Talk:List of highest-grossing R-rated films

No Matrix Revolutions?
The Matrix Revolutions grossed 427.3 million USD, placing it just ahead of Django Unchained, yet it's not on this list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.109.214 (talk) 04:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems that a large number of R Rated Movies are Missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.103.211 (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

What is going on with this list, high traffic on this page and massive errors WaratahLavarack (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Based on there are ten missing films:


 * The Matrix Revolutions
 * Lucy
 * The Last Samurai
 * The King's Speech
 * The Bodyguard
 * Kingsman: The Golden Circle
 * Kingsman: The Secret Service
 * Prometheus
 * The Wolf of Wall Street
 * Slumdog Millionaire
 * I guess the list was based on the top domestic films without looking for films which did better internationally. Several other films are above the current number 50 but outside the top-50 if the ten above films are added. PrimeHunter (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

If there are films missing we need to add them to the top 50 Fanoflionking 10:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Done... Unfortunately, I think I may have messed up the reference links in the process — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.186.234.165 (talk) 16:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

R 15
do we need this page? there is no pages for other rating pules film in differnce countrys have differt ratings. Fanoflionking
 * Before anyone made a list of highest grossing puppet/animated/American films that didn't exist either. Different countries having different rating don't matter either. This is a widely covered topic by reputable publications. That's anyone "needs" to justify making a page.★Trekker (talk) 14:47, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure most of those other lists should have pages (and many, like the ones for live-action/animated and puppet films, were created by the same user). High-grossing R-rated films are pointed out in news reports sometimes, though. Probably stories that are getting info from studios, who want to make their film grosses seem impressive even if they happen to be overly specific, but still. Trivialist (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The truth is people take a lot of attention for R-rated films when they make money because there has been a longstanding problem for years now that studios refuse to make R-rated films and instead go for a safer PG-13 so they can increase their profits. But when a R-rated films do bank people take notice because it pokes holes in this Hollywood idea. I don't have an issue with any of the other lists, but I honestly think this one is more justified because the subject has tons of coverage.★Trekker (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Grosses
Since this list is about an American rating, I suggest including the U.S. grosses as well. This would be clarifying for some of the foreign films that are little known in the U.S. Trivialist (talk) 18:22, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah that seems like a good idea.★Trekker (talk) 01:18, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

That Unholy Lump of Text I just added
is the actual top 50 highest grossing r rated movies of all time (excluding 2019 releases) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.206.103.211 (talk) 17:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not just Forbes
It's not just Forbes that's reporting that Joker has overtaken Deadpool 2 by now. The same is stated by Variety in three different articles by now:, , Variety even quotes an exact figure of "$788.1 million", and say it's expected that by Monday, it will have surpassed $800 million. So much about a supposedly "singular" article on behalf of Forbes. --2003:EF:13DB:3B91:4540:AD6:1DBD:8F71 (talk) 21:36, 26 October 2019 (UTC)


 * So I've been looking a bit deeper into the data by now. The difference seems to be that BOM has only counted the gross up to and including October 25, while Forbes and Variety are also including October 26, which accounts for the $12 million difference between them and BOM. Looking at what it's making internationally (i. e. domestic + abroad), $12 million on Saturday internationally is not too unlikely at this point. --2003:EF:13DB:3B91:4540:AD6:1DBD:8F71 (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Why were my Edits reverted?
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_R-rated_films&type=revision&diff=924409513&oldid=924394870

My Editions were valid as they updated the list to the true top 50 movies, by adding missing movies such as Last Samurai, Fifty Shades Freed, Fifty Shades Darker etc. The people who reverted my edits (Ironman7777 and Citizenrickey) gave no reason for doing so.

Highest grossing R-rated film series and franchises
Only 3 of the 6 Terminator films are R-rated. This article is becoming very deluged with trivial and contradictory tables. SassyCollins (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Than the none r rated films should be removed Fanoflionking 22:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The whole list is misguided IMO. The "R" rating only applies in the United States so it doesn't make sense to rank films by global box office. You have The Mermaid at #10 with $554 million but it grossed $527 million in China which doesn't even have a ratings system! Literally only $3 million was grossed under the "R" rating in the United States. Betty Logan (talk) 22:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You thinking it's bad does not make it a non-notable topic.★Trekker (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You could comprise these lists for any rating in the world. Why not a list of films with a 15 rating? The problem with this topic is that it doesn't take a WP:WORLDVIEW. Betty Logan (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to agree. I'll note that WP:FILMRATING says Since this is the English-language Wikipedia and not the American Wikipedia, avoid mere identification of ratings issued by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) to counter systemic bias. TompaDompa (talk) 23:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Wholefully agreed. Deadpool 2's total also partly consists of the not-R-rated "Once upon a...". SassyCollins (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * X-Men sure as heck does not belong on the list, that's for sure, the vast majority of it's instalments were not R.★Trekker (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Should we have X-Men and Deadpool listed as separate franchises as Deadpool falls under the X-Men umbrella? I feel it's a bit redundant. ExplorerBoy101 (talk) 16:34, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Pretty Woman
has now twiced removed Pretty Woman from the record timeline (see and ), asserting that The Exorcist held the record until it was assumed by Terminator 2. I see no factual basis for this assertion:


 * 1) The Exorcist has grossed $441 million in total, but $112 million of its gross came from a re-release in year 2000, meaning that it had grossed $329 million by 1990 (this is confirmed at its BOM page).
 * 2) Pretty Woman was rolled out internationally between March and December 1990. It went on to gross $463 million worldwide, putting it far ahead of The Exorcist's $329 million by the end of its release.
 * 3) Terminator 2 was rolled out between July and December 1991, and went on to surpass Pretty Woman with a first release gross of $517 million.

