User talk:Betty Logan

Christmas horror
I'd hate to ask, but would you be willing to weigh in on Talk:Horror film about a proposed writing on a genre? Andrzejbanas (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)


 * I will take a look at it some point over the evening. Betty Logan (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Betty, for your awareness, there is a current ANI discussion happening. It appears that Andrzejbanas has canvassed you directly instead of posting at WT:FILM, which I offered as an option if we could summarize the discussion and agree on that summary before soliciting outside opinion. Looks like they jumped the gun without letting participants know. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:55, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * That's incorrect . I've posted about it here, and at WP:HORROR as well. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:12, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've clarified this at ANI. The fact that you did not notify participants at Talk:Horror film about the individual pings or wait to summarize as I had suggested here are true statements. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Per WP:CANVAS, you are supposed to keep it brief and try to elaborate on the situation. I apologize, but I believe I did everything that was required. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also per WP:CANVAS: "Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users." This was not done. And despite seeing my request that we summarize first, you went ahead and did the pings without waiting. This would have been the perfect opportunity to say, "I ignored your recommendation GoneIn60, and went ahead and pinged Erik and Betty directly." At least if you did that, it wouldn't have felt like it flew under the radar. Besides, no one wants to be pinged to a WP:WALLOFTEXT.There may be points you still disagree with, and that's fine. We don't need to continue this here on Betty's talk page and spam her notifications. Drop me a note on my talk page if further responses are needed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I can get the gist by just comparing the two. You don't need to worry about the canvassing element, you will get an honest opinion from me. Betty Logan (talk) 01:31, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the comments I've added at ANI suggest that your opinions will be impartial. Hopefully we didn't spam your notifications too hard! Thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Goodbye
Hi Betty, I just want let you know that I won't be longer active on en.wiki, I don't have time anymore to do my edits here, so I just want to say thank you very much for your advices, your help and your kindness through this years. Have a nice day and good luck with your life (on and outside Wikipedia), bye :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:51, 31 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Sorry to lose you; you have been a great editor on the box-office articles, one of the best we've had. Sometimes though, real life takes over, and I wish you all the best. If you apply the same effort and diligence to your real-life endeavors I am sure you will be very successful. Betty Logan (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you so so much, I really appreciate what you said, thank you, bye :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout
Hi @Betty. There's recent discussion about production company/distributor. Feel free to comments. Regards. 2402:1980:824C:E039:0:0:0:1 (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Tarzan (1999 film) § Plot rewrite. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:51, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks.
Look. I apologize for the edits on Motion Picture Association film rating system. However, when it stated that nudity is restricted to PG and above, some G rated films has this type, including Against a Crooked Sky and Hans Christian Andersen's The Little Mermaid, but I've seen that you have proven me wrong. Also, I won’t revert any edits that were corrected by signed users. If there’s any problems with my edits, please just let me know. Just be easy on me. I have Asperger Syndrome. Retrosunshine2006 talk 21:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Continuing conversation
Hello there, my addition did pass verification and the entry for the movie was updated. Why not keep it added, it is justified now. Firekong1 (talk) 13:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)


 * I checked the source and I do not see the "Natural Horror" genre listed anywhere. Neither is Barracuda listed under the "Natural Horror" category. I don't know what else to say. The source failed verification. Betty Logan (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There was an edit request a while ago, the change should show up shortly and pass for verification. Firekong1 (talk) 20:15, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but then the proper course of action would be to wait until the database is updated before adding the film to the list. The claim is not verifiable through Allmovie until the update is implemented. Betty Logan (talk) 04:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Of course, thank you for understanding. Firekong1 (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Superman (1978 film)
Hello there, I noticed that you reverted my edits and claimed that it was "not in the source from what I can tell." The source is the actual physical magazine on pp.34-37; the link is an official on-line teaser produced by the editor of the magazine, or intro, as stated: "The following is from the introduction to LIFE’s new special issue on Superman, available at newsstands and online." It was referenced in case the reader would like to purchase the material and view the actual material; one could say that the actual content is behind a pay wall. Possible solutions: I could delete the link in the footnote; or include proper verbiage to state that it is behind a paywall; however, deleting the link may be a disservice to the reader who may want to have a convenient way to access said material or even point them in the right direction. Lastly, your claim that "Financially there was a lot riding on the film" is not sourced. MiztuhX (talk) 15:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, another source that supports the assertion is the on-line fanzine, "Supeheroes Every Day written by Danny Horn, Director of Product Management at the Wikimedia Foundation, in which he states: "at an estimated cost of $55 million, Superman was the most expensive movie ever made. On these grounds, I think you should revert your edit. MiztuhX (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have relocated the budget to a more organic placement in the article (the box-office section is not the appropriate section for production elements). Specific claims need to be sourced, so if the inflation adjusted budget is not in the provided source, then it should not be included. In the future, if you wish to discuss article content please initiate a discussion on the article talk page so the discussion is archived in the article's history. Betty Logan (talk) 16:20, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello there, this is a notice that I reverted your revert of my edit on the Superman (1978 film) article and that a discussion re: said topic can be found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Superman_(1978_film)#Disputed_%E2%80%93_Discuss

