Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:10, 19 November 2015

	Skyfall has been listed as one of the Media and drama good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
	Skyfall is part of the James Bond films series, a good topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result November 19, 2011 Peer review Reviewed January 23, 2012 Good topic candidate Promoted January 27, 2013 Good article nominee Listed
Current status: Good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Film: British This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm This article is supported by the British cinema task force. James Bond (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject James Bond, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.James BondWikipedia:WikiProject James BondTemplate:WikiProject James BondJames Bond

Template:Outline of knowledge coverage

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: Brent Lang (29 October 2012). "James Bond fans beware: Misplaced Pages reveals major 'Skyfall' spoiler". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 4 November 2012. Retrieved 30 October 2012. Brent Lang (29 October 2012). "James Bond fans betware: Misplaced Pages entry includes major Skyfall spoiler". Calgary Herald. Retrieved 31 October 2012. Kirsten Acuna (29 October 2012). "Skyfall Spoilers Have Hit The Web". Business Insider. Retrieved 31 October 2012.

Template:Find sources notice

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

What is unencyclopedia nonsense?

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Skyfall&diff=656762352&oldid=656749891

I wrote this, and someone called it unencyclopedic nonsense, and told me that I am way short of the required standards here. Can someone tell me exactly what he's talking about? 110.55.0.3 (talk) 09:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:FILMPLOT, how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials. This, for example, is nonsense: "The story is about workplace violence in retaliation to M's toxic leadership inside MI6, portrayed in the story as a British crime firm, and in the process, consummates the transformation begun by Licence to Kill and GoldenEye, of the franchise from a campy, corny, affectionately self-parodic bedroom farce to a smooth, stylish, muted, bleak, solemn self satire." It is riddled with inaccuracies, is utterly misleading, contains mostly information that is unconnected to the plot, and is more to do with your personal opinion than anything else. You may wish to try your hand editing here instead. - SchroCat (talk) 10:03, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Add WP:EDITORIALIZING to the list too. Betty Logan (talk) 10:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Let me see if I understand what you're saying. According to you, workplace violence with co-conspirators and unlimited resources isn't workplace violence, toxic leadership with unlimited resources isn't toxic leadership, and portraying an organization as at war against a former employee that the boss betrayed isn't portraying it as a crime firm. A brightly colored movie in which a lesbian has sex with a man claiming she'd never met a man before in a franchise in which the protagonist has lots of sex for no reason isn't a bedroom farce. The Bond villain's fake island dragon vehicle and his ill-advised plots for world domination are to be taken seriously. Craig-era Bond is considered the bleakest Bond ever, and Craig's Bond spends all of Quantum of Solace in some personal matter and storms an embassy, and spends all of Skyfall barely passing the entrance exam, M is in danger of losing her job, and Bond is fighting his former coworker the entire time. A condemnation of spy work at M's hearing is a microcosm of the movie, which is itself a condemnation of spy work, but none of that is self-satirical. So yeah, there are so many factual inaccuracies that I'd mistaken Disney's Elsa for Bond. As for being unconnected to the plot, workplace violence and toxic leadership have nothing to do with Skyfall. Something that walks like a duck, looks like a duck, sounds like a duck and flies like a duck isn't a duck when it's a huge duck with unlimited resources, duck minions (which aren't ducks either), and when it's in an A-movie. Does that sum up what you're trying to say, or am I just using a straw-man argument? If I were neither party in this debate, but a spectator instead, I'd say I'd have to look at the debate to see if it's a straw-man argument. People sometimes use straw-man arguments. If I'm using a straw-man argument, then you should probably tell me what, exactly, about my edit that is inaccurate, misleading, irrelevant, or subjective. 110.55.1.247 (talk) 13:44, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I will point you back to WP:FILMPLOT, how to write a plot summary and copyediting essentials and strongly suggest you read through those guides, which will answer your point. Nothing that you have written is sufficiently encyclopaedic to go into a plot summary of the film. A film plot on Misplaced Pages is a basic description of the events of a film's plot, not anything like you've written. Our articles aim to be neutrally written, your text is not. They should not contain original research of editorialise, and yours does. - SchroCat (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, I hereby apologize for misspelling "unencyclopedic". Now let's get down to it: WP:FILMPLOT defeats what Jackfork was saying earlier and what you are saying now: that I need a source. "Since films are primary sources in their articles, basic descriptions of their plots are acceptable without reference to an outside source." Original research is prohibited; the quoted sentence permits something. Something that is permitted is not original research. Therefore, the conduct thus permitted is not original research. There is no original research or editorializing in my contribution, and NPOV is a notoriously controversial, all-purpose accusation. You've claimed that nothing that I have written is sufficiently encyclopaedic to go into a plot summary of the film, but nothing you've written nor, contrary to your "pointing", anything in those guides is specific enough to answer my point. Instead, what you write is generic enough to be a reply to just about anything; you seem to be aware that you are debating a contribution to a film plot summary in a Misplaced Pages article, hence references to WP:FILMPLOT, and since we are debating something on Misplaced Pages, you reference WP:NPOV and WP:OR. The most attentive thing you've done is refer to WP:EDITORIALISING, but you have not identified even one "notably", "interestingly", "it should be noted", "fundamentally", "essentially", "basically", "actually", "clearly", "obviously", "naturally", "of course", or "fortunate", all of which are evidence of editorializing. You are making many generic, all-purpose, unevidenced criticisms that so not demonstrate comprehension of this debate. On your user page, you write uncivil things about your peers. Unlike you, I have some respect for my fellow Wikipedians, so I would ask if you would like to be called "sir" or "ma'am", but you seem to be a collective group, so would you like to be called "gentlemen", "ladies", or "ladies and gentlemen"? You respond proficiently to an entire group of situations generically without demonstrating alertness to its details; you seem to be a team of multiple people whose communication with each other is inadequate, mass-manufacturing your comments. 110.55.1.247 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I have not said you need a source for the film plot. What you do need is to write it neutrally, and not put your personal opinions in there, as you have done above. workplace violence? No. toxic leadership? No. British crime firm? No. A connection with Licence to Kill and Goldeneye? Not in this plot. "campy, corny, affectionately self-parodic bedroom farce"? Not even close. Go back to the guidelines that have been pointed out to you and read them, because it's pointless trying to have a discussion unless you do. - SchroCat (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

‎Serious consideration needed for critical reception

I have mentioned this several times now in amazement that Skyfall is written to have "Generally positively reviews". That is just clearly wrong and 92% is the same rating as films such as The Grand Budapest Hotel which have "Widespread Critical acclaim". The main stupid argument against this logical change is that we have no reference to say "Widespread Critical acclaim". But neither does The Grand Budapest Hotel or any other film with that rating. It is stupid and needs to change because at the moment it is a misleading comment that is inline with films of about 72% rating on Rotten Tomatoes which is far far lower than Skyfall. This must be changed --Warner REBORN (talk) 14:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

-The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring 91% "universal critical acclaim"

-Birdman (film) 93% "widespread critical acclaim"

-Skyfall 92% "Generally positively reviews".

--Warner REBORN (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

I would argue that the other articles should be pulled into line with this one. Rotten Tomatoes provides two metrics: the percentage of positive reviews and a normalized critic rating; Metacritic also provides two metrics: a weighted normalized critics rating and the spread of positive/average/negative reviews. We cannot infer anything about "critical acclaim" from any of those metrics i.e. aggregators supply quantitative appraisals rather than qualitative ones. Even if they did, we should still not etrapolate generalizations that the aggregators themselves do not make per WP:AGG i.e. the aggregator scores specifically apply to the reviews that they survey and make no attempt at drawing a representaive sample. Betty Logan (talk) 16:37, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Warner REBORN, If you wish to be taken a little more seriously, please do not refer to a long-standing consensus made my numerous editors as "stupid". If you do, people will be happy to use equally intemperate language about your opinions and thoughts, which is hardly constructive. Bringing over bloated and WP:PEACOCKy language into articles is unencyclopaedic and hardly sits with the part of the review section that says the film is over-rated. As to the other articles, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: just because other articles are not up to scratch does not mean that we should degrade this one to bring it down to the lowest common denominator. – SchroCat (talk) 19:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

You can hardly call it overrated. You say other articles are not up to scratch. The general logic has to be seen that other articles are right and this one is wrong when they are all in agreement of a sytem of rating and this one is not. This article can not be the only one right. If you want to change all other articles then do so but you cannot expect this one to be an exception to the rest of Misplaced Pages. --Warner REBORN (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

This is not the exception to the rest. There are some shit articles that over puff the reviews, reflecting the POV of editors who use peacock terms and the poor selection of vocabulary. There are other, more measured articles which use good, British English, and reflect the reality of the situation in a neutral manner. This falls into the latter group ad I really don't know why we would want to move it into the former. - SchroCat (talk) 21:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

• OK, someone reverted the inclusion of Ralph Bakshi's comments on the film -- it's not saying that Skyfall is a stupid movie or a piece of shit, it's saying that a notable film director made these comments. It holds the same weight as including Quentin Tarantino's praise or disapproval of a film under "reception" - and I've seen this on numerous articles. 173.86.184.32 (talk) 23:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say his opinion is irrelevant, as is Tarantino's, at least in regards to critical reception. Sometimes "peer" reviews can be interesting if there is a reason why we would care about that person's opinion i.e. Bakshi's opinion on the LOTR trilogy might be relevant given his involvement with that franchise, but I don't see why we should care about his views on Skyfall. Betty Logan (talk) 00:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

