User talk:Betty Logan

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Merry Merry!

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Disambiguation link notification for March 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bond girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Scottish Masters Challenge 1993

Hi Betty, Please can you take a look at this discussion on my Talk page. It all looks highly dubious to me! Thanks, Rodney Baggins (talk) 09:22, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia changes

Hello Betty I want to talk to you about recent changes on wikipedia that i am concerned about. Can you reply to me on this talkpage please ? Thanks R 178.167.158.228 (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to give a little bit more information i.e. article, what the changes are (preferably with a diff). Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I would prefer to talk in private as there are page watchers as you know. Can you email me at Dancahill2022@gmail.com thanks for your reply betty 178.167.158.228 (talk) 17:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Is that ok please Betty ?. 178.167.158.228 (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Betty can we talk in private please ?. 92.251.151.134 (talk) 10:31, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

If you want to discuss an article then you should do so on publicly visible pages. I am not going to engage in private conversations with strangers on Wikipedia without first knowing what it is about. Betty Logan (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

There are changes to snooker articles, events and pages that i am concerned about. You never seem to contribute to that sport anymore.92.251.151.134 (talk) 11:13, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I haven't been contributing to Wikipedia that much in general, other than what pops up on my watchlist. I haven't created any articles for ages. Over the last three years I have been engaged in legal action against the Government who want to steal my family's land and that is taking all of my spare time. Betty Logan (talk) 19:19, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

I am very sorry to hear that. I am concerned about events and the way that event formats have been changed. Is there anyway we can discuss this in private please ?. Can you email me on that address i want to run a few things by you is that ok please ?. 31.200.177.198 (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I want to talk to you about the concerns that I have for snooker on here and I would like to hear your opinions because I know you are a very valued member of this site and community. Is that ok please ?. Thank you Betty 31.200.188.109 (talk) 19:48, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't discuss Wikipedia articles off-site. If you want to discuss concerns about a particular article then you should start a discussion on the article talk page. If you want to discuss snooker articles in general then you need to start a discussion at WT:SNOOKER. The whole point of Wikipedia is that editing decisions should be transparent. Betty Logan (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Ok but the question I want to ask you is, Do you think events like Power Snooker and Tenball should now be removed from the non-ranking events finals ?. Six Reds has been rightly added as non ranking events as they are recognised by the WPBSA and The WST Tour as non ranking invitational events so players that win these events are invited to the Champion of Champions. Would you agree Power Snooker and Tenball are stand alone Cue sports and should not be included in with non ranking finals sections. These are hybrids of other sports including pool and the scoring system in both games are off the charts compared to snooker, double points, double fouls and extra points for making 100 breaks, the scoring in Tenball was the same thing making scoring in the event a different game. can you just give me your opinion on these events please ?. 31.200.175.110 (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not include Power Snooker and Tenball in the lists of finals. For a start, unlike 6-reds and Shoot-Out they are not included in the official rules of snooker. Secondly, if you include these events in the list of titles and finals then there is a case for including them in other stats too. Would we replace a player's high break with a 500-break from Power Snooker? I don't think so. These are novelty events and should be treated as such. Betty Logan (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

That's really not what CNN said

CNN's statement about their sources is, "The groupings below are based on studies by the US Census, Pew Research and demographers Neil Howe and William Strauss." Since Pew uses 1981-1996 and the Census Bureau doesn't define generations, this apparently means Howe and Strauss use 1980–2000. Although a source further down in the Wikipedia article says that Howe used something else. "Studies often use 1981–1996 to define millennials, but sometimes list 1980–2000" is still wrong, since saying "often" and "sometimes" is meaningless if there are only three sources. Probably CNN's statement about their sources is just not true, but obviously we'll never know. Anyway, I've spent way too much time on this. I'm done. Dan Bloch (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

CNN has picked out these three sources probably because of the influence they carry. I don't know whether the dates they give come from just these three sources, or if they looked beyond them. I don't think it's really possible to say that CNN is "wrong" without knowing what their terms of reference were. We take the other sources at face value so I don't see the problem with doing the same here. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Consensus for an edit

