User talk:Esotericus02

Welcome Esotericus02! Now that you've joined Wikipedia, there are registered editors!

Hello, Esotericus02. Welcome to Wikipedia and thank you for your contributions! I'm Jax 0677, one of the other editors here, and I hope you decide to stay and help contribute to this amazing repository of knowledge. Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type  here on your talk page, and someone will try to help. Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes   at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp. The best way to learn about something is to experience it. Explore, learn, contribute, and don't forget to have some fun! To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Mypage/sandbox&action=edit&preload=Template:User_Sandbox/preload create your own private sandbox] for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put  on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.

 Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 15:15, 13 December 2017 (UTC)  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jax_0677&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Welcome_to_Wikipedia/user-talk_preload (Leave me a message)] Español

Deutsch

Français

Italiano

עברית

Русский

日本語

Polski

فارسی

Editorializing about box office
Hi. I saw that you added some extra wording to a couple articles in which you described the box office performance. This is technically original research, as you're coming to your own conclusions and adding them as if they were facts. When a film grosses significantly less than expected, it may be tempted to call it a "box office bomb" or other related term, but this is forbidden by policy. Instead, we simply report the facts without labeling anything. If reliable sources give their analysis of the film, we can report that, though. This would typically take the form of analysis of why the film performed poorly, or perhaps what effect the performance had on the studio. Hollywood accounting is a rather complex issue, and we shouldn't jump into it with our own amateur analysis. A film can make more money than its budget but still be a net loss, and a film can make less than its budget yet still pull in a net gain after merchandising. These are issues that reliable sources will (we assume) consider when they perform their professional analysis. Similar issues exist for using your own analysis to label whether something got "positive reviews", "mixed reviews", or "negative reviews". We already have two aggregators to tell people what the reception was; we don't need Wikipedia editors to add their own two cents on top of them. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry, I was also going to point out that the IMDb is not a reliable source. You shouldn't cite that on Wikipedia.  It's a useful website, but there isn't enough professional fact-checking for us to use it.  What you might consider doing is check the IMDb, then search for a reliable source that backs up what the IMDb says.  That's what many of us do.  It gives us a heads-up on what Google searches to perform.  If you need any help, please feel free to contact WikiProject Film, and we'll do our best to assist you. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:50, 20 December 2017 (UTC)