Talk:Box-office bomb

Box-office disappointment
Is "box-office disappointment" another name for "box-office bomb" or "box-office flop"? 45.72.195.21 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * All box-office bombs are "disappointments", but not all box-office disappointments are bombs. A box-office disappointment can still go into profit, but a bomb has to lose a huge sum of money. A "flop" is somewhere inbetween: any film that loses money is a flop, but not necessarily on a large enough scale to qualify it as a bomb. Betty Logan (talk) 00:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * "A box-office disappointment" From what I have noticed in film descriptions over the years, some films may have been reasonably profitable, but were labeled box-office disappointments because they performed below expectations in either the worldwide market or whatever local market the studio prioritized. Leading to scrapped plans for sequels and franchises. The term "bomb" is reserved more for films which caused considerable losses for the studio. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 21 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Per Talk:Box-office_bomb/Archive_1, all these terms have been already discussed. I think the distinction between "box office bomb" and "Box-office flop" is necessary to be highlighted on this page. The source is WP:RS since it is published by Buzzfeed, and written by Sam Cleal. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:11, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I would disagree with Buzzfeed being used to source a whole section on this topic, since it is not the highest quality of sources. (WP:BUZZFEED: "Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent. A 2014 study from the Pew Research Center found BuzzFeed to be the least trusted news source in America.")  Mike   Allen   02:23, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * But the information isn't even controversial in the sense that no other sources seems to be disputing this info. Aman Kumar Goel (Talk) 02:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do other sources support it?  Mike  Allen   02:43, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Good question here also, as in do other editors support it? As disputed content, the WP:ONUS is on the editor seeking to add (re-add) this content to also seek a consensus in support of it. (also pinging, the editor who removed the content a couple months back) - w o lf  03:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm with User:MikeAllen here. User:Aman.kumar.goel, Buzzfeed may be reliable enough to quote for reviews or whatever, but we should not have an article about movies that were bombs define what we say a bomb is; we need an article that explains what a bomb is in a more general sense. And it certainly shouldn't be one particular publication with, possibly, its own possible spin. Drmies (talk) 08:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Editors find the quality of BuzzFeed articles to be highly inconsistent." The sister publication BuzzFeed News used to have higher standards for journalism. BuzzFeed regularly publishes listicles, it has been involved in several plagiarism controversies, and it has been accused of having an editorial policy which heavily favors its corporate sponsors (such as Hasbro, Microsoft, and Pepsi). Having in the past deleted any content which may criticize its sponsors. Dimadick (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

"Box office Bombay" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Box_office_Bombay&redirect=no Box office Bombay] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached. signed,Rosguill talk 19:20, 7 May 2023 (UTC)