Talk:The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey/Archive 2

RfC: Should the budget section of the infobox stipulate a budget range of $200–315 million?
An editor keeps invoking this edit by removing the $315 million figure from the infobox. In the infobox, should the budget be listed as $200–315 million or $200 million? Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Background
There are several factors to bear in mind:
 * NOTE: This RFC follows on from the discussion directly above: . Betty Logan (talk) 00:37, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) The studio has not stipulated that the film cost $200 million. The Hollywood Reporter states "A knowledgeable source says the first two installments cost $315 million each, and that's with Jackson deferring his fee. A studio source insists that number is wildly inflated and, with significant production rebates from New Zealand, the cost is closer to $200 million a movie."
 * 2) A further Hollywood Reporter article states that through March 2013 Warner had spent $561 million on the trilogy, with subsidies from New Zealand amounting to $98 million. At this point only the first film had been released, and work on the second and third films was still going on at this point.
 * 3) There is confusion over how the budget is divided up among the three films at this point. The Numbers (budget note) states ''"The calculation is complicated by the fact that the films were eventually divided into a trilogy ... it's not clear whether they are referring to two or three films in this case. New Zealand grants approximately 15% in rebates for production and special effects work, which suggests a total budget for each film of around $250 million, using the studio figure."
 * 4) Infobox film instructs editors to "Insert the approximate production budget of the film ... If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."

Survey

 * Support a budget range of $200–315 million, since it is more consistent with WP:NPOV and Infobox film. The studio has at no point said the film cost $200 million; they simply say it was "closer" to $200 million than $315 million. Saying the film cost $200 million is misrepresenting what the studio actually said, because the $315 million figure gives their comment context. Other sources such as The Numbers also concede it is not clear how the budget is divided up, and it is not for editors to determine a "correct" number. We should present the information as it is presented to us. Betty Logan (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the range. If there isn't clarity then we have to reflect that. This isn't unusual - Skyfall was the last article I worked on that follows a similar route. - SchroCat (talk) 22:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The $315 million figure is highly inflated. This means it can be highly inaccurate and needless to say highly unreliable. Where did they get this figure from? Who is the source? Since the official source says it is closer to $200 million I think it will be convinient to mention the budget as either "$200 million+" or maybe simply "$200 million". Also most sources say that the budget is closer to $200 million. Therefore we should insert that figure as per WP:Notability since it is more supported by notable and reliable websites. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * "Notability" has nothing to do with the range of figures. Of primary importance I are the instructions of the Infobox film template. This is what determines what goes in each field and how that information is decided. The template instructions state that we should: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film ... If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range." Those instructions have been followed in this instance. - SchroCat (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Reply to SchroCat's comment: I understand you Schocrat but the major thing here is not the notability. I just included it as one of the reasons why the "$200 million+" should be included. The main points here are accuracy and reliability. I just want to ask who is this knowledgable source that says the budget is $315 million figure? Note that I am questioning the reliabilty here because we shouldn't just trust someone on basis of their claim that they know a knowledgable source. The "closer to $200 million" actually has an official source. It is more reliable. I think that keeping the $315 million figure is the real cherry-picking over here. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:34, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure you understand the terminology here. "Cherry picking" means that one figure is selected in preference to any others. "Reliable" means reflecting the reliable sources that provide the figures. We have one figure of $200 million from one source, and one figure of $315 million from another. We do not pick and choose which one we prefer without a damned good reason - and there is no such reason here for selecting one figure in preference to another. As such, and following the template instructions, we are listing the number range. - SchroCat (talk) 23:40, 29 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess I did mistake "cherry picking" but still the thing I want to say is that the $315 million figure is being kept because some of the editors mistakenly think it is correct. However the main point about the $315 milllion figure you are ignoring here is that it is not taking into account the $65 million tax rebates by the New Zealand Government to the producers. This actually brings the true budget to $250 million that is if the $315 million is the budget not taking tax rebates into account. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:51, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That is the most likely scenario and consistent with the analysis by The Numbers, but importantly it is substantially higher than the 200 figure you were leaving in (250 is more consistent with 200-315 than just 200) and secondly it is still original research because it depends on us "inventing" figure that is not mentioned in the report. Betty Logan (talk) 00:01, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did say 250 million in case the $315 million figure was reliable which it doesn't seem so. Besides I think $315 million is not only inaccurate but it is still cherry picking if we are keeping. Why can't we write the budget as "$200 - 300 million"? Because we are doing a WP:SYNTH here. Same way writing it as "$200 - 315 million" is also WP:SYNTH since the $315 million figure is highly inflated and inaccurate. I think that writing the budget as "$200 million+" is more accurate because in actual we do know it is more than $200 million but sadly we don't know how much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support using a range per the guidelines. A range is especially applicable here due to the grouped production of these films. Wikipedia needs to follow secondary sources, and if The Hollywood Reporter mentions differing figures, we should too. The trade paper didn't just go with the so-called "studio source" over the "knowledgeable source" for whatever reason. It might be worth reflecting it better in the article body, even in a "Notes" section so readers can read the context. I realize that the quote is used in the citation template and seen in "References", but it may be better highlighted in the "Notes" section with the unique tagging. Erik (talk &#124; contribs) 16:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment: Why is no one voting? Only 4 people have voted so far. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:34, 31 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Support per nom.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support range, per nominator, and given the information available and the situation, the range is the best way to portray the info that is known. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:03, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support- Per Betty Logan. QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:07, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Support range value. I can understand wanting to avoid rumor and speculation, but we can't cherry pick figures.  Discussion on figures and the controversy over them can take place in the article.  The infobox isn't really the place to be proselytizing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion
A RfC is automatically closed after 30 days. I say we let it go on until then. I will support the consensus (in this case keeping the $315 million budget). Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Extended edition
My copy of the Extended Edition consists of 5 DVDs, which is an extra 3 rather than the 2 noted in the article. Do I assume that the difference is because mine is not the BluRay edition (also I am in the UK which might make a difference)? I am reluctant to make a change if there are several different versions of which I am unaware. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:45, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Blu-ray's website the Blu-ray version has 3 discs. Koala15 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey what is this going on over here? This is no place to discuss your home videos. Wikipedia is not a forum. Go away unless you two really want to contribute to Wikipedia. Such activities will not be tolerated in future. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:41, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * KahnJohn27, I suspect this thread has started as a result of, and about, this edit. Perhaps you could try to assume some good faith, rather than telling others to go away and threatening them? - SchroCat (talk) 21:50, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * They were not discussing their home videos, but stating that the version they have is different than what is mentioned in the article, and is wondering whether to change the article or not. You are right in saying wikipedia is not a forum, but saying, "go away unless" is a form of aggressiveness that Wikipedia rules states not to do. Charlr6 (talk) 21:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry I didn't know about that. From their comment I really thought they were discussing about their own home videos. I wasn't threatning them actually when telling them to go away. I actually meant that they should not discuss things which do not help to improve Wikipedia and they should not make such comments. It was just a poor choice of words on my behalf. My intentions were never to threaten them. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't expect the Gundabad Inquisition…should I take it that we are not to be encouraged to add useful information to the article? —Phil | Talk 16:46, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Not without a reliable reference. Is there any source which supports your claims? If yes then add it if no then don't. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:06, 11 February 2014 (UTC)