October

I'm changing the review section to reflect the critical acclaim Skyfall has received from numerous critics. Here are some articles that are not reviews but are rather articles that reference that critical acclaim Skyfall received from critics http://www.denofgeek.com/movies/23279/skyfall-a-spoiler-filled-exploration, http://whatculture.com/film/dr-no-to-skyfall-how-50-years-has-changed-james-bond.php, http://guardianlv.com/2012/11/skyfall-eclipses-all-23-bond-movies-and-makes-a-good-case-to-end-series-on-top-video/, http://www.theguardian.com/film/2012/oct/15/skyfall-james-bond-critics-daniel-craig, these are just 4 I found within 10 minutes, I'm sure you get my point. I'm actually not sure what the opposing argument is for stating "generally positive reviews" instead of "Critical acclaim" the film is rated 93% on rotten tomatoes, 4/4 on Robert Ebert, 81% on Metacritic, and is widely referenced to as one of the best bond movies ever made, that of course is subjective, whats not subjective, however, is that this movie was very well reviewed by critics and should be noted as receiving "critical acclaim" Stphnpn (talk) 17:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no consensus for changing it to your suggested version, so please do not do so unless the consensus changes. We do not overly exaggerate reviews by using terms such as "critical acclaim", but instead adopt a more encyclopaedic tone in our articles. – SchroCat (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry but you will have to provide a counter argument to my assertion. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Writing_better_articles#Tone asserts that "Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable" I'm not sure where encyclopaedic comes in, and even if it required an encyclopaedic tone, encyclopaedic simply means comprehensive and substantiated in terms of the facts. the facts in this case is substantiated and comprehensive. Skyfall received critical acclaim from critics, which not only is represented in the 93% RT rating, the Roger Ebert article, and the 81% Metacritic rating, and numerous other review articles, furthermore, there are numerous articles that reference the widespread critical acclaim the film has received. So again, please state your counter argument against the use of "critical acclaim".Stphnpn (talk) 18:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I do not have to state anything. This is an encyclopaedia, so an encyclopaedic tone is used. If you do not know how to write in an encyclopaedic manner, perhaps you should try the Bond wiki, rather than this encyclopaedia. Bringing over bloated and WP:PEACOCKy language into articles is unencyclopaedic and hardly sits with the part of the review section that says the film is over-rated. – SchroCat (talk) 18:16, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I have asserted source and citations for my assertions twice in our discussions, and you have not done anything but provide me with your condescending personal view of wikipedia, I'm not sure how thats an argument, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia I understand that, and as I previously cited, "Misplaced Pages articles, and other encyclopedic content, should be written in a formal tone. Standards for formal tone vary depending upon the subject matter, but should follow the style used by reliable sources, while remaining clear and understandable" I do not see how changing "generally favorable reviews" to "critical acclaim" would be against what I have quoted above. Perhaps you can direct me to an guideline or rule that states how that is against the policy of Misplaced Pages? Also, I'm not sure I agree with you that "critical acclaim" is an unencyclopaedic term, as I stated previously, encyclopaedic simply means comprehensive in terms of information. Furthermore, "critcal acclaim" is not the same as "universal acclaim" perhaps you have these two mixed up? Critical acclaim does not preclude the movie from having detractors, it does not mean "universal acclaim". "critical acclaim" is simply a more concise rephrasing of "receiving good or great reviews from critics" there are also no mentioning of "overrated" in this article, perhaps you are allowing your own personal views to affect the wording of this article? Stphnpn (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Wrong on too many points, but all I will do is point out that there is a long-standing consensus to have the current wording, not the overly-bloated and PEACOCKy phrasing you want. It's the consensus that counts, and you have absolutely no idea what my personal view is. – SchroCat (talk) 18:45, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, I feel like I'm in discussion with a teenager, you are not responding to any of my claims and are just saying the same things over and over again. I state again, PEACOCKy language is against policy when it is used "without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information" the case for using "critical acclaim" is backed up with facts and citations, furthermore, "critical acclaim" is no more of a PEACOCKy language than "generally favorable reviews", the only difference is that the latter is more wordy. Stphnpn (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Do not comment on me, or what you think about me. Comment on the substance of the argument, not other editors. – SchroCat (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry but based on your responses, I will be reinstating my edit of changing "generally positive reviews" to "critical acclaim" I have brought up several arguments for this change and you does not seem to be interested in engaging in a thoughtful discussion. In summary, the change is because of the overwhelming evidence of acclaimed reviews (including but not limited to 93% on RT, 4/4 Roger Ebert, 81% Metacritic) and reference to acclaimed reviews that Skyfall has received. Furthermore, the PEACOCKy language argument you have brought forth carries no weight in the matter because as the ] states that it is against policy to use peacock terms "without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." with the emphasis on "without attribution" this does not apply to my edit because as I have cited above, the claim of "critical acclaim" is with attribution and therefore not "puffery" or "peacocky" language. Also, the phrase "critical acclaim" is a more concise phrasing to "generally positive reviews" and is better suited for the representation of the critical reviews it has received. There has been no "long-standing consensus" on using "generally positive reviews" rather than "Critical reviews" other than the fact that the former has been here longer, that should not be taken into consideration as a "consensus" without a compelling argument on its side. Please do not revert my changes unless you have a new compelling argument. thanks Stphnpn (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding to your edit, WP:PEACOCK states that it is against policy to use peacock terms "without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information." this is clearly not the same for my edits, the emphasis is on "without attribution" as I cited above, Skyfall received 93% on RT, 4/4 on Roger Ebert, 81% on Metacritic, Skyfall also was referenced as having "critical acclaim" from numerous reputation sites in their articles. I feel this is having attribution to the language and wording I am using in my edit, futhermore, using "critical acclaim' is a more concise phrasing of "generally favorable reviews". critical acclaim is not puffery or peacock language, it is a phrase thats not only a more succinct phrase than "generally favorable reviews", but is also substantiated by facts and citations, and serves as a good summary for the rest of the review section. Stphnpn (talk) 18:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"We do not overly exaggerate reviews by using terms such as "critical acclaim"" (Schrocat) - what are you talking about? I had a quick look at List of Academy Award-winning films, and within minutes, found more than a dozen film articles with numerous uses of "critical acclaim", and variations like "widespread acclaim" and "universal acclaim", with and without "critical" (also "near-universal"). Some of these articles have GA status. I'm not sure why you say "we", or what it is you base your arguments on, but as this editor has requested, you should better support them. Your comment above is clearly incorrect. - WOLFchild 18:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSHITEXISTS is no basis to degrade good articles. I stand by all I have said, including re-stressing the fact that this is a long-standing consensus. – -SchroCat (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you mean consensus by way of a group discussion with input weighing heavily in favour of this, or implied consensus in that these articles have been this way for some time unchallenged? - WOLFchild 00:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I find the terms "generally positive" and "widespread critical acclaim" to be banal. MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." The prevalent term is unsatisfactory, and we need to start quoting sources directly here. For example, it appears that both The Guardian and Los Angeles Times consider one of the best James Bond films in years. That's context that the banal terms lack. The Guardian says critics commended Craig's performance and the casting of Bardem as the villain; neither summary is even presented in the introduction of the "Critical reception" section. Furthermore, Rotten Tomatoes has a "Critics' Consensus" column that details the consensus further, with passages like critics finding it "a nearly perfect balance of drama and action" and it "delivers what viewers have come to love and expect from a Bond film: terrific chases, tense fights, breathtaking scenery, and witty dialogue". This needs to be more upfront than just using bland terms that have been recycled many times over. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The words were along those lines, but I have added quote marks to make it more clear. Rancid Tomatoes is a dubious second-hand summary that doesn't need to be used, considering the individual reviews available elsewhere. - SchroCat (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes is not a dubious second-hand summary. It can be referenced after The Guardian and Los Angeles Times are referenced in summarizing critics' reception of the film beyond the bland term. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is: Rancid Tomatoes is one of the most hideous excrescences of the internet with their use of dumbed down and idiotic rating system: I'd happily ban mention of them from all film articles. Their "consensus" is nothing of the sort: it is their personal summary, a long way from any form of "consensus". – SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: - First off, let's address them by their proper name; "Rotten Tomatoes". When you bastardize the name like that into an insult, you're smearing all the people here that use it as a source. And it is a source, already accepted by WP, so your POV on this is irrelevant.- WOLFchild 21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What a load of rubbish you spout. Rancid Tomatoes is a shitty site which is deeply flawed. If you are unable to think how or why that is, that is not my concern, so your opinion is utterly irrelevant to me. – SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It's not "my opinion"... it's Misplaced Pages consensus. So you're saying consensus is "utterly irrelevant" to you? - WOLFchild 23:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I,have said nothing of the sort, so do not try and misrepresent what I have said. – SchroCat (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Now that is funny... - WOLFchild 00:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stphnpn, Betty Logan, Thewolfchild: Are you willing to discuss expanding the introduction of the "Critical reception" section to be more than just "generally positive" or "critical acclaim"? As I stated above, I think these terms lack context, and with both terms being disputed, we need to expand the commentary to be more detailed and to attribute to sources. I found The Guardian and Los Angeles Times pieces through Googling skyfall "critics", for example. Erik (talk | contrib) 14:45, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@Erik: - Yes, of course I willing to discuss this. But as I've noted with the discussion below, I don't feel this page is the place to do it. WE should be taking this discussion to the WP:Project Film and/or WP:MOS talk pages. - WOLFchild 21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not convinced further bloating is needed. We go on (in the first paragraph) to describe the views of several critics with their impression of the film, so you want to repeat that before the RancidBollocks score, as well as having it afterwards? I'd prefer to remove the front line, open the section with the line that begins "A number of critics...", then add the RT after that. at least it would ensure we don't include the ridiculous "acclaim" claim. - SchroCat (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:FILM#Critical response, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." Such commentary is appropriate as a way to provide a summary-level view of what critics collectively thought of the film. Individual reviews are also appropriate, especially from the most authoritative critics, which has been done here. The commentary helps identify what aspects of the film stood out the most across multiple critics, per WP:WEIGHT. For example, the second paragraph, "A number of reviewers praised Daniel Craig in Skyfall," is an originally researched claim because individual reviews are synthesized to draw a conclusion that did not exist before. This can be easily fixed by using one of the above sources to indicate this collective conclusion. I think the Rotten Tomatoes assessment is appropriate to use along with The Guardian and Los Angeles Times, and I'd like to see what others have to say about expanding the wording and using these sources. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:05, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Erik, You are making a fetish of the MoS and over-complicating things that really are quite simple. There is no OR here, nor synthesis, but a realistic reflection of what the sources say. - SchroCat (talk) 15:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, please be civil; your edit summary is uncivil. You're welcome to disagree about Rotten Tomatoes, and others' opinions are welcome about the source. However, I am seeing more synthesis here. For example, the sentence, "The supporting cast also received praise," is unsourced and depends on grouping individual reviews together to come up with that summary sentence. We cannot assign due weight to that particular aspect based on just individual reviews. We can use the existing summary-level to indicate the most highlighted aspects, but we should not be coming up with them ourselves. This can be a separate discussion that can be started after we discuss the possibility of adding more detailed commentary to the "Critical reception" section's introduction. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You really are utterly tiresome Erik. I find your attitude to be patronising and annoying, and I find your attempts to own the film project tiresome - it's the reason I no longer take part in its activities - so don't be surprised if I point it out to you. As I have said above, there is no OR here, nor synthesis, but a realistic reflection of what the sources say. As I have pointed out to you before, this article wasn't just thrown together, and it represents the work of a large number of editors, so I don't think that accusing everyone who has worked on this (and who took part in the discussions here, here, here and here) of ignoring sources and synthesising is justified. This topic has been flogged to death to a large extent, and because of the previous discussions on this exact point, it has a pretty strong consensus to remain, without having to veer wildly into peacockery, nor does it need your particular and patronising brand of "steering". - SchroCat (talk) 15:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: - You are waaay out line here. Your comments and your edit summaries are quite insulting. If you can't calm yourself and discuss this issue in a mature and civil manner, then perhaps you should step away until you can. - WOLFchild 21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yaaaawn... Perhaps you should remove your head from wherever it is and look to your own block log first and don't act like a hypocrite.... – SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Wow... your arrogance and ignorance is appalling, Maybe you should actually look up the word "hypocrite" before you use it, you obviously don't know what it means. Oh, and look up "irony" while you're at it... - WOLFchild 23:18, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yawn.... Any other pearls of your wisdom to cure me of my insomnia? – SchroCat (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Nope. In fact, don't change a thing. Just keep posting comments in the same manner you have been. Please... - WOLFchild 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat, I wish you did not feel that way. I am only interested in writing an encyclopedia, and if you feel like my suggestions are excessive, you can respond to my arguments. I am not saying here that the synthesis here is severe or malicious. In general, it makes sense to summarize the individual reviews that follow in a particular paragraph, but it still implies a conclusion. I am not sure if one can have such a sentence with the reviews' reference tags duplicated to accompany it, with wording like "a few" or "several" instead of saying in general that the supporting cast received praise. If others really think that the current presentation is okay, then I'll concede the matter. In any case, I think the "Critical reception" section's introduction is untenable and warrants more detailed summary-level wording since I think this has worked elsewhere in the past. If editors prefer to go back and forth with the old terms, that's fine as well. I was hoping to suggest a way to get past it with a different kind of approach that would be palatable to all. Erik (talk | contrib) 15:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I don't accept that "critical acclaim" is an accurate descriptor in this case. With subjective opinion you can pretty much find a source for anything, so WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy here. While there are sources describing the reception as "critically acclaimed" there are many others describing the reviews as "positive", and WEIGHT prevents us from arbitrarily defaulting to the more extreme opinion. Films like The Godfather and Citizen Kane are "critically acclaimed" in that they have been held up by critics as examples of the most accomplished films ever made, and have made the cut in numerous critical surveys such as the Sight and Sound poll. So while in theory I don't object to the phrase there must be a high burden of proof when we use it in an encyclopedic sense. If there is a way to make the introduction more specific and representative of the bulk of critical opinion then I don't have an issue with that, but we should take care to not overstate the reception. Betty Logan (talk) 17:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

  Here are the sources that have been part of the discussion so far:

• GlobalPost: "The film has earned generally positive reviews from critics and fans."
• Den of Geek: "With its blistering box office success and near unanimous critical acclaim, the success of Skyfall..."
• Los Angeles Times: "'Skyfall' is garnering excellent reviews, with many critics hailing it as one of the best Bond films of the series."
• The Guardian: "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years, a brave and stylish if occasionally sentimental entry which revives Daniel Craig's standing as one of the greatest 007s four years after the disappointing Quantum of Solace... Critics praised Craig's performance... and labelled the decision to cast Javier Bardem as the villain a masterstroke."
• Rotten Tomatoes: "...critics say Skyfall is a nearly perfect balance of drama and action that winks at 007’s storied cinematic past while delving deeper into the psyche of the most iconic of movie characters... The pundits say the Certified Fresh Skyfall delivers what viewers have come to love and expect from a Bond film: terrific chases, tense fights, breathtaking scenery, and witty dialogue. But it’s also an intriguing character study, one that fleshes out the inner life of fiction’s greatest spy."

Sources I found with further research:

• TheWrap: "...many of America's critics say that 50 years after James Bond first preened his way across screens, he's back with his license to thrill intact."
• CBS News: "...critics are raving over director Sam Mendes' take on the iconic franchise... The film has been noted by many critics as a departure from Craig's last Bond film, 'Quantum of Solace,' which was not as well received."
• Entertainment Weekly: "...taking into account its glowing reviews..."
• Entertainment Weekly: "Skyfall earned rave reviews... featured the first actually-popular Bond song in forever, is generally credited with re-rescuing the Bond franchise from its most recent low point, and somehow managed to introduce all the old pre-Craig tropes (Moneypenny, Q, Monty Norman’s theme, M-as-a-Man) while still feeling fresh."
• Box Office Mojo: "The enthusiastic reviews ('Best Bond Ever' was a popular one) and Adele's popular theme song helped in the final push as well."
• BBC News: "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it 'the best Bond ever'... Critics also praised Javier Bardem's performance as villain Silva."
• The Washington Post: "...nearly every critic in the world overflowing with superlatives that qualify as slight variations on 'Best Bond ever'... Others were just as effusive as Hornaday, but more inclined to describe this spy-flick-meets-chilly-terrorism-thriller by noting where it ranks based on an array of Bond-related metrics."

I like The Washington Post because it indicates putting the reviews in context, basically saying that Skyfall is great as a James Bond film. I think that should be our focal point if we come up with different wording. Erik (talk | contrib) 18:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

FFS – The usual American hyperbole is the least ideal piece of writing to frame anything in an encyclopaedic way. It's a fucking ridiculous idea to even try to suggest that it should be the focal point of anything. Use something that is much more measured and takes into account the reality. Of the balance of reviews. I've already had to point out to a newbie that the film received negative reviews,I'm didn't think I'd have to tell a supposed experienced editor how to balance their sources, not spout crap just because they've found something they like. Get real Erik and get a sense of perspective on this: it's a very good Bomd film, not Citizen Kane. As Betty has pointed out, "With subjective opinion you can pretty much find a source for anything", and I suggest you take that on board quickly or move on. – SchroCat (talk) 18:41, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: - Again, you need to calm down and be more WP:CIVIL. Your comments are "culturally insensitive" to the people of the United States. - WOLFchild 21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't try and tell me what to do. I am not being culturally insensitive to anyone, which is quite a stupid claim to make. The article is full of hyperbole, which is a trait if many Americans, so perhaps you should try looking at sources critically, rather than just accepting them in a knee-jerk and unthinking manner. – SchroCat (talk) 22:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

PMSL!! So you respond by trying to tell me what to do? I only asked you to stop insulting an entire country and their culture, and what do you do? You reply with even more insults. You are out of control. You lash out at everyone who doesn't agree with you with invective and ad hominem attacks. Calm down already... and act like an adult. - WOLFchild 23:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Out of control"? I'll bypass the irony of ad hominem comments on others and the rather crass lies only long enough to laugh at you... insulti an entire country and their culture? Possibly the most idiotic thing I've read for a long time on Wiki – which is up against some bloody stiff competition! – SchroCat (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Truth hurts, huh? - WOLFchild 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What a tiresome little troll you really are, and one who spouts such utter nonsense to boot. Given you have no redeeming advantage of a tally improving anything here, I see no benefit in having further interaction with you. – SchroCat (talk) 00:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Betty Logan, what is your impression of these sources? Word choices aside, the summaries indicate that critics consider Skyfall one of the best James Bond films in recent memory. What about a second sentence stating this and mentioning that they commended Craig's performance and the casting of Bardem as the villain? The first sentence could stay as the start-off for the section. Stphnpn and Thewolfchild can weigh in as well. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How about, you patronising dictator, you try opening your eyes once in a while and engaging your brain. Why would we start a review section of a British film with a pile of American hyperbole that doesn't actually reflect reality? As this is a British film on a British subject it should open with a muc more measured review from a British reviewer. I also suggest you search for more negative reviews and see that the Washington Post article is badly overstating the case. – SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

@SchroCat: - How about you rein yourself in before an admin does? - WOLFchild 21:52, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You really are a tiresome waste of space... There is no need to ping me however many times it. Was, especially considering your own rather civil-heavy block log. – SchroCat (talk) 22:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to think that crawling through someone else's history somehow justifies your crass and rude behaviour. Well, it doesn't. It doesn't matter what's in my block log, what matters is what you contribute to this discussion. So far, it's been the childish rantings of someone who must have their way, and if anyone disagrees, then they must suffer the torrent of abuse you heap on them. All I'm asking is that you behave like an adult and treat others civilly. - WOLFchild 23:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I haven't crawled through anything: I looked at your block log, which shows just what sort of editor you are. I will again pass over your hypocrisy in telling others to be civil while insulting them - your hypocrisy really is quite amusing. – SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

