screen effects, it doesn't 100% mean it's animated. Films such as Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Space Jam, and many others are examples of live-action/animated films. I'm sure there are other reliable sources out there. Edwordo13 (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Viable source for marketing section

Hi... Just going through my emails, and noticed this article in Ad Age that may be of use for the marketing section of the article. -- Zanimum (talk) 18:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Critical reception statement in the lead

PDAF14YT, you recently added unsourced claims to the lead section. If you formed this analysis on your own, it is original research and should be removed. If this specific summary is tied to a source, please share the source.

Per WP:FILMLEAD, "Any summary of the film's critical reception should avoid synthesis, meaning it should reflect an overall consensus explicitly summarized by one or more reliable sources." GoneIn60 (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2022

there's a typo, fix it by changing the word "acceped" to "accepted" 74.72.57.244 (talk) 05:27, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done RealAspects (talk) 07:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Pro-violence message

This film carries a strong message condoning and approving of violence.

1. After Lo'ak and Jake's other children fight with Tonowari's son and his friends, Jake asks what the other children look like after the fight, and reacts positively when he is told that they look at lot worse than his children.
2. At a certain moment it is explained that the tulkun forswore killing "no matter how justified", and that Payakan was made an outcast because he killed. Tsireya adds that even though Payakan did not kill himself, but only caused deaths, that is still against the "tulkun way". Lo'ak then explains that Payakan knows that what he did was wrong and that he would "never do it again". All of this not withstanding, Payakan is shown towards the end of the film to kill many humans, to save Lo'ak and others.

I am sure that I am not the only one who noticed this tacit and not so tacit message approving of violence, and I think it would make sense to find sources and add this to the article. Debresser (talk) 03:18, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:Debresser. Violence is ingrained in (Western) society and culture, to such an extent, that I don't believe this film's "pro-violence message" stands out among other films. What I mean to write is that, while you may very well be right that this film's stance on violence is that it is a useful tool to resolve conflicts, I think too many films share this characteristic for this to be notable - and therefore noteworthy - in the eyes of critics and such. I've looked on websites of parental and christian organizations, to see if I could provide you with the requested sources, but while they state the film contains heavy violence, they do not state the violence in question is generally considered morally wrong or offensive. The film is rated PG-13, for, among other things, sequences of strong violence. I do understand your suggestion, but it may be difficult finding a reliable source that states the film's approval of violence is notable. --2001:1C06:19C9:400:9D38:4610:9204:4ED8 (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I think (1) is just a play on a common trope in television shows and movies. Given that the violence in (2) was necessary to protecy Payakan's "family" I would regard it as more "anti-pacifist" than "pro-violence". If you can find sources that say that the film promotes violence then it may be fine to add them, but I didn't see that. Certainly no more than Star Wars films or Avengers films or pretty much any other films where good guys have to defend themselves against bad guys. Rlendog (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Mention this entry as the first film to be released under Disney?

Should we mention in the opening paragraph that this is the first film in the series to be released after Disney's acuqusion of 20th Century or released under Disney ownership? I think that would be helpful? You can keep the distrubutor as 20th Century but at least in the opening paragraph mention that its first film to be released under Disney. NakhlaMan (talk) 11:47, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a brief blurb in the lead could suffice. It is mentioned in the Release section. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 07:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Mistake in the quoted section

There may be a mistake in the quoted section in 'Production', under 'Development'. There is an obvious grammatical error ("but is a father of four going do that", instead of the correct "but is a father of four going to do that"). However, the source quotes it as such, meaning this isn't a mistake by Wikipedia. So, should [sic] be used here, or should we silently copyedit the quote? 83.178.143.2 (talk) 19:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

If it is quoted verbatim, with parenthesis, then we should add [sic]. If it is a free quote, we can - and should - fix the mistake. Debresser (talk) 16:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Tsahìk

What the hell is this and why is it in the article without any explanations or reasonings why to use non-word in here — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.151.93.135 (talk) 17:42, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Tsahìk are the clan’s spiritual leaders. I’m unsure how to provide an explanation to the term- perhaps a link to the previous movie? Vu-Lam L.N. (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 December 2022

In Cast, it's written James Flatters who plays Neteyam. But it should be Jamie Flatters. The actor who plays Neteyam is Jamie Flatters 116.74.238.126 (talk) 19:41, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Mike Allen 21:53, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 December 2022

Avatar: The Way of Water's box office has grown to $950 million since Monday 26th December. Willardatkinson (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. RealAspects (talk) 13:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Misplaced introduction in lead

Yo! Just thought I'd shout out that there's a sentence in the lead (At the very top of the page) which probably shouldn't be there. Do with it as you please.49.190.88.161 (talk) 49.190.88.161 (talk) 08:57, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Which sentence? Mike Allen 04:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Break even?