So quite clearly, the chronology appears to be that Pretty Woman took the record from The Exorcist and the following year Terminator 2 took the record from Pretty Woman. The only way this could not have occurred is if Pretty Woman had somehow not reached $330 million before Terminator 2, despite the fact the film would have closed in most markets before Terminator 2 was even released. For example, in the domestic market Pretty Woman had grossed $175 million of its $178 million total in its first 6 months of release. It is unfathomable that Pretty Woman would have grossed less than $329 million by July 1991, when its last release was in December 1990, and then went and added another $130 million. If that is the case where did all that money come from? This seems to be what Bigdas is implying, but yet I see no evidence to that effect.

If he intends removing Pretty Woman again I would appreciate it if he provides a source to attest to his claim, because on the basis of the current sources Pretty Woman would have briefly held the record. Betty Logan (talk) 20:17, 21 February 2020 (UTC)


 * We seem to have moved on from Pretty Woman being culled from the article to its gross being replaced with an uncorroborated figure: ., this is a very specific figure; presumably you have a source for it? Wikipedia is a WP:Verifiable encyclopedia and figures must be accompanied by citations. Betty Logan (talk) 15:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Re-arranging the citation tag is not a sufficient response to my request for a source. You obviously got this figure from somewhere so please provide the source for the figure. Per WP:BURDEN it is your responsibility to provide a source for the information you are adding. Betty Logan (talk) 05:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Demon Slayer The Movie Mugen Train
Hi Betty, it's look like you having many problem with my edits. First of all, you don't response my question on your talk page. I am afraid that you are a bot. Because you are frequently reverting my edits with a clear response. You can check the gross of the anime film from the table. Can you how see how many citation and reference are there in the table? If I where to add all of them, then you know the article would look junk. Please cooperate with other editors because you can revert my 1 hour edit with just one click. いちか かすが (talk) 06:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all you have not left any question on my talk page. You simply left a message saying you were going to "send the links through". I don't want links sent through to me, I want you to properly source your edits. I have also clearly explained to you in the edit summary and on your user talk page why I have reverted your edit. Links to other articles are not sources. WP:CIRCULAR says "Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether this English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources." I am sick of repeating myself. If you have the sources to corroborate the latest figure then add them to THIS article, do not expect editors and readers to go trawling through other articles looking for sources. I am not going to do the work for you; if you want to add new data to this article you are going to have to properly source it. Betty Logan (talk) 08:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I guess something is wrong on your talk page because you please check the history of your talk page before replying again. いちか かすが (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * There is nothing wrong with my talk page. This is really very simple: if you add a new figure to this article then you add a source for it too. Why can't you just do that? Betty Logan (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Adding to what said, the currency conversions are still not properly sourced. Currency conversions are not considered WP:Routine calculations and therefore need to be sourced to WP:Reliable sources for those specific conversions, not just currency converter calculators – doing the latter is WP:Original research. I can give two suggestions as to how to go about this: either locate sources that give the grosses from the various territories in USD and use those sources with their currency conversions (not yours), or add a note explaining that the listed gross underestimates the actual gross because it does not include grosses from certain territories. It is also possible to do both. TompaDompa (talk) 16:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I am tired of explaining you. You should not induce in saying that my sources are wrong and your suggestions are preferly correct. It looks like you are total ignorant of the matter. Money exchange varies in different sites. If you see the gross of the film in Box Office Mojo, you will see that even if the film grosses are increasing in JPY still it is reducing in USD due to money fluclation. My edits are not original research. I have just added the sources confirming the correct exchange on that day. If you want to know the original research of this film then check the pinned post of my twitter @ichika_kasuga. That's the original research. The original research is that the film has grossed more than $432 million worldwide. But sources confirming is only $428.8 million. Please do not play tricks in the air. I have already provide the sources and even the Administrator has no problem regarding this. Again, I am telling you to use your sandbox for practising your edits. Thank you. いちか かすが (talk) 17:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I didn't say you're wrong, I said you're not properly sourcing your edits. You correctly note that Money exchange varies in different sites. but fail to appreciate that this is precisely the problem. That's why currency conversions are not WP:Routine calculations. That's why you need WP:Reliable sources doing the currency conversions for you. (And this is not even getting into the ridiculous false precision of using nine significant figures after making a whole bunch of currency conversions and adding them all up.) One example of such a source would be this March 16 article from IndieWire which says With a $417 million worldwide gross, “Demon Slayer: Mugen Train” is the first Japanese film and the first anime film to cross the $400 million mark. That source has already done the currency conversion for us, no WP:Original research needed. That's why, which . TompaDompa (talk) 19:02, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * TompaDompa, it looks like you consider your edits as most preferable. When no editors have shown any objection to Ichika’s edits. Also, I have checked his tweets where he has mentioned that the film has grossed more than $432 million. If he were to add these tweets as his source backing the changes in the article, then I would certainly rise objections because his tweets are original research and are not backed by source. I am also an Wikipedian. I know all the policy regarding adding sources to confirm user’s edits. But the way you are behaving looks no way different from monkey. Never mind my language but that is the only truth about you. Further, you are adding WP: Original Research tag on the film. Original research is never published as they cannot be verified by sources (news, magazine, journal, etc). If you see his tweets, you will know that he has added the grosses of the film from Indonesia. I have searched the entire internet but couldn’t find any sources confirming the film has grossed $1.98 million in Indonesia. You also said the sources you have added can be noted as underestimates. But the truth is that the film is already missing the box office collection from Macau, Mongolia, and Indonesia. Also, the final gross of the film in Singapore, Thailand and Hong Kong are not available. Box Office Mojo and The Numbers doesn’t work on every place and the producing studio has already sold the film to Sony (Toho), who is busy in knowing their profits rather than reporting the box office. Further, Ichika is just converting the money to USD on the day of revenue collected. He didn’t create his own website or derived any method to convert grosses of the film. He is just using the sources to confirm the exchange rate. I do not know you, but I felt so sorry that you are the only one objecting his hard work. None of the page watcher, even the administrator objected his edits. I have also seen his contribution to Wikipedia. He has already discussed the issue with administrator, who has approved his edits. You merely cannot defame anyone. Also, cannot forcefully add you edits as most preferable one. Money conversion varies from site to site. All he was doing is converting the local currencies to USD by using a money conversion site. So, that grosses of the film doesn’t conflict with other editors. Again, we all are friends. This is an online community so stop fight with each other. I too know that there is no policy saying that no editor should edit unless discussion is completed. It seems like Ichika send you the notice so that you couldn’t damage the reader’s convenience in reading. But it is a moral or polite behaviour. (I don’t know why Wikipedia do not have a policy to hold edits) You two are extended confirmed user, so it is very funny to see two senior editors fighting. Have a healthy editing. And please do not remove contents from the article without any consensus. I won’t have known that you two are fighting if I haven’t checked the article where I was searching the final gross of the film Joker. Again, my research says that the film has already grossed more than $435 million. Thank you. 106.203.132.203 (talk) 10:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm raising an objection, and proposing a solution.It's really quite simple: currency conversions are not WP:Routine calculations. That makes them WP:Original research if they aren't directly supported by WP:Reliable sources. A currency conversion calculator does not match that description for several reasons, including that—as you correctly noted—Money conversion varies from site to site. It also varies over time—not only day-to-day, but also over the course of a single day. It even varies depending on the direction of the conversion—you don't get the same exchange rate buying as you do selling. Clearly, these are not WP:Routine calculations. Even if they were, there would need to be consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. and the WP:ONUS to achieve that consensus would be upon you.My suggestion is as follows: for now, we use the IndieWire source I linked above. If we find a more up-to-date WP:Reliable source on the worldwide gross in USD, we use that source instead. If we find sources that report the USD grosses from different markets that add up to more than the reported worldwide gross in the most up-to-date source we have (currently US$417 million) without double-counting any grosses and without us needing to do any currency conversions ourselves, we use those sources. If you want to add a note similar to what is done for Frozen over at List of highest-grossing films, I would have no objections to that. You say that All he was doing is converting the local currencies to USD by using a money conversion site. as though there's a self-evidently "correct" way to do that. But in light of my points above, there very clearly isn't. For example, at what interval do you do conversions: daily, twice-weekly, weekly, fortnightly, monthly? All of those options will result in different figures. If you do it daily, do you use the average exchange rate during the day or the exchange rate at a specific time of day and in the latter case which? If you do it weekly, what day of the week do you do it and do you use that day's exchange rate or the week's average? The results will be different depending on which you choose. Which site do you use? You'll end up with different figures depending on which one you pick. How do WP:Reliable sources do it? When Box Office Mojo, The Numbers, Deadline Hollywood, or Variety present currency conversions, how were those figures arrived at? If we knew their methods and could emulate them such that we would be sure that our calculations would produce the same figures theirs would, then I might consider doing it your way. But we don't, and we can't. Using your method we can estimate ballpark figures to check for obvious errors in our sources' figures, but we certainly cannot produce results accurate to a ludicrous precision of nine significant figures—even four is a stretch. TompaDompa (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

