Wikipedia

Talk:List of highest-grossing films/Archive 13

< Talk:List of highest-grossing films
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Jbaranao in topic The Exorcist
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Remove color and current ongoing status

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Why don't remove the green color and the current status of ongoing gross box office of the franchises DC Extended Universe, Ice Age and Star Trek?OscarFercho (talk) 15:58, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Ice Age is still playing according to Box Office Mojo. Suicide Squad was playing up to mid-December so we should probably wait and see if there are any post-xmas updates. Star Trek was last updated at the end of November so it probbaly is time to remove the highlighting from that entry. Betty Logan (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Ok. Tks for the response.OscarFercho (talk) 21:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Inflation

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Does anyone know how to fix the inflation column on List of highest-grossing films in Canada and the United States? DCF94 (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Assuming you're talking about the error messages, I just commented the template out and put in the unadjusted gross. I'm assuming the reason it doesn't allow 2016 as a start year is that there has been no inflation since 2016 yet. TompaDompa (talk) 20:56, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
This wasn't causing a problem in 2016 when there was no inflation for newly released films so it certianly should not be causing a problem for 2017 either. If there is no inflation it should simply return the input value. I have reported it at Template talk:Inflation#start year=2,016 causing template error so hopefully this bug will be worked out promptly. I have reverted your fix as well (hope you don't mind) so the template editors can see what the problem is. Betty Logan (talk) 21:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Fellowship/Ring

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Why is The Fellowship of the Ring highlighted? Box Office Mojo does not have it highlighted. I didn't want to un-highlight it incase it was real. But there are no sources. Editor49 (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

According to the Box Office Mojo source that DCF94 has added in the main chart it has been re-released. Betty Logan (talk) 13:52, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Historical BoxOfficeMojo numbers chages

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As a sometimes editor of these pages I just noticed that recently (last month or so?!) BoxOfficeMojo have adjusted downwards some of their historical figures. The ones I noticed were a load of Marvel (disney) ones. some changed by 600K or so for iron man 3 and avengers down by a couple of 100K, etc (guardians went up). I think I changed 6 or 7 of them. I have updated all the Marvel franchises. This note is a cautionary one and maybe worth checking on some others that may have changed as I only looked at the Marvel ones (and they where only to be the Disney ones of these that changed). Rovastar (talk) 16:29, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 January 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The Secret Life Of pets Ended It's run Worldwide So Can Somebody Remove The green and The cross if that would be nice? 207.172.180.75 (talk) 22:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

  Not done: The accompanying source says it is still playing. Betty Logan (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Franchise split

Latest comment: 7 years ago49 comments11 people in discussion

Expand franchise to top 30

Can we expend the franchise chart top a top 30

  + Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing in the week commencing 29 November 2024 in theaters around the world.

82.38.157.176 (talk) 12:33, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

That could definitely be done, but I would be opposed to it. I personally don't think a list that long belongs on this article, but rather on a separate article (and frankly, I think that would've still been the case had it only had 10 entries, but whatever). As I understand it, that's apparently going to happen – the franchise/series chart being moved to a separate article, that is. TompaDompa (talk) 13:38, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
what is this page, who doing it can we have a link to see how it is going?82.38.157.176 (talk) 13:51, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Will the general reader really be that interested in what the 30th biggest franchise is? In hindsight it was a mistake to extend the top 20 to a top 25 at the time because we ran into problems with Planet of the Apes and were never able to track down the grosses for the individual films although we were lucky to find a series total. We can't find the data for the older Mummy films either so with the reboot on the way ideally we need a buffer. The size of the chart isn't really governed by what we can do now, but rather what we can anticipate about its future. Personally I would rather have a smaller chart with sound data than a bigger chart with data that is missing/wrong. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm a little behind on this, but I would actually be in favor of this. Pretty soon, the top several spots are all going to be Marvel, DC and Star Wars, so including others would be nice. AtlasBurden (talk) 04:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
If the list is expanded into its own article, then it should probably be a Top 40 or Top 50. 2605:6001:E7D1:6C00:99A2:3537:752F:30CB (talk) 20:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

new article

A new article for highest grossing franchises, expanding the list of 25, could work, and even use a name that's currently a redirect, List of highest-grossing film series. The version we have on the Portuguese wiki even goes up to 50 – though there, franchises that only exist within the Marvel Cinematic Universe don't warrant their own entries. The problem, of course, is how to fill in some references gaps. It continues as below, but the 31st lacks individual movie data for the older ones.

26-50

50+

Then it gets harder after 40. Here at those that in some way or form have surpassed one billion:

Talk

Anyway, any ideas about doing a spin-off?

igordebraga ≠ 16:50, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not opposed to the split but I think it needs to be thought out more. Generally I am not in favor of expanding the chart because we run into missing data problems. As you have illustrated we have problems of inexact data in the case of Superman, Planet of the Apes and Rocky, missing data for The Mummy and conflicting data for Alien. Personally I think 25 films is a good threshold. If we extend the chart we seriously have to rethink how we structure it. I also don't like the idea of splititng off the table and isolating it; on that basis I only support the split if a substantial article is to be built around the chart. I did make a suggestion last year that we should have three tables: one for properties, one for series and one for continuities. That would allow us to have three different perspectives and also allow us to address problems such as Catwoman (which is part of the same continuity as the original Batman series, but arguably not part of the series). Betty Logan (talk) 17:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't mean to isolate the table, only to have it go deeper in a separate article (add the section header and the parts about franchise films in the lead, and there's even a good lead for such a spin-off). But yes, doing such a property\series\continuity split in a separate page (not this one, it's already detailed enough) could be a good compromise to cover everything possible. igordebraga ≠ 04:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

2017

there also a coplue which could be added this year
82.38.157.176 (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

talk part 2

I rather like the idea of having three separate tables. Not because I think the distinction is terribly important, but because it will reduce the disagreements about how to handle complex situations. I do however think that it would require a separate article; splitting the last table on this article into three would basically be letting it take over the article. TompaDompa (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

if we have this chart we need to see if there is box office for Les Aventures des Schtroumpfs as said above there is no box offie and the next one is out on April 7, 2017 82.38.157.176 (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Only for the extensive large of this List, its more adequate split this list of high grossing franchises on other article, and even wide the list of franchises included.OscarFercho (talk) 01:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
it would be useful if we find it for the Highest-grossing animated fanchises I be surprised if the new smurfs Do not get enough for that list82.38.157.176 (talk) 07:14, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
While the spelling above should drive me away... check if any French-language source has something on Les Aventures des Schtroumpfs given it hails from France! igordebraga ≠ 04:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that before moving to three separate tables, we should come up with a list of what would, as of right now, be included in each table. Maybe the top 10 or 15 in each table to make sure we have enough data. I don't think going beyond the top 25 is necessary. TdanTce (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2017 (UTC)TdanTce
Good point. If we don't know what the tables would actually look like, we can't really make an informed decision. Seeing as you're the one who suggested it, Betty Logan, did you by any chance already have that part figured out? TompaDompa (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
25 franchises it seems fine for a split.OscarFercho (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I have a rough idea, although I daresay other editors will want to make refinements. We don't want it descending into chaos though so I will get us some draft space this weekend and knock up up a working model and then editors will have something concrete to discuss. My idea is to construct three tables around properties, series and continuities at the highest abstract level. I think the series and continuities will be the easiest to do, the real question is how we approach a properties table i.e. do we allow crossovers or do we limit the table strictly to single properties? If we have a table for continuities then there is a valid argument for doing that. We'll get something set up in draft space and then play around with it. Betty Logan (talk) 15:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
so this is the Page do we limit the charts 25? and is there more lists for the page like adjust chart or chart or move the animated franchise chat maybe a chart for hybrid franchises? 82.38.157.176 (talk) 13:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
It's a work in progress. There will be three tables (I think!) and each table will take me about a week to do. Also, it is simply my "suggestion" i.e. once I complete the tables other editors will have something substantive to review, and they can then make suggestions or counter-proposals or even reject the idea outright. The main point is to get something up and running that can actually be discussed rather than simply talking about vague ideas (editors may like the idea of three tables, but that is entirely different to liking what actually goes in those three tables!). My take on this though is that there are two very different franchise models now in existence and we (along with Box Office Mojo) have become inconsistent. This is mainly because the franchise model has historically been top-down, but several have now evolved into properties that are deployed in these cross-franchise universes and our approach to documenting these franchises has become a bit dated, rather like pushing a square peg through a round hole. I have never been happy with the fact that something like Batman v Superman is added to both franchises but Captain America: Civil War is only only added to Captain America and not Iron Man, even though the films is driven by Iron Man as much as Captain America. This problem will be exacerbated once Wonder Woman gets her own franchise too, and the problem already exists for Alien/Predator if that franchise ever makes the list (the anomalous box-office notwithstanding). I am hoping to develop an intuitive approach to documenting the cross-franchise model which takes the view of them as "properties" rather than franchises. Betty Logan (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Question will/should we move the List of highest-grossing animated films#Highest-grossing animated franchises and film series over 82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
There is no point yet. I am unsure how much of a problem there is at that article, but there is not much point putting the cart before the horse. We'll get a working model for this article first and then get some feedback. Betty Logan (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

UTC)

with excpection of Les Aventures des Schtroumpfs and many adventures of winne the pooh there not much problem and there a chance of it be a top 30 this year of we finds box office for Les Aventures des Schtroumpfs it would be nice to find box office for many adventures of winne the pooh but it not top priority (that the Schtroumpfs) dose any know box office details for these films82.38.157.176 (talk) 23:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

