Jump to content

Talk:Box Office Mojo: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Box Office Jedi
Line 36: Line 36:


So this is a ''WARNING'' the totals might not be correct on Box Office Mojo. Editors will make good faith efforts to stick to the totals, so if there are any discrepancies make sure to '''[[WP:SIMPLE|use the Edit summary]]''' and explain your changes to other editors. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.76.241.16|109.76.241.16]] ([[User talk:109.76.241.16|talk]]) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
So this is a ''WARNING'' the totals might not be correct on Box Office Mojo. Editors will make good faith efforts to stick to the totals, so if there are any discrepancies make sure to '''[[WP:SIMPLE|use the Edit summary]]''' and explain your changes to other editors. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.76.241.16|109.76.241.16]] ([[User talk:109.76.241.16|talk]]) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

: The gross totals for [[Seven Pyschopaths]] also seem to be wrong. [Talk:Seven_Psychopaths] -- [[Special:Contributions/109.76.224.73|109.76.224.73]] ([[User talk:109.76.224.73|talk]]) 20:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Revision as of 20:19, 9 January 2014

Untitled

Important as it is, there is only so much that can be said about this very popular site in a encyclopedia format. The short write up is already a bit repetitive.Wales4nobelprize 17:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should this page be reverted

The previous commentor was quite right that this page had become a little long and repetitive for this very specific topic, but the current article is really too short to be of much use. This is what the original looked like when it generated the Importance? tag that prompted me to do the initial expansion. I propose restoring most of the text about features and importance with some tighening and cleanup rather than the current very short article. 151.200.243.223

Nielsen ratings

I'm pretty certain BOM used to publish Nielsen ratings, but no longer does. If anyone knows why that'd make a good addition to the article. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 15:32, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Create A Year Of Movies

There's no video game I know of named Soldiers of Fortuna, correct me if I'm wrong...

Original name

Should mention "boxofficejedi" name used originally... AnonMoos (talk) 11:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"These are not the droids you're looking for"
"Move along"
Interesting did not know about the original name. (Note the page title on the archived website.) -- 109.76.241.16 (talk) 13:35, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not so reliable source

Just want to note here that Box Office Mojo is not always as reliable a source as you might think. I've frequently noticed production budget figures that have been rounded to the nearest $10 million (and less often were way off). In contrast The Numbers is much more direct and usually specifies that they took their budget figures from Variety or Hollywood reporter or elsewhere.

The other issue is the failure to update subtotals. The film The Mortal Instruments: City of Bones is listed as having a earned $37 million worldwide, of which $9 million is listed as foreign (or international) but if you look at the tab for Foreign and look down below the subtotal you can quickly see there is quite a bit more than $9 million listed there. [I'd snapshot the page but WebCite is in 'maintenance mode'].

So this is a WARNING the totals might not be correct on Box Office Mojo. Editors will make good faith efforts to stick to the totals, so if there are any discrepancies make sure to use the Edit summary and explain your changes to other editors. -- 109.76.241.16 (talk) 13:29, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The gross totals for Seven Pyschopaths also seem to be wrong. [Talk:Seven_Psychopaths] -- 109.76.224.73 (talk) 20:19, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]