TompaDompa, You are misusing the terms WP:Original research,WP:Reliable sources and WP:Routine calculations.

Oppose

 * If you see articles of Crunchyroll and Anime News Network, you will find that the grosses of the film is conflicting with each other, which can create dispute between editors.
 * Box Office Mojo and The Numbers doesn't operate on every place. They do not have data on important territories like Thailand, Singapore and Malaysia and mostly importantly Taiwan, where the film earned its second highest revenue.
 * Deadline Hollywood and Variety doesn't update the grosses of the film regularly. Even, I believe they won't update any gross till the film doesn't make any international or national record.
 * Already the film has lost many data on its grosses in Indonesia, Macau and Mongolia. No information regarding the grosses on these regions.
 * The final gross of the film in Thailand, Singapore, and Hong Kong are missing. We all cannot afford to lose more gross for the film.
 * There is no revenue data regarding Laos and Brunei on any site rather than the distributor announcement in Facebook.
 * Regarding your sources, I cannot accept it because reputed Box Office Analyst like @mejat are already reporting the grosses of the film has surpassed $435 million. Putting a underestimated data will break the trust of the reader. Your objection shouldnot harm the reader's trust.
 * Box Office Mojo has some major errors. If you check the grosses of the film in Japan, then you will notice that the grosses of the film in USD is reducing every week, which is totally incorrect because a film cannot lose money on its home country.