Working model

I anticipated this taking more time but the IP above pitched in and did one of the tables for me, so first I thank him for the assistance. However, this means that we have a rough working model of what I had in mind that that can be viewed at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft3. The first table looks very familar (a traditional franchise list with crossovers removed) but the most radical revamp is the second table. The third table I have included due to the emphasis on multi-franchise universes that are prevalent today, and resembles an old-fashioned list of series (bar the odd exception). I think something like this will allows us to cover all angles of the modern (and traditional) franchise model. All comments are welcome (even the bad ones!). Betty Logan (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Also, there is something else I want to ask about. As you can see the third table isn't really that much different to the first table i.e. there is vast redundnancy. The third table exists primarily to list the cinematic universes. However, the second table is undersized anyway so perhaps we could loosen the definition to include the cinematic universes: we could then move the MCU and DCEU over to the second table and scrap the third table. Betty Logan (talk) 21:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
  • The only problem I can see with this is potentially with the second chart. Do cameo appearances count? Captain America appears (briefly) in Thor: The Dark World so should that be listed under Captain America? I don't think it should, but what if a character is in a film for only 5 minutes? It's a blurry line. TdanTce (talk) 21:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)TdanTce
    I think you have to draw the line somewhere. Robert Downey Jr has a post-credit cameo in The Incredible Hulk too but I would suggest keeping it simple: if it is a credited appearance it counts, if it is not credited then leave it out. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
    My problem is also with the 2nd and 3rd charts, while I understand the formats, and like you said, we "have to draw the line somewhere", who draws it? I had a discussion on the animated list about SpongeBob 2 movie a while ago, and that it had many live-action scenes and we didn't know if we should add it on the animated lists, so we came up with a rule based on a legitmat source [1] to avoid future misunderstandings. My point is that, like TdanTce pointed out, there will we moments like cameos or unsignificant appearence by a character in other movies, so there has to be a general rule (and like everything else on this page, it has to be sourced from a credible source) to reflect what movie is valid for inclusion. DCF94 (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
    Well the film credits draw the line if that is what we go with. For example, Robert Downey Jr is credited for the three Iron Man films, the Avengers films and Civil War but not for his cameo in The Incredible Hulk. I think the credits in that case reflect the fact that Iron Man is an integral component of those films. At the moment it makes no sense to have Civil War listed under Captain America but not under Iron Man considering that Iron Man only has 2 minutes less screen time than Captain America! Betty Logan (talk) 07:39, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
The continuity table looks fine, the other two tables are a bit of a mess though. My personal suggestion would be to merge the two into a single "franchise" table (with the little note that Deadpool is part of the X-Men continuity but not part of the X-Men franchise). Just as another correction, the Black Widow example given isn't correct she was licensed as a franchise but the film was never made (I would certainly give that as an example of a type of franchise that you may wish to exclude from the table though). Ruffice98 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
When you say "merge" are you against the table format or the entry format? For example, a simple "merge" suggests to me that you would simply move the entries from the second table into the first table. OK, I can see how that might be viable. But what about the entries themselves? Do you support the inclusion of say Civil War and Avengers in the Iron Man entry, The Lego Movie in the Batman entry, The Dark Knight Rises in the Catwoman entry and so on? At the moment it seems completely arbitrary in regards to which films are added to which entries. This is going to get even more complicated with the release of Lego Batman. Obviously Lego Batman is a crossover between Lego and Batman, but Batman was in the original Lego Movie too so isn't that a crossover? And if you are on board with "representation by property", then what do you think of my suggestion of using the film credits as a criteria? BTW, the reason I wanted to limit the chart to entries that had at least one "solo" outing is because I was concerned over the chart being overrun by secondary Marvel characters. An Agent Coulson entry, anyone? When it comes down to it all the Black Widow movies have complete representation in the other franchise entries, but when a character gets its own solo outing it is indisputably a franchise which was the rationale I was applying. Also, if Deadpool really isn't part of the X-Men franchise then he shouldn't be there i.e. he is basically part of a continuity which is representated by the third table. Betty Logan (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Table format is fine, I would rather there just be two of them than the three tables. I just want to make sure our rules are firm and technically correct. I would be perfectly happy to support crediting and having a "solo film", I just want to make sure there aren't any awkward loopholes to cause us bother. That's why I suggest we (quite rightly) note that "Black Widow" is a franchise but that we are excluding it from the table because it fails to have a "solo film", it's the perfect example of our proposed policy on needing a "solo film" to get on to the table. Ruffice98 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ruffice98: Named in your honor: User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft3#Ruffice proposal. Is this closer to what you had in mind?
Looking at the two tables, they are fairly similar. Maybe multiple tables isn't the way to go about this. Was the original idea to do this so that more franchises could be represented in the table? If so, maybe we could keep it at a top 25 (or 30, or 35) but not include franchises that are currently sub-series of another entry. So remove Iron Man, Avengers, and Captain America unless and until they have a film not part of the MCU. I also note that a quirk of the first table is that Avengers type-movies pull up other franchises significantly. TdanTce (talk) 14:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The original reason for this is because it was becoming arbitrary in regards to which films were assigned to whichever franchises. For instance, Civil war was added to the Captain America entry but not the Iron Man entry, despite the fact that Iron Man only had two minutes less screen time than Captain America and the premise of the film being fundamentally the same as Batman vs. Superman which belonged to both franchises. That seemed very arbitrary and inconsistent to me. There are problems with other crossovers such as Lego/Batman and Alien/Predator and so on so the aim was to simplify it and build it around property representation rather than top-down franchises (which really doesn't work at all for superhero films any more). The goal of this venture is to simplify the approach and be consistent. I think removing entries such as Iron Man and Captain America would actually be counter-productive if what we are pursuing is consistency. Iron Man has a very impressive financial record as a property so it seems reasonable for this chart to cover that. Speaking for myself I would like to know which films Iron Man has been in and how much money those films have made, which I think this list should tell me. One thing I agree on though is that the continuities table does look slightly redundant and in reality it has not turned out to be as good as I envisioned, so it is worth considering merging the MCU and DCEU back into the properties chart and scrapping it. That would bring us back down to two tables in the first solution, and one table in the second solution. In the case of the second solution I think there is a danger of superhero franchises being over-represented (if we merged the MCU and DCEU back in they would account for roughly half the 25 entries) so we could consider extending it to a top 30 to compensate. Betty Logan (talk) 15:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Why not keep the table from the original article (and perhaps expand it), and then use the second table from the first proposal? It seems like like only one of the new tables is showing significantly different information (the cross-franchise properties) and this would solve the Civil War discrepancy as well. Most of the continuity information is included in the original top 25 chart (for example, the Dark Knight trilogy is listed under Batman). TdanTce (talk) 04:40, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't follow the logic. If you keep the current table there really isn't much point to table 2 from solution 1. If you are going to have two separate tables you may as well have full separation i.e. a single franchise table and a cross-franchise table which is essentially solution 1. If you are going to expand the current table to account fro cross franchise films then that is basically table 1 from solution 2, which combines table 1+2 from solution 1 (and thus elimating the need for a separate cross-franchise table). Alternatively you can keep the current table but it is already encountering problems i.e. you have Batman vs Superman in both franchises, but Civil War only belongs one franchise. You have Lego Batman in the Batman franchise as a crossover but not The Lego Movie which Batman also appeared in. The problem is the inconsistencies, so if you keep the current table in any form you keep the inconsistencies. Betty Logan (talk) 08:23, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Because the old table doesn't address the problem of cross-franchise films. Either you have two separate tables for single and cross-franchise films (the first proposal) or you can have a single table for both (the second proprosal). Alternatively you can keep the present table but that doesn't solve the problem of missing films. Whatever you do though it doesn't make sense to have kepe the current table and add the second table with the cross-franchise films; if you are going to do that you may as well have solution 1 (also two tables) because that is at least consistent

References

  1. ^ "88TH ACADEMY AWARDS OF MERIT" (PDF). Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
My thinking was that the current table (despite its seeming inconsistencies) is set up to be based on the way a film is titled and promoted. Yes, Iron Man appears a lot in Civil War but Marvel considers it a Captain America movie (and it is a story primarily about Cap, but I digress) and Batman appears in the Lego Movie, but it's not a Batman movie, whereas Lego Batman is. That's the upside of the cross-franchise table, right? To sort films based only on characters? That being said, if we do scrap the current table, I think the continuities table and the cross-franchise table are the two best options. TdanTce (talk) 15:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
That was intentionally set up to reduce duplication which won't be a problem once continuities have been separated out. If you have a franchise table of any description then it's absolutely going to have to have the crossover films of some description as they have used the franchise (it's just a matter of setting the cut-off, being credited seems reasonable).
On another note, do we have a source for Catwoman being a separate IP and not just a Batman spin-off? I've certainly got some for Supergirl and Deadpool being off on their own, but I'm not really seeing anything for Catwoman. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk part 3

Is it possible for a series/franchise average chart or a chart for hybrid films thoughts?82.38.157.176 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2017 (UTC) Or the our current chart To move over82.38.157.176 (talk) 06:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no point having a table of averages because it is tangential information i.e. the topic is "highest-grossing" so it is the totals we rank. Betty Logan (talk) 11:17, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
is a hybrid franchise chart possible.

Might need some improvements

Highest-grossing animated franchises and film series[§] (The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show")
Rank Series Total worldwide
box office 		No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film

82.38.157.176 (talk) 14:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

The splitting is getting more and more specific, but if the articles on highest-grossing movies and highest-grossing animations also break down as they go further, maybe putting more tables (after the extended version of the 25 – top 50? top 30? top 40?). igordebraga ≠ 15:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

This animation table is not part of the proposal. There are currently two proposals under review at User:Betty Logan/Sandbox/draft3. Betty Logan (talk) 15:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I know, I'm just saying that List of highest-grossing films has the list properly and many specific ones afterwards (highest-grossing by year, franchises, etc.), and List of highest-grossing animated films does the same (animation type, year, franchises). So highest-grossing film series could also start with a main list and then specific breakdowns such as continuities and properties. igordebraga ≠ 17:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes that's true, we could certainly do a timeline for the record. I'm not sure how we could do a high-grossing by year though because franchises are split over many years. Betty Logan (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

A timeline like the others, I know it's hard; the only thing that might be feasible is "franchises that surpassed $1 billion every year" (of course most will be from 2000 on, but the data above shows over 50 series qualify*; so it might).

igordebraga ≠ 15:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still tying to work out what the need is for having multiple franchise tables is. No-one has really explained what is so wrong with the current system. Sure there are edge cases but we can (and do) deal with on a case by case basis. I think it will just create more confusion and work not less. I am confused by what is a Single Property IP, harry potter + beasts is there but the single Avengers IP (just the 2 films) is not. In fact it seems just like the existing list minus any superhero films. I would have though harry potter should be 1 single IP and wizarding world (harry potter + beasts) included in the continuity. I would have though single IPs are those like Spiderman films (e.g. it is in the title) but not civil war, etc and spiderman+civil war is in the cross-franchise. I could probably come up with a dozen scenarios like above that are equally confusing. 

Rovastar (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
A franchise is a licensing agreement to adapt IP into another medium. Everything being produced in the Wizarding World is coming off one agreement with JK Rowling, even the prequels. Marvel on the other hand sold about three dozen separate licenses off so they are all distinct franchises.
As another strange example, The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings are packaged as a single "franchise" but if there was ever a movie based on The Silmarillion that would be separate because it would need a separate license to be made. Ruffice98 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Box office

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I looking for box office for the following films can someone help?