I'm a little confused by the film needing to make $1.5 to $2 billion to break even. It’s production budget was, high end, $460 million. The film has grossed $955 million. Shouldn’t at least 50% of that make it back to the producers? If so, they've already broke even. I’m confused as to how a film with a budget of just under $500 million needs $1.5-2 billion to just break even. Do they only receive 25% of the box office? The article should explain this better. Juneau Mike (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article doesn't explain it at all really, because not much is really known. The "$2 billion" figure comes from Cameron during an interview, which was regurgitated across many sources, but who knows how much truth is actually behind that estimate. What we do know is that most sources have settled on $460 million as the production cost before P&A (Prints & Advertising). So if there was a crazy amount of P&A raising the total cost to $750 million, the film's break even point could theoretically be close to $1.5 billion. We'll have to wait for better sources to break that down for us. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:01, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 December 2022

Avatar: The Way of Water has currently grossed $1.025 billion as of Tuesday 27 December. Willardatkinson (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done Willardatkinson Please provide a source for the statement. 331dot (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

12 Days to 1 billon

Should we write about how it took the film 12 days to reach 1 billion? Seems pretty notable Bdonan (talk) 03:47, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

No, because that's wrong. It was released on December 14 and per Deadline Hollywood it is expected to hit the $1B worldwide milestone with today's turnout as of December 27. That's 14 days, not 12. Anyway, we would need sources to confirm that it actually has crossed the $1 billion mark on that day as expected. TompaDompa (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

break even point

An industry article I read a while ago, said a good projection for a marketing budget is between double and triple the cost of the film. A good way to visualize it is this, $250 million production, then $250 million minimum of marketing, but almost never over $375. If that makes sense. My math is funky but it is between doubling it and doubling it and adding half. This makes the break even price a minimum of $500 million to $625 in this example. So The statement here that it is possible they lost money is entirely possible. I noticed an exceptional level of adds on youtube and the Cable, so much I kept yelling hurry up and get to theaters so I don’t have to deal with this and then they took it down from 15 ads per day in like a 4 hour viewing period to 12 per day. 71.222.185.111 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2022

In the Visual Effects section of this Wikipedia page there is a sentence that says "Cameron stated that there was possibility that the film could be shown in "glasses-free 3D", along with the sequels." , there is a grammatical error in this sentence because there should be an "a" before the word possibility. Konstantinos Kalousis (talk) 14:45, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Indagate (talk) 15:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Avatar 2 at the 95th Oscars shortlist

The movie was shortlisted for the 95th Oscars in the following categories: Best Original Score, Best Original Song, Best Sound, Best Visual Effects.[1] Is this worth a mention in the article? Vestigium Leonis (talk) 19:34, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't think shortlist are normally mentioned, only if nominated. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. Definitely a WP:MINORASPECT that shouldn't be included. TompaDompa (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

I see. I am just wondering now, is anything related to the Oscars a minor aspect though? Based on what is being said in the stated WP, it should not be used as a highlight on the article but would make sense in the accolades area to me. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 23:57, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Break even correction

James Cameron claims in new video that his communication on break even were not accurate and states that 10th highest grossing (around 1.5b) is more fitting. Only problem is: I was not able to locate the original source yet, it is just shared on reddit, twitter etc. Does anyone perhaps know where this comes from? I also do not know what language is used for the information / subtitles. [2] Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 December 2022

Fix Box office back to 1.101billion 2404:3100:1400:DBB6:F3A5:8884:6495:DDF6 (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

The box office is correct per stated source. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Hatnotes linking to ATLA

What's this back and forth removal and addition of these? RapMonstaXY (talk) 10:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Meaning of RDA

The abbreviation RDA is used multiple times but never explained as far as I can see: neither as a link nor in parentheses. Could some make the first appearance of it a link (if that makes sense, I don't what it means) or add "(R... D... A...)" to it.--176.199.18.181 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I linked it to Resources Development Administration which redirects to Fictional universe of Avatar#Human interest.Mike Allen 00:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

MikeAllen, I actually have a long-hidden draft at User:Erik/Resources Development Administration (and have some snapshots of pages to reference further). I'm not really sure if the RDA was explicitly named in the film, as the second wave seemed to be broader than RDA. Do we know for sure that the RDA equals the second wave, or if we should reword the plot summary to avoid RDA mention? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:43, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

When I did a search on Wikipedia for RDA, I came across that page and included it in my comment. However, I realized it was not a draft, but on your user page, so I removed it. I haven't seen the film, but if they never mention "RDA", then it should not be in the article. Mike Allen 16:12, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

"Avatar 2"