Reexplaination
I have already explained my reference and I am explaining you again. If you would like what is the original gross of the film then reach me through twitter. It is $435 million.
 * Money conversion website is not owned, created and programmed by me. fxtop.com is a reputed money conversion site and also the most reliable conversion site from 1973. So, fxtop.com is already a reliable source as per WP:Reliable sources.
 * I didn't dervive any new method of money conversion or put forward my own personal views. You cannot termed them as WP:Original research
 * Money conversion is done on the basis of weekly revenue collection, so that if any errors occur then it could easily be detected.(a problem you mention on your objection.)
 * The term "Original Research" is no way related to many references. You are misusing this term. My reference is backed and confirmed by the sources already provided in the context.
 * My original research contains emails from numero.co, HKFMT and GSC, which I haven't added to reference for you to raise issue.
 * You cannot play tricks in the air. I too know Wikipedia policy. Grosses are WP:Routine calculations
 * There is already consensus with all the editors including the administrator, who have help me placing its edits.
 * The reference I used are already backed and confirmed by sources.(not writted by me but proved by the sources provided by me.)

Conclusion
Unless and until Box Office Mojo or The Numbers corrected and add the missing grosses of various territories till then we will use this method of sourcing grosses.いちか かすが (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that sources disagree with each other, nor am I disputing that both Box Office Mojo and The Numbers both underestimate the gross by not including all territories or that Box Office Mojo messed up their figures with grosses going down over time (likely due to exchange rate fluctuations). I'm not sure why you're bringing this up, as it has no bearing on the matter at hand.

We all cannot afford to lose more gross for the film. What do you mean by that? We cannot afford it?

About WP:Original research, WP:Reliable sources, and WP:Routine calculations: The practical upshot of this is that if source A says that film X made $100 million in the US and source B says that film X made $50 million in the UK, it's not WP:Original research to say that film X made $150 million–that's just adding up the grosses to a sum, which is a WP:Routine calculation. If, however, source A says that film Y made $102,365,792 in the US and source B says that film Y made £35,894,213 in the UK, you use a currency conversion calculator to convert the latter to $49,260,940, and then say that film Y made $0, then that is WP:Original research, because the currency conversion is not a WP:Routine calculation. That doesn't necessarily mean you're wrong, but Wikipedia is not in the business of dispensing the truth but rather exists to accurately reflect what the sources say.
 * WP:Original research is not just when you come up with your own conclusions without any sources, it's also when you come up with your own conclusions when you do have sources but those sources do not directly support your conclusion. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE, which says Even with well-sourced material, if you use it out of context, or to reach or imply a conclusion not supported by the source, you are engaging in original research, and check out WP:SYNTH for examples of this.
 * I'm neither disputing nor endorsing fxtop.com as a WP:Reliable source when it comes to their exchange rates, but it's not a reliable source when it comes to the USD gross of this movie, both because that's not within that source's accepted area of expertise because the source does not directly support it. Do you understand what it means for a source to directly support something?
 * Unit conversions are WP:Routine calculations, because there is a single, correct way to do them. Currency conversions are not.

Money conversion is done on the basis of weekly revenue collection That's the way you do it, yes. Is that the way WP:Reliable sources do it? Do reliable sources even do it the same way as each other? How do you count the week, from which day to which (e.g. Friday–Thursday or Monday–Sunday)? What prespecified time of day (and which day) do you use for the exchange rate (since it doesn't remain the same throughout the day), or do you use some sort of average? Do you see how one could do this many different ways?