As well as stop motion films like

And any other stop motion film that has made more than a $100,000 that is not on the highest-grossing animated Stop-motion animated film please note I got box office for Toys in the Attic

82.38.157.176 (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

New page

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can someone come over and help finish Draft:List of highest-grossing animated films in Canada and the United States? (I have no idea what I need to do to make it suitable for Wikipedia)82.38.157.176 (talk) 16:58, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Paragraphing

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I have twice now had to revert changes to the List of highest-grossing films#High-grossing films by year section after an editor decided to break up the section into much smaller paragraphs. While copy-edits should generally be welcomed, in this case the editor undertaking the alteration does not seem to have a solid grasp on the function of paragraphing, favoring very short arbitrary paragraphs. Aside from putting it at odds with the style of the article (which favors substantial sized paragraphs in all sections) many of the changes contravene MOS:PARAGRAPHS which recommends that single-sentence paragraphs should be avoided.

Let's examine the basic structure of the three different versions:

  1. Version 1: Three paragraphs, all comprising 5–8 sentences.
  2. Version 2: Fifteen paragraphs, twelve of which are single-sentence paragraphs.
  3. Version 3: Nine paragraphs including four single-sentence paragraphs while four others are 3-sentence paragraphs.

Besides violating MOS:PARAGRAPHS, the very short paragraphs (1–3 sentences in most cases) is generally considered poor text structuring. The purpose of a paragraph is to present a single "thought", concept or point, and as such a paragraph that presents a point well and fully elaborates on it is generally in the 3–10 sentence range (as explained at https://www.usu.edu/markdamen/WritingGuide/15paragr.htm). The reason the section is divided into three paragraphs is that the section introduces three very clear and distinct points: trends in genre, the prevalence of certain directors, and the inclusion criteria for the table. This naturally leads us to as a 3-paragraph structure. The existing format employs the 3-paragraph approach, and each paragraph comfortably lies in the 3–10 sentence range. Is there anything to gain from breaking it down into smaller paragraphs? Well let's examine the issue more closely in the case of the first point, that of genre trends:

Audience tastes were fairly eclectic during the 20th century, but several trends did emerge:

During the silent era, films with war themes were popular with audiences, with The Birth of a Nation (American Civil War), The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Big Parade and Wings (all World War I) becoming the most successful films in their respective years of release, with the trend coming to an end with All Quiet on the Western Front in 1930.

With the advent of sound in 1927, the musical—the genre best placed to showcase the new technology—took over as the most popular type of film with audiences, with 1928 and 1929 both being topped by musical films. The genre continued to perform strongly in the 1930s. The outbreak of World War II saw war themed films dominate again during this period, starting with Gone with the Wind (American Civil War) in 1939, and finishing with The Best Years of Our Lives (World War II) in 1946.

Samson and Delilah (1949) saw the beginning of a trend of increasingly expensive historical dramas set during Ancient Rome/biblical times throughout the 1950s as cinema competed with television for audiences,[34] with Quo Vadis, The Robe, The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur and Spartacus all becoming the highest-grossing film of the year during initial release, before the genre started to wane after several high-profile failures.[35] The success of White Christmas and South Pacific in the 1950s foreshadowed the comeback of the musical in the 1960s with West Side Story, Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Funny Girl all among the top films of the decade. The 1970s saw a shift in audience tastes to high concept films, with six such films made by either George Lucas or Steven Spielberg topping the chart during the 1980s.

The 21st century has seen an increasing dependence on franchises and adaptations, with the box office dominance of films based on pre-existing intellectual property at record levels.

The 2nd para contains a single sentence, which we know is poor writing style. As far as I can see there is nothing to gain from having a single-sentence paragraph, so let's join that up with 3rd para since the 3rd para is a direct continuation of the same point. Likewise with the single-sentence 5th para: since it is direct continuation of the same point explored in the 4th para then it is not necessary to break it off into a single-sentence paragraph. So after re-integrating the single-sentence paragraphs back into the bigger paragraphs this is what you get:

Audience tastes were fairly eclectic during the 20th century, but several trends did emerge:

During the silent era, films with war themes were popular with audiences, with The Birth of a Nation (American Civil War), The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, The Big Parade and Wings (all World War I) becoming the most successful films in their respective years of release, with the trend coming to an end with All Quiet on the Western Front in 1930. With the advent of sound in 1927, the musical—the genre best placed to showcase the new technology—took over as the most popular type of film with audiences, with 1928 and 1929 both being topped by musical films. The genre continued to perform strongly in the 1930s. The outbreak of World War II saw war themed films dominate again during this period, starting with Gone with the Wind (American Civil War) in 1939, and finishing with The Best Years of Our Lives (World War II) in 1946.

Samson and Delilah (1949) saw the beginning of a trend of increasingly expensive historical dramas set during Ancient Rome/biblical times throughout the 1950s as cinema competed with television for audiences,[34] with Quo Vadis, The Robe, The Ten Commandments, Ben-Hur and Spartacus all becoming the highest-grossing film of the year during initial release, before the genre started to wane after several high-profile failures.[35] The success of White Christmas and South Pacific in the 1950s foreshadowed the comeback of the musical in the 1960s with West Side Story, Mary Poppins, My Fair Lady, The Sound of Music and Funny Girl all among the top films of the decade. The 1970s saw a shift in audience tastes to high concept films, with six such films made by either George Lucas or Steven Spielberg topping the chart during the 1980s. The 21st century has seen an increasing dependence on franchises and adaptations, with the box office dominance of films based on pre-existing intellectual property at record levels.

But hang on, do we really need two paragraphs to present what is essentially a single concept? Well, there is nothing technical to prevent us having two paragraphs here, but the topic does not not mandate it i.e. both paragraphs are still on the same point (that of genre trends) so it is only an arbitrary break. The only reason to have two paragraphs covering a single point is if it would result in a single paragraph that is too large. That is not the case here, since joining the two paragraphs together would only result in an 8-sentence paragraph! A new paragraph is not a necessity until the section embarks on a new point, that of the performance of directors.

In conclusion this is not a case of whether you have a personal preference for short or long paragraphs, because good writing is dictated purely by form. The section covers three distinct points so is best suited to a 3-paragraph structure. That is the style adopted in each chart section, and it is the style that is compliant with MOS:PARAGRAPHS and the MOS is not optional for Featured lists and articles. Betty Logan (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

You're obviously invested in this, and I'm certainly not going to get into an edit fight, but two brief points:
1. A paragraph is intended to cover a single idea, and length is largely irrelevant. From the wikipedia article on the subject: "A paragraph...is a self-contained unit of a discourse in writing dealing with a particular point or idea. A paragraph consists of one or more sentences." I disagree with you on the number of points being made here, but it's not worth arguing over. To be clear, the second edit was a compromise, so it doesn't satisfy either of us.
2. I don't see how my edits "contravene" MOS:PARAGRAPHS, which says that single-sentence paragraphs should be "minimized," not "avoided." Further, that same sentence warns against paragraphs that become hard to read due to length; the paragraphs in this article containing multiple lists of years struck me as challenging to parse visually, which was one motivation for my edits. I should also point out that the MOS:PARAGRAPHS section itself contains a two-sentence paragraph.
I'll leave the article to you. Geoff Canyon (talk) 23:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Geoff Canyon. This article is on my watchlist, but I'm weighing in because Betty requested my opinion. I understand both of your points. In general, I really don't see the need to split material into single-sentence paragraphs. Doing so unless needed creates a choppy flow. You've made a valid point about a paragraph being intended to cover a single idea, but I think unity is more important for a paragraph. For example, when I see single-sentence paragraphs that are semi-related to one another, I might combine them via a topic sentence, so that it ties the material together. For example, one sentence might be about the best films and the other about poor films. With a topic sentence, I can state "Some films have been debated as either the best or worst films in cinema." and then combine the two sentences with the topic sentence. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
I think it's possible for reasonable people to disagree about formatting, style, and grammar, and I'd like to think that's the situation here. The only reason I tried to edit a second time was because there were other minor grammatical improvements (in my mind) included in my first edit that were reverted in total by Betty Logan. I could explain in detail my thinking regarding the edits, but two reverts make it clear that I'm not swaying anyone here; so as I said, I will refrain from any further attempts to improve the page. I'm not trying to start an edit war. Regards to you both. Geoff Canyon (talk) 02:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC: How many entries should the main table have?

Latest comment: 7 years ago25 comments9 people in discussion
Consensus to keep at 50 entries. Most responses were to keep 50 entries, with "increase" and "decrease" responses cancelling each other. Alsee (talk) 14:53, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There is a debate over how many entries the first table at List of highest-grossing films#Highest-grossing films should have. The table currently has 50 entries and this has been the case since it was passed as a FL in 2012. Should the table's size remain as it is (at 50 entries) or be increased (to 75 or 100 entries) or decreased (to 25 entries)? The discussion may also benefit from input from editors with copyright expertise. Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