There's a hatnote which says that "Avatar 2" redirects here. Rockmusicfanatic20 additionally added it as a bolded alternative title in the WP:LEAD. I removed it as redundant, and was reverted by Rockmusicfanatic20 in short order. It was then removed by JoaumBoladaum and restored again by Rockmusicfanatic20. Before this WP:Edit war escalates further, let's talk it out here on the talk page. TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree with adding "(also known as Avatar 2)" in the lead. There is a hatnote and four lines down the lead its written "it is the sequel to Avatar (2009) and the second installment in the Avatar film series." I just don't see how a reader could be confused. Mike Allen 16:38, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a single marketing tag for this movie uses 'Avatar 2', the filmmakers don't call it like that, and there is no need to add it for clarification since it has a pretty distinctive subtitle. There is no such thing on the Top Gun: Maverick page, for example, calling it 'Top Gun 2'. It's ugly, wrong and unecessary. JoaumBoladaum (talk) 17:34, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I also think it is not necessary. For example: The fifth film in the Scream franchise, Scream (2022 film), is treated in the same way. You could add the "also known as Scream 5" in here, but the redirect function already does its work. Vestigium Leonis (talk) 17:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Alright, I think it's pretty clear that there is no consensus for including this, so I have removed it again. TompaDompa (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I originally added "Avatar 2" as an alternative title based on different things, people were still discussing the film as "Avatar 2" in conversations and not as "The Way of Water" which is the official title. People were naturally saying that, and in the media also, they were also still branding the film as "Avatar 2" of which I used as references. You could argue it's redundant but there are places on Wikpedia in articles still despite their redundancy. Chart headers in music articles for example, heck, they are even encouraged by the accessibility rules. I even said to the person who initially reverted my addition; TompaDompa by saying "Both are sufficient as each other, it's not redundant either. This way it's also properly sourced for the article as one of the main titles it's referred to by the public and media as it naturally will. Please do not revert." when he tried to argue the point of the the redirect link being stated at the top of the article which is equally as redundant, both are however still, sufficient enough to use for the article. It's not like I added this with zero references, which I didn't. I undid JoaumBoladaum's edit for what anyone else would do is removed validly sourced information with no edit summary, looking like they just want to remove it to vandalise a page. You cannot for the life of me accuse me of partaking in an edit war when I'm the one trying to de-escalate the situation and discouraging it by asking people not to remove information that is perfectly well and reliably sourced. Undoing someone's edit for removing sourced information is not an editing war if I saw that at an attempt at vandalising a page. This is a consistent problem on Wikipedia among other editors and has happened to me in other situations as well, there are a lot of things I see on pages that I don't personally agree with or like, but I never remove it, because it's specifically sourced. I feel my displeasure and what I feel is an ugly double standard and a precedent that should not be set.

TompaVestigum's Scream example is reasonable, and I remember at one point. It was included but was removed, because it wasn't sourced. Add information which is sourced, don't remove information that is perfectly reliably sourced, especially if it's by mainstream outlets like the BBC for example. Thank you. Rockmusicfanatic20 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It might have been more fair to say "before this escalates into an outright WP:Edit war" rather than saying that it already was one. The Scream example was not mine but Vestigium Leonis', by the way. I did consider using Top Gun: Maverick as an example but decided against it, though that didn't much matter since JoaumBoladaum did so later anyway. At any rate, we do not and are not supposed to include all information that we can reliably source. We have a whole host of other considerations, such as WP:Balancing aspects. TompaDompa (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Note

@Indopug @Toa Nidhiki05 May seem obvious but the first part of the plot could be a flashback, or something, seems useful to the reader to explicitly mention it in a note. Only taking small space. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I've not seen Avatar 2 yet but wouldn't "Fifteen years after" have to be established in the second film? In which case why bother calling out the first film? Also the reader has already learned from the lede that this film has a prequel, so he understands that some stuff happened before.—indopug (talk) 18:04, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It's standard practice on WP to have an efn note linking to the previous film in a series, unless we're dealing with a standalone sequel where the previous film doesn't really matter. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the inclusion of the explanatory footnote. Sometimes these things come from flashbacks (as Indagate notes) or supplementary material—this could have been from a novel or single-issue comic book bridging the two films, for instance. As a comparison, Blade Runner 2049 had an accompanying series of short films with backstory. TompaDompa (talk) 18:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the footnote can be helpful as well. There have been other media to the Avatar franchise besides the first film.Rlendog (talk) 19:33, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Kate Winslet holding her breath

The bit about Kate Winslet holding her breath for so long is clearly untrue. I know there’s citations but that doesn’t prove it’s anything other than a bit of marketing. Can we at least add “claimed” when it’s referred to. 2A02:C7C:BCA0:CA00:5158:56F0:BB3B:EDE0 (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia content is based on verifiable, reliable sources. WP:V and WP:RS. It is not about WP:TRUTH. Anyway you would need to support your assertion that it is untrue and just marketing with reliable sources better than those that support that information Robynthehode (talk) 19:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's start with a known rule of thumb that says that one can not survive over 3 minutes under water without sustaining brain damage. Googling How long can I survive under water? would be a good start. Turns out the record is over 24 minutes, according to this article. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Kate Winslet holding her breath for 7 minutes is certainly plausible, because she would have inhaled pure oxygen for a few minutes beforehand and not regular air. The world record for Static_apnea is 24 minutes (but this involved lying motionless just below the surface which would not make for a very interesting film). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.94.173.123 (talk) 09:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Misses important critical point

Article needs to point Native American Reaction to movie controversy is all over the news:

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/avatar-sequel-evokes-criticism-from-indigenous-activistsagain-180981351/

https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/movies/story/2022-12-19/native-american-boycott-avatar-the-way-of-water

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/22/entertainment/avatar-2-way-of-water-indigenous-boycott-cec/index.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.203.218.186 (talk) 01:20, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

India Box Office Has To Be Added

In India The Film Has Earned Above 54 Million please add that after UK 122.163.71.82 (talk) 06:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Any special reason to add this? Top 5 seems to be sufficient for now. 2A02:908:893:FF40:B99D:87B1:4603:B8C5 (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

It is the biggest English movie of all time there after beating Endgame recently. 2001:8F8:172B:3A55:60C3:F723:49CB:843 (talk) 07:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Second-fastest to cross $2 billion, but how many days?

