Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Archive 58

WP:FILMLEAD says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". This is to prevent mash-ups where it is too easy to add one genre after another in the opening sentence when it needs to be verifiable (and thus straightforward). We have the rest of the lead section to illustrate the film's premise. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 23:23, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there are many more film articles than there are editors. :) We cannot curate all of these articles, but in my experience, the ones that become Good or Featured Articles have a simpler presentation of genres. I also find multiple genre-linking a little confusing per

WP:EGG, where a "science fiction" link like yours could be linking to science fiction or science fiction film. If there is an article about a specific sub-genre, great, but otherwise I find mash-ups to be a poor practice. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 23:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Easy fix. Follow

WP:FILMLEAD sect. Then, create a well-sourced sect for the article, called Genre and/or Themes, with scholarly academic commentary from peer-reviewed sources, and you can use those sub-links in that sect. Good luck, — Cirt (talk

) 23:35, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Relevant MOS guidelines would be

comic science fiction film" over "science fiction comedy film". But I think we should generally avoid edit warring over genre. I don't think it's terribly important whether we describe something as a thriller film or heist film, as long as we avoid listing more than two main genres ("drama action thriller heist film" is genre salad). NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 17:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It looks to me like SPECIFICLINK is referring to hard facts, like geographical locations, etc. Not debatable subjects like subgenres. It was not intended to take readers to the substandard

comic science fiction article-list over the science fiction film article. As the top of the MOS says, we should "Use common sense in applying it; it will have occasional exceptions". The same applies to SEAOFBLUE, though I agree there should not be several genres in the lead. - Gothicfilm (talk

) 22:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I've created the WP:Deletion to Quality Award.

This recognizes editors who've taken a page previously considered for deletion — to

The award is inspired by the Wikipedia:Million Award, the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, and the Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement.

Please see Wikipedia:Deletion to Quality Award.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 00:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The sequels section to the page

Since Independence Day: Resurgence exists, there does not need to be a substantial "Sequel" section. What I usually do when I fork content is update the new article's lead section, then copy that lead section to the original article and tweak it somewhat. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I was about to comment a similar thing. I just went through and cut out most of the

news report-sounding updates of the sequel development as it's covered in the Resurgence article. Though as my edit summary indicated, a more elegant clean-up is needed. I made a conservative pruning as I'm not well versed in how sequel sections when a sequel actually exists should be handled exactly. But I do know it should be shorter than it was. Really, I see some other portions that are cause for concern in the article, and I'm concerned about the by the minute reporting in the sequel's article. It should be rewritten because the constant 'on this date, X' isn't appropriate, really. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol

02:44, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. As much as I adore Independence Day, there are certainly other elements of the article that put it at risk of losing its Good Article status.

talk•cont

02:49, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

RM discussion is still ongoing; I invite you to improve consensus. --George Ho (talk) 06:42, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if we could get some third-party input at

Resolved

 – Editor has been blocked; permanent link to ANI thread. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:38, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

at Talk:Greaser's Palace#"Cult film". BMK (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is more extensive than that one film, as the editor is removing "cult film" from every film article in which it appears. See this on AN/I. Help would be appreciated in reverting his reverts of my reverts of his removals. BMK (talk) 22:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Straight off the block and goes right back to removing the same content. Now blocked for 2 weeks... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

The above link is to a proposal for renaming the main title header

I want to contratulate Mr. Sean Astin, I wish coult get in touch with him, to sent him some lines, I saw him in a movie Rudy and is I still remember jus like I saw it yesterday, I bought teh Video and I will the DV's of Woodlwan too, I also want to congfratulate Mr Nic Bishop, very good performing, also the young actor, excelent performing too, Caleb as Tony Nathan, I hope I will get some lines back for this comemet, and also hope I will excuse for my writting in English, I am from Cuba, [email protected]

Thank you very much.

Jose Ricabal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:647:C801:40F1:C869:94B3:3252:81EC (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Jose! I assume you are referring to Woodlawn (film). Doing some research, this says Woodlawn was released in 1,533 theaters, which is a wide release. Blockbuster films used to be over 2,000 theaters in the United States and now go over 3,000. Not sure if you have had the chance, but you can access the film's official website here, and it appears to have a lot of good resources for fans of the movie. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:48, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You could also comment about the movie on its Facebook page here; it looks like some people are getting replies from those operating the Facebook page. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:57, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like, from the article, that Rotten Tomatoes is the single most accurate. — Cirt (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps we should come up with some boilerplate text that could be generally applied when utilizing such scores in articles? DonIago (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

There already was a boilerplate somewhere once, Template:Rotten Tomatoes score, but it now appears to be broken and not in use anymore. :( — Cirt (talk) 18:39, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen

WP:RTMC referenced in a long time, but it has (very outdated) language under "Critical response" that I originally intended to do just that. The most recent language I've personally used is at The Martian (film)#Critical response, but there has been some push-back about such language being too detailed. I think the detail is necessary, but I'm not sure if the consensus exists to accept that and standardize the language. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 18:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the language you used at The_Martian_(film)#Critical_response is perfect, actually. :) — Cirt (talk) 18:47, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Some credit to Betty Logan for that; she shaved off some redundancy to tighten up the language. Related discussion here. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:50, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the MOS could be bulked up with a "suggestion" for appropriate language. Revisiting the template to see whether it could be salvaged might also be worthwhile. I think asking general editors to read an essay regarding how to handle the language may be more than they'd be willing to commit to (actually, I suspect we'll regularly need to clean up the language in any case, but I'm trying to retain some optimism...). I'm happy to help with any concerns regarding the specific language incorporated into any such suggestion. DonIago (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