What's in my block log has nothing to do with this discussion. You seem to think that trying to smear someone will distract from the issue at hand. It doesn't. And I don't have to look at your rather lengthy block log to see "just what sort of editor you are", I know all I need to about you from your appalling behaviour here. But, please... don't change a thing. - WOLFchild 00:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please stop being nasty toward me. I want other editors' input, as you've made yours clear. The sources above are those that summarized the reviews, and I listed them to possibly leverage them here. I think it is worth adding at least a second sentence to highlight the context in which critics like Skyfall (in this case, compared to other James Bond films) and what stood out for them. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Diddums: Iif you stop suggesting ridiculous sources I'll stop pointing out how ridiculous they are. Rather than whining, perhaps if you could address what I have said: it is an inappropriate source to use in this context. You have also also made your opinion clear, so how about you stop trying to muzzle me and either answer my point or shut up yourself? – SchroCat (talk) 19:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you want to focus on British sources, The Guardian and BBC News can be used for the second sentence I am proposing. I listed everything I found summarizing the reviews; it is not an endorsement of each and every source. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:35, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked over the articles sourced above and I think it's pretty unambiguous that nearly every critic hailed the film as one of the best in its generation. Not every film has to be citizen kane for it to be stated as "critically acclaimed". I looked over the WP:WEIGHT page and I don't believe it is best applied here. the page talks about how[REDACTED] should not give undue weight to minority held opinions such as the flat earth theory. using "critically acclaimed" as a descriptor instead of "generally positive reviews" is not giving undue weight to an minority viewpoint, "critically acclaimed" does not denote unanimous appraisal, nor is it making the film out to be among the greatest film ever made. furthermore, can someone give a opposing argument for the phrase "critically acclaimed" being a more concise rephrasing of "generally positive reviews" per the oxford english dictionary, acclaimed denotes "Enthusiastic and public praise", so the phrase critically acclaim simply means enthusiastic and public praise by critics, which I believe is an apt description and no different than "generally positive reviews" other than more concise in meaning and length, if someone can make an opposing argument to this I'd love to hear it. Stphnpn (talk) 19:53, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Stphnpn, I would not support use of "critical acclaim" here. The general consensus, from what I've seen, is that it is too drastic of a statement to be used for any film on Misplaced Pages. I do not find Den of Geek to be a reliable source, either. I've listed others above, and I think we should use whatever we can agree on and either paraphrase or directly quote that source. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:59, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"I think it's pretty unambiguous that nearly every critic hailed the film as one of the best in its generation" – PMSL! If you honestly believe this, then your judgement is poor, or that you are happy to misread things in order to get your own way. This is too far off any reality for anyone to take seriously. – SchroCat (talk) 20:04, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I would have plumped for the Independent, but it's the wrong film... – SchroCat (talk) 20:09, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

You're right. I went too quickly and have now removed it. What about The Guardian or BBC News? Erik (talk | contrib) 20:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither. We already open with a source that provides a review of all critics and there is no reason why we shoud change just because you want it to. As I've pointed out to you before (and you have ignored this point time and time again), there is a consensus on the current wording, and no need to change it. – SchroCat (talk) 20:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I see, I'm not really familiar with the "general consensus" with how wording for the film review section should be, you keep saying that, but can you provide ANY sources? Here are some articles I found pertaining to the summary of reviews of Skyfall. please look these over and make judgement on whether "critical acclaim" is still unwarranted and "generally positive reviews" is more appropriate. Thanks

• The Guardian "Director Sam Mendes's critically acclaimed 007 adventure is on course to become the highest grossing Bond movie of all time..."
• The Guardian "The new film... is one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era"
• The Guardian "Sam Mendes's film, which has drawn rapturous reviews from critics"
• The Guardian "Skyfall, the new James Bond film, which has received a rapturous response from critics
• The Guardian "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years,"
• The Guardian "Mendes was interviewed long before Skyfall became the most critically acclaimed 007 movie since Sean Connery's early films"
• BBC News "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it "the best Bond ever" .
• BBC News "Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some indeed hailing it as the ultimate Bond adventure."
• Telegraph UK "One of the most highly praised and eagerly anticipated films of the year, 007's Skyfall
• Telegraph UK "It has been met with universal praise following its preview and is expected to storm to the top of the box office"
• Telegraph UK "garnered strong reviews from critics."
• Telegraph UK "Daniel Craig's Skyfall, which has been a hit with critics"

Please keep in mind none of the above are Op-Ed's or reviews, they are summaries of the critical reception Skyfall has received. I can find more if you like, but after just browsing these three sites for skyfall related content on these websites, I couldn't find an article which said Skyfall "generally positive reviews". can someone give me some opposing articles that leans more on the "generally positive reviews" side? Stphnpn (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Stphnpn, thanks for listing additional sources. Clearly I should have searched for more than just skyfall "critics". Erik (talk | contrib) 21:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, opening the review section of the film with a quote from the GlobalPost? I'm sure there are numerous publications that are more accredited and than the GlobalPost (a US news site established in 2009), especially for a British film for which the wiki is written under British English.

Additionally, there are currently two different article on GlobalPost which say

• GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
• GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public"

I can't help but see this as anything but cherry picking one specific article and ignoring all other majority opinion on the matter. Please let me know what you guys think.Stphnpn (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

How about this? Skyfall has received widespread praise, with critics hailing the film as "one of the best in the series in years" *The Guardian I think this language is not as drastic as "critical acclaim" and it includes a quote sourced from a reputable british news publication. What do you guys think?Stphnpn (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It is actually very difficult not to cherry-pick, because different sources describe the reception in different ways. The trick is to choose something that we all agree is representative. We should also bear WP:PEACOCK in mind: just because a source uses hyperbole doesn't mean we should reproduce it. I find some of the different sources you have presented here to be balanced and measured in their language:

• The Guardian: "...one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era."
• The Guadian: "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years..."
• The Telegraph: "...garnered strong reviews from critics."

I think those three are consistent with the thrust of critical opinion and the wording has an encyclopedic tone, and we could possibly fashion those into a less generic summary. Betty Logan (talk) 23:31, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree that its different not to cherry-pick, but I do not feel like "generally positive reviews" is apt summary for the critical reception its garnered, its overtly neutral when the consensus, at least in my research, has been overwhelming favorable. Especially when "generally positive reviews" is quoted from a publication that was newly established in 2009 and based in the US, and when the publication has two other articles on its website stating that Skyfall received "rave reviews".

I believe "Skyfall has received widespread praise, with critics hailing the film as "one of the best in the series in years" *The Guardian" is a good starting point, the language is not as drastic as "critically acclaimed" and it has a quote cited from a reputable British publication. I'd love to get some discussion on the wording. thanks.Stphnpn (talk) 23:43, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I think words like "praise" and "acclaim" are loaded terms, unless the film is an especially momentous critical achievement. We are discussing the reviews so let's focus on what types of reviews the film has received: I think something along the lines of "Skyfall received strong reviews from critics, making it one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era" would accurately reflect the types of reviews presented in the section, without the gushing tone of a fanzine. Betty Logan (talk) 23:55, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think "praise and acclaim" has the gushing tone of a fanzine. In the review section, every cited review has praised the film in one way or another, even those that did not like the film, shouldn't that garner the word "praise" in the opening sentence? Also "strong reviews" does not make note of the widespread and almost universal praise the film has gotten, per my sources from the British publications, furthermore, "strong" is a too much of an adjective to be objective, how do we truly measure if a review is "strong"?. For "widespread praise" there are only yes and no questions to be answered, has the film gotten praise from critics? Yes, per the sources cited above. Has the praise been widespread? Another Yes. So I would argue that "Widespread praise" is more appropriate than "strong reviews" Stphnpn (talk) 00:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

(ec) But, Betty, even an atrocious film like "Dark Knight" has numerous sources claiming it has received "widespread critical acclaim". And while I agree that films like The Godfather and Citizen Kane are classic, not everyone like every film or aggress upon which films are great and which aren't. If an unusually high number of critic rate a film positively (for example, 250+, including dozens of 'top critics' on RT) then that is by definition "widespread acclaim". If out of any significant number of critics, only a very few (or none even) rate a film highly, then surely there is nothing inappropriate about calling that "universal" acclaim. I think we need to at least agree that if these terms are used in a source, then we should be able to directly quote that, just like wiki-policy states. But we should further recognize that many people, not just editors, but people in general, use these terms and phrases, therefore we should figure out the best way to include them, but in a meaningful and relevant sense, instead of just arbitrarily removing them from every article. Like I said above, many film articles use these terms already, and I haven't seen anyone complain about it ('til now). - WOLFchild 00:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is everything wrong in claiming "universal acclaim", including the fact it is incorrect, let alon unencyclopaedic. You may not have seen it being discussed before, but that means little – the archive pages of several big films (and the film project talk page) have many, many threads over such crass and bloated terminology. – SchroCat (talk) 00:25, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There may be articles where that terminology exists but I certainly don't condone it. I also don't agree that a high percentage of positive reviews equates to critical acclaim: if every critic were to give a particular film three stars then it would have unanimous positive reception despite the majority of critics thinking it is merely an "above average" film. Erik states above that he finds phrases such as "widespread critical acclaim" to be "banal" and I agree with this sentiment: just because we can source something does not guarantee inclusion, and an encyclopedia should endeavor to use formal language and tone when presenting factual information. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Generally we don't document a critical reaction that isn't widespread, so I question whether it really needs to be said. Also, I think there is an important distinction between "strong reviews" and "praise": critics review a film, they don't just praise it. Many of those 4-star reviews also included gripes and criticisms too, even if the overall tone of the review was highly positive. This section is summarizing reviews, not praise that the film received, so I don't think the terminology is neutral. Anyway, I have said my piece and we shouldn't monopolize the discussion so maybe we should wait and see what other editors have to say. Betty Logan (talk) 00:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"widespread" is modifying the word "praise" so in essence it would mean that positive reviews or positive praise for the film have been common and sweeping. A film thats more controversially reviewed would not have "widespread" praise. Moreover, if all of the reviews, despite having gripes and criticisms, have a "overall tone that was highly positive" shouldn't this signify "praise" for the film? and not necessarily "strong reviews" since a review can be in praise of the film but not "strong" in its praise?Stphnpn (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I only mentioned "universal" with one narrow example. If others don't care for the term, that's fine by me. 'Widespread' on the other hand can be useful. Some films are small, and by that I mean limited release or straight to video. They only have a handful of reviews. Other films are blockbusters, released all over the world and are reviewed by many, many critics all around the planet. Whether it's acclaim or condemnation, it certainly can be called 'widespread', especially if all (or most) of those critics basically agree. "Acclaim" is used regularly and widely in a multitude of widely recognized journalistic sources. I don't see a problem with it. Lastly, I will say (again) that we should probably move this discussion to a more appropriate venue. - WOLFchild 01:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

• I for one concur with everything SchroCat and Betty have to say here. I suggest that those disrupting things here, move on. Cassianto 00:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to get your argument and opinion with facts and citations, what you have just said is just too empty for me to take seriously, I can make another account and say I agree with myself. but it serves nothing to the discussion and is pretty disruptive Stphnpn (talk) 00:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I would really appreciate a link or a cite to those discussions. I feel like we're just going in circles, I bring up sources and it doesn't get recognized and we're back to square one. I feel like your argument is simply "I got here first so my say so is final", which shouldn't be the way things are. Perhaps "universal" acclaim/priase is difficult to substantiate, but "widespread" acclaim/praise should be obvious and is evident in the sources that were cited. I still think "widespread praise" is appropriate for this, since its not overtly strong like "universal" and "acclaimed" and is objective in nature so not to violate peacock guidelines. Stphnpn (talk) 00:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to repeat everything that has been written above. I agree with SchroCat and Betty, and that's all you need to know. Cassianto 00:57, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What part above do you agree with? Why do you agree with that position? What are your reasoning for agreeing with that position? Do you have any statements you would like to add? What are your sources and citations? What are your response to my arguments? What are your response to my citations and sources?Stphnpn (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What part of "I concur with everything SchroCat and Betty have to say here" do you not understand? Cassianto 07:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thats great but what does that add to the discussion? This is not a popularity contest. Please stop disrupting the discussion, thanks Stphnpn (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Another editor voicing their opinion is not in any way "disruptive", so please do not try and drive people away just because they happen to disagree with you. His opinion has as much weight as mine, yours, Betty's, the WC's and Erik's. – SchroCat (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No it does not, I can create another account or get a friend to say I agree with myself, but what does that add to the discussion? your opinion is weighted ONLY in the validity of your argument, the facts and citations you bring. Now back on topic, can anyone give me a reason why "Widespread praise" is opposed upon? I will again list the sources I found in the three foremost reputable British News publishers

• The Guardian "Director Sam Mendes's critically acclaimed 007 adventure is on course to become the highest grossing Bond movie of all time..."
• The Guardian "The new film... is one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era"
• The Guardian "Sam Mendes's film, which has drawn rapturous reviews from critics"
• The Guardian "Skyfall, the new James Bond film, which has received a rapturous response from critics
• The Guardian "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years,"
• The Guardian "Mendes was interviewed long before Skyfall became the most critically acclaimed 007 movie since Sean Connery's early films"
• BBC News "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it "the best Bond ever" .
• BBC News "Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some indeed hailing it as the ultimate Bond adventure."
• Telegraph UK "One of the most highly praised and eagerly anticipated films of the year, 007's Skyfall
• Telegraph UK "It has been met with universal praise following its preview and is expected to storm to the top of the box office"
• Telegraph UK "garnered strong reviews from critics."
• Telegraph UK "Daniel Craig's Skyfall, which has been a hit with critics"

furthermore, if you look at criticism the film has received in the latter part of the review section, and I quote "Xan Brooks of The Guardian, in an otherwise positive review, criticised the "touchy-feely indulgence" of "the bold decision to open Bond up – to probe at the character's back-story and raise a toast to his relationship with M"" Similarly Philip French in The Observer tempered his praise for the film by highlighting "some lazy repetition" and argued, "the badinage is often perfunctory and Bond is as usual captured too easily and too easily escapes"Edward Porter, writing in The Sunday Times, considered that while aspects of the film were "achieved with wit and panache", he found that the climax to the film was slightly disappointing, although the "weaknesses in the final stages are not serious, however, and the film's brief epilogue is wonderful". These passages makes it clear that while there are criticism for the film, it is always coupled with praise. Based on my aforementioned reasons, I believe "widespread praise" is appropriate in serving as a summary for the review page.