The movie has passed $2 billion globally in record time for the franchise, and it's the second-fastest movie to ever eclipse the mark. But how many days exactly did it hit the mark? Last time we had this conversation for its $1 billion record, we ruled it at 14 days. I'm tied between 37 and 39 days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PDAF14YT (talk • contribs) 16:44, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Assuming it crossed $2 billion today (Sunday 22 January), it was 40 days. The film was released on 14 December. TompaDompa (talk) 18:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Would it be alright to add that? PDAF14YT (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

From a WP:No original research perspective, sure—the number of days is to my eye a pretty clear example of a WP:Routine calculation. Less sure about whether it represents WP:Due weight. TompaDompa (talk) 06:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Weekend grosses in the US and Canada

I replaced In the fourth weekend it grossed $45.8 million for a drop of 32%. In the fifth it grossed $32.8 million while dropping 28%, and $39.9 million during the four-day Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend. In the sixth weekend it grossed $20.1 million for a drop of 38%. with It remained the highest-grossing film at the box office throughout its first seven weekends of release. This was reverted by Roman Reigns Fanboy with the motivation Avatar's weekends were record setting. All films mention how much they made in successive weekends. This is incorrect. According to The Numbers, it had the third-highest fourth and fifth weekend gross and the seventh-highest sixth and seventh weekend gross. In fact, this film has grossed less than the original Avatar (2009) every single weekend since weekend two. Moreover, content of the type "The film grossed X in week Y, dropping Y%" is just WP:RAWDATA with no analysis. That's perhaps appropriate for news reporting, but not for writing an encyclopedia article. It also contributes to the excessive focus on the US and Canada over the rest of the world, resulting in a WP:Systemic bias issue. On the other hand, noting that the film was the highest-grossing film at the box office seven weekends in a row succinctly gives the reader context about the box office legs this movie has had so far. TompaDompa (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I used the wrong word, I should have said it's among the top grossing weekends instead of recors. I did acknowledge and amend my mistake here. [3]

We don't have to consider if it grossed lesser than Avatar, it has still had a good performance whuch is notable. Also all your edit User:TompaDompa says is: "It remained the highest-grossing film at the box office throughout its first seven weekends of release."

How is anyone supposed to discern it had good legs and marginal drops from it remaining first? Or how it's actually performing? Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Also as for systemic bias, nearly all film articles I've seen focus on US and Canada performance. If we started including performances in every country then this will be a long article. With that said I've included international grosses for each weekend, how much it's made in top 5 countries and even how it's the top grossing film in India. So I don't see where the systemic bias is. A film that was made in the US is obviously going to have more news reports focusing on its domestic gross which would be much larger than any other country. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 19:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

It's atypical to remain at number one for that many weekends in a row (which we can source to e.g. Variety, if need be). It's at least as clear as listing the individual weekend grosses and a lot more succinct. Ideally, we would replace the raw data with some actual analysis from box office analysis, as we do for e.g. Top Gun: Maverick (Box office analysts attributed the film's longevity at the box office to positive critical reviews and word of mouth.). I'm sure you'll agree that it would be ridiculous to give individual weekend grosses for twenty weekends in a row.

I'm not saying that every country in the world should get the same level of detail. But devoting more space to the US and Canada than to the rest of the world is a pretty clear example of WP:Systemic bias. TompaDompa (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

So you simply presume readers would figure out without even mentioning its box office performance at all?

According to the summary of WP:MTAU you should strive to make each part of an article understandable and not presume that the readership is going to understand it: "A good article will grab the interest of all readers and allow them to learn as much about the subject as they are able and motivated to do. An article may disappoint because it is written well above the reading ability of the reader, because it wrongly assumes the reader is familiar with the subject or field, or because it covers the topic at too basic a level or is not comprehensive." A common person who doesn't have much sense of the box office isn't going to know how it performed.

According to WP:EP: "It is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources." Merely saying it's #1 for seven weeks and basing it on your presumption that a reader will know it had strong legs is not how this site operates.

I'm not going to give grosses for 20 weekends (it most likely won't be #1 next week).