I think an example or two, or perhaps an exaplanation also of how RT and MC aggregate scores, would be a good addition to the MOS. I also do agree that the wording in The Martian is great. (I may go through the film articles I'm working on and implement something extremelt similar.) I'm wondering: does anyone know of similar aggregate sites for other media? I think RT does shows now? Is this something that would be relevant for other projects to consider? (Or is that meddlesome?) ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 19:19, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

If we have a consensus to support specific wording for Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, we could put it in

MOS:FILM#Critical response. (I also think that we should retire the "Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics" subsection since I do not believe anyone makes this distinction anymore. Maybe it could just be something more summarized to go in the "Notes" section at the end.) Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 19:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Looking at the second infographic, Metacritic looks the most "honest" in what you expect from an unbiased statistical distribution. I bet most films don't get the bottom rating and most don't get the top, so on a five star rating system you would expect most films to get 2–4 stars. Metacritic is the only one which conforms to this distribution (the bulk of its reviews in the 1.5–4.0 range). All the user ratings seem to skew high as you would expect from a system that facilitates vote stacking, but the distribution for the RT critics score is anomalous: are we really to believe there are more 5-star films than 3-star films? The RT critics score is very flat, more or less evenly distributed across the whole range, which I think is due to its binary grading system. This highlights the inherent flaw in RT's system: in any fair rating system you would expect the weight of the distribution to be centered around the mean, but only the Metacritic critics score conforms to that expectation. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you think we should consider an RfC (I don't think a basic consensus here would necessarily be sufficient) on discouraging the inclusion of RT scores? It kind of sounds like that's what you're suggesting. Obviously there's no point in coming up with suggested text for the Critical Reception section until we're sure what aggregators we consider appropriate for inclusion. DonIago (talk) 16:04, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I doubt we could do without RT scores. It is a pretty common reference in Wikipedia articles, much like having IMDb as an external link. RT is constantly reported in periodicals, so it would be difficult to leave it out. I do think we have the opportunity to report it well (and better than most sources do). Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:10, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I think the problem is more to do with how the study interprets the RT score, and it is something we see time and time again on film articles. Whereas you can equate an MC score (which is a weighted averaged of critic scores) of 70 with 7/10, a 70% RT score does not equate that way i.e. it is not a representation of a film's quality. The RT score basically counts the percentage of "recommends", so there is no real reason why you would have more films that split critics (i.e. 50%) than films than unite critics (i.e. 0% or 100%). That is why the distribution is uniform. If you take Mad Max Fury Road for instance, a 97% RT score equates to 5/5 on a rounded 5-star scale; however, we can see that the average critics rating is only 8.7/10, or 4 stars on a rounded scale. Basically if most critics give a film 4 stars then that's why it gets an almost perfect RT score, because most critics have recommended it. The study would have been better plotting the alternative RT average rating since that is the metric that grades the film. I don't think we should drop the RT score but this study does help highlight our misuse of the score: the RT score is not indicative of quality, it is indicative of approval. We need to make sure that this is clear when we give the RT score, so that a 100% score is not necessarily interpreted as the majority of critics giving it top marks. Betty Logan (talk) 00:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no desire to strike a deceased equine, but I'm not sure whether I should take the lack of further comments here as a lack of desire to move forward on the matter or read it in another manner. I still think boilerplate text would be a good idea, but especially based on Betty's concerns I'm uncertain how to proceed and unlikely to do so solo. DonIago (talk) 15:41, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Ah, again with the dead horse thing, but despite there not being any more moves on this, I did make the suggestion at the currently running Tank Girl FAC that an edit of this sort be considered for addition into the article (wow, that phrasing is awkward), linking to this discussion. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 00:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Everyone, please check out

Seconded. Excellent, wonderful, amazing resource. Invaluable. — Cirt (talk) 15:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Definitely. I struggled to find access to enough academic sources to complete my first GA. The Wikipedia Library made all that easy. The Wikipedia Library offers access to Cineaste through

Highbeam Research if you intend to work in AfD, as it has many archived film reviews. If you work in niche areas, you should look at what McFarland & Company can offer. When I joined their program, they graciously offered three e-books for free per year. I was able to improve coverage of countless films, and using their film criticism books allowed me to create many more articles. It is very rewarding to expand an article that had previously languished as a stub for years. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 00:56, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

1. I've helped to clear the backlogs at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama.
2. It previously looked something like this ----> and now looks something like this.
3. But there's still two (2) nominations there at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Topic lists/Media and drama -- that I cannot review myself. :)

Any help would be appreciated. :)

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at the Nollywood talk page about whether the contents of Nollywood should be merged into Cinema of Nigeria on the basis that the term 'Nollywood' is registered as a trademark in the United States. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

