Sudiani

Hey, Sudani, I appreciate your contributions to adding the worldwide grosses of several Disney animated features. However, I am curious if there was a clickable link to the Variety article, "Disney Animated Features at the Worldwide Box Office", in which you use as a source. Thanks. Christianster94 (talk) 21:04, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. If you have access to their archives, then I am sure there is a link to the article there but would be available via subscription only. I don't think they published it as a webpage and unfortunately, I don't have access to their archives so can't provide a link but do have a copy of the magazine with it in.

I looked on Variety's website, and the article wasn't there. Could you email a scanned copy of the article to me? Christianster94 (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

It is just a chart I believe. Variety often don’t put charts that were in the magazine online. I put a summarized version of the chart on the talk pages of the highest- grossing animated films article. I won’t see the magazine until next month but will update that chart with any other information they published (eg split between domestic and foreign, page number etc) when I access it. Here are some of the articles that appeared in the 80th anniversary edition. https://www.google.com/search?q=site:variety.com+october+26+2003+disney&safe=off&prmd=nsiv&ei=E3y0WovsFaaIggfI057IBQ&start=0&sa=N&biw=375&bih=549&dpr=2

Hi is there anymore box office dettial you can add for your variety report of Disney?Fanoflionking 15:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fanoflionking (talk • contribs)

Christianster94 and Fanoflionking: If you are still interested, the chart is on page 84 of this issue, which is now available online. There is a whole Disney supplement from page 76. https://read-archive.variety.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f04fdc67-f04c-4dc3-8dd5-33e491f42811

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from 7th Academy Awards into 1934 in film. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 23:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani, it is great you have added a sourced box-office chart to 1934 in film but I find it a tad bizarre that there are now two box-office charts. This may be unavoidable in instances where sources say different things, but I think in cases where you have one sourced chart and one unsourced chart it would probably be better to simply delete the unsourced chart. All the best and keep up the good work! Betty Logan (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have tried to clarify the two by adding a sub-section to indicate that the sourced one is for calendar year grosses. The Variety chart includes many from 1933 so I think it is useful to retain the other even though whoever added it did not indicate where it came from. Hopefully I can find a source for it, maybe from the Motion Picture Almanac which are available online, and also add some figures but might take me some time.Sudiani (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Leonard Goldstein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Steel Town (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:23, 23 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1930 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, Mommie Dearest (film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 16:49, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please note that, per WP:RS/IMDb, IMDb is not considered a reliable source and should not be used in citations. Thanks! DonIago (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1956 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Jack Warner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Yeenosaurus. I noticed that you made one or more changes to an article, The Contract (1978 film), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Yeenosaurus (talk) 🍁 00:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1929 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Fox (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1976 in film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bound for Glory

1979 in film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Buena Vista

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 2 July 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1990 in film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Frank Ross (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 11 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1989 in film (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Arabesk

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi there Sudiani. I refer to your edit here: [1]. Is there any chance you can email me a copy of the article "Besson's Back Catalog"? I think it could come in handy for other Wikipedia articles I've helped write; I've done a lot of work on several of the article's for Besson's films. Let me know. Cheers. Damien Linnane (talk) 01:58, 20 July 2019 (UTC)Reply

Ping me back here, reply on my talk page or contact me through the email user function if you can. Thanks. Damien Linnane (talk) 03:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

Damien Linnane This article (plus another on Besson) can be seen online now at the following link (pages 105-106 of the issue). https://read-archive.variety.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=f3fa71d0-f226-4ba7-997a-0b83ee8fac49

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The French Connection (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Brown (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of plays adapted into feature films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meredith Wilson (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:50, 22 September 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This is just a note to let you know that I've moved the draft that you were working on to Draft:List of highest-grossing films in Italy, from its old location at User:Sudiani/sandbox. This has been done because the Draft namespace is the preferred location for Articles for Creation submissions. Please feel free to continue to work on it there. If you have any questions about this, you are welcome to ask me on my talk page. Thank you. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:16, 3 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lookin' to Get Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MGM Grand (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:27, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

I had no quarrel with your helpful edit. But it did hightlight that the section was wrong in what it claimed, quite apart from the journalese "greatest...of all time" which has no place in an encyclopedia. The rest is unencyclopedic too; it's simply the stuff of film-gossip. & reversing the edit to what you admit is inaccurate is irresponsible and lazy editing. If you can incorporate a brief mention of maybe half a dozen words in the lede, then do so, but it does not justify a separate section. A reception section usually covers reviews from notable critics, anyway. If you're going to edit, then do some research first. Sweetpool50 (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

