Talk:Box Office Mojo/Archives/2014

Not so reliable source
Just want to note here that Box Office Mojo is not always as reliable a source as you might think. I've frequently noticed production budget figures that have been rounded to the nearest $10 million (and less often were way off). In contrast The Numbers is much more direct and usually specifies that they took their budget figures from Variety or Hollywood reporter or elsewhere.

The other issue is the failure to update subtotals. The film The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is listed as having a earned $37 million worldwide, of which $9 million is listed as foreign (or international) but if you look at the tab for Foreign and look down below the subtotal you can quickly see there is quite a bit more than $9 million listed there. [I'd snapshot the page but WebCite is in 'maintenance mode'].

So this is a WARNING the totals might not be correct on Box Office Mojo. Editors will make good faith efforts to stick to the totals, so if there are any discrepancies make sure to use the Edit summary and explain your changes to other editors. -- 109.76.241.16 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The gross totals for Seven Psychopaths also seem to be wrong. Talk:Seven_Psychopaths -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Col Neeham (IMdB founder, out of which Mojo came from) said as much for IMdB in an LA Times Interview from October 14, 2010 here:
 * Q: What happens if the so-called experts get the trivia or credits wrong?


 * A: We have had cases where somebody has said, 'I'm not attached to this film,' and then we look, and it's their agent that's actually told us about it. And surprise, a week later, they are publicly attached to the film. You know how it works: We get a tip from an agent or from the person themselves or somebody involved in the production. We are kind of like, very plugged in there.
 * Mojo is no reliable source; too dependent on IMdB and too much conflict of interest. --Wuerzele (talk) 02:33, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

October 2014
This domain currently redirects to a web page at the Internet Movie Database, meaning that all Box Office Mojo links are currently broken. I've started a discussion at WikiProject Film about the matter; you can reach it here. Thanks, Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 19:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

is Box Office Mojo even notable?
Per WP:NCORP there needs to be "significant coverage" in secondary sources, which means depth. I do not see this for Box Office Mojo--Wuerzele (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's only because the article needs work. If you use the Wikipedia Reference Search and search for "Box Office Mojo" (with quotes), you'll find hundreds of third-party sources. It is the box office information source, not just for Wikipedia (6000+ uses), but if you change your search to "according to Box Office Mojo", you'll find CBS News, Washington Post, Business Week, USA Today, Forbes, CNN, Yahoo, LA Times, Time, FOX News, and so on, and so forth. Best to remove the notability template. ;) --82.136.210.153 (talk) 16:44, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 82.136.210.153 I think you misunderstood my point. Let me be clearer: significant coverage means not just quoting Mojo numbers as you listed CBS News, Washington Post, Business Week, USA Today, Forbes, CNN, Yahoo, LA Times, Time, FOX News. I found no article ABOUT Mojo News itself. Prove me wrong!--Wuerzele (talk) 05:25, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Right. Professor Matt Ragas of DePaul University wrote about it here. The article itself links to this and this. It's mentioned in David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson's book Minding Movies here, and they also discuss the website here. Breitbart.com discusses the website here. However, I now better understand your point. Maybe Box Office Mojo shouldn't have its own article, but instead a section in Internet Movie Database. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 10:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * 82.136.210.153, so the professors entry on depaulmediarelations.com isnt a WP:Reliable resource that could be used in the page. And the sentence mentioning Mojo in the book Minding Movies I am afarid is no "significant coverage". I agree with your point, to make it a section in Internet Movie Database, if that has enough to stand on its own (I havent checked).--Wuerzele (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I thought the entry on depaulmediarelations.com is reliable because professor Matt Ragas of DePaul University is a professional in the field on which he writes. See WP:NEWSBLOG. Also, there's a lot more on Box Office Mojo in the book Minding Movies than just one sentence; read on and check the next page(s) here. But it's no longer very relevant since we can agree a section in the Internet Movie Database article might be a good solution. Let's wait for additional opinions, and then it's just a matter of someone being WP:BB. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, I agreed with 's October 11 removal of the notability template, which has now been restored; the frenzy of coverage in other media when the site briefly went down without explanation effectively demonstrated its notability. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , Box Office Mojo went down this past weekend, and several major periodicals, including The New York Times noticed it and gave a brief history of the website's relevance to the film industry. I'm finding it hard to believe that the website's notability is in question. Why not put it up for WP:AFD? I believe that its outcome will be a resounding keep. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 03:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I've removed the template. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Many thanks! :) Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 13:26, 17 October 2014 (UTC)