Do you expect superhit Bollywood films to give you detailed grosses of how they're performing in countries other than India every weekend? I cedtainly don't. This is not systemic bias. It's just bias for the biggest market. In case of American films, the US and Canada market is going to be the biggest simply because it's the home market. You're welcome to add detailed performances from other countries, but beyond maybe China I doubt you'll find any. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:18, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Also if you want me to, I can start trying to include weekly grosses from China myself right now. Hopefully that would be enough to ease your concerns of systemic bias. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 20:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

That's not what I said, and you know it. The reader is not going to get a deeper understanding about anything by reading In the sixth weekend it grossed $20.1 million for a drop of 38%. That's just raw data. What will help the reader understand is some kind of context, such as for instance mentioning that box office analysts said XYZ based on ABC.

According to WP:EP: "It is Wikipedia policy that information in Wikipedia should be verifiable and must not be original research. Show that content is verifiable by referencing reliable sources." Merely saying it's #1 for seven weeks and basing it on your presumption that a reader will know it had strong legs is not how this site operates. – what are you talking about? The quoted passage of WP:EP is completely irrelevant to the point you are trying to make here. As I said, it's at least as informative as giving the raw data for the individual weekends (while being a lot more succinct) and we can provide context sourced to e.g. Variety if deemed necessary.

This is not systemic bias. It's just bias for the biggest market. – that's rather nonsensical. Bias for the biggest market is a type of systemic bias.

I'm not suggesting adding weekly grosses from China or anywhere else. I'm suggesting that we try not to be overly detailed about the US/Canada stuff. Titanic was number one at the box office for fifteen straight weekends, but writing stuff like In the twelfth weekend it grossed $17.6 million for a drop of 10%. for each of those weekends would obviously not improve that article. Sometimes, less is more. TompaDompa (talk) 20:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes they would by seeing the marginal drops in the box office, which is 40% or less for every weekend.

The point about WP:EP is that a claimed information must be sourced, yes it's entirely relevant. That is if you even intend to include such a claim. If your idea instead is simply that they should just presume that is against WP:MTAU. You're presuming the comprehension of the reader and discounting those who might not understand what you've implied.

Sometimes less is more. But a complete lack of information is simply nothing.

The biggest markets give out more news and other information about how a movie is performing. Why would you think you'll be able to find out more about performance a film made in India in non-Indian countries than India? Systemic bias is about having a NPOV. The word basically means supporting a particular thing or outcome, way of thinking. None of that is happening or intended here. If you want performances of any other countries included, you should just add them or can say they should be added. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you not see the contradiction between they would by seeing the marginal drops in the box office, which is 40% or less for every weekend and You're presuming the comprehension of the reader and discounting those who might not understand what you've implied? You're assuming that the reader will see the significance of the lowish percentage-wise drops while arguing that they won't see the significance of being at the top of the box office for seven consecutive weekends. I can support the latter being atypical with sources that raise that point in the context of this very movie if needed, as noted above. We want box office analysis, not just box office data (there are box office databases for that purpose).

The point about WP:EP is that a claimed information must be sourced Are you saying that the information I added failed verification?

a complete lack of information is simply nothing. It's a good thing I'm not proposing a complete lack of information then.

An excessive focus on certain parts of the world is an expression of WP:Systemic bias. Wikipedia is supposed to maintain a WP:GLOBAL perspective. TompaDompa (talk) 21:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I must say that this comes across as rather WP:POINTy. TompaDompa (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

A person is onviously more likely to know that something lost less momey by seeing how much money they lost, than by not seeing how much they lost at all. There's no contradiction here because the facts are being presented to the reader about the drops being low. We aren't presenting box office data for every weekend. And you've never presented one statement about it having strong legs. What's the presumption? That a small drop is a small drop?

Most of the article isn't even about US or Canada. So your claim doesn't apply.

As for this being pointy, how is me saying I'm going to add other countries and justify that your arguments don't have any merits since most of the section doesn't focus on WP:POINTy? The policy you cite is about being disruptive efforts to sway the consensus, not about trying to make an article look more improved and agreeable to others.

WP:DR lists editing and improving a disputed section as one of the methods to resolve a dispute. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

The presumption is recognizing e.g. 38% as a small drop.

And you've never presented one statement about it having strong legs. What are you talking about?

Most of the article isn't even about US or Canada. And I never said it was. I'm saying the "Box office" section goes into an excessive amount of detail about the US and Canada.

Do you think that edit improved the article? You knew beforehand that my objection wasn't a lack of detail about other countries but excessive detail about the US and Canada. TompaDompa (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You've shown nothing that demonstrates it had strong legs. You've suggested really nothing that can resolve the dispute.

How is it "excessive" when most of it it doesn't focus on US and Canada? I assumed you meant most of the section referring to US or Canada, but if it's not that I don't see what you're actually referring to. And I request that you please stop presuming what I know or don't.

I don't think the edit improved the article, I think I'm making useless edits to satisfy you when you are never satisfied and always display WP:OWNERSHIP. You create needless disputes often.

I mentioned in my edit summary that the article is not focusing on US and Canada to demonstrate the article is already improved. The "Important Note" section of WP:POINTy particularly says it's to be applied when edits are made to draw attention to something. If you're going to accuse someone, please at least accuse them correctly.