This has probably been beat to death over the years, but there's another discussion about the use of genres in the lead at Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film. Originally, the discussion is debating whether or not to include Star Wars films in the epic genre, but it has evolved into the larger concern of whether or not we should be using vague terms or listing multiple genres in the lead. Personally, I feel that the primary genre associated with a film should be the lead's focus, and if any further discussion on its genre is warranted, then it should be tackled in a section or sub-section within the article's body. If you feel inclined to weigh in, please do, as additional feedback would be appreciated. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:32, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD says to include "the primary genre or sub-genre under which it is verifiably classified". Considering this and recent discussions, it may be worth expanding the wording of the guidelines for better clarification on best practices. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 16:36, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Can't we just kill genres in a fire and be done? GRAPPLE ^X 16:43, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be nice! LOL --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, I think the ongoing problem with "verifiably classified" is that it is usually possible to find one, two, or a small handful of sources that have classified a film in a particular genre. However, when an overwhelming majority don't use that classification, it becomes a difficult scenario to either justify or oppose its inclusion in the lead. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to recall what "verifiably classified" was originally intended to mean. In a way, anything said by a secondary source is better than a mashup of genres that is done by one editor or is genre-creep by multiple editors over time. Of course, different sources will describe films in different ways. The guidelines, IMO, try to say to pick the most common genre or sub-genre among the sources. We could go further and also require that the genre/sub-genre be notable on Wikipedia. I created gothic romance film for Crimson Peak to basically try to overcome the genre issue for that film (and learned plenty in the process). Might be good incentive to evaluate film genre articles. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Comment: Principally agree with Erik here. Also, with so much discussion and debate, I'm surprised no single editor or editor(s) has attempted to write a well-sourced Genres subsection of the article, to present scholarly and academic discussion of such. I'm sure there's plenty of coverage of this particular topic in peer-reviewed academic journals. — Cirt (talk) 17:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Which article are you referring to? Crimson Peak or a more general topic? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:19, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to Talk:Star Wars (film)#Epic sf war film, but great work you've done at Gothic romance film !!! — Cirt (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

It's a good point that a lot of material obviously exists out there, so it is somewhat surprising. However, I think the main point here is that unless such a section exists in the article's body, the lead should opt to use a high-level genre as opposed to a sub-genre to help avoid disagreements. In this situation, space opera may technically be OK, but it is a sub-genre nevertheless. Wouldn't it just be easier to decide which high-level genres are acceptable for the lead (making a list similar to the one here), and then recommending in the style guidelines to choose from this list when editors disagree on the use of a sub-genre? Having something to fall back on would certainly cut down on the constant rehashing of this topic. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:18, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think choosing genre or sub-genre depends on the film. Sub-genres can be obvious branches of main genres, like black comedy or screwball comedy, or it can be a non-obvious sub-genre, like disaster film being under action film (per your filmsite.org link). As for your proposed list, why not have

list of film genres (currently a redirect)? We only have list of genres and film genre (the latter which has a small list). A stand-alone list would be good for readers and editors alike. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me}

) 19:47, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom still insists days later, possibly weeks, that the release date is requiring "Scheduled for [date]." Could please close this discussion already? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:39, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL is clear - we do not present a future event as if it has actually happened. What can be verified is that there is a scheduled release date. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom

21:40, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

This approach is pedantic. We already use this language in prose, and I find that sufficient. Not to mention that it is a long-time practice. Please discuss if you want to see about a revised consensus. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Tenebrae actually pretty much closed the deal when I initially opened the discussion here. Guess that was not enough. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:49, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Wikiproject film feels that many of the Wikipedia policies and practices dont apply to them, but that doesnt mean that the project gets to opt out. The inclusion of "scheduled" for events that have not happened is more accurate, more encyclopedic and more in line with policy. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 22:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you really believe that about WikiProject Film? It would help to cite infobox precedent elsewhere. Do album articles do this? Do book articles? Etc. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 22:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Erik that adding 'scheduled' to the infobox is pedantic. 2020 Summer Olympics and Dystopia (Megadeth album), to pick two examples I could immediately think of, have in their infobox an unaccompanied date, and in the lead of the article itself say "are planned" and "due for release". In that way, the articles, and similarly the Joy article with its chosen "is scheduled for" fall in line with crystal. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 23:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

It goes without saying that a date in the future is a scheduled date. That's why nobody says it. "Wikiproject film feels that many of the Wikipedia policies and practices dont apply to them, but that doesnt mean that the project gets to opt out" Maybe you would like to read

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead}

13:41, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I wanted to say I agree with Erk's edit and Callmemirela's stance, although I understand the essence of TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom's point, and I think all these veteran editors of good faith are actually of one mind. Let me explain.

Yes, per

WP:CRYSTAL

, the announced release date of a movie could change for many reasons, with some films having been postponed even at the last minute due to a news event that might make the film's release problematic, like a school shooting occurring the same week a film about a similar topic was to be released. So saying "scheduled release date" in prose is exactly right.

But with infoboxes and filmography lists, it's redundant to say "scheduled" since we're giving a future date: Of course it's scheduled ... how could it be anything else, since it hasn't happened yet? In an infobox or a filmography list, a verifiably, officially announced future event is, by definition, scheduled. So saying "scheduled" isn't necessary. (And secondarily, verified and cited prose confirms "scheduled".)