"I can create another account or get a friend to say I agree with myself". That is the second time you have said that: are you suggesting that someone here has logged in under that account to voice their opinion? If so, do you have any evidence? – SchroCat (talk) 12:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

When did I say that? I'm simply pointing out the absurdity of giving someone's opinion weight when all they say is "I agree with xx", and by stating anyone could achieve the same thing by creating a new account. Please return to the discussion. Stphnpn (talk) 12:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

~sigh~ As can clearly be seen, I didn't say you did say it, I asked if you were suggesting it. It was a question, thus the use of the question mark. I see now that you were just making a rather spurious straw man argument without merit. That's all to the good, but try not to waste everyone's time too much, will you? – SchroCat (talk) 12:47, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

you said "are you suggesting that someone.." and I replied "when did I say that" you were suggesting something I did not explicitly say and I disputed your suggestion, please do not accuse me of things I have not done. furthermore, I was not making a straw man argument as I addressed the proposition in question "I agree with xx" and did not misinterpret the proposition, and my reply was because discussions are weighted in the validity of the arguments and citations brought forth, opinions which say "I agree with xx" should not carry any weight because it is not a popularity contest and that agreement could be achieved by creating another account or bringing a friend over to the page. Please stop disrupting the discussion and address my aforementioned argument for "widespread praise" thank you Stphnpn (talk) 12:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am not disrupting the argument, to that one won't fly. As below, we are waiting for other editors to give their opinion, which will be given the same weight as Cassianto's, mine, yours or anyone else who has taken part in this, despite your attempts to decide what should or should not be taken into account. – SchroCat (talk) 13:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

How could you say you're not disrupting the argument when you have accused me of something I haven't done, and accused me of raising a straw man argument, both of which are refuted and are not true? Stphnpn (talk) 13:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Good grief you're making this hard work. I asked you a question by way of clarifying something you have said twice. I accepted your explanation and pointed out that it is a straw man (which it is). Time to drop the stick and let others have their say on the salient points. – SchroCat (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Good grief you're making this hard work. You did not accept my explanation, you suggested I was insinuating something which I did not explicitly say or mean, which I refuted. You then accused me of raising a straw man argument, of which I also refuted because I addressed the proposition I was replying to and did not misinterpret the proposition. So I'm not really sure what you are doing here besides attacking my character.. Which can be taken somewhere else and I will be happy to engage, but this is a discussion for the[REDACTED] page of the film Skyfall, so please stay on the relevant issue. thanks. Stphnpn (talk) 13:29, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't be obnoxious by repeating others words in that way. I asked you if you were accusing anyone of WP:SOCKING, for which editors can blocked. It's a serious accusation, so I am entirely justified in asking if that is what you meant. I accepted that you were not, but if you weren't, then your argument of belittling someone's opinion by saying 'anyone can create a second account' is, by its very being, a straw man argument. I've had enough of your tiresome trolling on this point. You may have nothing better to do, but I have, and will let others post their germane opinions on the matter, rather than listen to you. – SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Good grief! There you go again, accusing me of another thing of "trolling" I think anyone who's read this page can see that I alone have provided more sources and citations to support my arguments. Just as you say you are entirely justified in accusing me of one thing, how am I not "entirely justified" in accusing you of disrupting the discussion by making personal accusation to my character? Can you provide more clarification on this matter? Stphnpn (talk) 13:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, I will not. I have said what I need to say, and will not engage on this point again, except to say that it is unwise to write something on Misplaced Pages that could insinuate that someone has registered a new account to back themselves up in an argument. Anything else on this point you wish to say is pointless and immaterial, as I have told you several times that I accepted that you did not mean to make such an implication in the first place. – SchroCat (talk) 13:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Then I will also stop engaging in this quite childish back and forth, please refrain from further personal attacks. Now lets get back to the discussion at hand.

• I am proposing a change of the first sentence of the review section to be "Skyfall has received widespread praise, with critics hailing the film as "one of the best in the series in years" *The Guardian I believe this to be appropriate because
• Numerous publications have stated that Skyfall received critical acclaim, though the wording of each article is different, they can all be understood to say that skyfall has received "widespread praise" here are the sources from three foremost accredited British publications.

• The Guardian "Director Sam Mendes's critically acclaimed 007 adventure is on course to become the highest grossing Bond movie of all time..."
• The Guardian "The new film... is one of the best-reviewed Bond films since the Sean Connery era"
• The Guardian "Sam Mendes's film, which has drawn rapturous reviews from critics"
• The Guardian "Skyfall, the new James Bond film, which has received a rapturous response from critics
• The Guardian "Critics have hailed the latest James Bond film, Skyfall, as one of the best in the series in years,"
• The Guardian "Mendes was interviewed long before Skyfall became the most critically acclaimed 007 movie since Sean Connery's early films"
• BBC News "The latest James Bond film Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some hailing it "the best Bond ever" .
• BBC News "Skyfall has been praised by critics, with some indeed hailing it as the ultimate Bond adventure."
• Telegraph UK "One of the most highly praised and eagerly anticipated films of the year, 007's Skyfall
• Telegraph UK "It has been met with universal praise following its preview and is expected to storm to the top of the box office"
• Telegraph UK "garnered strong reviews from critics."
• Telegraph UK "Daniel Craig's Skyfall, which has been a hit with critics"

• Detractors of the film make it clear in their review that they praise or give acclaim to certain parts of the film if you look at criticism the film has received in the latter part of the review section of the wiki page, and I quote "Xan Brooks of The Guardian, in an otherwise positive review, criticised the "touchy-feely indulgence" of "the bold decision to open Bond up – to probe at the character's back-story and raise a toast to his relationship with M"" Similarly Philip French in The Observer tempered his praise for the film by highlighting "some lazy repetition" and argued, "the badinage is often perfunctory and Bond is as usual captured too easily and too easily escapes"Edward Porter, writing in The Sunday Times, considered that "while aspects of the film were "achieved with wit and panache" he found that the climax to the film was slightly disappointing, although the "weaknesses in the final stages are not serious, however, and the film's brief epilogue is wonderful". There are some films that are controversial in nature in that some critics denounce the film entirely while others give it acclaim, these films should not garner the summary "widespread praise" However, in reading the above passages its quite clear that while the film is not without its detractors, these detractors make it clear in their review that they praise or acclaim to certain parts of the film. so even though wholly praiseful reviews may not be universal, "widespread praise" is appropriate.
• GlobalPost has conflict within its articles and is not accredited/reputable enough to be used as the lead quote source The current passage of Skyfall received "generally positive reviews from critics and fans", according to the GlobalPost. should be removed as not only is GlobalPost not a reputable and accredited publication (it is a US news publication established in 2009) there are also 2 other articles on GlobalPost which say Skyfall has received "Rave reviews"

• GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
• GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public" This is cherry-picking a specific article to fill a narrative that is not substantiated by the majority of reputable news publisher articles.

• The wording "widespread praise" is appropriate because it avoids debated adjectives like "strong", how can be truly tell how "strong" a review is? We can't, its pretty subjective. However, the phrase "widespread praise" is substantially less subjective because the phrase can be answered with yes and no questions. Has the film received praise? Yes. Is the praise widespread among critics? Yes. Of course these answers are answered in conjunction with the sources I've provided above. These are my points, feel free to add to the discussion to let me know what you think. Please refrain from commenting if it adds little to the discussion. i.e. personal attacks. Stphnpn (talk) 14:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I think that by the sheer multitude of reliable journalistic sources using the words "acclaim", "critical" and even "widespread", along with "praise", in their critical film reviews (among other places) demonstrates that it's perfectly acceptable for these words to be used here, as long as they are used appropriately. I understand that a couple of editors don't care for these words and that these editors may feel their opinion has some weight due to the fact the contribute a great deal. While we of course appreciate their contributions, their opinion is equal to anyone else, and their position simply lacks merit. Do we really need to drag this on any further? - WOLFchild 17:04, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think we do need to drag this out any further. You and Stphnpn are in favor of using such terminology while myself, SchroCat, Erik and Cassianto are not. There clearly isn't a consensus for initiating alterations, so the existing version should be retained per WP:NOCONSENSUS. Betty Logan (talk) 17:19, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

But Betty, my understanding was you guys were looking to have these words banned. I'm not arguing to add them... they're already here. As I have already pointed out, numerous articles contain these words. Articles that have achieved GA/FA status. Articles where I don't see anyone complaining about it. So, if anything, you and your little group do not have consensus to remove them. Cheers. - WOLFchild 18:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

"you and your little group"? Nice. There is no consensus to change to that wording at the moment, despite your personal wishes. The fact you have not seen people complaining about it means little – there have been many, many threads on this topic. – SchroCat (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, it's not as if there are a great many of you, is there? But whatever, I said what I have to say, and by now, it's hardly surprising that you choose to not WP:HEAR it. - WOLFchild 19:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

And there are less people who prefer your wording.... Who is it that is showing signs of WP:ICANTHEARYOU? – SchroCat (talk) 19:11, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you're persistent. I'll give you that... - WOLFchild 19:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Given the context, that is a bizzare, pointless and meaningless comment. Could your try and makes sense in future? – SchroCat (talk) 20:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Tell me just what it is you are having such difficulty understanding, and I'll see if I can help you. - WOLFchild 21:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd rather not. I doubt you'd understand, and if you did it would only give you the opportunity to both add further ad hominem comments, and possibly put yet more incoherent nonsense down. – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What a strange reply. But at least you admit you're having difficulty. (they say that's the first step). I find it laughable that you think I would insult you. Your "ad hominems" far outnumber mine. (do I even have any?). Oh well, lemme know if you change your mind. - WOLFchild 00:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You do not think you have made any ad hominem comments...? I do hope that's a joke! – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Didn't state... asked. And now apparently I have to repeat myself, for like the bah-zillionth time; "Your "ad hominems" far outnumber mine." - WOLFchild 16:59, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I fail to see how there can be any changes to any article on[REDACTED] if someone supports the original wording, there never be an agreement to the issue no matter how or what the reasoning for change is. Stphnpn (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I looked over this section again, and another editor brought up a good point that I missed. per MOS:FILM#Critical response , If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly I think its pretty clear we're in dispute of "Generally positive reviews", so if that phrase is a paraphrase, it should be removed or replaced with a quote from a source directly. and if we're using "generally positive reviews" as a quote sourced from GlobalPost, then this passage from MOS:FILM#Critical response is relevant, Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged and The overall critical response to a film should be supported by attributions to reliable sources

• GlobalPost has conflict within its articles and is not accredited/reputable enough to be used as the lead quote source. GlobalPost not a reputable and accredited publication because it is a newly established US news publication (created in 2009), additionally, GlobalPost has conflict within its articles as there are also 2 other articles on GlobalPost which say Skyfall has received "Rave reviews"

• GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
• GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public"

So to sum up, per MOS:FILM#Critical response "generally positive reviews" cannot be sourced from GlobalPost because it's not a reputable news publisher, and it has conflict within its own articles. If "generally positive reviews" is not sourced from GlobalPost, then the dispute we're in mandates that we remove the paraphrase "generally positive reviews" and source directly from a quote from a reputable news publisher Stphnpn (talk) 04:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You are correct. There is a dispute. There is no consensus either way. The policy does say to quote the source directly in such cases. I would still give Betty (and... Schrocat) another opportunity to reply before making any changes, but I don't see how this can be argued further. Perhaps you all can finally find some middle ground. - WOLFchild 05:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

GlobalPost is a reliable news source. If you wish to challenge it on that basis, this is not the venue, and you will need to go to the Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a decision on whether it is reliable or not. Please file there and report back on what they say. You also ask for a direct quote: what we have there is a direct quote: it's the words in between the two quote marks. – SchroCat (talk) 11:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I state again, GlobalPost is not appropriate for a opening statement citation

• because of its conflict within its articles, 'how do you explain the fact that it has 2 other articles on its site that state Skyfall has "rave reviews" ?

• GlobalPost "The film, which has received rave reviews from critics"
• GlobalPost "Skyfall, the first official Bond movie to make more than $1 billion at the box office, also won rave reviews from professionals and the public"

• GlobalPost is also a newly established US news publisher, existing only since 2009. We should be using a prominent UK or British news publisher because of the Br Eng this article is written in and because Skyfall is an British film.

Furthermore, I know that its a direct quote. I stated that per MOS:FILM#Critical response "generally positive reviews" cannot be sourced from GlobalPost because it's not a reputable news publisher, and it has conflict within its own articles. then I stated if GlobalPost is removed as a source, then the phrase "generally positive reviews" becomes a paraphrase or other articles and should be changed to a direct quote to a more prominent and reputable British news publisher because we are in conflict to the wording. Hope that makes it clear. Stphnpn (talk) 14:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

You thinking that it isn't reliable does not make it so. Go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a decision on whether it is reliable or not. As to the differing opinions in the same source, so what? Have you never read a newspaper that offers two opinions on the same topic? If not, then I suggest you try The Times, The Daily Telegraph, The Independent or The Guardian and see how many opinion pieces or columns differ from either the editorial or another column—often on the same page. Either way, there is no point you trying to claim the GlobalPost is unreliable unless you go through to the right Noticeboard to get a decision from them. – SchroCat (talk) 14:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I am exercising common sense, do you really wish to tell me you equate GlobalPost as being equal to Telegraph, BBC,The Guardian.. ? Similarly, your statement of "you thinking that it isn't reliable does not make it so" should also make it clear that what "you think" should be reliable does not make it so, which applies to the case here for GlobalPost. what you have sad about differing opinions apply to editorials and columns, when I stated countless times above that none of the articles I sourced are articles of Op-ed or column or reviews, they are reporting on the box office of Skyfall or its actors. Stphnpn (talk) 14:26, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

For further clarification, I am simply for changing the source for the opening statement to a more prominent and reputable British news publisher, such as the guardian, bbc, telegraph etc. Stphnpn (talk) 14:45, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

~sigh~ Once again, please do not misrepresent what I have said. I did not equate GlobalPost with those newspapers, except in the sense that a) they are both classed as reliable sources, and b) all those listed can and do publish diametrically opposed views on the same subject. As to your claim that "they are reporting on the box office of Skyfall or its actors" just isn't true. Any publication that describes their view of all the reviews is not reporting on the box office, which is a monetary value, but is passing an opinion on the other reviews. As I will repeat for the third time: go to Misplaced Pages:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to have a decision on whether GlobalPost is reliable or not. – SchroCat (talk) 15:34, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2015

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

CRITICAL RECEPTION: The Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano commemorated the 50-year run of the James Bond franchise in the occasion of the Italian release of “Skyfall.” The newspaper has overlooked such niceties and given delirious coverage to the latest Bond film, claiming it shows a new, introspective side of the British agent while thankfully cramming in the usual dose of exotic locations and "extremely beautiful Bond girls".As interpreted by Daniel Craig and envisioned by the director Sam Mendes, this Bond is “less of a cliché, less attracted by the pleasures of life, much darker and more introspective,” the Osservatore film critic Gaetano Vallini wrote in one of five articles dedicated to the Ian Fleming spy. “And because of this he is more human, even able to be moved and to cry.” "Skyfall does not disappoint. The 23rd Bond film is one of the best in the longest cinematic story of all time," it states, adding the film "does not lack any of the classic ingredients which have made James Bond a legend – the title credits song, adrenalin pumping action, amazing hyper-realistic chases, exotic locations, extremely beautiful Bond girls, the usual super villain and the essential vodka martini." 212.77.3.222 (talk) 07:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC) Source: http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/31/bond-may-be-no-saint-but-hes-worthy-of-vatican-attention/ http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/11/02/apparently-the-vatican-loves-james-bond/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/oct/31/vatican-paper-james-bond-review?INTCMP=SRCH http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/films/news/holy-moly-skyfall-gets-vatican-seal-of-approval-8273713.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225721/Skyfall-gets-Vaticans-holy-seal-approval.html http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/10/30/entertainment-us-jamesbond-vatican-idUSBRE89T1H520121030 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/film/jamesbond/9645296/Vatican-lauds-human-James-Bond-licence-to-cry.html http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/31/skyfall-james-bond-vatican_n_2049829.html http://entertainment.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/01/14852576-skyfall-given-thumbs-up-major-spread-by-vaticans-newspaper?lite

<The original review http://gaetanovallini.blogspot.it/2012/10/skyfall-007-licenza-di-pangere.html

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- ferret (talk) 20:23, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The following discussion has reached a consensus. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. No further edits should be made to this section.

