This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles
This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles
This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked
Coverage and accuracy: not checked
Structure: not checked
Grammar and style: not checked
Supporting materials: not checked
To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disney, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of The Walt Disney Company and its affiliated companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DisneyWikipedia:WikiProject DisneyTemplate:WikiProject DisneyDisney articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comedy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of comedy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComedyWikipedia:WikiProject ComedyTemplate:WikiProject ComedyComedy articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I think that this page should be semi-protected (or stronger) due to recent repeated vandalism in which cast/credits have been changed. (Including repeatedly adding a cast member without a source that supports the claim) with no explanation.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 10 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
User Koala15 and I disagree on the presentation of the gross box office totals in this article. Aesthetically, I prefer condensed, rounded values ($94 million vs $94,213,585) because they're easier to read and process and they are consistent with the way the budget estimate is presented ($50 million, not $50,000,000). And because per MOS:LARGENUM, unless the numbers are stable (which they aren't since the movie is still bringing in revenue), and unless the sources indicate their margins of error and such accuracy is important, (which it isn't) or unless there is something special about the accuracy (like if they beat out another film by $1 or something), then the long-form numbers are unnecessary. Also, per this discussion at WikiProject Film, consensus was established in May to use condensed and rounded values. Contrarily, Koala prefers the expanded totals as presented by BoxOfficeMojo. Koala has described the May consensus as the preference of a small number of editors, and has argued for the inclusion of the long form values since, in his estimation, the majority of film articles still use it. An expanded discussion can be found here. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
It seems to me that since we have an existing style at MOS:LARGENUM that we should default to that style for consistency. If there are justifications that the style does not apply, then it can be argued to ignore the style. But that should be case-by-case and after gaining a consensus that the style does not apply for that case. In this particular case, it seems relatively clear that the Foreign box office is approximate since it is only give to the nearest $100,000 [the source indicates the rounded $37,500,000 for foreign sales], so the total can not be precisely given to anything more than this level (ie $94.7 million)AbramTerger (talk) 09:01, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
In this case the precision is dictated by the precision of the original number anyway (which is up to one decimal point of a million for the foreign gross and by extension the worldwide gross), so I support shortening the amount to $94.2 million in this instance. I generally prefer to keep one decimal place so our rounding doesn't "tamper" with any significant digits. Betty Logan (talk) 14:21, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
The foreign number is not a precise number. So in my eyes it would be faulty to not round the whole number. The discussion having taken place only makes it easier . NathanWubs17:54, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Another argument against using precise values, is that while BoxOfficeMojo is considered a reliable source, it is not the only source out there, and their values don't always jibe with sources like BoxOffice.com, for instance. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
I have not seen this pixar movie. But when thinking of pixar movies.My guess is that the name of the character is Concierge while maybe also being a concierge. So keep it unless someone that watched the movie can correct me? NathanWubs (talk) 17:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The soundtrack description seems deficient, as there's little doubt that what I hear coming out of my toddler's computer is Thunderstruck (song) from AC/DC of which there is no mention in the article - which seems to be mostly talking about an stand-alone album rather than the soundtrack of the movie! Nfitz (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
All instances of CHoPs should be changed to CHiPs :— Preceding unsigned comment added by Menchin (talk • contribs)
Not done: Correct as written. Within this fictional universe, the title of the show is CHoPs, which is a parody of CHiPs. See [1]. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 13:03, 11 April 2019 (UTC)Reply