Talk:Blockbuster (retailer)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2019 and 9 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sweet-n-Sour-Kandy.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsourced edit by KevinTheGuy
Please offer a valid explanation as to why edit 962626414 was reverted. This edit changes the text on Wikipedia to something that is more accurate. No "unreliable" sources were attempted to be added or referenced directly. KevinTheGuy (talk) 04:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm actively watching this page, so no need to ping me. You added "originally reported by a fan group of the brand" to both the lead and body. That claim isn't sourced in the article. You also removed "some" in front of "privately-owned franchises", making it a misleading statement. Only some franchises remained opened, not all. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * While you're right about not all franchise-owned locations remaining open, the language I amended actually clarified the fact that they were allowed to stay open pursuant to whatever conditions Dish Network outlined, I assume. Saying that "some franchise-owned locations were allowed to stay open" makes it seem like Dish Network decided to close franchise-owned locations instead of the franchisees themselves, which so far I've read is not the case. If a franchisee is willing to continue paying Dish the fee, and their business support(ed) it, then that's why these franchise-owned locations stayed open for so long in the first place. Additionally, the factual claim I added to the third paragraph in the lead "isn't sourced in the article" - because you've made it expressively clear your personal dislike of the source's inclusion in the article which supports this fact. I truly didn't want to upset you in that way. KevinTheGuy (talk) 04:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Here's the original text I restored:
 * Here's what you changed it to:
 * The first part, "Dish maintained a small number" didn't change. If you are concerned that someone might think Dish decided to close some franchises, well this part of the sentence would still cause that same confusion. I don't personally think the sentence is confusing, but I'm open to suggestions. Removing "some" from the sentence doesn't make any of that more clear.As for the unsourced statement you were adding, you would need to find a source that is considered reliable by Wikipedia's standards. If you are unable to, then it can't be added. See the Verifiability policy to learn more. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I spent an hour or more at the Teahouse yesterday, explaining PRECISELY why you cannot change disputed content based upon a rubbish source. (see my last diff in that thread here). Yet two hours later you reinserted that disputed content again (which was removed), but are back here, still arguing the toss again, pretending that the issue is that GoneIn60 has a personal dislike of your source. That is not true. There is now a clear consensus against it, and so its fair to say that we all have a dislike of your source, and neither it nor its contents is going to be allowed to be used here. Savvy?  This continued insistence on using it is not only non-constructive but also seems now to be disruptive. Changing content based on a poor source, but not actually citing that source is worse that making the same changes with a source. But neither are acceptable, and you have been told multiple times not to do that, but you don't seem to hear.
 * I now must ask you to stop trying to add disputed content based either on either no source, or on a non-reliable source. "Stuff you happen to know or have found out" has no place on Wikipedia unless it can be verified to a reliable source. Your source is not reliable. So stop trying to argue it back in, or you will face being blocked for disruptive editing (see WP:3RR). You have already had three warning about this on your talk page, and I will repeat this message on there so that you appreciate that an administrator like me will not tolerate continued arguing and editing against consensus or edit-warring over a number of years. As I have already advised you: DROPTHESTICK. I'm sure there are many other articles you would be better off spending your time and editing skills on improving. You can't win every battle here, even if you believe you're right. So it's time to move on. Do I make myself clear? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I spent an hour or more at the Teahouse yesterday, explaining PRECISELY why you cannot change disputed content based upon a rubbish source. (see my last diff in that thread here). Yet two hours later you reinserted that disputed content again (which was removed), but are back here, still arguing the toss again, pretending that the issue is that GoneIn60 has a personal dislike of your source. That is not true. There is now a clear consensus against it, and so its fair to say that we all have a dislike of your source, and neither it nor its contents is going to be allowed to be used here. Savvy?  This continued insistence on using it is not only non-constructive but also seems now to be disruptive. Changing content based on a poor source, but not actually citing that source is worse that making the same changes with a source. But neither are acceptable, and you have been told multiple times not to do that, but you don't seem to hear.