Consensus being to keep $1,109 million on gross. Charlr6 (talk) 21:53, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Box Office Gross Formatting

@SchroCat:. Is there a reason you don't want to follow the guidelines for MOS:LARGENUM and MOS:NUMERAL? AbramTerger (talk) 16:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, as per BRD, please discuss instead of reverting, not as well as. Secondly, we do adhere to both those guidelines. As per the note there, a million and a billion refer to differing amounts in differing territories, and this format gives clarity to those are who still consider a billion to be a million million, not a thousand million. Finally, don't add a source to it: it is sourced within the article and needs no additional (indeed, duplicated) reference. - SchroCat (talk) 17:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

The article is compliant with both guidelines as far as I can tell. Betty Logan (talk) 17:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

If it is consistent, then it seems that the Template:Format price is NOT set up correctly. I used the template to format the value, I did not manually format the value. As I see it, the guidelines with MOS:NUMERAL are for using the $1.11 billion not $1,108.6 million. MOS:NUMERAL states: "billion and trillion are understood to represent their short-scale values of 10^9 (1,000,000,000) and 10^12 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively." so the concern about misunderstanding is misplaced per WP standards. Also the film is a UK/US film and in both countries the short scale is used (the UK fully adopted it 40 years ago). Using a billion also keeps consistency with the rest of the article. From the lead:"Skyfall was positively received by critics and at the box office, becoming the 14th film, as well as the first Bond film, to cross the $1 billion mark worldwide". From the "Box Office" section: "Skyfall has earned $1.1 billion worldwide" and "Skyfall's takings at the box office saw it become only the fourteenth film and first Bond film to gross over $1 billion, making it the seventh highest-grossing film ever made at the time and taking it past the inflation-adjusted amount of $1.047 billion earned by Thunderball." If the consensus is that "$1,108.6 million" should be the format for the total gross in the infobox then we as editors should be consistent and use the "$1,000 million" instead of "$1 Billion" throughout the article. That can cause confusion when paraphrasing/quoting an article that uses $Billion (eg "Box Office Milestone: Daniel Craig's 'Skyfall' Crosses $1 Billion Worldwide". Also the category in wiki is "Billion-dollar grossing films", not One-thousand-million-dollar grossing films". As editors we need to be consistent within the article and also between articles. AbramTerger (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because {{Format price}} applies an arbitrary level of precision doesn't mean we are beholden to it, nor does it mean it is incorrect. It's simply a tool to facilitate formatting. There is nothing in the MOS that dictates precision, that is dependent on the context. Considering that film industry economics primarily operate in units of a "million" I would say the level of precision in the article is appropriate. I do agree that we should either consistently use a "billion" or consistently avoid the term though, and since a consensus stands to not use the term then occurrences of it should be brought into line with the rest of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The precision in {{Format price}} can be adjusted as desired, it is the fact that it uses billion vs 1,000 million that I question if we want consistency. I can live with the 1,000 million. Thanks for making the changes.AbramTerger (talk) 13:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be simpler to just use the full dollar amount of $1,108,561,013? There is enough room on the side bar for the full number to fit, and it would eliminate any confusion. Wyldstaar (talk) 02:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This is the first article on Misplaced Pages I've seen where the British million is used. In some other movies grossing over a billion (or million), the full amount is recorded. (Eg. Avatar, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Transformers: Age of Extinction, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, etc.) Otherwise, the more widely-accepted American "billion" is used. There are no others that use the British "million". PhilosophicalZebra (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Per MOS:LARGENUM the figure is rounded down. Per consensus on this British film article, the short form is used. - SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The 'British billion' has not been used for some time. Britain uses the same billion as anywhere else; meaning a thousand million. The British Treasury uses it, all education establishments use it; if it's good enough for them it should be good enough for this article. (82.27.188.98 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2015 (UTC))

Box Office

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Can someone explain why "billion means something different in Br Eng"...? The box office is currently listed as "$1,108 million", which is rather silly and even a little misleading. "1.108 billion" would be better. - WOLFchild 10:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See #Box Office Gross Formatting. It is neither silly nor misleading, so please do not try to smear the opinions of others just because they differ to your personal preferences. - SchroCat (talk) 10:37, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Silly or not, every reader knows what a million is, or can find out. The problem with "billion" in Br. English is that it has two numerical definitions so it is better to avoid the ambiguity. Betty Logan (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

"British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English." - Oxford Dictionary.

It seems that most people in the UK accept "billion" to be 1,000,000,000 (I know I do). Not sure why we need to use such an odd way of denoting amounts, just to accommodate a small number of people. Also, I didn't insult anyone SchroCat, so... relax, I was just talking about the numbers. - WOLFchild 21:33, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm very relaxed. The consensus - long-standing - is to retain the current form. - SchroCat (talk) 21:39, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Well, you didn't seem relaxed when lashed out me above, but anyway, I'm glad you're ok now. That said, there was a discussion that reached consensus on this? Can you point me to it? Thanks. - WOLFchild 23:28, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Official government statistics have officially adopted the short scale version, but that is really at the root of the problem. It puts reporting figures at odds with people's understanding of them. Maybe that will change in fifty years time when everyone has been educated on the short scale, but you have to appreciate that someone over the age of 50 will have been educated on the long scale. In the Oxford English Dictionary which generally has the final say in these matters the primary definition is "1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.)". Betty Logan (talk) 23:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Neither of you addressed my question. Even if I grant that some people, in Britain, "over the age of 50" still "sometimes" equate "billion" with million x million, in some situations, this is still a minority, and small one at that. Why are we catering to the few? Far more people recognize billion as thousand x million. (And for the record, I'm British and in my mid-forties. I have never used "billion" except in the modern sense.) Shouldn't we be using what is most common? (isn't that policy?) Doesn't WP cater to the majority? Betty, you yourself just said that "Official government statistics have officially adopted the short scale version". So, what's the debate? - WOLFchild 23:25, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

There are several countries round the world that have not adopted it, and it's culturally insensitive to ignore their wants too. There are plenty in Britain under 50 that still use it in the old sense (I happen to be one, but that's neither here nor there). – SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

"Culturally insensitive"...? Are you kidding? So basically, using the word 'billion' is racism now? Now that is silly. Please, show me a wiki-policy that supports that. And meanwhile, I'll ask again (3 time?) What about the majority of people that use the modern form of billion? Why are we ignoring all of them? - WOLFchild 13:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Again, do not dip into untruths to try and bolster your opinion: no-one has drawn the parallel with racism, so perhaps you could reign in your intemperate language, and (again) do not smear other people's opinions as "silly", just for daring to be different to yours. – SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Then how about you explain just how this is "culturally insensitive"? (then perhaps I won't think of it as being silly) And, again... I'll ask (for the 4 time now), what about the wide majority of people who use the modern tern 'billion'? Why is it ok to be "culturally insensitive" to all of them? Also, perhaps you noticed the wiki-policy I cited/quoted below? I'll ask you (again), do you have a wiki-policy to support your position on this? I look forward to your answers, if you care to ever provide any. - WOLFchild 15:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Here's a solution, just cite the box office as $1,108,561,013. This has been done for other films on Misplaced Pages and removes any confusion. SonOfThornhill (talk) 10:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

That would be fine with me. But only as an alternative to using this ancient long-form. I still prefer the modern short form. - WOLFchild 13:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

FYI - As per WP:NUMERAL; "billion" and "trillion" are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively. I really can't believe we're debating this, but perhaps this should be taken to the WP:WikiProject Film and/or the WP:MOS talk pages for broader discussion and consensus. - WOLFchild 13:59, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If "billion" and "trillion" are used on Misplaced Pages the policy states they should be used in the short-scale sense. No-one is arguing otherwise, but that does not mandate that we actually use these terms. The majority of readers will not be familiar with the MOS so it is not particularly helpful in these cases. The primary definition as given by theOxford English Dictionary reads " 1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions. (= U.S. trillion.)", and I would be uncomfortable using a word in an article written in British English that is contrary to how it is defined by the OED. The bottom line is that nobody will be confused by the term 1,000 million: it means exactly the same thing as a short-scale billion and it is unambiguous. We are writing for 70 year-old pensioners just as much as we write for 20 year-old webheads. Betty Logan (talk) 21:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Betty. I respect the work you put into film pages, I really, do... but with that said, you have basically contradicted yourself here, and no one is answering the question; 'why are we catering to the minority?'. Was there a discussion with consensus on this? Or is this the preference of you and schrocat? I mean, it seems we are disregarding MoS and the OED and I'd like to understand exactly why. Also, I had suggested above that perhaps this debate be taken to the WP:Project Film and/or WP:MOS talk pages for a broader discussion, but neither you or Mr. Cat have responded to that. - WOLFchild 00:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see it as "catering to the minority", but as catering to everyone, and so far I have not seen a compelling reason to add an ambiguous term to the article when we can easily avoid it. I don't see this as a MOS issue because the MOS does not mandate that we use "billion" in place of 1,000 million; it only mandates that when we use "billion" it should be the short-scale version. It would be a MOS issue if we were to use "billion" to denote "million million" which is not the case here. If you would like to get further input from the Film project I have no objection to that. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

See, to me these are subjective interpretations that could just as easily go the other way. You and s-cat seem dug in on this, so again I'll say that perhaps a broader discussion is needed. Endless debate can become pointless after awhile. - WOLFchild 01:00, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Betty, per WP:WEIGHT section, it says that "Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views" We should not be uploading the views of the minority and should instead use the phrasing and notation that the majority understands. In WP:NUMERAL it says ""billion" and "trillion" are understood to represent their short-scale values of 109 (1,000,000,000) and 1012 (1,000,000,000,000), respectively" and in the[REDACTED] article "https://en.wikipedia.org/Long_and_short_scales" it states "The short scale is now used in most English-speaking and Arabic-speaking countries, in Brazil, and several other countries" of which includes England. and the short scale for 9 digital numbers is Billion, not 1,000 million. Since the majority of people in England use short scale notations, Billions should be appropriate here, not 1,000 millions, per WP:WEIGHT and WP:NUMERALStphnpn (talk) 22:24, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

WEIGHT is about sources and has nothing to do with this. – SchroCat (talk) 22:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Isn't WP:WEIGHT pertaining to neutrality? I don't see anything that mandates it to only apply to sources. Betty said "but you have to appreciate that someone over the age of 50 will have been educated on the long scale" which states that in this case long scale is used to cater to those who was educated on the long scale, this is a minority held education and view and should not be be given undue weight. It is a minority held education and view because, as I stated, WP:NUMERAL and "https://en.wikipedia.org/Long_and_short_scales" states the short scale notation is used in england. So therefore, for 9 digit numbers, we should use Billions instead of 1,000 Millions.Stphnpn (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We are not representing a "minority" view because we are not using the long-scale version of the word. Nor are we violating NUMERAL since it does not say we must use "billion" in place of 1,000 million; it simply means that where "billion" is used it should be the short-scale version. Moreover, it seems to be a presumption that long-scale adherents are in the minority among British English speakers: no statistics have been forward that back up this notion. The Oxford English Dictionary itself does not state that long-scale adherents are in the minority, but simply that a "billion" is "commonly" understood to mean 1 million million. Now, if a word is "commonly" understood to denote a specific quantity in British English would you not agree that it is potentially misleading to use it to denote a different quantity, and if there is a perfectly acceptable unambiguous alternative we should not use it? That would seem consistent with WP:COMMONSENSE. Betty Logan (talk) 23:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

thanks for clarifying, I'm able to more clearly understand you now. I have researched more on this subject and in 1974 Prime Minister Harold Wilson confirmed that the government would use the word billion only in its short scale meaning (one thousand million). England has officially adopted Billion as meaning 1,000,000, and "in official UK statistics the term is now used to denote one thousand millions" Since thats the official stance of the UK and British government, shouldn't that supersede the Oxford dictionary or at least carry some weight into the discussion? *http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN04440/SN04440.pdf I understand that Oxford English dictionary denotes that it is "still common" but it also states that billion of the thousand million "has been increasingly used in Britain, especially in technical writing and, more recently, in journalism". In British news sites it is now the norm to see Billion to denote 1,000,0000 instead of million million. *The Guardian Nevertheless, if you are still adamant on catering to the ones that still understand Billion as to mean million million then we should eliminate the confusion and just denote the box office as $1,108,561,013. Stphnpn (talk) 23:28, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll change the box office notation to $1,108,561,013 for now, I think this is a middle ground we can all settle on for now. We should continue the discussion about short scale and long scale until we come to a consensus, but $1,108,561,013 would be appropriate for now. Stphnpn (talk) 00:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Don't change it to your preferred choice while there is an going discussion. It's extremely poor and will only irritate others. See MOS:LARGENUM for the reason not to have the full figure. – SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Please don't undue changes to YOUR perferred choice when you have not read any of the discussions. I have said and will say again the change is because it is to remove confusion. and please stop linking to where it does not help your argument.. MOS:LARGENUM states "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason" the precise value in this case is given in matter-of-record reasons from boxofficemojo and is stable because it has ended its release run. please stop disrupting the discussion any further. Stphnpn (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I am disrupting nothing, so please try and be truthful. You need to stop edit warring on this point, per WP:STATUSQUO, which states "During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns.".