This article isn't going to conform to your preferences no matter what. Having a dispute and wanting your own version imposed is not the same thing. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You've shown nothing that demonstrates it had strong legs. What are you talking about?

How is it "excessive" when most of it it doesn't focus on US and Canada? By going into an excessive level of detail with raw data. As I already said.

I don't think the edit improved the article, I think I'm making useless edits to satisfy you Then you are in fact, by your own admission, disrupting Wikipedia intentionally to make a point. TompaDompa (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm talking about you adding something to the article or offer a suggestion in this disscusion, that shows to the ordinary readers that it had strong box office legs every week. Even to those who have no idea about how box office works. You haven't done that.

Yes of course 38% is a small drop. But if you want to consider it as bigger you can, the readers can decide it for themselves. But somehow presenting no information at all and you hoping they'll glean it from your statement about it being #1 7 weeks in a row isn't a presumption?

By going into an excessive level of detail with raw data. As I already said. You simply saying it's excessive isn't going to make me understand how it's excessive. I've offered raw data for the international region too. So there's no focus on US and Canada. Where's the excessive level?

Then you are in fact, by your own admission, disrupting Wikipedia intentionally to make a point. No I'm not. I already said I'm making the edit so there won't be a reason for dispute, I don't think it really is necessary or improves. That's not "disruption", it's WP:DR or dispute resolution which I explicitly told you earlier.

I never said I personally think it is, I said I'm trying to make it look more improved and agreeable to others which you've simply ignored: The policy you cite is about being disruptive efforts to sway the consensus, not about trying to make an article look more improved and agreeable to others.

When there is no disruption and you're accusing someone of it despite knowing he's editing simply for dispute resolution, that's not just a violation of WP:AOBF on your part but also can be seen as clear dishonesty. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 23:21, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggested back in my first reply to you that we could add context from Variety, which says that it is "a run of No. 1 finishes that now ranks as the 12th-most ever".

Yes of course 38% is a small drop. I don't think that is more obvious than 7 weekends at number one being a strong performance. We can use Variety to back up the latter. What about the former?

Where's the excessive level? The excessive level is in presenting a bunch of raw data without context, analysis, or explanation. The specific example is In the fourth weekend it grossed $45.8 million for a drop of 32%. In the fifth it grossed $32.8 million while dropping 28%, and $39.9 million during the four-day Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend. In the sixth weekend it grossed $20.1 million for a drop of 38%. That's a bunch of raw data without context, analysis, or explanation.

I already said I'm making the edit so there won't be a reason for dispute Except you knew ahead of time that it would have no such effect. Because you asked me if I wanted you to add the additional detail about other countries, and I said I didn't. I specifically laid out that the problem was not a lack of detail about other countries, but too much detail about the US and Canada. And then you added additional detail about other countries. Which you don't personally think improves the article. And which you knew I didn't think would resolve the issue, either.

Here's my specific suggestion about how to improve this article: don't present a bunch of raw data without context, analysis, or explanation. In particular, don't include In the fourth weekend it grossed $45.8 million for a drop of 32%. In the fifth it grossed $32.8 million while dropping 28%, and $39.9 million during the four-day Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend. In the sixth weekend it grossed $20.1 million for a drop of 38%., which is a bunch of raw data without context, analysis, or explanation. TompaDompa (talk) 23:41, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

All you suggested was adding that it has remained at top of box office for seven weeks and letting the reader presume about its legs.

The excessive level is in presenting a bunch of raw data without context, analysis, or explanation. I did provide explanations for some weekends and why they were high or low (like the Winter storm or holiday weekends). However presenting raw data doesn't show preference for one region. Going into excessive detail with explaining minutely is what's actually "excessive", you're suggesting doing the exact thing you're accusing me of.

And none

of it is giving value to the US and Canada over others unlike what you claimed. If your problem isn't lack of other countries then you're using the wrong argument against it. Systemic bias is about preferential for one region, not being excessive.

As I told you please stop presuming what I knew or didn't. I always presumed it was excessive focus on US and Canada. As for your claim "And which you knew I didn't think would resolve the issue, either." can you please tell me where I said that? What I said was I don't think the edit improved the article, I think I'm making useless edits to satisfy you when you are never satisfied and always display WP:OWNERSHIP. It meant that while the chance seems low and your behaviour of not being satsified seems as usual, I'm still trying and hoping. But it seems I'm just wasting my time. Not that I know you won think so. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

All you suggested was adding that it has remained at top of box office for seven weeks and letting the reader presume about its legs. Read my comment from 19:40 again. I said It's atypical to remain at number one for that many weekends in a row (which we can source to e.g. Variety, if need be). That was me suggesting a way to provide context, if deemed necessary to do so. Context has now been provided from a different source.