  • Decrease to 25 entries (with the status quo of 50 entries as my second option). I believe the list would benefit from a smaller table for two principle reasons:
    1. Wikipedia is not WP:RAWDATA. That means the content we include should meet an encyclopedic requirement. The scope of the topic is very specific: it documents the highest-grossing films in various capacities. The highest-nominal grossers are essentially the top 10–20 films. Anything beyond that is really just providing context. As you can see from the peak positions every single year this century has produced a film in the top 20 so a top 25 is also enough to provide context for the year's biggest hits. By reducing the table to the top 25 we don't really lose anything of encyclopedic value. By increasing it to the top 100 we increase the listcruft.
    2. Doubling the number of entries would introduce WP:COPYVIO concerns. While a lot of box office information is factual (mainly domestic figures which tend to be consistent between trackers) some of it is estimated (usually international), introducing discrepencies between trackers. All the data in the nominal table is sourced from Box Office Mojo. Box Office Mojo is quite specific in its licensing (outlined at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/about/?ref=ft) that non-commercial websites (which I presume includes Wikipedia) may freely use small subsets (up to 20 entries) froms its charts and filmographies. That means we are free to have a top 20 under BOM's licensing. Anything beyond that depends on Wikipedia's interpretation of copyright law i.e. fair use generally allows usage up to 10% so in a chart of 672 entries we could probably use 60–70 entries provided we can justify our need for the data. Even if COPYVIO does not apply to this data I don't think it is morally justifiable to take somebody's data and simply reproduce it in vast quantities when they have expressed wishes to the contrary. I am also unconvinced we have sufficient need under fair use to extend the chart to 75 anyway, because we can cover the topic of the highest-grossing films with a top 25 i.e. we can only use copyrighted material under fair use if we need to.
So on the basis of those two points I think a strong case exists for reducing the table to 25 entries. The only benefit I can see for keeping it at 50 entries is that it would allow us to cover all the $1 billion grossers, which is still considered something of a milestone, although that is only tangential to a film being the "highest-grossing". Betty Logan (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Increase (as reasonable)
  1. Just follow the cites: I'll suggest fidelity to use the length that the sources use, since going beyond that length would be difficult and shortening it seems unfaithful and also arbitrary.
  2. Serve the article text: I'll point out the article prose talks to items in and about a long list. Since the article is making statements about trends and groups for a large list and stating things as included, then it makes sense to have a length that backs up the article text.
  3. Precedent: I do not see length guidelines in WP:LISTS or MOS:LISTS -- it seems that so long as it is notable and the gross is verifiable in a source list, then it could be listed. But I do see that the precedent in lists is mostly longer than 25 or even 50. Looking around for 'list of highest' I see that lists seem usually over 100: List of highest-grossing concert tours, List of Bollywood films of 1960 Rolling Stone's 500 Greatest Songs of All Time, List of Billboard Hot 100 number-one singles of the 1970s, List of top 25 singles for 2015 in Australia, and List of companies of Japan
Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:06, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep at 50 entries
  1. As the list has passed as a Featured List, and despite that Wikipedia "is not an indiscriminate collection of information", a list of fifty entries seems like a reasonable length. It seems highly unlikely that listing fifty of the highest-grossing films would be a copyright violation, nor would it be morally reprehensible. There also does not seem to any particular benefit that would arise from increasing the list's size either. Therefore, in my opinion, keeping the list limited to 50 entries is acceptable. –Matthew - (talk) 21:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  2. I think 50 entries is a good number to be both reasonably readable and reasonably informative. I think a longer list would make the list less readable, but a shorter list would be lacking in information. The argument that 100 entries will match the sources make no sense to me, as the main source for the list contains all films grossing $200 million or more (currently 675 films). Also, while I'm not an expert on copyrights, I don't see any way this list could be a copyright violation, as it is primarily factual information of the sort that isn't copyrightable. This is especially true because our list contains corrections (e.g., for Frozen) and other information not present in the main source. Calathan (talk) 22:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  3. A weak "yes" on this one; count me as 1/4. I think all of the listed possibilities would be fine but this seems like a middle-of the road resolution. I made additional comments and gave additoinal thoughts below. North8000 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Could the list displaying the top fifty (not inflation-adjusted) highest-grossing films of all time somehow be made into a top one hundred instead? One hundred seems a more "round" number to me, and the adjusted and unadjusted lists in the United States/Canadian highest-grossing films article are both lists of one hundred films. If the average reader would prefer examining the top fifty or top twenty-five highest grossing films then they could still do that and the rest of us could view the entire top one hundred list. Could it be possible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.133.226 (talk) 12:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed many times previously. Some people want it extended, others want it shortened to billion dollar grossers so 50 is the compromise. Personally I don't see the point of extending it because 50 is a round number anyway and it would extend what is already a huge article for unclear enyclopedic gain. Do readers really come here wanting to know what the 60th highest-grossing film is, or the 80th? I think readers probably have more tangible needs for the information we have here i.e. What is the top 10? Which films have grossed $1 billion? What was last year's top film? Where does last year's top film rank among the all-time list? By doubling the size of the chart we'd just be listing films for the sake of listing films, rather than focusing on the topic of the article i.e. the films that have been the highest-grossing. Betty Logan (talk) 13:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I think that we should expand it to 100. The highest grossing films are still there within the 100. I understand why you would want the main Highest-grossing films (Top 50), but expanding it to 100 will provide a much larger variety of films. For example, when 50 films reach $1 Billion, or even 50 films reach $900 Million, then the List will get overcrowded. It will be weird when Jurassic Park is at #54 becase it earned over $1 billion dollars, and having a Billion Dollar Movie not on a Highest-grossing film list seems odd. By 2019, i'm sure more than 50 films will pass $1 Billion. So, The Dark Knight, The Hobbit and Zootopia will be out first. Expanding the List to 100, or even 75 Could be interesting, why not try it out and see how it works, if ithe does not work, we bring it back down to 50. Editor49 (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
We don't need to try it, we can see exactly how it would look at http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/. I'm not seeing more variety. Wikipedia is not WP:RAWDATA, lists are required to serve an encylopedic purpose and the purpose of this table is to show what the "highest grossing" films are. The highest-grossing films are basically the top 10–20 and anything after that just helps to give that a bit of context. Personally I think a top 25 would be sufficient but I am happy to compromise on 50. If we want this issue settled for once and for all though I think maybe we should consider an RFC and let the community decide, but if we go down that route then it should be neutral and the community should have the option of cutting the chart down as well as extending it. Betty Logan (talk) 18:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
That would be a good idea. I'm up for that then... Editor49 (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Well that's fair enough. I have plans for this evening but I will file an RFC tomorrow. Just for the record, the options will be a top 25, 50, 100. Are you ok with those or do want any others considered? Betty Logan (talk) 18:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I think 75 should also be an option. Editor49 (talk) 18:44, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't think that's a good idea; it would make for two "extend" options, one "keep as is" option, and one "limit" option. Options of 25, 50, 75 or 25, 50, 100 would both be perfectly acceptable, but 25, 50, 75, 100 seems kind of off to me. We could always circumvent that issue by having an RfC for 25, 50, 75 now and a second one for 50, 75, 100 in a few months' time if 75 is the outcome of the first one. TompaDompa (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I couldn't understand what you just wrote, could you be a bit more clear or specific please? (I don't mean it to be mean but I don't understand what you wrote). Editor49 (talk) 20:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I realize that what I wrote may not have been entirely easy to follow. My point is that I don't think four options is a good idea. We'll want one option for reducing the number of entries (that option would be "25"), one for keeping the number of entries the same (that option would be "50"), and one option for increasing the number of entries (that option could either be "75" or "100"). If we have four options, two will be for increasing the number of entries (which would unnecessarily split the support for making the list longer into two categories, namely "change it from 50 to 75" and "change it from 50 to 100"). My precise suggestion is to instead have an RfC with three options ("reduce the number to 25", "keep the number at 50", and "increase the number to 75"), with the option to have a second RfC sometime in the future if the first one results in the number being increased. Did that help? TompaDompa (talk) 21:39, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
I think any sensible closer would realize that if the consensus was for extending the chart (either to 75 or 100 without either being the "winner") then they would close it in favor of the 75. At least that is how I would approach it. I will be getting this up and going in the next hour anyway so if there are any further suggestions get them in fast. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
If the list ends up going down to 25. We probably should get rid of the peak section, since there is not a lot of older films in the Top 25. But should we keep the peak section if it is expanded to 75 or 100? Editor49 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't see any need to get rid, it's still interesting to see how the films placed on release. It will just be a larger or smaller version of what it is now. Betty Logan (talk) 15:33, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
So when will a decision be made? Editor49 (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
RFCs traditionally run for a month and then an admin will close it and determine the consensus. Betty Logan (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

(Invited by the bot). I didn't want to weigh in at the survey portion without test firing it here. First I think that it would be fine with either 25 or 50, and near-fine with 75 or 100. I do think that lists on notable items with simple wide-interest mainstream criteria (like gross sales) are encyclopedic material. IMHO listcruft is when lists are created that don't meet those two criteria. Also, if there are copyvio concerns, mixed sources could be used. So with only weak preferences, I'd probably contract the raw dollar one to 25 and expand the inflation-adjusted one to 25. The reason I might deprecate the raw dollar one is that it's an apples-and-oranges comparison. A 1940 dollar is a completely different item than a 2015 dollar. And 10 is a little short for the list by real (inflation adjusted) dollars. Sincerely North8000 (talk) 23:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments North8000. While I fully agree that the inflation adjusted chart is too short that is unfortunately dictated by cicumstances. The Guinness chart which is used as a source only runs to a top 10 (and is the only one of its kind to my knowledge) and it is impossible to construct one by ourselves (at least without venturing into OR territory). International figures are unavailable for many older films and many had re-releases as well complicating the base years for the adjustments. I actually tried it once and came up with radically different figures to Guinness. Betty Logan (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I just assumed that such a list was published. North8000 (talk) 11:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 13 March 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On this page, in the section "Highest-grossing franchises and film series", under this, in the "Wolverine Series" section of "X-Men", the highest-grossing film is stated as "The Wolverine" but instead it should be "Logan". Although the gross figures stated are correct but the movie name stated is wrong. Hence in this section, Please change "The Wolverine" to "Logan".

On this page--> Highest-grossing franchises and film series--> 7-X-Men (show)--> Wolverine series (show)--> Highest-grossing film--> Please change "The Wolverine" to "Logan". Arinjaisingh (talk) 15:09, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

  Resolved
DCF94 (talk) 19:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Anime

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can any help expand the anime page can it become a top 35,40,45 or 50 if 50 can it be peak? Can the by year be expending (if there a couple of years missing dose not matting) Can the anime franchise be expended, and lastly can we build a timeline of highest grossing anime films? 82.38.157.176 (talk) 16:17, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Where the hell is 3 idiots ??? Indian movie (Bollywood)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

it is wiki itself which contradicts this page according to wikipedia 3 idiots had a box office of approx 3.92 billion USD then why it ain't listed in the highest grossing movies world wide !