In terms of the rest of what you have written, ihave read the discussion, so please try and also remain truthful on that point too. There is no consensus at present to support the change, so you need to work to change the consensus, not just edit war to amend something that has stood for a long while, which is also by consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 12:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Do you understand what status quo means? You need to start engaging more constructively and stop edit warring immediately. – SchroCat (talk) 12:20, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand what status quo means, but since the opposing party has stopped replying, and since the changes to digit numbers was agreed upon above. "Here's a solution, just cite the box office as $1,108,561,013. This has been done for other films on Misplaced Pages and removes any confusion" by SonOfThornHill, which was replied to as "That would be fine with me. But only as an alternative to using this ancient long-form. I still prefer the modern short form" This was the reason for my change in order to remove any confusion. for the discussion of digit numbers, what is the opposing argument? Stphnpn (talk) 12:24, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Stp, Schrocat is right (for once), you can't edit disputed info in an article while there is a discussion taking place on the talk page of that article regarding that specific bit of info. The discussion must conclude first, and even then there must be clear consensus on how to proceed. Not only is this discussion still active (and dragging) but there certainly isn't any consensus as of yet. Please don't make any further changes to the box office total unless there is a consensus to do so, we don't need Schrocat getting anymore agitated than he already is. - WOLFchild 13:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am not agitated, just bored of repeating the same thing to a brick wall. – SchroCat (talk) 13:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yikes! Then I would hate to see you when you are 'agitated' (according to you). Do you turn green by any chance? - WOLFchild 19:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

It's already been given several times. We are now waiting to see what other editors think. They will comment in the forthcoming days if they feel it worth their while. We work here by way of consensus, which can take several days (sometimes weeks) to reach. Simply forcing your preferred version will not help anyone reach that consensus. – SchroCat (talk) 12:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

the argument against Billion as the short scale notation has been given, but not full digit numbers. Simply forcing your own preferred version is what the editor first did when it inserted 1,000 million as opposed to 1 Billion or 1,000,000,000. I will state the case again for full digit numbers, it avoids any confusion to the 1,000 Millions because not only is 1,000 Million similar to 1.000 Million and therefore would cause confusion, it is also the long scale version of 1,000,000,000, which is no longer used in England. I welcome discussion on this matter. thanksStphnpn (talk) 12:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Adding to my statement above. Since late 1974 the short scale (billion, not thousand million; and so on) has been official and correct usage in government communications in the UK *Parliament document'. The BBC and the rest of the media in the UK followed fairly quickly. (if you can find articles that refute this, please rely) Since then, one billion has meant the same thing in both versions of English. Even Oxford has been moving toward simplification: the OED still gives the older British definition of billion precedence, but the more fluid and more-frequently updated online version tags the “million million” (10^12) version as “dated.” Stphnpn (talk) 13:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Have reviewed Misplaced Pages's article on the Long and Short Scales and saw this map https://en.wikipedia.org/Long_and_short_scales#Current_usage. It would seem that the Long scale is still in use in many countries in the world. In addition both scales are being used in the UK and Canada. Thus, so there is no confusion for the average Misplaced Pages user, who could come from anywhere in the world, I think we should retain the current notation of $1,109 million in the info box for simplicity. However, there is no good reason to not list the full number of $1,108,561,013 in the body of the article itself. That seems like a reasonable compromise. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What? Um, no... the long version is not used in Canada. - WOLFchild 16:42, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I very much disagree because the article should be written to foremost serve English users. furthermore, as you can see in the graph and the passages below, there are almost no english speaking countries that use the Long scale In fact I can't find one country who's primary language is english that is still using the Long scale. In the case of UK and England, I have stated my case above as they have been using the short scale officially since 1974 per parliament documents and contemporary journal and newspaper articles, for the case of Canada, English-speaking regions use the short scale exclusively, while French-speaking regions use the long scale. This is noted in the citation on the short and long scale page. Additionally, if we are choosing 1,000 Million notation, we are ignoring the people who use short scale notation, this is not neutral in nature and should be avoided. If we want to remain neutral, $1,108,561,013 is the only notation possible. Stphnpn (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Fails WP:LARGENUM. – SchroCat (talk) 14:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Using 1,000 Million is not ignoring those who use the short scale. They should be able to fully understand the meaning while only using the short scale would be confusing or misleading to those who use the long scale. And I would only use it in the info box for simplicity and use the full number in the body of the article so there is no confusion. Just trying to find a compromise that works for everyone. SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it fails WP:LARGENUM because it states "Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason" the precise value in this case is given in matter-of-record reasons from BoxOfficeMojo and is stable because it has ended its release run, theres no reason to disregard the exact figure. Re:SonOfThornHill, I think using 1,000 Million is giving weight to the side that uses long-scale more because per the graph table on Long and short scale page, 10^9 is represented by Billion in short scale and Thousand Million in long scale. so we are using the long scale of 10^9 when no primary english speaking countries use the long scale. Stphnpn (talk) 14:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My thinking is that, when displaying the box office numbers, we are either sourcing directly from BoxOfficeMojo or a reputable British publishing news site, however, neither of these two use the long scale form of notation to denote 10^9 = Thousand Million, so not only are we assigning ourselves to subjectively decide whether or not 10^9 should be displayed in short scale or long scale , we are choosing to use the long scale when it conflicts with the official usage and stance of the UK and English parliament and contemporary journalism, and when no primary english speaking countries still use it. It would make sense to either source the exact number from BoxOfficeMojo or source it from British news publications, who all use the short scale. Stphnpn (talk) 14:59, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

No, it doesn't fail LARGENUM. Look at the examples given (particularly the court award) for a very close example. – SchroCat (talk) 15:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes I see the example, but the heading still states, Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits but that Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason I see nothing that would rule out using specific number to signify the box office in these passages. Stphnpn (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

We are choosing to use the long scale notation when it conflicts with official UK and England usage and stance, and when contemporary UK journalism only use the short scale notation. and we are only doing this because the Oxford English Dictionary's definition on Billions denotes the long scale usage, however, the closest source on that definition is from 1874, and when any sources later than 1874 cite the definition as the short scale notation or a thousand millions. Also the more frequently updated Oxford Dictionaries denote Billions as being 10^9 or a thousand millions *Oxford Dictionary Stphnpn (talk) 15:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

For the nth time, we are not using the long scale notation. If we were we would use the word "milliard"; we are abstaining from using either scale, simply because it is unambiguous. It is essentially no different to saying "fifteen hundred" to denote "1500", instead of "one thousand five hundred". Moreover, while official government usage may have adopted the short-scale notation the government does not dictate language; common usage does, and the Oxford English Dictionary states that long-scale usage is still common. While this is primarily a British English issue, it is worth bearing in mind that there are many English speakers from non-English speaking countries that read the English Misplaced Pages (something like 40% of all traffic if memory serves) and many of those countries still use the long-scale. In short, you are arguing for converting something that is perfectly clear to something that is clearly ambiguous and therefore open to misinterpretation. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in any of these arguments thus far has convinced me that there is enough people still using the long form to warrant the strange way currently of denoting the box office value. I have a hard time believing anyone would be "confused" if we were to use "billion" and actually think a movie made a TRILLION DOLLARS. What are you people thinking? No one smart enough to even comprehend simple numbers is going think for one second a film made that much. By know, even people that used the long form are well aware of the short form, and will know that it is indeed the short being here, like it has everywhere in their lives for the last 40 years. - WOLFchild 16:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you take your axe and go and grind it somewhere else. Cassianto 17:26, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well... that's hardly collegial. (and by that I mean, what is up your ass?) Do have anything to actually add to the topic on hand, or are you only here to attack me? This is the "Skyfall" talk page, not "Cassianto's personal website". So state your opinion on the subject we are discussing, or shove off. - WOLFchild 18:06, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

My opinion is that you are here to disrupt, as illustrated by both this and the laborious thread above. You are displaying symptoms of WP:IDONTLIKEIT and frankly, patience is running out. Cassianto 18:23, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh really? Who's "patience"? I am here discussing an issue with this article and a worthwhile one at that, considering the number of valid arguments and numerous facts I've presented to support my position. Why is it anytime Schrocat gets bent out of shape about something, you pop up and attack whoever happens to be in disagreement with him? Do even have a purpose here, other than to bait me into some silly flame war? You are clearly just a troll itching for a fight. I'm not interested, so beat it. - WOLFchild 18:33, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Oh, you know of me. How interesting. And who are you a sock of I wonder? I only ask as I don't know you from Adam. Cassianto 18:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Tee-hee... you're funny. - WOLFchild 19:13, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

The WC, I have found you to be utterly "uncollegial", so it's a bit of a joke accusing others of the same. – SchroCat (talk) 18:27, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

What a shock... of course you have. When I have to repeatedly ask you to stop insulting others, posting rude and obnoxious comments and posting ridiculous, facile, meaningless arguments, I am hardly surprised you find me to be "utterly collegial". But this is what you guys do when you have nothing to counter sound logic. You stamp your feet and whine and cry and complain. By the way... do have that explanation on how "billion" is "culturally insensitive" yet? PMSL!!! - WOLFchild 18:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
By the way, like your "friend" here, I will also ask you to remain on topic. Thank you - WOLFchild 18:39, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Well top acting like a petulant child throwing his toys out of his pram when the adults don't bow down to his whim. There are millions of better things to do, rather than having your pointless tantrums – you have been as uncivil as anyone else here, but I doubt whether you think you have been. As to you last sentence, that's just too childish to bother replying to... – SchroCat (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Of course, more insults, more rudeness, more rantings and ravings. You have yet to logically counter even one argument put to you. You have yet to even explain your utterly ridiculous "culturally insensitive" comment. Now you're trying minimize your behaviour here by throwing accusations at others. If you feel I have been "uncivil", then by all means, start an ANI. I would be more than pleased to stack up my comments here against yours, any day. Now, do you have anything relevant to say about the topic at hand? Anything at all?? - WOLFchild 19:18, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

A reflection of your posting, I think... More rubbish to ignore – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think I'll get us back on topic myself. There is something I'm hoping someone can explain to me (preferably Betty). I had a look at the List of highest-grossing films, and there is currently 23 films with a box office take of over a $billion. Skyfall, being one of them, is the only one with it's box office noted this way. Just how is it all these poor, uneducated British senior citizens are managing to get through life with all these other films using the short 'billion'? My gawd! The chaos! I think this is tantamount to elder abuse, isn't it? I noticed that another British production, "Harry Potter", uses the short 'billion', yet there is not. one. single. complaint. about. that. Then there are the Commonwealth productions of "The Lord Of The Rings"... also using the short 'billion'. If anything, we are creating more confusion by using a different form on one single movie. This is especially so, considering all the others are also noted to 3 decimal places. So we have ended up with this;

• 1.502 billion
• 1.416 billion
• 1.401 billion
• 1.322 billion
• 1.301 billion
• 1.288 billion
• 1,170 million
• 1.162 billion
• 1.105 billion
• 1.091 billion
• 1.062 billion
• 1.008 billion
  

Get the point? - WOLFchild 19:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There is one point I have, but I don't think you'll want to hear it... – SchroCat (talk) 20:45, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

If you can present it in a mature fashion without the rudeness and insults, then I'm perfectly willing to 'hear' it. But I must ask that you address at least some of the numerous points I have put forward. - WOLFchild 21:48, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

There are two ambiguity and confusion I see in using 1,108.6 million.

• 1,108.6 million can be confused with 1.108.6 million or 1.1086 million.
• The usage of 1,000 million can be confused to mean one thousand million, which would be using the long scale, and therefore conflict with the official stance and usage of the UK and British parliament, as well as contemporary journalists everywhere. Therefore, the wording of 1,108.6 Million is not "unambiguous", and it is it is arbitrary to ignore these confusions, and it is arbitrary to consider "billion" to be ambiguous and 1,108.6 Million to be not for reasons I stated above. Stphnpn (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Jesus, whose idea was this BS? :/ I don't see this on Deathly Hallows Part 2 yet if you want to go add that on there.... Charlr6 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you even know what the debate is about here? If so, do you have opinion? - WOLFchild 17:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Whoevers idea this is, it is stupid. Never, ever seen this on Misplaced Pages before, and seems to be another deliberate contradicting hypocrite rule someone has found and tried to enforce. This is taking 'British english'/'American english' to a whole new level. Anyway, I believe it should be "1.108 billion". Whoever added it in as it is now though, should really go to the Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 page and change it on there. Charlr6 (talk) 18:41, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Charlr6: - OK, well I'm glad you agree. I'm not sure why this one single article had it box office added that way either. Harry Potter has had it's box read as $1.123 billion since mid-January of this year. (before that it was always marked as $1,000,000,000). That's 10 months, on a British film article, and no one complained about it or had problem with it that I can see. And not just the box office, but there are almost a dozen other monetary comments on that page, all using "billion", instead of "$1000,million." These comments are also supported by refs using "billion". Along with Harry Potter, there are 21 other films with box office totals surpassing a billion, and they are all marked as "billion"... again no has any problems with that. This seems to be the only article that people will for some reason, become "confused" and think that Skyfall made a "trillion" $US dollars. - WOLFchild 20:17, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. I for one wasn't even taught in school (from UK!) that a billion was 1,000,000,000,000, or whatever it apparently used to be. Also I do not believe anyone coming to Misplaced Pages would be like "huh, I'm confused to why it says that". Even Oxford says it has changed. Charlr6 (talk) 20:38, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

It seems that both sides are pretty dung in to their positions. Maybe this should be referred to an administrator to request arbitration.SonOfThornhill (talk) 14:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

"Arbitration"..? Is that a joke? This is a debate, and relatively mild one at that. What is needed here is for it to be brought to another forum for a wider discussion with more editors, so that we might finally gain consensus, one way or they other, like WP:Project Film or WP:MOS. (Wait... where have I heard that before? Oh yeah... me! I've already said this a half dozen times). "Arbcom"... now that's funny. - WOLFchild 17:07, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Do you not know the difference between an idea and a statement? Cassianto 17:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes please, I would love that. for the box office numbers and the review section opening statement. Stphnpn (talk) 14:35, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

There's a consensus here now, it's just that you are choosing to ignore it. Cassianto 17:16, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

BBC figures

Skyfall, the previous Bond movie, was the highest-grossing 007 film in the franchise's history, taking £700m ($1.1 bn) worldwide.

Notice it says £700 million for the $1.1 billion. Is that enough official proof/evidence/references to put it how it should be? As said before on here, never seen this "1,000 million" done before anywhere on Misplaced Pages. I personally think some editor found some rule and wants to imprint their editorial work a bit more, using that to back themselves up instead of doing what should really be done. BBC themselves, a highly regarded professional news organisation said $1.1 billion than $1,000 million. Is that enough proof to put it in? Misplaced Pages relies on actual sourcing and referencing. And here is a big one. Charlr6 (talk) 12:24, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

No-one is disputing the official usage of the term by the media or the government, we are questioning its interpretation by British readers. Here are what several sources have to say on the matter:

• Oxford English Dictionary: "1. orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions."
• BBC Lexicographer: "...the value of billion is now generally understood to mean a thousand millions ... the older sense "a million millions" is still common."
• UK parliament: "What constitutes a billion is a source of occasional confusion."

The question isn't about which scale the UK uses (we know the government and media use the short scale these days) or whether confusion does exist or not (according to highly credible sources confusion does persist), the question is about how we respond to the ambiguous nature of the term. Do we use it anyway and simply accept that some readers are likely to misinterpret it, or do we use phrasing that is unambiguous? My preference is for the latter because it doesn't make sense to me to use an ambiguous word when we can present exactly the same information unambiguously. Betty Logan (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

If it isn't a question about which scale the UK uses, then why bother using 'British English' at all? I did funnily enough find this link about Oxford - http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/how-many-is-a-billion

It states "in American English it has always equated to a thousand million (i.e. 1,000,000,000). British English has now adopted the American figure, though, so that a billion equals a thousand million in both varieties of English".

So if a billion, is also a thousand million. And if in the UK, a billion used to mean a million million, but in the USA a billion meant a thousand million. Then how come there are other Wiki pages about films that gained a billion in gross, are called a billion instead of a thousand million? If it is the exact same thing, then why bother changing it?