I did provide explanations for some weekends Right, but not for all of them. Which is why I objected to weekends four through six, which had no such explanations. There's a reason I didn't say anything about weekend two or three. As I said from the very start, content of the type "The film grossed X in week Y, dropping Y%" is just WP:RAWDATA with no analysis. TompaDompa (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposed edits

I added context to the seven consecutive weekends at number one from ABC. Now I suggest we do the following:

• Remove In the fourth weekend it grossed $45.8 million for a drop of 32%. In the fifth it grossed $32.8 million while dropping 28%, and $39.9 million during the four-day Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend. In the sixth weekend it grossed $20.1 million for a drop of 38%., which is a bunch of raw data without context, analysis, or explanation. The number of weekends at number one along with the added context from ABC quite adequately convey that the movie has had strong legs at the box office.
• Merge the two paragraphs in the "US and Canada" section.
• Remove the "China" section since neither of us thinks it improves the article.

That would make the article look like this. What do you think? TompaDompa (talk) 00:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your first proposal. I am not going to agree with your second or third. Because having long paragraphs makes it difficukt to read and navigate. As for China, while I don't think it's needed other users who aren't here to display ownership behaviour might be more interested in it. That said I do think its China peeformance is still notable enough for it to be included. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll remove the raw data about weekends four through six then. I'll also ask you to retract your WP:OWN accusations or take it to WP:ANI. TompaDompa (talk) 00:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Alright, that's taken care of. I hope you'll reconsider merging the paragraphs for two reasons: (1) they are rather unbalanced and (2) having two paragraphs for the US and Canada and only one for "Other territories" doesn't look good. I'd also note that there is scope overlap between the "China" section and the "Other territories" section. TompaDompa (talk) 00:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

While I'm agreeing to cooperate I'm not going to retract anything I said about you, I stand by it. Unfortunately I'm aware that the admins rarely ever punish editors like you. Or I would have complained you long ago.

As for the paras. It's easier to read and navigate with two paras, there's nothing unbalanced about it. Not every section needs to have the same number of paras.

About China and other territories, I'll separate them.

But don't expect me to agree to every detail over some dispute. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be a feasible way to separate China and other territories since the international grosses include China and subtracting the Chinese gross for every week might fall into WP:CALC. I'll just merge the China section under Other Territories. Other film articles have done that. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 00:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

What I meant by the paragraphs being unbalanced was that the second one is much shorter than the first. Two sentences versus six, 64 words versus 153. I realize that might not have been entirely clear.

I don't expect you to agree about everything. I only expect you to try to resolve disagreements constructively through discussion. TompaDompa (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I've resolved it by equalling the number of sentences in both paras.

I always try to resolve disagreements, despite my disagreements I tried that here too. But if your disagreement is you refusing to accept the article being written in a way other than you'd like and if your resoultion is others agreeing to whatever you want, I don't see how there's supposed to be any resolution in such cases. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring it so the paragraphs are of roughly equal length is certainly an improvement, though I still think a single paragraph is the way to go. I daresay the China stuff is getting overly long. TompaDompa (talk) 01:10, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No it isn't, a longer paragraph is more difficult to navigate. And as for the China section it's just two paragraphs with 18-20 sentences on PC and 26 on mobile.

I've agreed with you on some things, I won't be agreeing to all of them. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Also Systemic bias isn't an actual Wikipedia policy or guideline. It's just an opinion. We aren't supposed to be adhered to it anyway. WP:NPOV is about being as fair as far as possible, not going to every length to ensure it. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

as for the China section it's just two paragraphs with 18-20 sentences on PC and 26 on mobile I don't understand.

The China section includes details like becoming the highest-grossing American film of 2022 in the country, which is not exactly critical information.

WP:NPOV is about being as fair as far as possible, not going to every length to ensure it. It's also about presenting information with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject, i.e. not over-emphasizing minor details. TompaDompa (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't understand. It's a short section and there's nothing wrong with it.

The China section includes details like becoming the highest-grossing American film of 2022 in the country, which is not exactly critical information. I can see that, so I'll remove it.

i.e. not over-emphasizing minor details Except the details you removed, the weekend box office grosses, are the ones that get mentioned or focused upon in the published material on the subject. Very few sites offer detailed analysis. You've actually done the opposite of what the NPOV says. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The part I didn't understand was 18-20 sentences on PC and 26 on mobile.

News sources about the film's box office performance have different considerations than Wikipedia does, since WP:Wikipedia is not a newspaper. On Wikipedia, WP:RECENTISM is a bad thing, whereas news media thrive thereon. With that in mind, sources writing about the film in WP:TENYEARS are unlikely to focus on the raw data about the sixth weekend box office performance, and Wikipedia is not supposed to present WP:RAWDATA devoid of explanatory context anyway. Writing a high-quality article of this kind means considering whether the balance of different aspects will seem appropriate in several years time or if it will look like the article was written piecemeal with additional content added as more information became available without any thought to the overall impression it gives. TompaDompa (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see what's difficult to understand when someone is quoting the length of a section and it doesn't appear large. Does someone have to explicitly say it to you it's not large and you are unable to figure it out for yourself?

WP:NPOV states with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. You've removed the very thing that material actually focuses upon the most.