 * I now must ask you to stop trying to add disputed content based either on either no source, or on a non-reliable source. "Stuff you happen to know or have found out" has no place on Wikipedia unless it can be verified to a reliable source. Your source is not reliable. So stop trying to argue it back in, or you will face being blocked for disruptive editing (see WP:3RR). You have already had three warning about this on your talk page, and I will repeat this message on there so that you appreciate that an administrator like me will not tolerate continued arguing and editing against consensus or edit-warring over a number of years. As I have already advised you: DROPTHESTICK. I'm sure there are many other articles you would be better off spending your time and editing skills on improving. You can't win every battle here, even if you believe you're right. So it's time to move on. Do I make myself clear? Nick Moyes (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Airbnb rental
, I see you have added back contested material to the article in this edit. This violates WP:DUE, since this is not a significant aspect of Blockbuster the company. When speaking about this topic as a whole, a rental operation at the last Blockbuster on earth holds no significance whatsoever. This can also be seen as WP:PROMOTIONAL in nature, promoting, advertising, or even showcasing the actions of one store. This isn't an article about the store in Bend, Oregon. I advise you undo this edit until there is sufficient consensus to include it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:30, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I see you're still performing your old tricks, and I understand that you think you wear the pants on this article and want to whitewash it to fit with your views of history. I guess if you had it your way the Blockbuster brand would be completely dead, is that right? I seriously bet you to try that stuff on the articles of similar abandoned species like the Spix's macaw, Kihansi spray toad, Hawaiian crow, Black softshell turtle, Barbary lion, Scimitar oryx, and others because When speaking about these species as a whole, habitat and conservation efforts with the last of these creatures on earth holds no significance whatsoever. I would actually agree with you if Blockbuster was in its heyday and one or any franchise-owned location tried doing similar things. But the store in Bend, Oregon IS Blockbuster. Dish certainly isn't doing anything with the Blockbuster brand, besides possibly licensing it out to pop-up locations and nostalgic apparel stores, which aren't receiving any encyclopedia space. Considering all the media attention (secondary sources) the Bend location has achieved over the years, especially since now it is the last remaining store, I'd say that it sure is significant. KevinTheGuy (talk) 03:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Guys. I'm just going to wade in here with some thoughts as a relatively uninvolved editor, who got drawn in when I first tried to offer advice at the Teahouse to . Sadly, this eventually ended in him telling me to 'fuck off'. I felt it necessary to warn them on their now-blanked userpage against inserting uncited content, and again it ended in a 'fuck you, Nick Moyes' post, for which the editor temporarily had their editing rights withdrawn by another administrator for making these personal attacks. So, it's clear to me that passions on this subject have risen to an unnecessarily high level in recent months, and I find that rather a shame and a bit silly. I would like everyone to remain CIVIL, please. That said, I have since had this article on my watchlist, and I spotted KtGuys edit last night and took the time to check the sources. Although I understand 's concerns about WP:UNDUE here, I actually felt the addition was perfectly acceptable, and based on two good WP:RSs. I think the cited edit KtG made does add to the encyclopaedic nature of this article, as it tells the tale of the demise of a once might global chain, and the fact that it had come to the last branch offering overnight accommodation for film devotees is interesting. I would say, however, that I would draw the line at future edits adding details of further AirBnB-type rentals, or other minutiae, and that we don't need to know, specifically, that it will be let out for three separate one-night stays. But as a one off, I think it's fine, and I'm OK with letting that edit remain, albeit trimmed slightly. Hope that's agreeable to all involved? Nick Moyes (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for weighing in, Nick. I still think the Airbnb event lacks long-term, historical significance in the overall picture of Blockbuster's rise and fall, and the recent addition sounds somewhat promotional, but as long as a second set of eyes believes this is acceptable, I'm willing to drop my contention for now. We can always revisit down the road if needed. You have my support for trimming the fluff down, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * And just to add, these are not secondary sources. Like most breaking news reports, these are primary sources that do little more than simply report that the event occurred. Primary isn't bad, but these particular examples fall into the category of WP:RECENTISM when looking for justification of historical significance, and until the event is embraced, covered, and/or analyzed by secondary sources (preferably scholarly, academic sources), its long-term significance remains questionable. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The changes you've been trying to make (diff1, diff2) are unsourced. I'm not seeing any support for "numerous promotional stunts" in the cited sources. A search for one also came up empty. If you have a source or two that support this, please add them if you intend to make this claim. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

I've created the stub Blockbuster (Bend, Oregon), so feel free to trim this article or move content over appropriately. --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 13:28, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Redundancy: Bend Oregon store
Since the store in Bend, Oregon was detailed with multiple references in the lede of the article, and then discussed in the body of the article repeating some of the same references, I removed the repeated info from the lede, thinking details in the body of the article were sufficient. My edit was reverted. Counting the photo caption, the information about the Bend, Oregon store is repeated 3 times in the article. Is this necessary and appropriate? (Note also the statement in the New Zealand section of the article about the Bend, Oregon store.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Blockbuster.com back up as of 3/23/2023
the page came back up sometime last night. we should be on the lookout for any noteworthy news sources 64.64.138.142 (talk) 20:38, 23 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Does this work? https://www.cbsnews.com/news/blockbuster-website-reactived-comeback-is-video-rental-company-returning-after-being-bought/ TAPwiki (talk) 15:58, 24 March 2023 (UTC)