If like you said, it isn't a question of what scale the UK uses, then like I said above, why bother using 'British English' at all? Whoever did this, and agrees with a thousand million, why hasn't it been changed back on Deathly Hallows Part 2? Because if one consensus here is for a thousand million, then surely it should be the exact on HPatDH Part 2? It is as British as Bond after all. Charlr6 (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The James Bond and Harry Potters wikiprojects may have some members in common but they will also have many members which only belong to one or the other. I am guessing the average age at the James Bond project is a lot higher than it is at the Harry Potter project, so things which are an issue for older editors are probably not an issue for younger editors. I agree though in principle that it would be best to ′avoid the word "billion" in all articles written in British English for the sake of clarity. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Betty, I have read your recent comments here, and I'm not convinced that the term "billion" is that "ambiguous" nor likely to lead to misinterpretation. It's been acknowledged that "billion" has been used to mean 1000 x million in the UK now for over 40 years. If we were to use it in this articles infobox, do you really believe that someone might confuse it to mean the film made a "trillion" dollars? That is not a problem anywhere else in the project. There are 23 films now that have surpassed the billion dollar mark at the box office, and all of them use the word "billion" in their infobox, with the only exception being Skyfall. There have been issues of confusion that I'm aware of with these other pages. Another factor to take into account is that all the infoboxes are denoted to three decimal places, just like how the Skyfall total is noted 3 places after comma. As I pointed out above, these numbers look nearly identical, but are very, very different. All of this can also lead to confusion, and just as much, if not more so than the confusion you claim using "billion" can cause. It's unfortunate that this debate has dragged out the way it has, but as of yet, no one has addressed these points. I would like to hear your response to each of them. Thanks. - WOLFchild 00:07, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Having read the arguments of both sides over the last few days, I have to agree with those who have made the case for changing to "billion". They have made a much better case. Since the short form has been the British standard for over 40 years and is in use by the BBC, that should be enough for Misplaced Pages. We shouldn't be catering to what at this point must be a small minority that might be confused because they are still using the arcane long form. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:45, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, unfortunately the pair of editors who continually maintain the infobox as "1,000 million" don't seem to have much of a counter-argument. And I say "continually", because since that version was added 18 months ago, it has been changed numerous times by dozens and dozens, (if not hundreds) of editors, both with accounts and IP users alike, to "billion", yet these same 2 editors keep reverting it, over and over again. One interesting thing I noticed is, that among all the various IP users who have changed it from all over the world (the US, English & French Canada, Australia, Germany, Norway, India, Sri Lanka, etc., etc, ) there have been multiple edits from all over the UK changing it to "billion" as well. The very place where this supposedly an issue. And while schrocat refuses to acknowledge any of the facts put before him, I am disappointed that Betty hasn't responded with anything more than; "billion is 'ambiguous' to some people". I'm afraid there could be some WP:OWN, WP:OR and WP:POV issues here. But I'm still waiting for a reply from Betty. I'm hoping she may have more to offer and might finally address all the points I have put forward. Unlike some other editors, I find that she is at least calm and reasonable in her replies. - WOLFchild 18:31, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Back into the sewer with personal attacks and lies? There have been several editors who have reverted the IPs and socks, not two. If you're going to try and smear others, please try to stick a little closer to them truth. – SchroCat (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Why are so angry and bitter all the time? Just stay on topic. - WOLFchild 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I am neither angry nor bitter, so please do not continue with your smear tactics. I would be entirely happy to stay on topic if you could not lie or try to double guess what my mood is (and get it so hideously wrong on each and every time you've tried to do so). – SchroCat (talk) 22:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How is it a "smear tactic"? To me, your posts come across as angry and hostile, and have so since the beginning. Remember when I said the infobox listing was "silly", and for some reason you claimed that was a "smear" as well? Stop taking everything so personally. Not everything is about you. I simply asked that you calm down and stay on topic. Look at Betty's posting style for example... always calm, mature and on topic. - WOLFchild 22:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

How tiresome. Yet again you are trying to guess my state of mind, and got it very badly wrong again. I am not taking anything personally, nor am I angry or bitter, and any more calm and if I was any more calm I'd be comatose. I suggest that whatever you think about other people's motives, you keep those thoughts to yourself (which would help youto remain on topic) as you haven't judged any of them right so far. Comment on the content, not the contributor. – SchroCat (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

You're still going on about this? OK... I got it. You're not "upset". You are joyously, ecstatically, jumping-jacks-happy. (I would sure hate to see your version of "being upset".). Perhaps you'll note that you started this little sub-thread, not me. That is why I'm the one continually pleading with you to remain on topic. Comment on the content, not the contributor. - Well, you've a sense a humour, I'll give you that. Now, when you post here again ('cuz we all know you will), I defy you to keep your comments on topic. (I might even have money riding on it). - WOLFchild 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

• If the primary definition in the Oxford English Dictionary and a parliamentary paper reporting confusion caused by use of the term isn't "much of a counter-argument" then I doubt any counter-argument will suffice. For all the accusations of "not responding" to arguments I have yet to see these points addressed. Why is the BBC favored over the OED here? The OED is generally considered the arbiter on British English, not the BBC. Why is a parliamentary paper documenting the confusion caused by the term similarly being ignored? Seems there is a bit of cherry-picking going on. We write for a general readership and many people will be confused by many things on Misplaced Pages. In view of that we should write with greater clarity wherever there is potential for confusion. If it transpires that there are people out there who do not understand what "1,000 million" means then obviously we would take steps to address that. Betty Logan (talk) 20:29, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

summary of points

@Betty Logan:, this 'parliamentary paper' you cite is only 2 pages long, and only mentions once that; a billion is a source of occasional confusion. It then goes to explain how the "American" form of 'billion' has been the official form for over 40 years. I could just as easily use that paper to support my position here. Same with the OED. If anything, it also confirms that 'billion' now officially means 1000xmillion. That's what the government uses. That's what is taught in school. That's what all the reliable journalistic sources use. I could use the OED as support as well.

• You say we write "write for a general readership", yet this infobox item only seems to cater to one small, non-specific group. and these accusations of cheery-picking can easily boomerang the other way.
• Where is the evidence that using "billion" for the box office total causes "confusion" for British readers aged 50 and up? I just don't see it. (I'm British and over 40 and I've only ever known 'billion' to mean the 'short scale/version')
• How many of these people can there be, as opposed to all the people that know and prefer "billion" to mean the short scale?
• Why does this supposed group take precedence over everyone else? Including other British readers who know "billion" to mean 1000x million?
• I've also asked repeatedly, what reader is going to mistakenly believe that Skyfall made over a "Trillion dollars"...?
• What about the fact that every other film article uses "billion"...? (Including the British film Harry Potter - no one seems to have a problem with that.)
• You didn't respond to the list I posted above demonstrating how easy it is to confuse these box office totals, since they are either 3 places over from a comma or 3 places over from a decimal.
• You say that BBC shouldn't be given as much weight as OED. But, the BBC, along with numerous other journalistic sources do in fact use "billion" in the short scale, and we use these sources all the time! They're the back-bone of the project. It's these sources that support the totals being listed in these pages, not the OED. Why is it this one infobox needs to be different than every other article and source?
• How do you account for the fact that since the box office was changed to read the current style, it has been constantly changed to "billion", several times a week over the last year and a half? Changed by numerous registered and IP users alike, and not only are these IP addresses from all over the world, but several of them are located through-out the UK. There are literally dozens and dozens of users making it known that they feel it should read "billion", and yet they are always reverted by the same handful of editors. How do you account for that?
• The only real support for the current version thus far has been "this article is written in Br. Eng.". But we know for a fact that in Britain, "billion" officially means 1000 millions. That's a supported fact, and we go by supported facts.
• Why must this article adhere so strictly to "British English when it's a joint UK-US production?
• So, really... in the face of all these facts, and what appears to be well established consensus, what argument is left to support the continued use of "$1,000 million" as opposed to "1.000 billion"...?
• - WOLFchild 21:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan:, (and you as well @SchroCat: if you must...) - It has been 4 days since I listed this summary of points in favour of using "billion" in the infobox. Can I expect a point-by-point reply anytime soon? Or can we go just ahead a make the obviously appropriate change in the face of these facts? Thanks - WOLFchild 11:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

^ "He's right you know." - Morgan Freeman.

But yeah, looking at all of this now. There is no consensus forming. Nobody is changing their minds whatsoever. If this is really a big thing, then it should STOP literally right here, and all of this should move to a higher place to be discussed. Because like said, there are other films which have got a 'billion'. Same as Potter Part 2. Saying editors are likely to be older here on this Bond page, than editors on a Harry Potter page is kind of stupid, because why should age matter when we are just trying to do our 'freelance' jobs here on Misplaced Pages?

Whoever wants this to continue, and I'm in agree that it should, this should go to the higher ups on Misplaced Pages. Because if this is so important, it is relatable to a lot of other things too, and not just Skyfall.

If it doesn't go up, then people please just try and not wind each other up, you know who you are and know you are doing it. Just listen to evidence on both sides, and not just your own. Please. Wolf has gave pretty good points. I understand both sides, and to be honest only him and Betty are really giving the best points here. But everyone needs to sort this out. Look at both sides. Be open minded, not closed. You aren't going to get fired to cause the internet to break if it isn't up to the way you personally believe and want it to be according to some reference you personably like more as it supports your side. Charlr6 (talk) 23:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

There are no "higher up" here to decide content. But, as I've already said multiple times, perhaps this should be taken to the WP:Project Film page or even WP:MOS pages. Also, Betty's comments are not "stupid". I don't happen to agree with them, but please don't make remarks like that. It's unfortunate that a couple of editors are really dug in on this. I appreciate that you agree a change is needed, but we really need some others to weigh in on this as well. - WOLFchild 00:56, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, those pages are the higher ups. If it needs to be taken to somewhere, those are the places.

It isn't like I insulted Betty, just her wording. It was almost implying that apparently because there are older editors on this than a Harry Potter page, then they would be less willing as they would be too young or childish to want to change. If they aren't, then no point mentioning older or younger editors surely? Anyway, it is irrelevant. Take it to WP: Project Film. Tag us all in it so we can see and continue on there. Charlr6 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Don't take it as a criticism so as a 'heads up' You never know what might offend people here. I merely stated that I thought the current b.o. listing was "silly", a one editor became extremely upset about it. So you never know how people might react to something they've written being called 'stupid'. There has been plenty of drama here already, I just want to avoid adding anymore if we can help it. That said, you are correct, the project pages can be considered "higher up" in a way, I though you were referring to people though. Before taking this anywhere else, I would like to see if Betty responds, point by point, to my last post. I see she is online, so I have just pinged her. Hopefully we can get this resolved soon. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers. - WOLFchild 00:06, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Okie dokey. Ping me if need anything. I keep my eye on here anyway. But defiantly ping me if gets taken to WP: Project Film Charlr6 (talk) 09:35, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• I think it is fairly obvious at this stage there is no consensus for adding "billion" to the article. To summarize the debate, this is how I see it:

1. MOS:NUMERAL stipulates that "billion" should only be used in the short-scale sense on Misplaced Pages. However, the guideline does not prohibit alternatives to using the word "billion".
2. The British government adopted the short-scale version in 1974. However, the British government does not dictate the English language. The Oxford English Dictionary states in its definition: "orig. and still commonly in Great Britain: A million millions".
3. Modern usage in the media favors the short-scale definition. This may be so, but it does not mean that readers will correctly interpret the term. A parliamentary research paper indicates what "constitutes a billion is a source of occasional confusion".
4. While "1 billion" is clearly ambiguous in British English, "1,000 million" is not. There is no evidence that using "1,000 million" in its place causes any misunderstanding.

Despite the discussion approaching 200KB nobody has yet put forward a convincing argument why we should choose a term that could be misinterpreted over one that will not be. Unless somebody puts forward a source based rationale as to why "1,000 million" is a more confusing term than "1 billion" my stance on this will not alter, since my fundamental position is that we should write in the most unambiguous manner. I will also add that if I do not participate in this discussion any further that is simply due to the fact that I feel that my reasoning here addresses all the arguments put forward and I have nothing new to contribute. If a subsequent argument convinces me otherwise I will explicitly withdraw my opposition. Betty Logan (talk) 19:47, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: - OK, you say that;

1. MOS:NUMERAL stipulates that "billion" should only be used in the short-scale sense on Misplaced Pages. - No offence but, what part of "only" do you not get? You say it "does not prohibit alternatives". I think it did, with the very sentence you quoted.
2. ...the British government does not dictate the English language. - Again, no offence intended, but neither do you, or Misplaced Pages for that matter. We go by what the sources say. And speaking of which;
3. Modern usage in the media favors the short-scale definition. - Thank you! That is exactly what I pointed out above. (among the more than dozen points you failed to respond to) If the very sources we use to create and support articles, such as this one, use "billion", then why the need to use something different?
4. While "1 billion" is clearly ambiguous in British English, "1,000 million" is not. There is no evidence that using "1,000 million" in its place causes any misunderstanding. - You have that completely backwards. There is nothing that supports this so-called "ambiguity" you claim. The short-form "billion" has now been in use in the UK for over 40 years. It's used by the government. It's taught in schools. It's used in every numerical and math-related fashion in the English-speaking world. You claim, without support, that some British people over the age of 50 might confuse "billion" for "trillion", but we use "billion" in countless Misplaced Pages articles... not just film articles, but math, physics, astrology, cosmology, etc., etc., etc. Why is it you are so convinced that in this one single article, some indeterminate little group of people will somehow misinterpret "billion" to mean that this film made a TRILLION DOLLARS? Also, as a point of fact, the use of "1000 million" clearly is creating confusion as it is constantly being changed to "billion", on an almost daily basis by dozens upon dozens, possibly hundreds, of different users, from all over the world, in English and non-English-speaking counties alike, including multiple users spread across the UK itself. How do you account for that? More importantly, why are you ignoring that?