MiztuhX (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Intellectual blockbuster
Hi. Is there really nothing that can be saved for the article? Maybe a single sentence about intellectual blockbusters or a single example? Surely some of the references are suitable enough to include something? --62.166.252.25 (talk) 04:31, 9 April 2024 (UTC)


 * You would need high quality sources that establish "intellectual blockbuster" as a specific sub-genre, with certain genre characteristics. Intellectual blockbusters have always existed, but it seems to me always in isolation rather than as a genre form. As an example, look at how "summer blockbusters" are treated by the same article, or for a more direct comparison something like elevated horror. Betty Logan (talk) 10:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi again Betty. I've given you a response here. --62.166.252.25 (talk) 18:26, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Unsourced?
Why did you revert my edits? I thought they were correct according to the sources! No name, just thought I could fix some errors in this website (talk) 21:21, 26 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Because you made numerous unexplained changes with no explanation. For example, you changed the highlighting for Chile to indicate the ratings are mandatory, yet the wording in the Chile summary suggests they are only advisory. You removed "The AO rating is the only rating that is legally restricted (except in the United States)" from ESRB entry without explanation, and then added "Of course, they do not enforce the restrictions, the laws do so for them" which is actually meaningless if you have deleted the bit about legal enforcement, and redundant if you state they are legally enforceable. You also deleted the Hong Kong entry for spurious reasons, as the inclusion criteria for this article does not preclude general purpose rating systems. If you implement any further changes then I strongly suggest you do one rating at a time, and provide a clear edit summary for the change and provide a source to back it up. All the ratings in the article are currently consistent with the summaries and existing sources. Betty Logan (talk) 12:17, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * For Chile, it stems from https://www.bcn.cl/leyfacil/recurso/calificacion-de-videojuegos (scroll down to "how should manufacturers, importers and suppliers proceed for the sale or lease of video games?" section). There, it mentions that the age limits (except "ER" and "TE") are legally restricted.
 * For E. S. R. B., it stems from https://novascotia.ca/just/regulations/regs/taregs.htm (scroll down to "video games" section). There, you can see that the law, in addition to restricting the sales of "M" and "Ao" rated games, also restricts the sales of "T" rated games, implying the E. S. R. B. lacks the power to enforce the age restrictions. No name, just thought I could fix some errors in this website (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No ratings body can enforce their own ratings. For example, in the United States the MPAA does not enforce R or NC-17—they are enforced by self-regulation, but they are still restrictive ratings regardless of how they are enforced. It is reasonable to remove "The AO rating is the only rating that is legally restricted (except in the United States)", based on the explanation above, but please explain in the edit summary so editors do not have to guess why you are doing something. As for the Chile ratings, please add the above source to the Chile summary and then alter the ratings in the table (the table is supposed to reflect the summaries). It just needs to be clear why you are doing something. Betty Logan (talk) 13:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I am done for
I believe that I have been done because I have done something very bad: I accidentally copied and pasted content from the law of Poland, even though my intention was to update the section about that country on Television content rating system. No name, just thought I could fix some errors in this website (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)