There is already consensus with all the editors including the administrator, who have help me placing its edits. So you say. I'm not seeing this consensus you refer to—it's certainly not on this talk page. I'm guessing the administrator you refer to is —based on your exchange at User talk:Anachronist—but I'll note that they explicitly told you that Administrators do not get involved in content disputes and said I don't see anything technically wrong with your recent changes. Go ahead and update the other article and see if it's accepted. So you have, and I object to your edits because they constitute WP:Original research. TompaDompa (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I am already frustrated with your reply. If you constantly reply to my sources as original research then you should leave Wikipedia for good. In your passage, you wrote that my edits aren't wrong and again raising an objection, which is sufficient enough to prove that you lack the knowledge of my references. And I can easily term your objection as undefined and boasts to defame user's knowledge. Even, after several explanations, you still don't realize the problem of your sources and underestimate data cannot be placed as reference.
 * On money conversion, I would like to say that the local currencies are converted into USD on weekly basis, i.e. the film earning throughout the week. If a film earns ¥*** million from March 1 to 7, then on March 8, the local currencies will be converted on the latest money exchange rate on March 7. This is the easiest and error-free money conversion.
 * Further, your suggestions on using underestimate data are like 'X' submitted his/her half-completed answer script. When the teacher asked them why they submitted the paper half-written when they know the complete question paper. He/she replied "Only 30 marks are necessary to pass the exam and 100 marks don't matter at all. Because either way, we pass the exam." Please don't talk like kids.
 * Again, your question on my statement " We all cannot afford to lose." Look every worker in the entertainment industry works hard to see that their work has flourished after all they can see the success of their film in detail. If a film is released in 'Y' country in January and no box office collection are reported until today, will certainly raise questions that no one visited theatres, and watched the film, proving that the film has flopped in that region.
 * When important data are missing and a person 'P' reaches the source and is added to the content as a reference to his edits. And finally here comes the contrary, another person 'Q' removed it saying that its original research, then in the mind of 'P' only one question will raise i.e. either 'Q' hated the success of the film or doesn't care about the struggle of 'P'.(This is the same thought you are raising within me.)
 * Again, you mentioned that I am not totally wrong. What do you mean by that? If you know that writing the truth, providing the edits which is confirmed and backed by sources already added to the context, then why did you object and wasted my time. You are fighting with me for three misused terms by you.
 * WP: Original Research- Hey editor, I didn't add any research of mine to the article as it would be a breach of the confidentiality of my agreement with numero.co, HKFMT, ODEX, and many more. My research is already posted on Twitter, where you can check. Another related question of yours regarding 4- digits and 9- digits, if you have the source that confirmed your edits as correct then neither 4-digit nor 9-digits would create any problems. This time, I am repeating, "You can't play tricks in the air. I, too know Wikipedia policy."
 * WP: Reliable Sources- fxtop.com is a reputed money conversion site from 1973. The site provides local currencies conversion to USD under the latest confirmed exchange rate adjust to inflation. This site is the most trusted on the internet. Further, due to its highly accurate and confirmed data, it is a complete error-free site. Therefore, it is already a reliable source. (As per RTI, I don't own this site in any form. I didn't create this site nor wrote the source code for the owner. You can trial me from the grassroots level to the International Court of Justice, but still can't prove that I am related to this site.
 * WP: Routine calculation- What do you mean that money conversion is not a routine calculation. Gross needs to be updated. If I am converting money for a film on the wrong date then question me. I will not feel bad. If 'X' converts a film's gross to a wrong date, then 'Y' has the right to question and challenged his/her edits.
 * Finally, I have solved your objection and please don't object simply to waste my time if you don't know my references well.
 * Conclusion- Let Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross for missing territories then I switched the reference. till then I would continue with this method of sourcing いちか かすが (talk) 13:15, 11 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't have a horse in this race—I really don't care about what figure we get, I care about the figure being properly sourced.It feels like we're going in circles about WP:OR, WP:RS, and WP:CALC, but I'll give it one more shot. Currency conversions with the same input can be done in different ways, yielding different outputs (see examples of how above and below). Because there is no single "correct" way to do them, they are not WP:Routine calculations. Calculations that are not routine ones are WP:Original research unless they are directly supported by WP:Reliable sources. A source which provides a snapshot exchange rate at a single moment in time does not directly support the conversion of a certain amount of one currency into a certain amount of a different currency in a specific context (in this case, the box office gross for a movie).If a film earns ¥*** million from March 1 to 7, then on March 8, the local currencies will be converted on the latest money exchange rate on March 7. This is the easiest and error-free money conversion. Indeed, that's the way you do it. That's Monday to Sunday, for the record. Of course, in box office contexts a week is often considered to start on Friday and end on Thursday. You can do it either way, really—it's an arbitrary choice. But it's an arbitrary choice made by you, not by the sources. And doing it the other way (or any other way, really) would yield a different result.If your way of doing the currency conversions were the undisputed "correct" way of doing it, we would expect to see all other sources arriving at the same figures as you do. But that's not what we see, now is it?Deadline Hollywood had the gross-to-date in Japan at 30.3 billion JPY as of December 13, and converted that to 291.5 million USD. You, on the other hand, have the cumulative gross as of December 13 at 30,289,307,700 JPY and convert that to 290,063,660 USD (see Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train). That's not a large difference in the USD amount, but it is a clear one. As of December 20, they had 31.17 billion JPY/300.4 million USD. You have 31,166,647,900 JPY/298,553,134 USD. As of December 27, they had 32.48 billion JPY/313.5 million USD. You have 32,478,895,850 JPY/311,213,554 USD. January 3: 34.6 billion JPY/337 million USD versus 34,642,116,000 JPY/332,199,303 USD. Jumping forward a bit, they had the gross in Japan at 368 million USD on March 16, whereas you have it at 370,011,535 USD as of March 14.Leaving Deadline Hollywood for now and looking at current figures, you have the gross in Japan as of April 4 at 39,436,585,950 JPY/377,498,862 USD. For the same date, Crunchyroll converts 39.40 billion JPY to 362.14 million USD—15 million USD lower than the figure you came up with. Also for the same date, Anime News Network converts the exact same figure you have—39,436,585,950 JPY—into 357.8 million USD. That's 20 million USD lower than the figure you came up with. Not to mention, Crunchyroll even gives a figure for the worldwide gross: 414,385,913 USD (45,833,982,679 JPY).In summary, your method does not provide the same figures as