From what I can see, both Call and RedPen are correct in the essence of WP:CRYSTAL. The only difference between them is grammatical. Yes, the infobox date is a scheduled one. But for the reasoning above, in this non-prose seeing, it's redundant to say "scheduled." My two cents. --Tenebrae (talk)

I don't see how there is anything "less predictive" or "more implied" about placing and discussing a future event in the infobox than placing and discussing a future event in the text. If anything, the infobox which is supposed to provide necessary information at a glance would be the place where we would want to be more careful about giving readers inaccurate and presumptive information without appropriate caveats.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:51, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Unless the person reading it doesn't understand that things in the future aren't definitive, then they should be able to tell that it is scheduled. Also, especially in the article in question, the lead (where scheduled is mentioned) is actually the first place that the release date is mentioned, with the release date in the infobox not actually becoming apparent until you get to the production part of the page. The lead is right there at the top of the page, and since it is almost always the first mention of the date, that is when people are likely to see it. Other than films rescheduled last minute because of news stories, who checks a release date far ahead of time before turning up to the cinema to watch the film? Most people will check it a few days before and are likely to check their local theater's website to find the date more than Wikipedia.

And to add to that, having scheduled in the infobox just looks untidy.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 15:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

The film has not yet been distributed yet. Should we also adjust 20th Century Fox to 20th Century Fox (scheduled)? --

No need for the snark... the consensus is clearly in favor of not using these terms in the infobox. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, no one has pointed out this inconsistency yet, and I don't particularly view the

Wikipedical (talk

) 01:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved from my talkpage. There was a discussion on whether we should include works disowned by the filmmaker e.g. credited as "Alan Smithee" or "Stephen Greene" in the filmography section of their bios. Wondered if others would like to pitch in? Pinging some WikiProject film regulars. Erik, Sock, Lugnuts, Betty Logan, Cyphoidbomb. Cowlibob (talk) 19:14, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Hi Cowlibob, I noticed that you recently updated the David O. Russell filmogrpahy section to better reflect the guidelines of Wikipedia (thanks for that!), and when you did so reverted a change made by AndrewOne that suggested that the film Accidental Love could not be considered an O. Russell film and was removed. I actually agree with AndrewOne, but before making the change wanted to check and see what you thought on the matter! Morganglick (talk) 23:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I am "AndrewOne," Morganglick. Thank you for tagging me; I would have wanted to participate in this discussion. In any event, my argument for Cowlibob is that I removed Accidental Love from Russell's filmography because its appearance among movies he was involved with all the way through is awkward. I fully understand the fact that most directors do not have final cut privilege - but to cut off one's own ties with a film as much as half a decade before its commercial release is far different from simply lacking final cut privilege.
I believe this would be a good time to mention the film Dune (1984). David Lynch certainly distanced himself from this movie, but mostly around the time it hit theaters. His artistic vision was restrained by the studios, as has happened many times, but all in all it was not actually a case of him quitting altogether years before completion. For this reason, I could understand Dune's being listed on Wikipedia as a David Lynch work. (Even though I do not personally like its listing as such, that is acceptable). Russell's situation was not the same. He left the whole project before even having filmed Silver Linings Playbook (2012) or American Hustle (2014). Direction for Accidental Love should instead be attributed to whomever directed the remainder. One might suggest to follow the example of Spartacus (1960): Anthony Mann was removed after a week of shooting, and Stanley Kubrick eventually took over. To whom is the direction of Spartacus ultimately attributed? Kubrick.

What if Russell were to do what he did about Accidental Love four more times over? Would WP policy mandate that they all be counted in his filmography, along with those he had directed fully? If so,

Yes, Wikipedia is about verifiability, and it is verifiable that the director directed Accidental Love. Wikipedia is based on secondary sources, so a director's filmography should be based on these sources. Wikipedia should not present a director's filmography like a resume. If needed, we can add a note indicating some background for that film, such as his pseudonym and his act of disowning. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

What Erik said. Speaking of Kubrick, he'd pretty much disowned Fear and Desire, but it would be wrong to exclude it from his filmography. He still directed it, even if he wasn't happy with it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:51, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I think I like Erik's explanation, but I also like Lugnuts' pep, so I'm going with both. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

This is an easy one; if there are reliable sources identifying a filmmaker and their film, then yes... we include it. -

^theWOLFchild

23:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

1. Should Metacritic's and Rotten Tomatoes' aggregator data be included in a film article if the film is still out in theaters?
2. Should Rotten Tomatoes scores be included if there is no critical consensus, for instance here?

Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

I would say yes to both. For the first question, it is commonplace to include the data during a film's theatrical run. Wikipedia is dynamic enough to update the numbers (with some editors being very diligent in this). For the second question, I think considering that Metacritic has a small sample set that it would be okay to include Rotten Tomatoes even if the staff has not written a "critics' consensus" yet. Not to mention that we shouldn't just be putting the RT score right upfront on Wikipedia. As we discussed earlier this month, it would be appreciate to use the right wording to explain each website's methodology. If that is being done, then I do not think a brief lack of "critics' consensus" should prohibit mentioning numbers useful to readers. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:13, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Independent films, especially those that premiere at high profile film festivals, will frequently have a RT score (and maybe even critics' consensus) prior to their theatrical release. Something to consider. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it depends. I don't think it/they should be used if it is overly damning, because all the critical assessment isn't in yet, and WP needs to avoid potentially negatively influencing potential viewers (also per