3 Idiots 

 there is more than sufficient details which is required
 plz refer to the "wikipedia page for complete info ! "

and since it is contradictory either of the one is surely wrong ! thanks for the precious time ! cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sgrssgrs (talk • contribs) 09:41, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

3 Idiots had a gross of 3.92 billion rupees according to its article, which would be about $80 million. Betty Logan (talk) 12:16, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Avatar

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Bom has made a Avatar film series page and it put it gross at $2,810.4 [1] But here it's $2,787 billion [2] 82.38.157.176 (talk) 18:12, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

They've botched their figures and counted the foreign gross for the special edition twice. The main Avatar page lists the total gross; to get the gross for the original release you have to subtract the gross for the Special Edition from the total, which they have down for the domestic gross but not the foreign gross. You can compare the "franchise" total that BOM have done to the totals at Boxoffice.com and The Numbers which both have it about $2,783 million. It obviously doesn't make much difference to the chart position but BOM have definitely made a mistake here. You can see that their worldwide chart still lists the proper figure. Also, I don't understand why they turned the original release and the SE into a "franchise". They are essentially the same film. They haven't turned Titanic into a franchise even though that had a much bigger reissue ($350 million compared to $30 million for Avatar), and The Lion King had an IMAX version and a 3D version and that hasn't been listed as a franchise. These are clearly just release iterations. Whoever is editing BOM has made a dog's dinner with the Avatar entry. Betty Logan (talk) 23:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
They made Avatar into a franchise because the sequels got an official release date, they did the same with The Lego Movie franchise, when they announced the Lego Batman and Lego Ninjago release dates, BOM does that often. DCF94 (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
That clarifies that then. As for the discrepency in the totals, it happens on other franchise articles too sych as Star Wars. They log the special editions and 3D release as separate entries and then just add up all the grosses. The problem though is that they don't subtract the foreign reissue grosses from the main entries so they are counted twice. For example, the first Star Wars has a lifetime gross of $775 million. In the franchise chart it has combined total of $879 million because while they have subtracted the 1997 SE and 1982 reissue domestic grosses, they have not subtracted the foreign grosses, so these are counted twice. In the case of Return of the Jedi the combined domestic total of $298 million is too low because they haven't included the 1985 reissue. In other words the franchise totals are totally messed up if the film has been re-released. It is better to do what have been doing, and add up the separate totals for each film in the franchise. Betty Logan (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=avatar.htm
  2. ^ List of highest-grossing films

X-Men franchise

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Not a big deal, but I noticed now that the Main series in the X-Men entry was separated into 2 different entries, while I don't have a problem with the separation, the "Prequel trilogy" name for the 2011-present films isn't quite correct, X-Men: Days of Future Past takes place before and during the current timeline, and also a new film is about to come out that takes place after X-Men: Apocalypse so it's not a "trilogy". This should be changed into "Prequel series", or should it be changed back into one entry, seeing how the entire X-Men timeline is confusing enough? DCF94 (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't sure about the change when I made it, and what you're saying makes sense, so.... TompaDompa (talk) 14:01, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on List of highest-grossing films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:34, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@InternetArchiveBot: Four of those sources were not dead: the two Time sources (these two are behind a paywall), and there was nothing wrong with the Filmsite and Rogerebert sources as far as I could see so I have marked them as not dead. Betty Logan (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Still the highest grossing franchise

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Betty Logan: Sorry, I hadn't seen the cited text you referred to. I see you also removed the text in question (the picture caption), but I wonder if that was the best move. It is still up-to-date at the moment, but this will no longer be the case, possibly be the end of 2017 but almost certainly within the next two years, at which point we will no longer be able to claim it remains the highest-grossing franchise.

But is the fact that it was the first to gross more than one billion noteworthy enough by itself to merit inclusion of the image? Wouldn't modifying the text to say that it was for a long time the highest-grossing adjusted for inflation be a better solution?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: I agree with everything you say, which is why I followed up my revert by removing the claim from the caption (you probably didn't see that if you just looked at my revert). The MCU will have overtaken Bond by 2020 and captions shouldn't go into complicated analysis so I think it's simpler just to take it out now. As you say, being the first billion dollar franchise is noteworthy enough just for a caption. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Upcoming Films in Highest Grossing Franchises table

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Should the table in the section for highest-grossing franchises include confirmed upcoming films in the lists of entries to each franchise? For example, Star Wars → Sequel Trilogy would include a row for "The Last Jedi", stylized in some way (exempli gratia special highlighting, italics, or a footnote) to indicate that it is an upcoming entry. Obviously, since the films haven't yet made any profit in the box office, their nonexistent grosses would not be counted toward the total, but this would serve to indicate that the series is ongoing and may change positions soon, and make the lists more complete Hppavilion1 (talk) 23:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those films have not grossed anything yet, and given how the "ongoing" nature of franchises can change it doesn't seem helpful to include them. "J.K. Rowling's Wizarding World", "Star Trek", "Star Wars", "Middle Earth" and even "James Bond" have all emerged from seemingly indefinite hiatuses within the past twelve years. Also, films that have been "confirmed" can still get cancelled, and the list of "confirmed" films for several franchises can be pretty long and stretch way too far into the future (see Inhumans (film) for an example of both) unless by "been confirmed" you meant "entered principal photography and we have articles on them" (the example of The Last Jedi implies that this is actually what you meant, to be fair). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
What Hijiri88 said. Including them wouldn't add any value and it would screw up the averages. They get screwed up anyway once a film opens but at least it is only temporary; if we stuck the Last Jedi in now the figures would be wonky for months. Betty Logan (talk) 01:02, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Stop motion

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Can anyone help trek down stop motions films box office preforming To added to the highest-grossing Stop-motion animated films 82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:42, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

cin

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
  Resolved

in the year chart Cinderella gross is wrong a should be $263,591,415 [1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 16:15, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Cinderella-(1950)#tab=summary
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on List of highest-grossing films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Rogar more

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have no idea if box office numbers will be available/count but roger more bond films are getting a reissue https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/bond-producers-announce-special-roger-moore-tribute-day-113754822.html 82.38.157.176 (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Problem with Star Trek Data

Latest comment: 7 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Currently we use data from The Numbers for the Star Trek grosses, because Box Office Mojo does not have a complete record. KIRILL1995 has pointed out that there is a discrepency between the figure that The Numbers has down for Star Trek Beyond ($336.4 million) and the one Box Office Mojo have ($343.5 million). It transpires there are more discrepencies. Here are the two sets of figures:

Star Trek grosses from 1991)
Film Box Office Mojo The Numbers
Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country (1991) 96.9 96.9
Star Trek: Generations (1994) 118.1 120.0
Star Trek: First Contact (1996) 146.0 150.0
Star Trek: Insurrection (1998) 112.6 117.8
Star Trek: Nemesis (2002) 67.3 67.3
Star Trek (2009) 385.7 385.7
Star Trek Into Darkness (2013) 467.4 467.4
Star Trek Beyond (2016) 343.5 336.4
Total 1,737.5 1,741.5

As you can see there is an overall difference of around $4 million. To be fair the difference isn't great, but we have two choices as I see it: i) we stick with using The Numbers for the whole franchise (which has figures for the earlier films) or ii) we use The Numbers for the original series and then Box Office Mojo from 1994 onwards. Such a change would bring the overall total down by about $4 million. We don't really know which source is correct but the disparity has no tangible effect on the ranking some I am inclined to just stick with The Numbers for all grosses so we just use the single source; however, I am happy to go with the second option and use BOM for the all the later films if other editors prefer this solution. That would just mean a bit of work updating the chart and adding BOM to the list of sources, so nothing too major. What I don't think we can do is cherrypick the "highest" gross from each source to "max out" the gross for Star Trek i.e. our approach needs to be impartial. Betty Logan (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

What I want to say about this franchise (and another too). I absolutely not argue that grosses of first three films are using from The Numbers, because BOM have not accurate data of it. But at the same time I see no reason don't to trust BOM relatively of grosses another films, because such exact digits in The Numbers (120,000,000; 150,000,000) rather cause questions about it incorrectness or too much roundness. In this situation I would prefer ii) choice. Best version of this will write to the sites and clarify about the grosses. With respect, KIRILL1995 (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Well ok, I will leave it a couple more days for further comments/objections and if there are none I will initiate the changes. Betty Logan (talk) 15:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Option (ii) is textbook WP:SYNTH. Personally, I don't even like adding up numbers that aren't explicitly counted up in the sources (something I noticed with the Bond problem above, but didn't bring up). But when two sources give different sets of numbers, we can't cherry-pick and add up whichever ones we want, even if one source is more "complete" while the other is considered more "reliable" such that we are only supplementing the reliable source with information it happens to fail to provide. (Note that I am not sure if this is the reason we would use Box Office Mojo.) We need a reliable source addressing the discrepancy, or we need to just ignore the BOM figures. Or maybe place the BOM figures in a footnote and state that they don't exactly match. It's a small discrepancy that could be explained by any number of things, so there's really no crisis here that might potentially justify what is at best borderline SYNTH. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't agree that it is synthesis. Simple calculations such as addition are permitted per WP:CALC. If we took all the high grosses then that would be WP:CHERRYPICKING, but Kirill is not suggesting that. In this case Kirill's argument is that given the rounded nature of the grosses from the Numbers then Box Office Mojo's are likely to be more exact, and I think that is a valid argument. BOM even has a breakdown of where its figures come from for its most recent films so they can be corroborated. The suggestion here is to use the more accurate source where we can and use the approximate source where we have to, and that will take us closer to the true value. Betty Logan (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
Actually I was replying to your original comment, and hadn't read Kirill's. Specifically, I think the portion of your comment that reads we have two choices as I see it: i) [something that I don't have a problem with] or ii) we use The Numbers for the original series and then Box Office Mojo from 1994 onwards constitutes a violation of WP:SYNTH. If two sources give contradictory information (even if such contradictions are minor and/or could be explained by different calculation methods), then we can't cite both of them as though they said the same thing. If we specifically said (in a footnote, for instance) that the sources contained these minor contradictions and that we had combined them, and gave the full lists of figures from both sources (again in a footnote), then maybe it would be acceptable. (This is not dissimilar to the problem of sources on premodern Chinese history, dates of birth and death, and age at time of death. In China, one's age at birth is traditionally counted as "one", and some sources will follow this convention while others will westernize ages. Additionally, January and much of February in the Gregorian calendar fall within the previous year in the Chinese calendar, and sources vary on which calendar they use, sometimes without specifying. I'm quite happy with how I dealt with the problem in Li He#Notes.) The suggestion to use the more accurate source were we can and the less accurate one where we have to is interesting, and, if we weren't tabulating data from both to create an total gross figure that appears in none of our sources, I would be fine with that. But Wikipedia policy is more restrictive. The more precise figure for the later films can be included in a footnote, attributed to BOM, with perhaps a clarification as to why we are sourcing them (the reasons you give that we think they are more precise). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think WP:SYNTH is intended to apply to situations like. This is what WP:CALC actually says:

Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations.

