User talk:KyleJoan/Archives/2020/April

Your GA nomination of Richard Madden
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Richard Madden you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 17:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the Boat
The article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fresh Off the Boat for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fresh Off the Boat
The article Fresh Off the Boat you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fresh Off the Boat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bilorv -- Bilorv (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

ANI Notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. --Govvy (talk) 09:23, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Birds of Prey
Not quite sure what the deal is but first you rved content claiming no sources while missing the blatant link, then rved it again saying it had to be categorically shown or stated to be the lowest grossing or something (I am not quite sure) so I have provided additional outside sources showing full charts and numbers for every DCEU movies' BO results + sources stating it categorically as the lowest DCEU grosser. Hopefully that is the end of the discussion. Movies always have to be presented in a neutral light, with the positive and negative realities highlighted with equal weightings, especially when discussing a box office flop such as this one. Your comment about implying to say it being a first female superhero ensemble movie was a huge positive for it leads me to believe that your heart may be in the wrong place in regards to this movie, as that is not encyclopedic content nor does it matter in the context of it being a success or failure.

The page for the movie has seemingly had issues in the recent past with all comments referencing things that did not go so well for it being removed. Another editor and I do not want to take it to an arbitration and I personally would like to quick fix what seems a very minor issue here and move on. The movie IS the 4th highest 2020 grosser as of now. It also IS the lowest DCEU grosser as of now, and did not meet its BO break even point. These are its results relative to other movies of the year, its own long-established franchise that its a part of and its own budget and production. All should and have to be portrayed simply and accurately for encyclopedic purposes. Davefelmer (talk) 07:34, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi there, . I trust that you're familiar with WP:BRD.
 * That said, . . . I have provided additional outside sources showing full charts and numbers for every DCEU movies' BO results + sources stating it categorically as the lowest DCEU grosser. One of the sources you referenced is a WordPress.com blog, which is unreliable per WP:RSP. I have never stated the information you wanted to include was false; I only stated it was not verifiable. I also pointed out how Man of Steel (film) does not make any mention of its earnings in relation to being a DCEU film in the lead, so why should this article do so?
 * Your comment about implying to say it being a first female superhero ensemble movie was a huge positive . .. It's not positive or negative; it's an unverifiable statement. I'd like to point out that TheWrap, which is a reliable source, has dubbed the film DC’s first ensemble female superhero movie. Why is that fact not included in the article? Perhaps due to WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE. My opinions of a film do not matter; we are all to edit based on policies and guidelines.
 * Another editor and I do not want to take it to an arbitration and I personally would like to quick fix what seems a very minor issue here and move on. Do take it to arbitration. Saying that you'd like a quick fix does not adhere to WP:TIND.
 * It also IS the lowest DCEU grosser as of now, and did not meet its BO break even point. You really need to have a read of WP:SYNTH. Thanks. KyleJoan  08:31, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
 * My original response contained some factual inconsistencies, so I struck it. Rather than go back and forth, I'll open an RfC to settle whether the statement belongs in the lead. Cheers! KyleJoan  08:48, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you so much! This means a lot, especially now that I'm entangled in an ANI report and an SPI. Stay safe and productive! KyleJoan  05:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