WP:NOTNEWS). Likewise, if the RT result is stratospheric, it should be noted as "As of [exact date] ..." if the score is going to be included, because, again, all of the critical analysis may not be in yet. I think it's important not to stress RT scores too much. It's much better to use actual review quotes, preferably from major notable RS venues, and to summarize the aggregate as "mixed", "mixed to negative", "mixed to positive", "positive", "very positive", etc. (can also omit summarizing the aggregate or using the numbers entirely). I generally like to err on the side of positive or neutral-to-positive when quoting or summarizing reviews, and try to add in whatever positive I can if the reviews are pretty damning overall. In other words, it's important to remain neutral per NPOV. I think RT and MC numbers are kind of like AllMusic ratings -- to be used judiciously, when necessary or advisable. Softlavender (talk

) 08:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Softlavender, I think that would be fair. A film with 2 reviews and a 100% score could easily hurtle downward to 18% after all is said and done. Not sure what to assume on the readers' part about sample size. On Metacritic, there are some films that only get like 5-10 reviews, and there is still a metascore provided. (However, in some of their lists of films, they exclude these items and provide a checkbox to put them back in. See this, which has a footnote that says, "Only movies with seven or more reviews are eligible.") Maybe we can think of some keywords to make clear that the low number of reviews is "limited" or "early" or something of the like? Interestingly, Cyphoidbomb's RT link shows no "critics' consensus" for a film that came out in 2010. In that particular case, with 20 reviews, I would just report it with the right wording but without the "critics' consensus" part of it. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree with everything stated, above, by Erik, having read his most sensible and logical rationale. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 08:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. A small sample size is definitely problematic, but it's not the end of the world, especially if we avoid our own original analysis of the rating ("it received mixed reviews on Rotten Tomatoes"). First, RT doesn't even provide a score until enough "Tomatometer approved" critics have commented. I forget the number, and I'm too lazy to check; I think it's five. So, you won't even see a percentage listed unless five "Tomatometer approved" critics have are listed. This doesn't include reviews that are uncatalogued (linked reviews that have no analysis as to whether they're positive or negative yet). Many "Tomatometer approved" critics are just self-published bloggers; these include prolific users who post their reviews on Netflix and the IMDb. After it gets an official Tomatometer score, it needs a certain number of "top critics" to give a consensus. It doesn't always do this, especially for independent films. I'm not necessarily saying that RT is biased against independent films, but they sure aren't going out of their way to update their site's coverage of independent films. As far as films that are currently in theaters, I don't see why we should change any of our behavior. It's not our place to decide when the critical consensus is in or if it's too positive/negative. So, no, I think I rather vehemently disagree with some of the suggestions in this thread (pretty much everything that Softlavender wrote), and somewhat disagree with the rest. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 20:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

For #1, you seem in agreement with the rest of us about it being acceptable to use such data while the film is in theaters. But for #2, are you essentially saying that the data should be reported regardless of how limited it is? What I suggested to Softlavender was meant as a temporary fix. If the number of reviews is very small (maybe even just below five) for a short time, it may not be worth reporting if we do expect more. However, if we do not expect more reviews to come in, I am fine with reporting the data, however limited it may be. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:23, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

If an aggregator decides there are enough reviews for an official score, and we consider them a reliable source, why not list the score? I wrote a few articles about films that have a 100% Tomatometer score based on five reviews. So what? It doesn't mean anything, and that's why I used the standardized language that I do ("100% of five surveyed critics gave it a positive review"). It's not a summary of the film's overall reception, it's just a snapshot of what RT has currently indexed. I'm strongly opposed to the interpretation the RT score. Stuff like, "The film received critical acclaim on RT and has a 90% score." I think this is a totally inappropriate use of RT, as each of those reviews could have been a 3/5 rating. I think this is related to what you've been talking about lately. I especially think we need to avoid unsourced lead-in statements. If

WP:NPOV goes, I don't see how a high score on RT is non-neutral. It's a simple fact. To report it as "critical acclaim", however, is a violation of NPOV. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 21:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I think it is about emphasis in writing about the reception. To me, it would be the wrong emphasis to mention 100% first and then state that it was based on five reviews. I'd rather see the opposite, to outline the methodology and the reviews surveyed and lastly report the determined score. I do prefer this approach in general anyway, and like you said, with summaries from sources like Entertainment Weekly in front. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:49, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't remember where I picked up this wording from, but it struck me as one of the better ways to describe RT. I had been struggling with how to describe RT for a while, and the phrasing that many other people were using seemed too close to "it received critical acclaim on Rotten Tomatoes". I originally did like you said (methodology first and rating last), but then I rearranged the sentence to make it a little more natural-sounding. Either way seems fine, really. As long as the RT summary doesn't indicate that it is an authoritative or statistically rigorous examination of the film's reception, I'm pretty much OK with it. This is similar, I think, to how Box Office Mojo is sometimes used to say that a film was a "success" or "disappointment", neither of which BOM ever says. A certain subset of critics that RT polled may like/dislike a film, but we can't extrapolate from that anything else, such as "mixed reviews" or "critical acclaim". Cyphoidbomb and a few other regulars here are probably familiar with the situation at Mad Max: Fury Road. During the film's theatrical release, we got all kinds of independent reliable sources for over-the-top praise like "critical acclaim", "rave reviews", "best EVAR!", etc. Now that we've got some distance from the film's theatrical release and can hopefully judge it more dispassionately, I think we can start to let in some of that commentary. This is one aspect of the "during a theatrical run" that I agree with, though it's not really related to aggregators. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply, Betty Logan. Yes, unfortunately the discussion on the other page was quite long, but it was also completely derailed by large amounts of off-topic silliness. This is the more appropriate venue anyway, as this issue affects multiple film related articles. That said, there are still some outstanding questions that need to be addressed, despite the "200KB discussion";