 * It's not the end of the world. Nardog (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * But I still think I unintentionally violated the copyright law. Also, you were not supposed to reply to me. No name, just thought I could fix some errors in this website (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Legislative text is typically not subject to copyright protection, and wikisource:Polish Copyright Law Article 4 indeed says "The copyright shall not cover: 1) legislative acts and their official drafts, 2) official documents, materials, logos and symbols", so I doubt you should be worried about it. If you still are, you can request revision deletion; place at the top of Television content rating system. Nardog (talk) 22:28, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Chile motion picture content ratings
The Article 13 of law 19846 says that "Minors accompanied by any of their parents or guardians, or their teachers, within the framework of their educational activities, may see cinematographic productions rated by the Council in an immediately higher category. In no case shall this exception apply to film productions with pornographic or excessively violent content. The regulations shall establish the form of accreditation of the above-mentioned persons." implying that the ratings 14 and 18 are restrictive. No name, just thought I could fix some errors in this website (talk) 19:32, 8 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the explanation. Remember, just provide full edit summaries and provide sources or any changes and you will be fine. Betty Logan (talk) 20:59, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Spider-Man rerelease
Just to let you know, the rerelease, which is a different film each week, is of all the live action Spider-Man films, not just the Raimi films. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Toy Story 3 § Plot discussion. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

BBFC
I'd appreciate it if you didn't stuff up my talk page with patronising automated messages. I think if you took a moment to think about it you'd see that my reasons for editing the BBFC page were sensible and clearly explained, but I'm not going to waste any more time fighting you over it. Zacwill (talk) 07:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)


 * You are an editor of ten years standing. If you are happy to ignore WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO—especially when you could see I was actively editing the article to add further background information—then I don't think you can really complain about being templated. Furthermore, your edits were not sensible, they were irrational as I explain here. Betty Logan (talk) 07:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

H:Colorblind changes.
I'd appreciate if you reverted your edit because I checked my new colors with colorblind filters and it improved support for blue-yellow and total colorblindness. VitAlv13 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Discuss it on the talk page. Unilateral changes that affect thousands of articles are not appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Genre Category
Hi Betty. If you have time, would you have a chance to look at the deletion nomination I've made for ? I think these hybrid genre categories are long overdue at looking at. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

what type of source is needed to add an entry to List of natural horror films?
I'm a bit confused about what is lacking about my sources, or what exactly a source should contain/mention for it to be sufficient. The sources I mention are similar to extant sources on the page, so I thought that would be enough. Many of the extant sources don't explicitly label their movies as "natural horror" either (particularly many of the AllMovie sources). TheZoodles (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Films need a source explicitly referring to the film as a "natural horror", or an "animal horror" etc. Just being labelled a "horror" is not enough. Until Allmovie changed its genre structure last week every film was sourced in this way. Here is the original Allmovie source for Arachnophobia. The Allmovie links will need to be fixed, but that's a separate matter. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * aha, I did not know about the AllMovie change. that explains a lot. thank you. TheZoodles (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * That's ok, I didn't know the List of natural horror films had become 90% unsourced as a result of Allmovie's revamp. You did us a favor. I think the film you attempted to add fits the bill for the list, we just need to find a source that explicitly labels it in that way. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see you have found an alternative source. All's well that ends well! Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Highest-grossing films adjusted for inflation
Hi Betty! Do we have the data to update the table with the 2023 inflation?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)


 * The 2023 index should be available now so I will update the table this weekend. Do you know if there are there any 2023 reissues we need to take account of, besides Titanic? Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * In 2023 only Titanic had a re-release (in the top 10 adjusted), with $70,2 million, thanks :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit, but remember that the re-releases of Star Wars: The Force Awakens are not correct, see WikiProject Film/Film finance task force, so I think we should not include them in the total--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Budget
You are fake news on the movies budget. 95.248.186.16 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

New message from Sjones23
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film) § Plot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_advice
Hi @Betty. Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. However there's two other users opposed over updated table, so I suggested that change "Label" to "Distributor" column via original table. Regards. 2001:D08:2901:3A65:17DE:BAF3:6F67:5D7F (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film) § Plot section
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film) § Plot section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

List of highest grossing animated films Peak rank
It is possible to source. Atleast half of them can be found at List of highest grossing films page. And the history of this page itself can be used as a source Marshmallow2211 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't discuss article content on my talk page. I recommend starting a discussion on the article page if you wish to discuss an edit or propose a change to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)