Hi, an user made this edit, but I disagree with it, I think it is not an important information, and maybe we should have a consensus for this. Also, some of that information are incorrect, because for example "Avatar" and "Star Wars I" were distributed by 20th Century Fox, not Disney, what do you think about?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

And also the distributor for "Incredibles 2" is missing, "Titanic" wasn't distributed only by Paramount (but also by 20th Century Fox) and "Skyfall" wasn't distributed only by MGM (but also by Columbia), so I think we should delete this edit, there are many mistake--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:08, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

A consensus already exists for not adding a distributor column. It doesn't really make much sense in a global article where films typically have many distributors. Betty Logan (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, have a nice day--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 10:29, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

You too. Thank you for all your hard work maintaining the List of highest-grossing films. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Hi, what do you think about this edit I reverted? He used The Numbers as source, but the source for the entire table is BOM, so can we use The Numbers just for one film?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The user also opened a new discussion, but the gross was updated just a few days ago, can you check if The Numbers gross is correct? Thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:13, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't think The-Numbers is correct either. I will take a closer look at it and post a reply in a while. Betty Logan (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, thank you very much--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 23:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Film currently playing

Hi Betty, I agree with you for No Way Home, but what do you think about "Morbius" and "The Batman"? They are still playing? Thanks for your time--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

'The Batman is still playing in Australia. It is winding down now but there will probably be a final update at some point. Morbius was still playing up to the June 23; that looks like it has closed, but I think we should wait for next week's updates to be sure. Betty Logan (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, we will see next week, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:38, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi :) I think we can remove "Morbius" from the "film currently playing", what do you think? The movie was still playing up to the June 23, so 3 weeks ago--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:18, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it looks played out. Betty Logan (talk) 21:01, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, done, thank you--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 21:07, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, it is me again (sorry), but I want to know (again) your opinion about "No Way Home", because after the end of the last weekend it seems clearly not in theaters anymore, can I remove it from the "film currently playing"?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Betty Logan (talk) 17:29, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

But don't worry, I watch this page every day, so if they change the gross I will update--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Batman Returns BOM

Hi Betty, just a quick Q in case you might know. I'm looking at the NA Box Office for 1992 Domestic Box Office For 1992 - Box Office Mojo. Do you know the difference between Calendar Grosses option and the In-Year releases option? I'm guessing In-Year is just any film released in 1992 even if it made most of its money in 1991 or 1993, and calendar is exclusively money earned in 1992? I'm just trying to understand since "calendar" puts Batman Returns as the highest-grossing film and "in-year" makes it third behind Aladdin (released November) and Home Alone 2 (also November) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, calendar covers just the calendar period. It's a very arbitrary metric when you think about it because it disadvantages end-of-year releases. When people talk about the "highest-grossing film of 2009", what they tend to mean is the "in year" release for films released in 2009 (where Avatar is the easy winner), but under the calendar system Avatar only scrapes into the top 5, and wins 2010. The calendar gross also requires very exact tracking because you need to know exactly when the gross for the year breaks off, which isn't available for many older or foreign films. Betty Logan (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree although it's frustrating sometimes, Ghostbusters dominated 1984 and then Beverly Hills Cop comes out in December and earns 5 mill more than it overall. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Jurassic Park

Hi, I recently noticed that the Jurassic Park franchise page has incorrect box office totals. I’ve tried correcting them but I don’t know as much about box office totals as I’m sure you do. If you could check out the page that would be great. Zvig47 (talk) 00:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done Betty Logan (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll use this section since its relevant and to not clog up your talk page. Can I ask your opinion on this edit? It seems like trivia to me, more relevant to the article of the film that broke it, especially since it's only a year later. I know before I rewrote The Dark Knight, the box office section was filled with records and then who subsequently broke that record. It's not as big a deal on Batman Returns because I think that's the only record it broke, but I can be a bit resistant to change, especially when someone throws an in-line reference into my carefully organized referencing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

It's very borderline, you can probably make a case either way. These weekend records don't usually last that long and they are fairly trivial records at that, so personally I probably wouldn't have included it. It set a record at the time, and that's probably sufficient. You could revert the edit and see what happens. If it gets restored it's probably not worth the hassle to take it further. Betty Logan (talk) 06:55, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