• How do you account for the lack of "confusion" and so-called "ambiguity" on the twenty-two other film articles that use "billion" in the infobox for box office? Or the hundreds, if not thousands, of other Wikipedia articles that use "billion"?
• Why is it that this one particular article must! be different?
• Also, how do account for the almost daily edits to Skyfall changing "million" to "billion" by users from all over the world, including the UK?
• Do you recognize that in point of fact, the current "$1,000 million" is clearly causing confusion for many, many people?

Thanks. -

^theWOLFchild

23:38, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I am reasonably sure that if the editors that Charl6 canvassed had been in favor of using the "billion" you would not regard the main discussion as "silliness". If you want "fresh eyes" by all means notify wikiprojects of the existing discussion but

WP:FORUMSHOPPING is not acceptable. Betty Logan (talk

) 00:05, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

First off, I didn't "canvass" anyone. If you have a problem with 'Charl6', please take it up with him. Don't lower yourself to the level of others here with off-topic comments and accusations. Now, that said, I again have asked you to address a few simple and straight forward points, and again you refuse. Why? I am asking as plainly and respectfully as I can. Why do you refuse to address any of the points brought forward, (on either page). Thank you. -

^theWOLFchild

04:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I haven't accused you of canvassing anyone. To quote WP:FORUMSHOPPING: Raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators, or any of these repetitively, is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus. It does not help develop consensus to try different forums in the hope of finding one where you get the answer you want. (This is also known as "asking the other parent".) Queries placed on noticeboards and talk pages should be phrased as neutrally as possible, in order to get uninvolved and neutral additional opinions. I think that policy makes it very clear that starting a new discussion when another one on the exact same issue is already in the advanced stages is generally unhelpful. Also, your discussion opener is in no way a neutral description of the dispute. Betty Logan (talk) 04:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

^theWOLFchild

09:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

As I have already said, there is an existing discussion in the advanced stages at the actual article itself which is where all article decisions should be made so I am not prepared to restart the same discussion here. Betty Logan (talk) 19:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• $1.X billion is obviously the correct choice, not 1,000 million.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

At this point, is anyone refuting the complete lack of ambiguity in pure numerals? Much of what's been said still repeats points, often purely subjective, on words with regionally-different meanings, and it doesn't seem that one side or another will convince the other. GRAPPLE ^X 00:31, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Exact numerals have the benefit of preciseness, but then you run into

MOS:LARGENUM. We could just bin that guideline on Brit English articles, but I think it would need a strong consensus here to withstand the MOS fanatics. Betty Logan (talk

) 00:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused about whether replying to this debate here is helping, but put me down in favour of using "billion". I think the cost of writing it out in long form, which looks weird and is hard to read, is higher than the cost of a vanishingly small number of people being confused, which frankly I think is unlikely anyway. (Speaking as a professional copy editor and style guide fetishist, I'm in favour of Wikipedia's style leaning more towards popular contemporary language generally than increasingly archaic, stuffy language, but that's another debate.)

talk

) 07:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• The Oxford Dictionaries Online (UK English) states this for the primary definition of billion: "The number equivalent to the product of a thousand and a million; 1,000,000,000 or 10⁹". Unlike the OED which lists the earliest recorded meaning first, Oxford Dictionaries lists the meanings in the order in which they predominantly appear in written and verbal language today. It would seem that even from a British-English perspective, the short scale form is the most common based on this information. Here's an article that analyzes this in more detail.
• Per
  MOS:TIES, we should use the common form of English from the nation the article has strong ties to. Reliable sources, such as this BBC article, use billion in the short scale form. Other sources cited in the Skyfall
  article also use that form. That's in addition to the previous point above. Some arguments have attempted to point out that worldwide usage has not conformed to the short scale, but according to this guideline, that's irrelevant here.

Honestly to me, what should matter the most at this point is how the sources are reporting the box office figure. Clearly they favor the short scale. So far, none of the arguments have been able to present any substantial evidence showing that the short scale's "billion" is an ambiguous term in the UK today. Without that evidence, we should bank on what the sources are saying to settle the dispute. My 2 cents. --GoneIn60 (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I have moved your post above the discussion on how to write the short billion in an article, as logically your conclusion comes first. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:35, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

A well-thought-out argument. I'm on board with this. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:01, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

I stated same about sources on original page, but editors claimed BBC and other websites aren't better and more reliable than Oxford. Charlr6 (talk) 14:03, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Writing short billions

Policy says use short billions, the problem is how to write that in an article. Can I suggest that we write say "2 billion (short billions)" the first time the word is used in an article, and just "5 billion" for repeats? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Or we could link "billion" in the infobox to

^theWOLFchild

19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Just say "billion" without qualification throughout: it's obvious from context and common usage. No film ever has grossed a long billion, or is ever likely to do so in the foreseeable future. See also