No problem and thank you! Stay safe during these crazy times! And btw I love your user page! Maxwell King123321 (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Aw, how sweet of you! I curated it for fun without even thinking anyone else would see it ha. KyleJoan  14:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Omega
Please, stop with this pointles discussion. The farm territory is included in every article, GA and FA too. You started a discussion and, after two weeks, just two users gave their opinions, which support my edition. No more people is gonna gave more opinions, so I ended the request manually, since there is no min/max time. I think people has spoken and prefer the farm terrotory version. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ending RfC "An RfC should last until enough comment has been received that consensus is reached, or until it is apparent it won't be. There is no required minimum or maximum duration". As I said, 10 days since the last comment, looks like consensus and no-one cares about the edition. For me, the discussion is over and there is no need to wait 20 more days --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The article also states: Anyone who wants to have more comments on the topic can restart an RfC that has ended, as long as the discussion has not been closed. I'd like more comments, and the discussion has not been closed. Thanks for understanding. KyleJoan  16:55, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You want more coments, but people dont speak. You can try and ask for coments in the project, again. But serious, this is a very minimal edition which matches with every other articl we have. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:00, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Minimal or not, I've cited multiple guidelines to support my view. KyleJoan  17:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * And I cited mines and other users gave their opinion. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 17:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Charlie's Angels (2019 film) notability as a flop
Why are you so passionate about reverting this? It seems fair to note this film as a flop. Box office figures don’t need to be in the lead. However it’s notability as a box-office bomb does. NoMagic Spellstalk 04:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Per WP:FILMLEAD: Succeeding paragraphs in the lead section should cover . . . box office grosses . .. In relation, the article's box office section only documents the film's performance during its first two weeks in US theaters, therefore, assigning the label "box office bomb" to describe its entire performance worldwide is WP:UNDUE. Futhermore, the label has been added and reverted by multiple users multiple times, as seen here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thanks! KyleJoan  05:17, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you’re picking and choosing what you want from the guidance. You’ve left out milestones and controversies.  The film did not recoup its costs on the theatrical run worldwide.  There is no undue weight put on sources.  It is widely accepted as a flop including by the director.  Your definition appears to be based on original research WP:OR. Please define how you think a film makes a return on its investment.  Remember to include marketing and distribution costs including percentages to to theater owners.  Negative cost of the film’s budget alone does not define a return on investment.   I look forward to your breakdown of the film’s costs and return of investment. -- NoMagic Spellstalk 00:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, so what's the definition of a box office bomb? What's the difference between a bomb and a flop? How much money does a film have to lose to be a bomb as opposed to a flop and vice versa? How do studio expectations affect whether a film is a bomb or a flop or both? Not only that, The USAToday article you referenced labeled the film a box office bomb during the time that it earned "$57 million worldwide". Is it still a bomb now that it earned $73M? Rather than endlessly discuss how to incorporate these subjective labels and state one or both in Wikipedia's voice, I believe it is sufficient to state what the film cost v. what it earned and let readers draw their own conclusions. Please define how you think a film makes a return on its investment. It does not matter how you or I define it. Unless there are reliable sources that break down Charlie's Angels costs and return of investment, describing its financial performance in Wikipedia's voice (i.e., a return) based on our own calculations to say that it was a bomb or a flop or both does not meet WP:SYNTH and WP:NPOV. Thanks! KyleJ'oan  03:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bomb and flop are the same things. That would be a semantics discussion.  We’re talking about if a film has made a return on investment.  Hollywood Reporter is a reliable industry source.   If the film had the “legs” to break even on its theatrical run worldwide it would not make a presumptuous statement on the opening weekend.  It was reported as a bomb by year-end and therefore should be noted.  The general “rule of thumb” is that a film needs to make around x2 or x2.5 of its production budget including all marketing and distribution costs etc to break even.  Even a conservative estimation of the production budget of $48m means the film would have to make around $98m worldwide for a return on investment.  It made $73m as the lead correctly states. The reader needs to be made aware that the film did not make money to break even. The lead implies otherwise which is incorrect. -- NoMagic Spellstalk 05:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Bomb and flop are the same things. According to whom? Sounds like WP:OR.
 * It was reported as a bomb by year-end and therefore should be noted. By one publication during the time the film had made less money than it has at this time.
 * The general “rule of thumb” is that a film needs to make around x2 or x2.5 of its production budget including all marketing and distribution costs etc to break even. How do we know which "rule" applies to this film? Does it need to make twice as much as the budget or two-and-a-half times as much to break even?
 * The reader needs to be made aware that the film did not make money to break even. OR.
 * Feel free to begin a discussion on the article's talk page if you'd like. Thanks! KyleJoan  11:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Probably not as you appear to be a contrarian by nature and your own talk page shows you have a history of edit warring. I made a reasonable suggestion. You also appear to be “stalking” my edits and reverting them as well. Such confrontational behaviour is unhelpful to Wikipedia. -- NoMagic Spellstalk 12:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)