New issue

Hi, just for let you know there is a new (big) issue with BOM, this time with Thor: Love and Thunder. They added $215 million more than the correct gross--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Strewth, we should probably just go with The Numbers gross for now. I think we are going to have to have a serious discussion about the WP:RS status of Box Office Mojo. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

They have just fixed the issues--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Trusted Box Office sources

Hi Betty, Thank you for weighing in earlier today (yesterday?) on a user discussion elsewhere regarding sources cited for box office numbers. Your words about the ledgers (Schaefer/Warner, Mannix/MGM, Tevlin/RKO) and the relative accuracy of the Variety lists were spot on. I hope the user heeds your words. I was alarmed to see that user had previously been blocked for a long period of time for altering data regarding music chart articles, and it appeared the same thing might have now been occurring recently with movie articles. I also saw possible but not conclusive evidence regarding motive. I'll continue monitoring and hopefully steering the person in the right direction.

You mentioned in your comment that there were also Fox ledgers? Can you point me at a reference to those? The only source I've found to date for those are the Aubrey Solomon book 20th Century Fox - A Corporate and Financial History, but I was disappointed to see in his appendix that he derived his figures from Boxoffice magazine, The Motion Picture Almanac, and Variety, as the rest of us are doing when ledgers aren't available. I'm also hitting dead ends for better information on Paramount movies, other than books about individual producers that sometimes reveal useful information.

Related, I am also curious about how you all feel about using books such as Joel Finler's The Hollywood Story (Wallflower Press) as citations. He mentions in his appendix that his figures are derived from Motion Picture Almanac and Variety, which made me think that it would be a reasonable alternate option if the issues of the original publications could not be found, even though I'm finding minor inconsistencies with his numbers that sometimes match neither of those sources nor the related ledger, if available.

You probably saw in the other discussion my opinion about sources such as the Kindle book by Leonidas Fragias, Annual US Top Film Rentals 1912-1979, which lists none of its sources. The author has several other Kindle books with movie charts. But the fact that none of the information is sourced and they appear to be self-published Kindle eBooks make me very leery of using them for citations. Do you concur? Thanks! Addy Addypreston (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Fox I was indeed referring to the Solomon book. I had just assumed his access extended beyond the regularly available sources (it just goes to show you should always corroborate your assumptions). I am pleased you have told me about this, because it means his figures should not automatically take priority over somebody else's. I am happy with Finler because he at least states where he gets his information from. We can assume he is reporting his data correctly, although we should bear in mind that the underlying sources may not be accurate. As for Fragias, I would be very wary of using a self-published work that does not cite its sources. Generally I would be against using such a source (a secondary source should always state where its information comes from), although there may be individual circumstances where it might be ok. Betty Logan (talk) 01:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! You all have been at this longer than I have, so I don't want to make assumptions or miss decisions that might have already been made well before I arrived here. I got here by looking for potential sources to corroborate or fill holes in data I'd been collecting for years. Along with indeed locating some intriguing new sources I also started finding gaps in a few articles. I felt it was only proper to give as well as get, and thus found myself going down another of my rabbit holes and spending more and more time checking out the articles and adding or improving data :) Addypreston (talk) 04:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Um... please re-visit the discussion mentioned in my opening line. 3 hours later, more of the same?! Not sure how to handle that. Addypreston (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

E.T.

Hi, I saw your edit, the issue is that BOM updated the domestic gross after the re-release, but they didn't update the worldwide gross, this is the reason why I added The Numbers in the section--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:29, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I realised after I looked at the diffs. It looks like a new type of glitch in BOM. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Betty how are you

Hi Betty Can do me a favour please can you add non WST invitation events staged by Snooker Legends that are referenced and have a citation from the well respected Snooker.org website. which is the go to site for Snooker these days. If I give you the info will you add them to the players wikipedia pages please?. Because I don't have a log in and it would only be removed if I added it. Is that OK with you please ?. I will give you all the info you need it is only three events. I hope you can help me as you are very well respected here. If you help me out I would gladly help you out anyway I could in the future. Is that OK please ?

Kind Regards Snooker fan 92.251.171.158 (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2022 (UTC)