WP:NUMERAL for our standard convention. -- The Anome (talk

) 18:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes... thank you. That point has been raised repeatedly. Just who is going to become so "confused" that they'll actually think

^theWOLFchild

19:11, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the short-billion lobby would have to accept this as a compromise to pacify the long-billion-disambig lobby. At the same time the long-billion-disambig lobby would similarly have to accept it as a compromise to pacify the short-billion lobby. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

We could avoid "billions" entirely and just start using the Indian system of lakh and crore for our numbering. "The film grossed US$100 crore and was declared all-time blockbuster status!" That's your new billion. "Jem and the Holograms grossed $22.6 lakh and was given failure verdict." That's your new 2.26 million. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Well done Cyphoidbomb—you have managed to completely miss the point. This is all about what our average reader understands from accessing the article. An admin too; really!
And you don't practice what you preach here. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:23, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It was a joke, man. C'mon, "all-time blockbuster status"? You don't make it to admin by writing crap like that. That lakh and crore stuff makes my head spin. And my indentation was appropriate as I was responding to the OP. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

^theWOLFchild

17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Ha ha! Thank you for restoring my faith in you. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:40, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

If anything, wouldn't the pre-existence of Indian films using the lakh and crore numbering be evidence that localised differences to the "norm" are perfectly fine? GRAPPLE ^X 16:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? Who (and how) is this taken up? The public at large could never tolerate it. — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 16:31, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Just as it seems the public at large have no tolerance for "$1,000 million", considering the way it is constantly being changed to "billion" by sooo many people, on an almost daily basis. Just sayin'... -

^theWOLFchild

17:36, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

disappointing...

It is clear the use of "$1,000 million" in the infobox instead of "billion" is problematic and causing a great deal of confusion. Since it was added over a year ago, there have been numerous edits made, changing it to "billion", only to be quickly reverted by a small group of editors. I have repeatedly brought this point to the attention of a pair of these editors only to have them continually refuse to even acknowledge it. Now I learn that one of them has alleged that these changes are the result of "socking", and have gone so far as to request page protection, further alleging that these edits are "vandalism", and are a result of this very discussion. This tactic is tantamount to "sweeping the problem under the rug" and is at best, misleading. People from all over the world, both registered editors and IP users alike, have been constantly changing this item to "billion" is what can only be described as a well-intentioned attempt to address a perceived problem, to 'fix a typo', as people are obviously quite used to seeing "billion" used in the short sense, through-out the project on numerous articles. Except on this one, of course. -

I for one would never use sock puppetry (and I'm not saying anyone has or would accuse me). But it is clearly all over the world. I am quite surprised it was only about a month ago I discovered that it said 1,000 million. Surely for sock puppetry there would have to be some proof advanced editors could research their IPs with actual editors? Otherwise, it is just a misleading distraction saying so, from the obvious. I wonder if Spectre receives a billion if these 'editors' will be quick to change it to a 1,000 million on there? But of course, that is irrelevant at this point. Charlr6 (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you please point out where I alleged that the edits were "vandalism"? There indisputably has been a surge in unregistered editors changing the wording from "million" to "billion" and it was another editor at the Skyfall talk page who suggested that it could be a case of sockpuppetry so I don't think my request misrepresents that. Betty Logan (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

You specifically stated "socking" in your edit summary. You are the that requested the protection, and lo and behold, the page is now protected due to "vandalism". These edits are not vandalism. They are people trying to fix an obvious problem with the article. You claim that this is only a "recent upsurge", but a simple search shows that this has been taking place since the "1,000 million" term was added almost a year and a half ago.

I also find it odd, if not troubling, that you are willing to go to all the trouble of posting requests and related comments on other talk pages. yet you refuse to simply respond to any of the multiple points put forth on this issue, either on this page or the Skyfall talk page. I have on numerous times stated that I both recognize and respect the work you put into film related pages here. But I can't for the life of me figure out why you are being to obstinate and uncooperative about this very minor issue. Will you please respond the questions addressed to you about this issue? Thanks -

^theWOLFchild

21:17, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I will say that regardless if the sock accusation was a good one to make or not, protecting the page was a good decision. IP editors with no clue that a discussion is taking place will randomly visit the page and continue to edit war in the meantime, which is a distraction we'd rather not have right now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Socking is not vandalism so quit trying to twist my words. Also, I was not the editor that brought up the socking accusations. I raised them at the protection page ONLY after they were raised on the Skyfall talk page by someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 21:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I think protecting the page was a good idea too. Charlr6 (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

As long as we're clear that when I present the argument that all these edits are evidence that "1,000 million" is both confusing and problematic, no one shrugs and says "what edits?". This problem has not been solved by the protection, just hidden. -

^theWOLFchild

21:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Not to drag this on any longer, but the protection isn't meant to solve the problem. Its purpose here was to stop edit warring dead in its tracks. All editors involved (IPs as well) need to discuss the dispute and establish a consensus before the protection is lifted. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

But not everyone who comes to Wikipedia, especially new and first time users are aware of these steps. Wouldn't the simpler and more obvious solution be to remove the problem, instead of protecting it? If we change it to "billion", it would put an end to the "edit warring" and there would be no further need to protect the page. -

^theWOLFchild

23:14, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The problem isn't protected from the outcome of this discussion, which is where the focus needs to be. Leaving the page unprotected is a distraction, because editors, especially IP editors, who aren't aware of the discussion will continue to edit war. The protection directs the focus to this discussion, and in that respect, I think it's helpful for now. Keep in mind that there is now a "discuss" notice in that infobox that links here, so even newer users will be aware of what's going on, even if they choose not to participate. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:54, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree with you on this. However, there has been a note for quite some time now about not changing it and to see the discussion, that has been largely ignored. Again, many people just don't know any better (and others just don't care). But that said, hopefully this gets resolved soon, through discussion. -

Someone has poured you tea.