You're right, this debate has become quite lengthy. it's certainly not what I wanted nor expected. It has been dragged on my numerous, silly off-topic comments, but as for the issue at hand, while you are really the only one who has responded to it directly, you have not responded to it effectively. You just continue to make the same so-called "ambiguity" claim over and over, while failing to even acknowledge any of the wiki-policies, facts and counter-points presented to you. I even went so far as to list them out on a point-by-point basis for you, and you all but ignored that post in its entirety. If anything, that is why this has dragged on so long without a resolution. I have just went to the deliberate effort of responding to each of your points. I would respectfully ask that you do the same. - WOLFchild 02:29, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree with TheWolfChild here. At the start of this I was neutral and tried to propose a compromise. But he and the others who support the use of the short form have made their case. Misplaced Pages guidelines on the issue are very clear and the argument that some people might be confused rings hallow. Even if that were true, we should not be catering to what must be a very small minority of users. It is time to settle this and change to the short form. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

TheWolfChild is making amazing points here. Betty and Schro, you should really start to really listen. Count me all in favour for billion. I and entire family was also taught 'short form' in school. Charlr6 (talk) 22:20, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing this thread it seems there are 4 editors in favor is using the short form and only 2 holding out for the long form. Let's give it another day or two for anyone else that wants to weigh in. But if no one else does, we should change to the short form. SonOfThornhill (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Reviewing this discusion I see three established editors (you, TheWolfchild and Charlr6) and a SPA in favor of the change and three editors (me, SchroCat and Cassianto) in favor of retaining the status quo. That looks like a deadlock to me so per WP:NOCONSENSUS the change should not be initiated. I think it is pretty obvious the discussion has run its course and the outcome isn't going to change without input from further editors. Betty Logan (talk) 00:55, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

So an SPA whoever that was, doesn't count? Can I see the rule book for consensus on that? Because otherwise, if SPA does count as a fourth, then there is no deadlock. Unless the only reason you are stating that is so there is a 'draw' and can stay as it is? Also saying it has run its course is another way of saying "I don't want change, so keep it". Further editors will come though. And all of here which has been talked about, will be included in that. But can I see this possible rule you seem to be slightly claiming SPA can't have a say? Thank you! :D Charlr6 (talk) 10:44, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Since Ip editors and SPAs tend not to be sufficiently grounded in Misplaced Pages policy and guidelines (unless they are socks) their arguments are usually discounted in RFC discussions. It is besides the point though because it is not a WP:VOTE i.e. the outcome doesn't go the way of the majority. Per Misplaced Pages:Consensus, "Consensus is ascertained by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Misplaced Pages policy." There is no policy that compels us to use "billion" and there is no policy that prevents us from using "1,000 million" in its place so how is one stance more policy compliant than the other? Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

For the record I was counting myself, TheWolfchild, Charlr6 & Stphnpn as for the short form and SchroCat & Betty Logan as against. Reviewing Cassianto comments, he (or she) doesn't voice an opinion on the issue but rather just engages in a personal back and forth with other editors. SonOfThornhill (talk) 11:54, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear he does voice an opinion on one particular direction. - SchroCat (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

so SonOfThornhill, TheWolfchild, me & Stphnpn is for billion while SchroCat & Betty Logan and Cassianto against. Three... Charlr6 (talk) 15:36, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

And Gareth Griffith-Jones, as below. Four. - SchroCat (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

ah yes. Glad a new editor joined even though on opposite side of opinion for me. Question though for all, let's say another editor comes for 1,000 million and that happens end of. Should we then all move and try and get same to done on Harry Potter Part 2? As British as Bond and if relevant and should happen here then should there. We wouldn't want to be hypocrites? Charlr6 (talk) 18:24, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:NOCONSENSUS. – SchroCat (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

• It appears we have another from the land of stupid. What part of my opinion didn't you get? Cassianto 19:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I've read the No Consensus, and it doesn't say anything about what I've just said about if another editor comes in for 1000 million, then that is it and this is all over. Should we then go to Potter Part 2 where all of this is equally as relevant? You'd already have five people (from herE) for the change on there from a billion to a 1000 million. No difference. Charlr6 (talk) 20:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you are canvassing people? Cassianto 20:19, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you are nosing at my contributions? The point of canvassing, and I copy and paste "notify other editors of ongoing discussions, provided that it is done with the intent to improve the quality of the discussion by broadening participation to more fully achieve consensus". We need a finalised consensus don't we? Charlr6 (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

I have Martin's talk page saved to my watchlist; despite his views on certain things, I find him a funny bugger and his contributions lighten my moods when people like you piss me off. Such as you're doing now. If you want other's opinions, open an RfC, don't cherry pick people as that looks like you have an agenda. Cassianto 20:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are going to throw insults, from the comments I've read of yours, you always seem pissed off with everybody. Sadly though I don't think DarkWarriorBlake or whatever his name is is still around, or as frequent to join you in the attitude corner Charlr6 (talk) 20:32, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Dearest Charlr6! How nice to invite me to the party. Canvass away, old chap. My view is very simple - $1,109 million is unambiguous, whereas $1.109 billion is not. Although you could, of course, convert to Indonesian rupiah to make it look even more impressive! Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

perhaps a move...

I was away for a few days, but I had hoped that during that time some progress would be made here. I had listed over a dozen points in favour of using "billion" instead of the current "1,000 million" and most of them have still not been addressed. Those opposed to this still cling to the singular and now-refuted argument about "confusion". Unfortunately, this discussion has really dragged on and has been bogged down by off-topic comments and general incivility. I have suggested several times that this discussion might be better served if it were taken to the WikiProject Film talk page. I hoped it would not be necessary, but clearly it is. I would like to have some fresh eyes on this and new opinions added. I'm sure people here will also join in, I would just hope that any 'baggage' be left here and any new comments there be kept to the topic at hand. - WOLFchild 05:19, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

• I have now brought this issue to WikiProject Film - "Billion vs 1,000 million". - WOLFchild 07:44, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

See WP:DEADHORSE. "Fresh eyes" have commented in the last day or so, but not gone your way. Forum shopping until you get the answer you want isn't a terribly constructive approach. - SchroCat (talk) 08:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Well said, SchroCat! See this post! Let common sense prevail! — | Gareth Griffith-Jones |The WelshBuzzard| — 09:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Still in a miserable mood, huh schrocat? A whole whopping grand total of two people have commented while I was away. And, as one of them has pointed out, the entire discussion has become too long to reasonably expect any newcomer to wade through it. I have stated numerous times my intention to bring this to the Project Film talk page and now I have. It's nowhere near "forum shopping" and there is no reason for you to get so bent out of shape over it. This page has become all but useless because of all your off-topic drama, accusations, baiting and personal attacks. If you choose to comment at the other page, it will be interesting to see if you can, for at least once comment on the topic, and not on any editors. This issue affects more than the just the Skyfall article and the project page is the more appropriate place, so get over already. Relax, stop taking everything sooo personally. Try to remember why we are all here in the first place. - WOLFchild 09:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you please stop commenting on other people and keep your comments on the matter in hand? - SchroCat (talk) 09:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

You know what? On second thought... don't change a thing. Just keep posting in the same manner you have. - WOLFchild 09:35, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

WC, I have no idea why you wish to keep breaking the formatting on the closing, which has been incorrectly done. I think you are just in a knee-jerk revert mode without actually looking at what you are doing. I suggest you look closely at the effect your revert has had and rethink. - SchroCat (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

The only thing incorrect was I had accidentally included the section title. You could've just fixed that, but you didn't. I don't care why you insist on lumping these two sections together, removing my comments and un-closing my comments, but you aren't allowed to that. The formatting is now fixed, leave everything else alone. - WOLFchild 10:39, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

No it's not. - SchroCat (talk) 10:42, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I'll bite... what is not what...? - WOLFchild 10:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Love how I've seen different new editors change it to a billion. Then they get reverted. It is going to keep on happening, as obviously more people are for a billion than against. Otherwise there wouldn't be so many people changing the edit. Charlr6 (talk) 14:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Most of those making the change are unregistered IPs. Which means it could be only one person doing it from different computers. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Quite a rebel to do it from all those different computers :P Charlr6 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I checked out about a dozen or so of the IPs and they are from all over the world. There was some from right across the US, both English and French Canada, several from right across the UK (England and Scotland), Germany, Norway, India, Sri Lanka... that's just a few off the top of my head. So, it's highly unlikely that it is just one person. Aside from the IPs, there are multiple registered users changing it quite frequently as well... far more than there are changing it back all the time. - WOLFchild 17:30, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Sadly has to be this 'discussion' about it with a few select editors forcing to be the 'boss' upon themselves, instead of the actual proof, which are all those editors, registered or not across the glove. Charlr6 (talk) 18:26, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

It happened again. As you will see, this person was confused to believe it reading that Skyfall received a 1 million, instead of 1 billion. Surely all of these edit changes are proof people are confused by this, more so than the small majority of the world and British public apparently believed by to certain editors will confuse 1 billion for 1 trillion. Charlr6 (talk) 22:29, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Maybe they have poor eyesight as well as poor understanding? Perhaps you could send some better spectacles over to Canada for them? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:34, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

No, most of the certain editors are from the United Kingdom I believe. If they were Canadian they would be so much more friendlier.

But yeah, this is going to keep on happening, and as long as it does it is going to be sadly very relevant regardless of how some people are 'done with it' or it is 'over'. Charlr6 (talk) 22:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Wow, is that a 3D crystal ball you have there as well? Why have all these unfriendly anonymous UK editors started getting confused so recently? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

You're a fun one to talk to. I like you. Another!!! Charlr6 (talk) 22:50, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Lol". Maybe I'll wait until Thursday. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:03, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hey K6ka, saw your recent edit on history. Would you care to join in the discussion and give your opinions on what should be done? Either here or possibly more on WikiProject Film - "Billion vs 1,000 million" where it is a bit more active? Charlr6 (talk) 21:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Straw poll: billion vs millions

Summary of the debate: the discussion at #Box_Office and its continuation at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Billion_vs_1.2C000_million debated how Skyfall's total should ve presented. Specifically, in conjunction with the arguments that were put forward at these discussions, the three options are as follows:

1. $1,109 million
2. $1.109 billion
3. $1,109,000,000

Given the extensive nature of the discussion and the fact that it has occurred at two places it is useful to take a straw poll. Please stipulate which option you back with a single sentence to explain your stance. Remember this is a straw poll, not a re-run of the debate so please refrain in engaging with other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As a side note to the proposed straw poll, we should keep WP:DEM, WP:POLL, and WP:STRAW in mind. Such polls should "stimulate discussion and consensus" and should typically be used in the early or middle stages of a consensus-forming discussion. Therefore, we shouldn't discourage engagement between editors, even during the poll. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Shortcut

I suddenly realised I could simply count up all the editors who have contributed opinions to all three discussions. If I missed anybody, or anybody changed their mind and I missed it, my apologies, but it goes like this:

But then, consensus is not just about numbers, its about the quality of the arguments and the extent to which they are supported by policy and by sources. Here, over and over the popularity of the billion has been endorsed and cited. Claims for confusion and therefore the million have been vocal and endless but short on policy or sources.

I have to say, I am surprised that such an overwhelming and strong consensus can have been masked by fire and smoke for so long. Had I realised it I would not have bothered to suggest a new straw poll - basically, we already have one.

Now. I know that straw polls are not necessarily binding, but if they are as clear-cut as this one then WP:SNOW cuts in.

So I think it's time to wrap this up. If anybody has anything new to say, by all means say it. No matter what is said from now on, rising to it is a bad idea, we have had enough smoke. Then we can get an uninvolved editor, preferably an admin, to close the deal.

— Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 19:08, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

So it's basically 3 to 1 in favour of using "billion". Thanks. - WOLFchild 23:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This template must be substituted.

— Stphnpn (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Some of your categorizations are questionable. For instance, Erik simply asks what the counter-argument is to using a "billion" before a counter-argument was added to that discussion. You cannot assume somebody's stated position at the start of the discussion before they read the arguments is the same as at the end, after they have read the arguments. You should at least notify every editor you have listed here to give them the option of revising their stance. Betty Logan (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Regarding the counter-argument, I previously supported $1,109 million (in some much older discussion) per the reasons you reiterated recently at WT:FILM. I was not aware of WP:NUMERAL at the time and how it states that "billion" used on Misplaced Pages is "understood to represent" the short-scale value, and now I do not see why that cannot be applied. This is not a case of real-world reporting of Skyfall's total as $1,109 million that would override WP:NUMERAL. If the BBC itself reports the film's "billion" total as a short-scale value, it seems strange that Misplaced Pages cannot follow that. While I understand the concern of potential confusion, it seems too narrow to warrant not following WP:NUMERAL, especially when it does not talk about exceptions based on nationality. Why not a footnote that can explain to any possible reader that are puzzled to see and misinterpret "billion"? I do not think this readership outnumbers those who wonder why the number is not rounded up already. Erik (talk | contrib) 19:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 -

That is correct also from how I've seen it. I'm still for billion. Thewolfchild you seen this? This is pretty good work though going through it all and finding who was on which 'side'. Well done.

And Erik good idea about the foot note. Charlr6 (talk) 20:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 – Per the comments shared at Billion vs 1,000 million (cont'd). The Oxford Dictionaries Online entry, the MOS:TIES guideline, and sources local to the region such as this one support the use of billion in the article to represent "one thousand million". --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Option 2 - - WOLFchild 21:50, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Support Option 1 or 3 MOS:NUMERAL is being misinterpreted and only requires us to use the short scale (not specific words), in effect making all three of the above options legitimate choices as far as the guideline goes; the word "billion" causes confusion in British English (see House of Commons Statistical literacy guide) since it was not adopted by the UK until the 1970s and it is also potentially ambiguous for non-native speakers from countries which use the long scale. Betty Logan (talk) 22:51, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

The last part of your reasoning, "potentially ambiguous for non-native speakers from countries which use the long scale", may be suited for a discussion at WT:DATE, but for articles like this one, MOS:TIES overrides that concern. Speaking of discussions at WT:DATE, it looks like the most recent on the subject was "Short scale billion", which you actually initiated! Although a clear consensus wasn't established, it is evident from those interpreting MOS:NUMERAL that it was suggesting the use of billion as a widespread replacement for thousand million, whether or not the editors in that discussion agreed with it or not. So the interpretation that billion is being recommended by the guideline seems pretty clear from both sides of the argument. One point made by Pfainuk that I'd like to reiterate is that the British English style guides listed here recommend the use of the short scale. Also interesting to note is that the PDF you linked to above actually acknowledges that the short scale billion is used internationally – further reason for us not to worry about its perceived meaning. I'm not challenging the fact that there are still some in the UK that may take pause at the sight of the word billion, but we would need some evidence that this is a significant concern that applies to a significant amount of the population. So far, that's only a theoretical notion. I can't imagine that someone reading Misplaced Pages doesn't read or listen to UK media, which overwhelmingly transitioned to the short scale by the early 1980s. Taking pause and being confused are two very different things, and in the context of a film, I doubt anyone would think for a second that the movie made a trillion; context matters. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Just a comment. Thought I had, that's it - When Caitlyn Jenner gender transitioned he became a she on wikipedia. Because that is what she became. We updated it.

I know it isn't the best example or whatever this is, but some people in the world are against that, or wouldn't understand it why she did and why. But we still changed it. We updated it because it needed to be updated, we didn't condescend and spoon fed, regardless of what a small majority of the world would feel about it. It is respectful to her, and the current conditions.

It has been forty years since the start of the 70s, so forty years since 'short' billion was adopted. So we should reflect that. It is irrelevant of what some people might find confusing. I understand why you support 1,000 million as it wouldn't cause any confusion and people thinking of billion "hey, how did it gross 1,000,000,000,000?". But as we are in modern times, with an ever-changing society, the world and people need to change to. We can't stop things for one group of people. Different countries in the world have their own currency and ways of cost, but as this is a British film, co-produced by American companies, we should reflect what those countries currently have. Which is 1,000,000,000 as a billion.

That's it. Just a final thought I had on what I'm finding a relaxing thoughtful evening. Charlr6 (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Lucky (s)he's worth only "US$100 million (2014 estimate)". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages good articles
• Media and drama good articles
• GA-Class Featured topics articles
• Misplaced Pages featured topics James Bond films good content
• Low-importance Featured topics articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• GA-Class film articles
• GA-Class British cinema articles
• British cinema task force articles
• WikiProject Film articles
• Misplaced Pages articles that use British English
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press