The guideline does not require that the figures must all come from the same source. Indeed, CALC stipulates that the calculation must be a "meaningful reflection of the sources"; therefore the guideline clearly permits us to draw the base data from a range of sources. I think the whole SYNTH issue is distracting from the main issue, because it is my interpretation of CALC that we can take a bunch of numbers from different sources and add them up. The issue here isn't whether we use one source or two sources, but rather how to handle the contradictory information. Not all sources are created equal: some sources have wrong data, incomplete data and approximate data. If we have a sound reason that one source has more solid data (which is certainly the case for BOM and the last four ST film where it gives a country-by-country breakdown) then I don't really see a valid argument for not using it. Betty Logan (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Again, you're honing in on a side-note in which I stated a personal opinion. I already know my opinion is not in line with WP:CALC when it comes to adding up numbers that are all contained in the same source. But in this case you are talking about adding up the numbers in two different sources that contradict each other, albeit slightly, on exactly what those numbers are. If your argument is that since the difference is small enough to be negligible, then why even bother with BOM? Just add up the numbers in the one source that gives all of them. Unless you consider it not to be a reliable source in general because it contradicts BOM, in which case we shouldn't be using it even for the older numbers. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I think two sources can have different data without being contradictory. In the table above, The Numbers and Box Office Mojo are consistent in half the cases. In the case of Generations and First Contact, once you adapt to the precision of The Numbers the grosses are essentially the same; as Kirill points out The Numbers seems to be using approximate or rounded data in these two cases while BOM would appear to have the exact figures. Obviously I think Wikipedia is best served by using exact data rather than approximate data. Therefore, out of eight figures only two are inconsistent. By comparing the tabulated data for BOM and The Numbers for the most recent film, you can see BOM has more countries listed so it is possible that The Numbers is incomplete, or that BOM is just more up to date, rather than one of them being wrong. But it all comes down to this: by using The Numbers to source all the grosses you get two approximate figures and two inconsistent figures; if you use BOM for the later films the approximate figures are replaced with exact figures and you just end up with two inconsistent figures. While neither option is perfect, the second option eliminates the problem of approximate data. Betty Logan (talk) 23:51, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
  • So, what is next? KIRILL1995 (talk) 12:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
    At the moment it is a bit of a stalemate. Two against one does not count as a consensus so if you want to try and push through the change then you are going to need some more opinions. You could request further input at WT:FILM and if that doesn't work an RFC could always be started. I do actually think it needs to be resolved because there are other franchises that have mixed sources such as James Bond, Superman and Planet of the Apes where BOM does not always have historic data. Betty Logan (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Sony in MCU??

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

With the ongoing talks about Sony's Spider-man universe sharing the MCU, how should we handle the franchise record situation? There could be possible situations here:

1. Separate MCU with Sony Spider-man, but keep standalone Spidey films under MCU

2. Combine Sony's Spider-man universe with MCU if and only if Spider-man is featured on those films. Then, create separate entry for all Sony's Spider-man movies

3. Combine all Sony's Spider-man universe including Venom, Silver & Black, etc

4. Combine all Sony's Spider-man universe including Venom, Silver & Black, etc. Then, create separate entry for all Sony's Spider-man movies

It's not a problem. Any Sdider-Man film or spin-off will be listed under the main Spider-Man franchise irrespective of whether it belongs to Marvel's MCU, because fundamentally it is still Spider-Man IP. As for the MCU, if Marvel count it then it will be added to the MCU entry, if not it won't be. Betty Logan (talk) 03:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You left some questions unanswered. Let's say we have the Venom movie (assuming Tom's spider-man is there) which is shared by both MCU and Sony Spider-man. That movie would be counted under MCU (since Tom is there and reportedly part of this franchise), under Spider-man (obviously), and Sony Spider-man Univere. The 3rd one is not entirely a subset of MCU so I think it's worth having another entry for Sony Spider-man universe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.251.212 (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
A Venom movie would simply count as a spin-off under the Spider-Man franchise. In that way it wouldn't be any different to Supergirl or Deadpool. If Marvel don't count the Venom movie in their MCU then for obvious reasons it wouldn't be put under the MCU. Betty Logan (talk) 23:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi Betty, have you heard about what Amy Pascal said? Venom and Silver & Black are adjunctions to MCU therefore these movies should be classified under MCU, Spider-man, and Sony's new Marvel universe. Although that has not been set in stone yet, it could happen eventually. But we can discuss more when we get to that point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.87.251.174 (talk) 20:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Inhumans (MCU)

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The first two episodes of the TV series Inhumans will premiere in IMAX theaters in September. Should this be included in the table? This may be splitting hairs, but would that be considered an MCU film or not? TdanTce (talk) 11:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The chart so far has been limited to theatrical films, or films that had a theatrical release in some countries and a DTV release in others i.e. a major theatrical window at least somewhere in the world. In this case the primary platform is TV with an advance theatrical preview so my instinct is to not include it. However, if the box office trackers decide otherwise then we should follow suit. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Missing franchise

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The franchise chart is missing and entry

|colspan="6"|

I know there like 20+ film missing but even the films I tracked it still make the list. Note I have not put them in sub groups yet. 82.38.157.176 (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

  • The Universal monsters were a bunch of different franchises (e.g. Dracula, Wolf Man, Mummy, Frankenstein etc) with a few crossovers (kind of like the Alien v Predator films). Even if the older films constituted a prototype "universe" then that certainly doesn't stretch to the later Mummy series or the recent Universal films (just in the same way the older Spiderman films don't count among the MCU. Betty Logan (talk) 22:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
Yes, Universal Monsters#Dark Universe may become an entry some day if sources say so, but "All films ever made by a studio in the same genre" is not a franchise. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Inflation Chart

Latest comment: 7 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I know that the Inflation Chart (1-10) has not been updated since 2014 because the Book of Records did not update it, but I figure I just do it myself. There is a website that gives the average movie ticket price around the world, Here is the Link. It is pretty much the same thing as how Box Office Mojo does its domestic inflation chart, the $8.84 is just an average for 2017, some cinemas charge higher and some charge lower, the average comes to $8.84 for 2017, so there really is no difference if we do the worldwide inflation, the average for global movie tickets is $9.51. Here is a rough draft of what could be done.

  † Background shading indicates films playing in the week commencing 29 November 2024 in theaters around the world.
Highest-grossing films[1]
Rank Peak Title Worldwide gross Year Reference(s)
1 1 Avatar $3,535,139,727.78 2009 [# 1][# 2]
2 1 Titanic $4,228,293,462.06 1997 [# 3][# 4]
3 3 Star Wars: The Force Awakens $2,332,939,497.03 2015 [# 5][# 6]
4 3 Jurassic World $1,883,959,530 2015 [# 7][# 8]
5 3 The Avengers $1,814,785,168.95 2012 [# 9][# 10]

What do you guys think? Of course, this is just a rough draft and we have to calculate Gone With the Wind, Star Wars, ET, Jaws, etc. And I think if I go through with this chart, we do a Top 25 Highest-grossing Films Adjusted for Inflation.

Editor49 (talk) 22:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I haven't a clue how you have come up with those numbers but that site is not a WP:Reliable source because the prices have been added by contributors, much like Wikipedia (as such some countries have multiple entries). For a start there are multiple entries for the same countries and they are spread out across different years between 2010 and 2017. For example there are 12 entries for the United States alone which put the "average" price at $12.16 between 2010 and 2015. This contradicts the MPAA which puts the average price at between $7.89 and $8.43, so the data does not seem to be representative. Secondly it does not pre-date 2010 so even if there was enough data to calculate a global average it is impossible to inflate the gross for any film that pre-dates 2010. Finally it is not possible to calculate a global average for 2010 from that data: some countries such as France and Germany are completely unrepresented anyway. If there was a way for us to do it manually then we would do it but it's simply not possible with the data we have available. There is a problem with the current chart because by my—very approximate calculations—The Force Awakens should be in 10th place. I think the best approach would be to stick with the Guinness chart which takes care of all the older films and look at ways to possibly deflate grosses for current films to 2014 levels. This is actually fairly easy for US grosses (we can just use the BOM deflater) but we need to look at legitimate ways of deflating the international gross too. Betty Logan (talk) 05:25, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
So there is no where that shows any international prices for the past years? If not, I say we just get rid of the Inflation Chart, it is not accurate. Editor49 (talk) 15:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
And I came up with the numbers by first, taking the worldwide gross, I then divided it by the price of the tickets in the year if it's release, then I multiply it by $9.51. Like I said, this was a rough draft, also, I used the domestic prices when I divided it, but again, it was just a rough draft. Editor49 (talk) 15:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
You might be able to get some data for some older years but you won't get it going back all the way to the 1970s, let alone the 1940s. The inflation chart is accurate as of 2014 and the only thing that has actually changed since then is The Force Awakens; we know this because nothing else has cleared $1.8 billion in that time. By my calculations The Force Awakens should be in 10th place, and while it is not possible to bring the other films up to 2017 prices it probably is possible to deflate The Force Awakens to 2014 prices, so I think we should consider that option. Betty Logan (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 7, 2011.

References

  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference avatar was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ "All Time Worldwide Box Office". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on November 3, 2010.
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference titanic was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ "All Time Worldwide Box Office". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on July 16, 2001.
  5. ^ "Star Wars: The Force Awakens (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved August 15, 2016.
  6. ^ "All Time Worldwide Box Office". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on April 5, 2016.
  7. ^ "Jurassic World (2015)". Box Office Mojo. Retrieved November 24, 2015.
  8. ^ Cite error: The named reference minionspeak was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  9. ^ Cite error: The named reference avengers was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  10. ^ "All Time Worldwide Box Office". Box Office Mojo. Archived from the original on October 1, 2012.

Semi-protected edit request on 16 July 2017

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Change the worldwide gross of The Fate of The Furious from $1238764765 to $1,238,764,765 66.56.176.134 (talk) 16:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

  Done by somebody else. TompaDompa (talk) 17:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wizard world

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Question why is there not a saparted enetery aswell for JKRWW see below

Highest-grossing animated franchises and film series[§] (The films in each franchise can be viewed by selecting "show")
Rank Series Total worldwide box office No. of films Average of films Highest-grossing film
Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011) 1341511219 Philosopher's Stone (2001) 974755371 Deathly Hallows – Part 1 (2010) 960283305 Order of the Phoenix (2007) 939885929 Half-Blood Prince (2009) 934416487 Goblet of Fire (2005) 896911078 Chamber of Secrets (2002) 878979634 Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) 796688549 IMAX Marathon (2016) 1784557

}}

}}

82.38.157.176 (talk) 15:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't really know what you asking, but JK Rowling's Wizarding World is at #2 in the franchise table. Betty Logan (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
having sparred enetrys like mcu/iron man in this cased there be one for j.k rolling wizard world one for Harry Potter and one for Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and if not why one? 82.38.157.176 (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Because Fantastic Beasts is part of the same franchise. It was developed as a prequel/spin-off to the Harry Potter films. It could not exist without Harry Potter. If somebody else besides J K Rowling had written Fantastic Beasts then Rowling could have sued for infringement of the Harry Potter copyright. Betty Logan (talk) 16:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Iron Man and Captain America need not be ranked.