the ones WP:Reliable sources come up with. That is to say, your currency conversions are contradicted by WP:Reliable sources. I asked earlier about your method Is that the way WP:Reliable sources do it?, and the answer is obviously no—they do it some other way. It's ludicrous to suggest that a currency conversion method that was conceived by a Wikipedia editor should be preferred to explicit currency conversion figures provided by WP:Reliable sources.Since you brought up trust previously, I'll say that I think that our readers' trust is harmed at least as much by finding a figure on Wikipedia which is not found anywhere else in any reliable source.With regards to "not caring about your struggle", I would say that it is a shame if you have spent a lot of time on this content and it gets deleted, but it really has no bearing on whether the material should be retained. See WP:MERCY for something similar. Feel free to post your calculations to your personal blog, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Even better, get it all published by a WP:Reliable source and then we can even cite those calculations and use the figures you came up with, making everyone happy. TompaDompa (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why you are so much raising issue in which none of the page watchers has announced my edits as incorrect. On my earlier reply, I already mentioned you that the grosses of the film is already conflicting with various articles. You have also seen the example of Crunchyroll and Anime News Network were the difference is more than US$5 million. If with the Deadline Hollywood magazine, you have seen the difference in the past and in the present. Even, after noticing the differences you are still trying to prove that my edits are wrong. When I said ‘’Money conversion varies from site to site’’ then you misunderstood. You are just trying to get the reference of mine deleted. And further trying to add your underestimated reference, which truth about it’s origin is revealed.
 * I am explaining how they're converting gross of the film. These contexts are from my conversation with the editors of the magazines.
 * Deadline Hollywood- They convert the gross on daily basis. Suppose a film was released on January and by April 11, the film has grossed ¥** billion. So, on April 12, they will convert the entire gross directly to USD on the basis of latest money exchange rate at April 11 at UTC 00:00. Hence, they ignore the grosses earned throughout the week. That's why you received higher revenue on December and lesser revenue on March because daily exchange rate is highly unstable whereas money conversion on weekly revenue is fixed and unchanged. Earlier, User: Orinchlam used this system of money conversion. Here, money convertor site is not revealed and methods of conversion is converting the entire gross.
 * Crunchyroll- They convert grosses on the basis of daily basis ( a similar method that of Deadline Hollywood ) But time interval is on JST 00:00 Earlier, their articles were reporting higher grosses on December and then got reduced to lower grossed on April During conversation with one of the editors, He said that money conversion varies overtime and USD losses in homeland doesn't matter at all. He explained that the worldwide gross of the film might reduce to as low as $321 million and reach up to as high as $446 million. Another important point he told me to keep an eye on Japanese yen rather than USD. Even, Daryl Harding, once reported that the film has lost $5 million in a day but later, he reported that the money is already on Japanese yen so net loss is zero. Here, the money conversion site is directly googling backed conversion and the method of conversion is daily basis.
 * Anime News Network- Their system of money conversion is completely different.
 * They updated the grosses of the film on monthly basis. Suppose Y film was released on January and by April, it has earned ¥** billion. They would first look at the month money exchange rate then convert the grosses of the film. Example:- On January, 'S' is the gross of the film throughout the month. Similarly, 'T’, 'U', 'V' is the money conversion of the film earning throughout February, March, and April respectively. Then, they would add S, T, U, V to get the final gross. Here, both the system and method were not revealed, asked me to go through internet. (That’s why they are huge difference between gross of the film in Crunchyroll and Anime News Network.) If you check the exchange rate on January you will find a steep fall.
 * Conclusion
 * To my expectations, you have gone through the source of many articles about the gross of the film and have noticed the grosses of the film has been conflicting with various articles. But you lacked one important point that the article is not conflicting but the method of money conversion. Again, one important thing I forgot to tell you that the reference you want to add was using Wikipedia as source. If you compare the date of publication of the reference with the one of the edit history on the article where we have updated the worldwide gross to $417 million then you will find out the truth.
 * NOTE - Many middle and small website uses Wikipedia as source so before placing your reference you should have compared the date and time of the publishing with that of the edit history on the article
 * Reliability of the readers
 * Even, after explaining you many times you many times you are again questioning me on the same topic. We, all the editors and page watchers have provided the source of the grosses throughout the article, with the help of a table and well-maintained citation. Even, if someone asked how the revenue of the film, then, he/she can go through the citation for clarification.
 * Reasons for not accepting your sources
 * I have already mentioned that why I am waiting for The Number to update the gross of the film and add the missing territories because their method of conversion is similar to us.
 * I have also tried to reach Box Office Mojo. It is very likely that they would update the complete gross of the film of Japan after it's exit from cinema hall. So, till then I am changing the reference. My last hope is on The Number. About your suggestions on using underestimate data is like 'X' submitted his/her half-completed answer script. When teacher asked them why they submitted the paper half-written when they know the complete question paper. He/she reply "Only 30 marks is necessary to pass the exam and 100 marks don’t matter at all. Because the either way we pass the exam." Please don't talk like kids. My last hope is on The Number.
 * Personal Comment
 * There are many Page watcher and experienced User through out Wikipedia who have seen my edits. If I was wrong, then Betty Logan wouldn't have thanked me, and Administrator wouldn't have accepted the edits. If you have personal obsession against me then do tell me. Earlier, too, I mentioned that I know Wikipedia policy. My edits cannot be counted as WP: Original Research as I am conveniently converting the grosses based on weekly revenue. If I added my Original Research to the article then the film gross would reached $439 million, then you can start questioning on my edits.
 * Further, I am not afraid, because I know that I am correct. If you keep inducing me that my edits are Original Research, then I would feel that you are either not happy about the success of the film or just trolling me. Don't you feel that you are misjudging my edits just to proof that you are correct. If now, I realised that your reference source was Wikipedia. I hope you stop disturbing me.
 * My Struggle
 * Today, you are questioning my struggle. Do you know how difficult is it to reach the source? You are such an insane person who just say that throw my edits to Blog. Do you know your reference was using Wikipedia as source? Please Stop Questioning on My Struggle. If you were a good editor, you wouldn't have issues regarding this.
 * Lack of Knowledge of my edits by Issue Riser