There's no hurry. Wikipedia wasn't built in a day, and our visitors know that. Let's have

I think that a straw poll on say three options for the wording would help to focus this debate and draw out some durable consensus. Given that some editors are using the present location of this discussion against it, I don't want to start it here only to have it ignored by one camp because it's on the "wrong" talk page, this is about resolution not wikilawyering. Would Talk:Skyfall be a better venue for it? — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

There isn't an active discussion on the article's talk page, so here makes more sense. If someone really wants it to be on the article's talk page at some point, we can simply move it over. By the way, if you decide to present more than 2 options, it will be more difficult to determine whether or not you have a clear consensus. I would stick with two if possible (the third was pretty much shot down above anyway). --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The Skyfall talk page is the appropriate place for it. That is where the bulk of the debate has ocurred. Also, specific article decisions should be taken actually at the article and not at a Wikiporject per Wikipedia:WikiProject. Betty Logan (talk) 18:32, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Right, I was looking at this as a general question of whether or not we should use the term billion in articles that have strong ties to the UK. That discussion can really take place anywhere. If we would like to move everything over to Skyfall, there's certainly no harm in that, but I'm not sure I'd treat that as a requirement. This kind of issue is likely to come up again at some point for a different film. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The issue has not been discussed in general terms though so we shouldn't draw general conclusions. What is appropriate in American English is not necessarily right for a Brit English article. What is appropriate for a Western numbering system is maybe not appropriate for an Indian/Chinese film article. The debate has centered mostly on Skyfall so we should limit the poll to that particular film, or at most Brit English articles where the arguments are genrally the same. Either way, a poll is supposed to take stock of all the arguments put forward and most of them are at the Skyfall talk page so I have taken the liberty of starting a poll at Talk:Skyfall#Straw_poll:_billion_vs_millions, and presented all three options that have been put forward in the discussions. If I have missed an option feel welcome to add it to the list. Betty Logan (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

That's fine by me. FYI I have just taken a survey of all contributors to these discussions and posted it there. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:12, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I really don't care where this is resolved... as long as it gets resolved. The only "argument" put forth by the 'anti-billion camp' is that "billion" is "ambiguous" and "confusing to Britons over age 50". These arguments have been addressed ad nauseum and arguably disproved. Meanwhile, there are a dozen or so counter-arguments and facts, (not to mention wiki-policy) that have also been put forth that have been completely ignored. It's difficult to have a meaningful discussion anywhere when one party refuses to engage in that discussion. -

^theWOLFchild

21:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This conversation has moved back to Talk:Skyfall#Straw_poll:_billion_vs_millions. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see the RfC at

Can someone with access to AWB look at list of cult films and maybe solve the massive citation errors there? Also, there's 600+ citations there now. I hesitate to imagine how many actual films that is – probably close 800. I'll support any proposal that makes it more manageable. I suspect we're going to have to split it. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 11:15, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty seems to have fixed all the citation errors by hand. Thanks. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:07, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion of "Does the current text of

There is currently a discussion about whether or not the production companies of The Terminator should be sourced in the infobox. I am of the opinion that the production companies have no need to be sourced because these production companies already listed in the film credits, the primary source. Similarly, the cast and crew don't need to be listed with sources in the infobox as they are already in the film credits. On the other hand, another editor is of the opinion that the film credits are unreliable/original research. Discussion is here. -- Wrath X (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

This article, about the flop propaganda "blockbuster" commissioned by Nazi Germany's Josef Goebbels, has just been through a pretty nasty patch of edit warring, which included personal attacks and the use of sock IPs. The editor responsible has been blocked fo 2 weeks, but it might be a good idea if folks were to add it to their watchlists to make sure things don't start up again when the block is over. BMK (talk) 23:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been over seven years, I haven't been a member of this WikiProject since 2007 or 2008, can't remember which, but it's good to be back.

Also, back then I didn't care much for movies outside recent ones. Now on the other hand I watch movies on a regular basis, both new and old, my favorite decade in movies is the 1930s. So yeah I think I'm gonna be more help in this WikiProject now that I was back seven years ago.

If there is anything I can help with, I will do my best to help out.

@

WP:CCPOL. Many policies have been updated or changed, and, overall, they tend to be enforced more strictly. Also, notability is significantly harder to establish compared to 2007, and GAs/FAs are harder to pass. NinjaRobotPirate (talk

) 04:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

One fairly new feature is Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, where you can request access to different sources to find information to include that would not be readily available in search engine search results. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 17:24, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion here. This relates to the project on film, so I'd love your opinions on the matter. --Monochrome_Monitor 09:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks everybody! --Monochrome_Monitor 09:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Please see