My understanding is that the reception section covers audience response, box office etc see MOS:MOVIE. As there appears to be no box office data, the admissions number is the closest we have and some would argue that admissions are a better measure of a film's success than box office amounts as are not skewed by inflation. This is researched information, not gossip. I agree that it is important information to add to the lede as well but there should be a reception section including critical response and audience response/box office. If you have something to add to it or want to add your concerns into the article eg citation needed, please do or add to the talk page if you feel strongly about this but do not delete relevant data.Sudiani (talk) 19:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

English football sponsorship (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to World Soccer

Watney Combe & Reid (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to World Soccer

Watney Cup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to World Soccer

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BFI London Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kanal (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Harry Brown (writer), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A Place in the Sun (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Line Cinema, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Town and Country (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

Take a picture of the page you're reading, or exert. I cannot find the page you're referencing and those numbers are hugely different than any other numbers that anyone else has. You're saying that Variety claims those first 6 films made 500 million worldwide. That means that the first 6 films had to have made approximately 49 million overseas each. Except, you've the international figure for the first film was 31 million, meaning that the next 5 films had to average 51.5 million to get to that 500 million worldwide total. The probably I have with this figure is it indicates the films were doing better overseas than domestically (which peaked at 5 and were getting progressively worse box office wise afterward). There's also no records I can find of any of those films being released internationally. The numbers seem a bit off.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:12, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have a PDF of the page but not sure what to do with it. If I click the upload it says it can't be copyrighted material. Of course those films were all released internationally! It's just that the internet box office sites don't have much data prior to the internet. Variety noted that the first film grossed $57 million so based on the domestic gross, grossed 23% more internationally. The next 5 films grossed $181 million domestically. If they all did 23% better overseas that is another $222 million. $222 plus $181 plus $57 is $460 million so $500 million seems reasonable. Sudiani (talk) 20:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

You can upload it for the purpose of verification and it can be removed later. It isn't going to go on the article main page. Put it on the article talk page. That figure is based on the idea that the next 5 films performed the exact same as the original film, and given that domestically they didn't it would be fair to assume they didn't as well. That's why I'm curious as to the context of the statement, because it's based on an estimated figure that no one else has. I cannot find any other source referencing those films' international gross, and just because BOM and The-Numbers are online doesn't mean they don't have figures on older films that were released before the internet was public, because they do. You understand my concern that we've gone from no one has anything, to Variety apparently had all the figures in 1992, but as a general statement. I'm apprehensive about having a blanket statement of "they grossed this as a whole" when our actual table doesn't support it (because we don't have individual figures). At best, I'd stick to the North American box office for the lead, and the box office section say something to the effect of "In 1992, Variety reported that the total global box office for the franchise at the time was $500 million."  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:31, 16 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

User:Bignole here's that article claiming that up to 1992 the Nightmare franchise had grossed $500 million. (page 36) https://read-archive.variety.com/html5/reader/production/default.aspx?pubname=&edid=03d505cb-0d82-453c-bf29-7b2c0396d392

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited BFI London Film Festival, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mike Newell (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 22 January 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Wilmslow Road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Multiplex (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:08, 4 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of plays adapted into feature films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chapter Two (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:19, 11 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Arruza (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sanitarium (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited In the Heat of the Night (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newark (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Empire (film magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Savage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

— Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I saw your protection request for World Soccer (magazine). I think it's too soon for semi-protection, but think it's a good candidate for pending changes. I've granted you the right to review edits before they go live and also have them auto accepted. Hopefully it discourages vandalism and lowers your work load, but if this doesn't work let me know and I'll move up to semi-protection. Thanks for your work. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for doing this. Not sure how much work this involves but the existing tables that are listed aren't ones that regularly need updating (only annually when their awards are announced) so the current page shouldn't need editing too much and hopefully this protection will stop unregistered people from making so many false changes to the data.Sudiani (talk) 10:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani, sorry to bother you, do you have any sources for the international box office of Trading Places as you did with Scrooged? Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, I had a search on Variety's archives to see if I could find anything for it by searching for Trading Places and by searching for Eddie Murphy worldwide grosses but couldn't easily find it. Their search is not the best so just because I couldn't find it, it doesn't mean that they never reported the data. I saw an article that was reporting on the distributor, UIP's results for the era, but their issue (and the first part of the article) was missing! Unfortunately, worldwide data prior to the mid-90s isn't something they regularly reported on. If I find something in future, I will update the article and can let you know.Sudiani (talk) 21:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. It's very frustrating that apparently only America ever cared what films were making back then. There aren't really an UK periodicals I can think of that might have covered it but I might try going down that rabbit hole and see if anything comes up. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 07:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it's no one cared; international grosses are available but they just weren't regularly collated and reported as one figure. I'm sure you could find out how much Trading Places made in the UK or Australia, for example, but finding a worldwide figure is harder to find. Variety's reporting of international grosses was more city based than necessarily country based too so you can relatively easily find data for what a film grossed in London or Paris but not necessarily a total for the UK or France. Screen International was in existence then but I don't know how easy it is to access their past issues and how much data they provided. Their box office reporting that I remember from the past tended to be more UK focused than international. I am sure the studios likely have this data somewhere and much of Variety's reporting is based on what the studios told them. I'm not sure if they would respond but if you are interested, possibly you could ask UIP if they have that data and are willing to share it. I'll see if I can find some grosses from countries/cities and share it here.Sudiani (talk) 13:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how reliable it is, but this website shows a 1.7 million pound gross for Trading Places.http://www.25thframe.co.uk/detail-page/?rimage=trading_places. This website has some details of French and German admissions, which those countries have historically reported rather than grosses http://jpbox-office.com/fichfilm.php?id=6849Sudiani (talk) 13:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Sudiani. I think even if I asked UIP and they respoded I wouldn't be able to use the information based on my e-mails. It's not life or death, it's just a shame and obviously paints a somewhat incomplete picture of the box office that year. As you say though, even if I can obtain individual figures, you really want that worldwide figure which will probably be impossible to obtain. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