 * If you know that I am correct then why did you question me. Why are you wasting your time? If you know that writing the truth is not wrong, then why are disturbing me. You too know that I too know Wikipedia policy. When someone raise objection, I try my best to explain him or her. But I have never found any one like you who wants to rise objection with knowing the reference. I could see that you felt very easy to say that I am wrong at first place and after some time doubting your own objection. If you feel so free to object my edits, then next time make sure why I have placed my edits. Oh God! I have explaining you many times that your reference is not at all acceptable. Even I have given you a good example.
 * Repetition Explanation of misused terms
 * WP: Original Research- I didn't added any research of mine to the article as it would be breach to the confidentiality of my agreement with numero.co, HKFMT, ODEX and many more. My research is already posted on the Twitter, where you can check. Frequent attempt to mark my edits as Original Research will be highly problematic. But Sources has already confirmed the changes. If the citation is not correct and provide wrong details, then you have the right to question me. You and me both know that I am writing the truth not assumption then why are you challenging my edits. To termed my edits as Original Research, you need to know if I had added all of the detailed revenue of the film as per my tweets. If I placed the gross of the film in Indonesia in my edits. Then, you can easily prove that I have added a original research because there is no any sources in the internet other than my emails and fax to prove my edits.
 * WP: Reliable Sources- fxtop.com is a reputed money conversion site from 1973. The site provides local currencies conversion to USD under the latest confirmed exchange rate adjust to inflation. This site is the most trusted site in the internet. Further, due to its highly accurate and confirmed data, it is a complete error free site. Therefore, it is already a reliable source. If the source provides incorrect information, then question me. If the site says that ¥40 billion is equal to US$9 billion, then I will remove that sources (Of course, no site has such a high error.) For your Right to Information, I don't own this site in any form. I didn't create this site nor wrote the source code for the owner. You can trial me from the grassroot level to International Court of Justice, but still can't prove that I am related to this site. If by any means you can proof that I am a part ( developer, programmer, manager, owner and so on as per your observations) of the site then you can say and dragged me to this policy of Wikipedia.
 * WP: Routine calculation- What do you mean that money conversion is not a routine calculation. Gross need to be updated. If I am converting money for a film in a wrong date, then question me. I will not feel bad. If 'X' converts a film's gross in a wrong date, then 'Y' has the right to question and challenged his/her edits. (Already explained above how money conversion varies from site to site. )
 * Points to be noted
 * The site fxtop.com is used to provide money conversion on region which doesn’t update the USD correctly. In South Korea, detailed revenue and money conversion including box office admission is directly provided by KOFIC Film Council. From January, Weekend Detailed Box Office Collection in Japan is accurately provide by the Council. That is why we all able to provide pin-point details to 9-digits. (A objection you raised earlier that how accurate we were able to collect the Box Office.)
 * Consensus
 * Until Box Office Mojo and The Number update the gross of the film and added the missing territories then I will switch the reference. Till then, we all be use fxtop.com as source. いちか かすが (talk) 07:18, 12 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why you are so much raising issue in which none of the page watchers has announced my edits as incorrect. There are fewer than 30 page watchers (see here), and one of them actually has objected to your edits—I have.You keep making out as if this is a question that has already been settled and you have consensus on your side (There is already consensus with all the editors including the administrator, making the heading "consensus" in your last edit), which I'm really not seeing the evidence of here; this discussion has been going on for several days now and you and I are the only ones to have engaged in it. That's in spite of the fact that . You even went so far as to post from an IP address to give the impression that other people had joined the discussion. Don't bother denying it; in addition to the somewhat suspicious circumstance of an IP that had never posted to Wikipedia before (and to date, never since) joining this discussion to repeat your arguments and behavioural similarities like similar phrasings and shared linguistic idiosyncracies—such as rise [objection/objections] (as opposed to raise), WP: Original Research (capital "R" and space after the colon), Box Office Mojo and The Numbers doesn't [work/operate] on every place (improper use of doesn't and on), a propensity to begin sentences with Again, even when bringing something up for the first time, and ending posts with Thank you.—there's the smoking gun that you said in your last post When I said ‘’Money conversion varies from site to site’’ [...] when that was in fact something that was said by the IP, not posted from your account. That this was not a simple case of forgetting to log in is demonstrated by the IP referring to your account in the third person.Since you say that you know Wikipedia's policies, I assume you are familiar with WP:LOGOUT. I also assume you are familiar with WP:CANVASS and how it relates to the aforementioned request that another editor join a discussion to help you. Furthermore, I assume you are familiar with WP:OWN. As a heads-up, I'm going to post this to WP:ANI.In the meantime, I would ask you to kindly knock it off with the WP:Personal attacks and start WP:Assuming good faith.What you're demonstrating with your description of Deadline Hollywood et al. is that WP:Reliable sources do convert grosses from one currency to another differently from how you do it, and also differently from each other. In fact, by your description you are using a completely novel method of converting grosses from one currency to another. That should be a red flag to you, WP:OR-wise.If what you meant by Money conversion varies from site to site is that different box office sources convert grosses differently from each other (as outlined above), then yes, I did misunderstand you. However, the interpretation I had—that different currency exchange sites give different exchange rates at the same time—is also true, and that's a factor in making currency conversions non-WP:Routine calculations.If IndieWire uses Wikipedia as its source (it is not entirely clear to me whether this is conjecture on your part or if you have read that this is the case somewhere), then we cannot cite it per WP:CIRCULAR. That being said, we have other alternatives available to us, such as the Crunchyroll article I linked above.At any rate, we seem to be at an impasse here. I'm posting to WP:NORN. TompaDompa (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I did ask User talk:Orichalcum to help me in my discussion. Because this method of money conversion was introduced by him/her. Further, the user has more knowledge regarding this. What do you mean by IP user? First of all if you check my entire contribution, you will find that IP frequently vandalize post and I revert them. In fact, many spoke badly to me. I couldn't do anything as IP address changes frequently. I do not know why this time an IP user help me. Yeah, I did use some of the statement of the random user because this was something I was trying to explained. And to the contrary, many of the users know that what is my active hours in Wikipedia. In average, it takes me 3-4 hours to reply you. All I can do is that explain you. Yeah, go ahead try WP:LOGOUT on me. From the beginning you were trying to prove that I am wrong. いちか かすが (talk) 16:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