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Section : Highest-grossing franchises and film series

MCU (Rank 1) includes Iron Man (Rank 22) and Captain America (Rank 25). So is it a good practise to include the trilogies of these characters too?

My argument is that Iron man and Cap movies are in fact connected and therefore fall under the same universe. Iron Man even plays a major role in Civil War.

This is different from Batman (Rank 8) for example. It encampasses all thetrical iterations of the character.

I don't see why they must have a unique (additional and redundant) entry in the list.

I'll be glad to hear your arguments for this. Shrinidhi111 (talk) 19:46, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

The arguments for this can be found in the archives but here is the short version: the table ranks franchises, and both Iron Man and Captain America are franchises in their own right that predate the MCU. Just because all the films they appear in take place in the MCU does not mean they should be omitted because that would be inconsistent with how we handle the Spiderman franchise or the Hulk franchise (should it ever penetrate the top 25) or the Superman franchise in the DCEU. There is also nothing to prevent Marvel making an Iron Man film that takes place outside of the MCU. So in short while the film listings contained within may be redundnant because they can found elsehwere in the table the franchises themselves are not redundant because as franchises in their own right they both have unique rankings, just like Spiderman and Superman. Betty Logan (talk) 20:57, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Zootopia total may exceed $1.030M

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Reviewing BOM figures for Zootopia, they ceased tracking after December 11, 2016. Since that time, it was open in four oversees markets well into 2017. Earnings past 12/11/16 not adjusted for currency exchange rate (as we did for FROZEN):

Russia + $6,924,465 10/23/16-3/5/17

PORTUGAL AND ANGOLA + $ 246,393 12/18/16-6/4/17

Lithuania + $ 29,502 12/11/16-7/9/17

When added to the existing total from 12/11/16, the new total will be $1,030,958,555 moving Zootopia from #28 to #24 ahead of Jurassic Park. BOM reported a decline in the earnings for ARGENTINA between 12/1/16 and 12/29/16 despite continuing to play until 1/15/17. This could be due to a drop in currency value, but i did not investigate further at this time. Telewski (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at the box office for Russia the total appears to have jumped $7 million between the end of October and the end of February. However, it looks like this may be partly due to currency fluctuations. Comparing October and February in local currency there seems to have been an increase of 270 million rubles, equivalent to $4.5 million rather than $7 million. The rest seems to have come from the falling value of the dollar. Secondly, since Box Office Mojo stopped tracking the overall total after it stopped tracking the individual Russian gross, it is not clear how much of that $4.5 million is already accounted for by the overall total. It was simpler to do for Frozen because BOM stopped tracking the total before it stopped tracking Japan so all we had to do was add on the surplus. When BOM started tracking Zootopia again in February it wasn't making all that much. I expect the extra money came over Christmas but obviously we can't be sure of that, and without knowing when the extra was made I don't really see what we can do about this. The Portugal/Angloa/Lithuania box office has negligible effect overall and probably isn't worth factoring in unless we can pin down Russia. Betty Logan (talk) 18:02, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for checking. Your decision sounds reasonable. I agree if the Russian total proves out, that is the big number, and it would move the position on the chart. Hopefully after a few more months, BOM will provide a final total. It seems when BOM publishes a final figure they replace the actual date with an "N/A". Telewski (talk) 02:16, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

One night

Latest comment: 7 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Dose anyone know the box office for last nights showing of Batman and Harley Quinn 82.38.157.176 (talk) 22:47, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but I doubt it would be big enough to be on this page. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
It's part of the Batman franchise, so it does belong on the page if we can find the figures. TompaDompa (talk) 08:59, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, if the figures are published they will be added, but if not not there is not much we can do about it. Betty Logan (talk) 17:54, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Because I'm batman

Latest comment: 7 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

Should The Killing Joke and Batman and Harley Quinn be put together in the DC Universe Animated Original Movies .82.38.157.176 (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

The DC Universe Animated Original Movies are extremely far from making the top-25 franchises so it's irrelevant to this list unless you also suggest changes to the franchises we do list. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
I suspect what was meant was to do the same thing as has been done for the Nolan series, the Burton/Schumacher series, the DC Extended Universe, and the 1960s TV series – i.e. to add it as a sub-franchise to the Batman franchise. I don't see any reason why not. TompaDompa (talk) 11:03, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
that is what I mean82.132.216.114 (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
  Done DCF94 (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
"Kevin Conroy Batman" sounds good. We already do something similar with James Bond. There's always the risk of this getting more complicated in the future, but we can cross that bridge when we come to it. TompaDompa (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
The link provided from the DC Animated Universe[1] it's a little unclear, Bruce Timm says "“I don’t really know. I personally kind of think that it is, but I’m not actually in control of what’s in continuity...", and I couldn't find something more clear from the quick google search that I did. All we know for sure now is that it is part of the DC Universe Animated Original Movies, so I personally think we should let it like it is for now untill we find something more official to link it to the other universe. DCF94 (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
OK, but I have removed the piped name. The piped "DC Universe Animated series" could in reality refer to either DC Universe Animated Original Movies or DC animated universe so given that their names are so similar let's stick with the full name so the sub-entry is absolutely clear. I still think there is some value in grouping them together under "Kevin Conroy Batman" though if there is a possible overlap. Betty Logan (talk) 23:56, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Bruce Timm On Whether Batman & Harley Quinn Is In The Animated Series Continuity". comicbook.com. Retrieved 2017-08-17.

You know my name – James Bond reboot slip

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Is Casino Royale (2006) a reboot of the eon James Bond series if so we should sprated the EON Bond series Dr No to Die Another Day and Casino Royale to present.82.38.157.176 (talk) 10:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Casino Royale is technically a reboot, but continuity has never been a major feature of the James Bond films. They couldn't even be bothered recasting M. Each actor defines an era and I don't think there is much value in separating the Daniel Craig films from the other James Bonds. That said if other editors want to do it then I won't oppose it. Betty Logan (talk) 14:15, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
The James Bond films barely had any meaningful continuity to begin with (James Bond clearly didn't age 40 years between 1962 and 2002, for instance). I wouldn't say the Daniel Craig ones are more distinct from the Pierce Brosnan ones than the Brosnan ones are from the Sean Connery ones. Keep it the way it is now, with groupings that aren't excessively large. TompaDompa (talk) 15:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Stop motion

Latest comment: 7 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I trying to find box office results for List of highest-grossing Stop-motion animation and would grateful if anyone will help as I knew of there are 3 lists on wiki of them they are

- List of stop motion films

- List of films featuring clay animation

-Lists of animated feature films

Note min gross $100K

Thanks for looking 82.38.157.176 (talk) 09:59, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

The main sources I know are [1] and [2] but they omit old films and maybe some recent films without US releases. The former shows domestic numbers but the page for each film includes a worldwide number. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:16, 3 September 2017 (UTC)
There is also http://pro.boxoffice.com/ and Variety as well, but beyond the usual suspects box office figures are not straightforward to track down. If you look at the year chart in this list we are mostly dependent on books for historic data. Betty Logan (talk) 12:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Fast and Furious franchise

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Why the Fast and the Furious franchise is still in bold?OscarFercho (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Inhuman

Latest comment: 7 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

Inhumans went into theaters today and it is part of the MCU so it should be added

it needs to be added as it gross $2.6 million[1] this past weekend82.38.157.176 (talk) 10:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
It should not, as this page is for highest-grossing films, the Inhumans IMAX premiere it's just two episodes of a TV series premiering in theaters, it's not the 17th film in the MCU series. It's not uncommon for studios to release episodes from a tv show in theaters, i.e.: the last 2 episodes of season 4 of Game of Thrones, and Sherlock's The Abominable Bride. DCF94 (talk) 11:09, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
I agree. If a film has a multi-platform release we would include it. If a TV film has a theatrical release in some countries we would include it. But if it is just an episode or a couple or several episodes edited together then it should be omitted. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
BOM dose place it in the MCU so we could at least consider added It [2] See ref 82.38.157.176 (talk) 17:51, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
BOM has their own personal criterias for films, like "Movies must be released in the US for the year specified to qualify for this chart [the Yearly Worldide Chart.]". where's here we try do it more factual, so the example I mentioned earlier isn't tecnically correct, a movie first released anywhere qualifies for that years chart, with or without a US release. So yeah, BOM does consider Inhumans' IMAX gross for the MCU franchise, but as I pointed out in my previous post, "it's just two episodes of a TV series" it's not a film, and so technically it shouldn't be considered for a "highest-grossing film" list. Also, other trackers like The Numbers[3] does not recognize it eiter. DCF94 (talk) 19:45, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

where's here we try do it more factual. Just be careful to not fall into WP:OR. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Box Office Mojo just have different criteria. They track box office wherever it comes from, including TV episodes that receive a theatrical release (see Game of Thrones (IMAX)). This article on the other hand is about films, and whichever way you cut it TV episodes are not films. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2018b.htm
  2. ^ http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=avengers.htm
  3. ^ http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/franchise/Marvel-Cinematic-Universe#tab=summary

$1 billion animated films

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

With the new film Despicable Me 3 achieved the $1 billion mark, should we have the information of 6 animated films that reached $1 billion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

There is a dedicated article for animated films at List of highest-grossing animated films. Betty Logan (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on List of highest-grossing films. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:37, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Two question

Latest comment: 7 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Is there any box office for Batman vs. Two-Face and can it be added if there is?82.132.237.246 (talk) 16:37, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Just like Batman: Return of the Caped Crusaders and Batman and Harley Quinn, if it has a box office figure (probably from international markets, because it's been released on DVD in U.S.) it will be added, and as to where we might find it, The Numbers will post the figueres if there are any [1] DCF94 (talk) 11:24, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://www.the-numbers.com/movie/Batman-vs-Two-Face#tab=summary

"In release" entry codes

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The regular editors will be aware that there is 2-entry highlighting restriction for sub-tables in the Franchise table. For example, in the "Phase 3" sub-table of the MCU entry we could only highlight two of the three films in release. I have lifted this restriction by adding a string search to the template code. The upside is that this lifts the 2-entry limit meaning we can now highlight as many entries as necessary. The downside is that it requires an alteration to the entry codes. For example, to highlight the 2nd and 3rd entry we would write "release=2/3" in the relevant table, but all codes must now be 2-digits long, meaning we have to write "release=02/03". The reason we have to do this is is because a string search on "1" would also match with "10" and "11" which would trigger the highlighting, so the code has to be unique, hence "01". You can see an example of this here. This means all articles that use this template will need to be corrected in the same manner. I apologise for the temporary inconvenience but this will be a superior solution in the long run. It seems to be working ok but if you notice any glitches either leave a message here or on my talk page and I will take a look. Betty Logan (talk) 09:18, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Frozen heart

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved

Olaf's Frozen Adventure has had a special release along with Frozen in the UK grossing $1,488,181 making forzen new Total $1,288,488,181 I just about to add it to the animted page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 19:56, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

in the year chart should frozen ($1.287billion) be in brackets like lion king or lady and the tramp? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.119.244 (talk) 19:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
Probably. There are several reissues that need to be separated out. I have sorted out the latest UK one anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Movies counted multiple times in the "franchises and film series" list

Latest comment: 6 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Currently, there are certain movies which are included in multiple franchises/series. This is currently only an issue for Marvel and DC related movies but as the concept of the cinematic universe spreads, this will be a larger issue.

