Talk:Cry Macho (film)

Requested move 16 January 2021

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move  (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

– When you look up "Cry Macho", most sources that come up are about the film. Additionally, page views show that the film has risen in popularity, therefore becoming the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 22:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Cry Macho (film) → Cry Macho
 * Cry Macho → Cry Macho (novel)
 * Support Cry Macho → Cry Macho (novel) and would also support either Cry Macho (film) → Cry Macho or retention of Cry Macho (film) and conversion of Cry Macho into a disambiguation page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Disambiguation pages aren't useful when there are only 2 pages (see this discussion as an example). Some Dude From North Carolina wanna talk? 02:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has about 100,000 two-entry disambiguation pages. Thus, WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS to a very high degree (see Category:Disambiguation pages with short descriptions) and I have mentioned this fact at other two-entry RM discussions, such as Talk:Michael Reiter (police officer), Talk:James Workman (rower) or Talk:David Bowles (chief executive). —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 06:19, 17 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. The movie is not even out yet, and the book still surpasses it in long-term significance given that people have attempted to adapt it for decades. I'm not against revisiting this in a bit if it's clear the movie will wind up being more famous/influential than the book in the long term. Nohomersryan (talk) 02:44, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:RECENTISM. Since movie is not out yet In ictu oculi (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Budget
The budget for this film seems to be $33 million according to Variety a usually very reliable source. In this particularly case and this particular film the sourcing is very good quality, but that is unusual and in most film articles the source is not so good and frequently far more unclear.

It is important to clearly verify sources, and Verifiability states: "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports"

WP:INFOBOXREF "References are acceptable in some cases, but generally not needed in infoboxes if the content is repeated (and cited) elsewhere or if the information is obvious."

I can see why some might think that applies to budget figures in the infobox but Wikipedia editors have a terrible habit of inventing budget figures or frequently using unreliable sources, and then there's plain old vandalism. Based on vandalism alone it is absolutely necessary to make the budget sources clear and easy to check with an inline reference in the Infobox. I do not see anything to suggest that the style guidelines of WP:INFOBOXREF take precedence over the principle of WP:VERIFICATION and urge the reference be restored. (Please revert this diff) -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:INFOBOXREF suggests citing information in the body of the article rather than in the infobox. The budget has been reported to be $33 million. This is not being "challenged" and it is not "likely to be challenged." As a result, I added the information to #Production and included the source from Variety. A citation to the infobox is now unnecessary since WP:V is already met with a citation from a reliable source. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:V calls for clarity and WP:INFOBOXREF says "if the information is obvious" (and obviousness is subjective) but I've the made argument very difficult for myself because I have no reason to challenge the budget in this specific article. Many articles fail to include the budget anywhere in the article at all. Variety is a most reliable source so I cannot say the citation is strictly necessary but nonetheless I would say it would be better if it was included anyway for clarity and ease of verification and obviousness. This case is exceptional and I'll let the matter rest for this article, but in general, I see nothing to suggest that the style guidelines take precedence over the principle of clearly verifying sources, especially when it comes to budgets that are all too often inaccurate or unreliably sourced. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 16:13, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I didn't even realise that User:TropicAces had conincidentally also added a reference for the budget to the Infobox only hours before me. -- 109.79.162.117 (talk) 01:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)


 * This makes me wonder if it may be time to reconsider how movies' financial successes and failures are presented on WP. From this article, one could get the idea this film was a failure—but was it? It mentions its budget—what is that the production budget only, or does it include its marketing budget? It mentions how much it made at the box office, but also that it was streamed on HBO. It doesn't mention (at least I didn't see it) that it's now streaming on Netflix, which I believe is a much bigger market. Are figures paid for streaming rights ever public knowledge? Can anyone really tell how much a film like this makes or loses? – AndyFielding (talk) 05:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)