You're speculating what it will focus upon or not. Because the box office websites are still focusing on comparing the various weekends of Avatar 2 with the original Avatar for example even when it wasn't the best performing particular weekend, [4]. There's no WP:RECENTISM in including box office gross that is most focused upon each week far more than anything else, including explanatory context. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How did you arrive at 18-20 sentences on PC and 26 on mobile? How did you arrive at a different number of sentences for PC versus mobile?

I can restate the point about WP:NOT factoring into this beyond WP:NPOV if you like. You also agreed that the material in question should be removed, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

There's no WP:RECENTISM in including box office gross that is most focused upon each week far more than anything else On the contrary, that is precisely recentism. Considering what is most focused upon each week is recentism. Properly written high-quality articles take much longer perspectives than that. TompaDompa (talk) 02:28, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

How did you arrive at 18-20 sentences on PC and 26 on mobile? How did you arrive at a different number of sentences for PC versus mobile? Obviously by counting them and I own both a PC plus mobile, plus the mobile website has a shorter number of words in a sentence so there'll be more sentences in a para on a mobile.

I can restate the point about WP:NOT factoring into this beyond WP:NPOV if you like. You also agreed that the material in question should be removed, so I'm not sure where you're going with this. I agreed so we don't have to go through you fighting for hours as usual and I still wonder whether I should revert you. I still have my doubts, that said I don't see the need to mention every weekend's gross. WP:NOT doesn't prohibit content that is most focused upon in published material.

On the contrary, that is precisely recentism. Completely incorrect. If the focus of sources is upon its box office performance the most which it veey much is in this case, then it should be focused upon here too. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 02:49, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I gather there is a language barrier that acts as an obstacle to communication here. I doubt further back-and-forth will lead to anything productive at this point. TompaDompa (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

No it's not, you are unable to understand the basic format and designs of the website. And you're unable to understand that people don't consider something important enough for a long dispute. Or that even if people agree, they still don't wholeheartedly agree. Anyway this has gone on for long enough. The box office weekends have already been removed so I don't see a point on arguing about them. As for any other remaining issue I've not agreed to, other users will give their own opinion on them if they want. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

you are unable to understand the basic format and designs of the website What I am unable to understand is how the number of words in a sentence changes between mobile and PC. You and I seem to have a different understanding of the word "sentence", which is why I surmise that there is a language barrier that makes communication between us more difficult. TompaDompa (talk) 03:14, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

By sentence here I mean the single line that starts on one end of the screen and finishes on the other end. Should have said number of lines instead. Roman Reigns Fanboy (talk) 03:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 January 2023

Please update the RT Rating to 77%. 1.39.228.40 (talk) 17:04, 30 January 2023 (UTC)  Done. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The location of the Newman Scoring Stage is incorrect

The current text states that the score was done at the "Newman Scoring Stage in 20th Century". The Newman Scoring Stage is located on the Fox Studios Lot in Century City, CA.

https://www.foxstudiolot.com/scoring

"20th Century" is not a valid location for anything.

I tried correcting this but it was reverted for some reason. Super annoying. 74.82.241.8 (talk) 05:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed The information that the score was recorded at the Newman Scoring Stage, wherever it is located, was unsourced so has been removed. General Ization ^Talk 05:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In this interview with the composer he states:

> Franglen: We did it at Fox. We did it at the Newman stage because it’s one of the great stages and it’s the home of Avatar. We did [the first] Avatar there.

I suggest reverting the original statement about he scoring location along with the proper location for the Newman Sound Stage being on the Fox Studio Lot (see previous reference). 204.128.192.32 (talk) 23:12, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

About this movie set in the 2160s or 2170s

The 2009 Avatar movie set in 2154, in a reference of 200th Anniversary of the James Cameron birth.

And this movie set Sixteen years after 2009 Avatar.

2804:18:18F8:887F:30DB:57D2:BD97:DC42 (talk) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023

Please update the number of RT reviews. 1.39.252.39 (talk) 17:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 17:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2023 (2)

Please also update the access date for the updated RT rating. 1.39.252.39 (talk) 17:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

 Question: Is this something that actually needs to be done? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This article is a typo-ridden mess

I finally got around to watching this film last night (the critics are right, the visuals are terrific but the plot is too predictable) and then got around to reading this WP article on the film. This article is a typo-ridden mess desperately in need of major copyediting. Four paragraphs are so awful they look like word salad. (I am not a physician but my biological relatives include a board-certified neurologist and a board-certified psychiatrist.)

The really obvious issues are as follows: (1) improper use of second-person voice ("you") when WP articles are supposed to be in formal English; (2) confusion of adjectives and nouns (e.g., "unconscious" when "unconsciousness" makes more sense in context); (3) the paragraph about 24 fps v. 48 fps is incomprehensible; and (4) what are "thread powers"?

Unfortunately, I have neither the time nor energy nor interest to fix those issues right now, because one would have to take the time to read the cited sources to figure out what they really say. But I wanted to point it out now on the talk page. Coolcaesar (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)