For example, the Marvel Cinematic Universe's films are counted again in the entries for the Avengers, Iron Man and Captain America franchises/series. However, the MCU is quite unique in this case as all these sub-series are full sub-sets of the MCU. This is not the case for most other issues.

The worst example currently is "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)" which is included in 3 different franchises/series. These are Batman, Superman and DC Extended Universe. With this movie, both characters are in the title and an argument may be made for its inclusion in all 3.

In this case, the DCEU movies are only partial sub-sets of these franchises/series. However, as cross-overs become more common there will be many more issues like this. Universal's Monsters, Transformer/GI Joe and Men In Black/Jump street are further examples of such cinematic worlds.

An other good case study would be the Alien, Predator and Alien v Predator franchises. Taken together, they have grossed almost $2B. With more movies expected, it will soon break into the list.

My proposal is for films to be only counted once against one franchise/series.

Specifically, this will mean the following changes need to be made: 1) "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)" and "The Lego Batman Movie (2017)" removed from Batman 2) Avengers entry removed 3) "DC Extended Universe" removed from Superman 4) Iron Man entry removed 5) Captain America entry removed

In the future, this will mean the following will not occur (written Jun 2017) 1) Wolverine have its own entry 2) Justice League have its own entry 3) Spider-Man:Homecoming will be counted in Spider-Man as well 4) Transformers/GI Joe have its own entry 5) Guardians of the Galaxy have its own entry 6) Thor have its own entry — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudtik (talk • contribs) 03:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed countless times. We cannot limit a film to just one franchise based on editorial whim if sources say it belongs to more than one franchise because that would be WP:Original research. The nature of the chart reflects the reality of modern franchising practises, and it is not Wikipedia's place to reshape reality. If sources exist putting a film in this, that and the other franchise then Wikipedia will place it in this, that and the other franchise. Batman v Superman is both a Batman film as well as a Superman film, so that quite simply leaves us with no option other than placing it under both franchise entries. Betty Logan (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
How about just ignoring franchises that are entirely part of another franchise? There is no original research this way, is there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.92.179.32 (talk) 05:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. it would be original research. All franchises should be treated objectively. This is how other sources away from Wikipedia do it. Betty Logan (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry to re-hash this. I am very new to this but maybe if this is a common occurrence, it should be addressed so as to reduce this kind of re-hashing.

I think I understand the argument for not conducting Original Research. However, surely sources exist arguing against "putting a film in this, that and the other franchise" just as sources exist arguing for such things. So clearly, there is a decision being made to accept one source's 'reality' over another source's. Maybe there is a policy of accepting all positive arguments for franchises and ignoring negative arguments.

Again, I apologize if this dance has been danced. If you can point me in the direction of such previous conversations, that would be great. Thanks.Mudtik (talk) 06:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

The table is sourced to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/. I haven't seen your hypothetical sources which don't do this. The current system seems fine to me. MCU and DCEU are clearly defined and recognized as franchises by everybody as far as I know. It seems OK to include a film in both its "primary" franchise and one cinematic universe. Batman v Superman is the only film getting one more count. I can live with that. If The Avengers had been called "Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, Thor and friends" then it would be a problem. If other cinematic universes actually start making the list but their status is unclear then the issue can be revisited. The top-25 limit is a moving target and non-universes also keep making films so we don't know what will happen. I haven't heard anyone say that old Alien films and Predator films are part of an Alien v Predator franchise which didn't exist when they were made. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Ok, looking at that link, it seems to only have the US+Canada grosses. So I assume that it is being used as the source for the defining of franchises and that the Worldwide grosses are coming from other sources. In that page, the Harry Potter movies are their own entry as well as being in the Wizarding World entry. The Dark Knight Trilogy has its own entry. The Lord of the Rings has its own entry which includes the non-Peter Jackson animated The Lord of the Rings (1978). But the Middle Earth entry does not include that animated film. Nor does it include the other two animated films made before or after it; The Hobbit (1977) and The Return of the King (1980). The Hobbit has its own entry as well but only includes the Peter Jackson Films. Avatar is included in the list even though it's sequels have not been released. The entry for Alien includes all Alien and AvP movies. The entry for Predator includes all the Predator and AvP movies. But AvP does not have its own entry. I am not arguing for or against these allocations. I am simply pointing out that somebody somewhere is making decisions on behalf of this table.
Also, the point of a hypothetical is to consider a senario. I am assuming from your response that if such sources existed which argued against how the table is currently set up, this would mean that the table would need to be changed? Taking your extreme example of Avengers, if sources existed arguing that all Avengers films are also part of those 4 franchises would that be cause for change? What if sources existed claiming that CA: Civil War and S-M:Homecoming are Iron Man films? What about sources described a Black Widow Franchise?
I really don't want to go down those rabbit holes. If I may be so bold, may I propose an inward looking system instead? Wikipedia has these "(film series)" or "(franchise)" or "in film" pages. What if those pages and only those pages were used to define franchises? So for example, Spider-Man in Film (Spider-Man in film) and MCU (Marvel Cinematic Universe) have their own pages. The SM: Homecoming page (Spider-Man: Homecoming) states " it is intended to be the second reboot of the Spider-Man film franchise and the sixteenth film of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU)". So this film is part of both. (Which personally, I am against)
Again, I apologize for the trouble. Mudtik (talk) 23:46, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I suggest you read through the archives listed at the top to acquaint yourself with previous discussions. You will find all the answers you want. It is not reasonable to expect editors to have the same discussions again if you have not tried looking for the answers first. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to say that I did not notice the archive links at the top. Having read quite a few previous discussions, I have to admit that while I may not personally find the current system to be problematic, there is considerable weight behind arguments for it. As such I say goodbye and thank you all for your patience and for your great work.Mudtik (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I think a problem here in that this is not a true "Top 25" list. When you have Iron Man, Avengers & Capt. America listed twice, then this is really a "Top 22" list. The franchises that would be theorhetically ranked at #26, #27 & #28 are actually a part of the top 25, but these 3 duplicate listings have bumped them out. The more duplicate (and triplicate) listings there are, the more legitimate top 25 entries are getting bumped out. We need to find a way to address this. (Yes I brought this up few years ago, I'm repeating for the benefit of new readers and because the problem perists and I still think it meeds to be fixed. - theWOLFchild 21:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You could also say MCU and DCEU are the only double listings and should go. But sources consider them a franchise and I think we should keep them. If a DCEU Superman film is allowed to also be counted under Superman then why should a MCU Iron Man film not be counted under Iron Man? Because all Iron Man films happen to currently be part of the MCU? That would be a strange argument. Would Iron Man suddenly become a separate franchise with four films if the animated Iron Man: Rise of Technovore had a small theatrical release instead of direct-to-video? We don't actually call it a top-25 anywhere so I don't think it's essential how "true" of a top-25 it is by some criteria. It's just a list of top franchises which happens to currently stop at #25. But there is one thing I suggest we do: Mark shared universes, e.g. with a colored background on the rank (without changing any ranks). If some readers don't like shared universes being counted then they can easily see how many are listed above a given franchise and subtract a small number from its listed rank. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:22, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Yes, as explained before if we remove franchises such as Captain America and Iron Man (on the grounds that they form a complete subset of the MCU) then we end up with an inconsistent approach i.e. Spiderman will still be present as a separate franchise, as will Superman and Batman, so rather than eliminating redundancy we would actually be promoting an illusion. It is really the MCU and DCEU that are anomolous by virtue of being cross-franchise series. I did attempt to create two separate draft tables at the start of this year but the problem was that there wasn't much difference between the two tables and they didn't enjoy a whole lot of support. I am not opposed to adding a highlight to the two universe ranks and it could be an elegant solution. There is another solution we can contemplate too: we could simply remove the ranks from the two "universe" entries (and black out the cell) and extend the table by two places (if the basic objection here is essentially that they are "stealing" places"). Betty Logan (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Betty, the suggestion you made at the very end of your last comment could work. Would you be adding a note with something to the effect that these franchises have been listed twice or are also included as a subset in another listing? Anyway, I would be in favor of that. It's better than nothing. - theWOLFchild 17:38, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Either just highlighting them or blacking them out and removing their ranks could potentially work. I'd have to actually see what it would look like before I give my opinion, though. TompaDompa (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The Exorcist

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

Why The Exorcist (film) is not in the timeline of record holders? According to the list above, it outgrossed The Godfather --Jbaranao (talk) 13:12, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

The Exorcist was not even the highest-grossing film of the year upon initial release (see the figure in brackets in the year chart). The reason The Exorcist has grossed more than The Godfather is because it had multiple reissues, the first coming in 1976, and by that stage Jaws had already taken the mantle. You can see some 1970s era charts: at the beginning of 1975 The Exorcist was in 5th place (this is a US chart, but the rankings are similar globally); following its 1976 reissue it rose to 3rd place (ranking behind Jaws and The Godfather), which was its highest position; by 1980 it had overtaken The Godfather (thanks to a 1979 reissue] but was down to 4th place because Star Wars and Grease had come out by then. So yes, it ultimately grossed more than The Godfather but not early enough to take its record.Betty Logan (talk) 14:26, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Wow, thanks a lot for such a detailed answer! Very kind of you, didn't have to bother to provide so much detail :) --Jbaranao (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films/Archive_13&oldid=1152303943"