For the record, the above user has since been WP:CheckUser blocked, see block log. TompaDompa (talk) 09:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

We should make a page on this wiki called “List of R-rated films by worldwide box office”
That way, we can know how much R-rated films grossed worldwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKF2006 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
 * How would that be different from this article? TompaDompa (talk) 04:11, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * We would add not only the films from this article, but other R-rated films (The Happytime Murders, Frank (2014), Your Highness, etc.), on the article “List of R-rated films by worldwide box office”. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKF2006 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There are several thousand R-rated films. Listing them all and maintaining the list would not be feasible (not to mention that it would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE). The information is available at https://www.the-numbers.com/box-office-records/worldwide/all-movies/mpaa-ratings/r-(us) and https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/mpaa_title_lifetime_gross/?area=XWW&by_mpaa=R, if you're interested. TompaDompa (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

What articles we should also make
List of Highest-grossing NC-17 rated films, List of highest-grossing PG-13 films, list of highest-grossing PG rated films, and list of Highest grossing G rated films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKF2006 (talk • contribs) 18:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm going to say we shouldn't make any of those articles. Really, we shouldn't even have this one. See 's comment above at . TompaDompa (talk) 18:55, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, those problems have been fixed months ago. So, let’s keep this article and make those articles that I mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKF2006 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? The R rating still only applies in the United States, as do the other ratings you mentioned. That's a fundamental issue with the WP:AMERICENTRIC construction of this list which would equally apply to the other proposed ones. TompaDompa (talk) 18:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * What I’m trying to say is make articles about Highest-grossing NC-17 rated films, Highest-grossing PG-13, films Highest-grossing PG rated films and Highest-grossing G rated films WORLDWIDE. Just like this article has. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LKF2006 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I know that's what you're saying. The issue is that the WP:LISTCRITERIA are WP:AMERICENTRIC. For instance: the second-highest-grossing film with an NC-17 rating in the US, La mala educación, is not fundamentally an NC-17 rated film, but a film rated 18. The rating itself isn't WP:WORLDWIDE. TompaDompa (talk) 15:13, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Missing years in the grid.
I don't understand why there are years missing from the grid showing highest-grossing from each year. It's easy to find out the highest-grossing R-rated film from each year unaccounted for. I've already done the research:
 * 1969 - Easy Rider
 * 1970 - M*A*S*H
 * 1971 - The French Connection
 * 1972 - The Godfather
 * 1974 - Blazing Saddles
 * 1975 - One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest
 * 1976 - The Omen

Can the list be updated to include these? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SnakeRambo (talk • contribs) 18:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Team America: World Police
Is this not considered "animated"? It grossed enough to be high on that list. 67.241.66.127 (talk) 02:52, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * You need to start by finding reliable sources but I doubt any reliabe source would make that claim. Team America used puppets. It is unlikely that anyone would consider puppets to be animation. (Yes, I am familiar with the term "Supermarionation" but besides being a memorable name for high quality marionette puppets it is not animation either.) The figures used in stop-motion animation could be considered a kind of puppet, but Team America is not stop-motion animation, or any other kind of animation. -- 109.77.206.76 (talk) 23:32, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

100 vs 50
Nearly Every list of highest grossing films is a top 50 or less when is this a top 100 82.37.120.189 (talk) 21:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

Mom And Dad's gross
The 1945's film gross was evaluate to be something around $80M by the end of 1955, unfortunaly, except for this book by Eric Schaefer (https://www.google.it/books/edition/Bold_Daring_Shocking_True/CSBZqe0zPaMC?hl=it&gbpv=1&dq=isbn:9780822323747&printsec=frontcover) and other minor source, i found no source about this gross. But if this gross is realistic, this would have make Mom and Dad the highest grossing R rated film since M*A*S*H on 1970.

Another note, recent estimates of Mom And Dad's gross put its final gross to be $100M, but without knowing in which year it reach that specific gross, we can't add it. Jotzy (talk) 08:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Ratings classicication
R rating is an American classification, with other nations having their own system and sometimes receivng a different cut. Should the box office be limited to the USA, or more work done to add the variables for other markets?Halbared (talk) 19:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

"Not American" note inaccuracy
Not sure if it's inaccurate for anything else or not, but the note saying "Not American films, achieving less than 3% of their total gross in the United States and Canada." is inaccurate for Mugen Train; it made close to 10% of its gross in the US. Alphius (talk) 04:58, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Come to think of it, why is 3% the cutoff in the note in the first place? That seems pretty arbitrary. Alphius (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2023 (UTC)