Darkwarriorblake I found an overseas gross for Trading Places! For UIP's 25th Anniversary in 1995, Variety published the films that had grossed $25 million for UIP, including Trading Places with a gross of $30,212,000. It was their 6th highest grossing for films released in 1983. Sudiani (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

That's great Sudiani, thank you, it's been a black hole in the article for a long time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:31, 21 December 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited World Soccer (magazine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ajax.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)Reply

I have to double check in newspapers. I spot the Amblin Entertainment name in newspapers in the 1970s, it was clearly not founded in 1981. --2600:1700:4300:2C8F:308D:1E37:8815:3F7C (talk) 02:55, 19 September 2020 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rodney Trotter, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page GCE.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

The section you added doesn't make any logical sense. Please put it back in, editing as necessary to make it understandable. --Zeamays (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)Reply

Can you post the actual wording of the Japan box office section from that Variety magazine, I can't seem to find a copy of it. It seems odd that it would state Star Wars, the original film, took in over $58 million in Japan when Star Wars never performed well in Japan until The Phantom Menace. All box office numbers for the original Star Wars films in Japan came out to less than combined from other sources, so could you post the actual wording? Are you sure this isn't Star Wars, as in the franchise, has now reached $58 million in Japan as those numbers would add up? Just seems odd that Variety would state what all the other sites are not for financials. Canterbury Tail talk 16:49, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Below is the start of the wording of the Variety article that focused on 'Star Wars'. For some reason, their online version excludes the paragraph about the past (https://variety.com/1999/film/news/wars-jolts-japan-1117743059/#!) and also has a different headline (the Weekly Variety headline was 'Menace' conquers 'World' in Japan). I thought maybe the online version was the version published in Daily Variety but the version in DV published on July 13 (headlined 'Menace' on mark) is different to the online version too but also includes the claims about the original gross. Variety's reporting of the total international gross ($198.6) is slightly different from what other websites say. I have seen references in other Variety articles to this being what Fox Intl reported. I think the article is a bit unclear because the $198.6m is the total int'l gross before the release of the Special Edition but says the $58m in Japan was just from its 1978 release. I don't know if it was re-released at all in Japan other than the Special Edition. As another reference, in 1990, Variety listed the all-time top grossing films in Japan (using theatrical rentals). Star Wars was sixth on the list with a rental of $31.1 million (4.7 billion Yen). As a general rule of thumb, theatrical rentals returned to distributors are about half of the total gross receipts at the box office, so the $58 million gross seems consistent with a rental of $31 million. I meant to put it in my editing summary that the $15 million that you referred to per this reporting is the Special Edition gross in Japan. As many box office websites don't have much old data, some websites probably just have that 1997 reissue gross.

"The Phantom Menace" blasted into Japan, Argentina and Israel last week, while "The Mummy" socked South Korea and "The Matrix" blitzed Belgium, Norway and Finland.

But the B.O. in other parts of Europe subsided due to scorching weather in some territories and a shortage of hot new titles. "John Carpenter's Vampires" showed some bite as it flew into Spain and Germany, but "The Waterboy" took a bath in France, "Varsity Blues" was blah in Italy and Holland and "10 Things I Hate About You" was unloved in the U.K. A computer glitch at 20th Century Fox Intl. meant up-to-date figures weren't available late last week, but the studio estimated "Star Wars: Episode I—The PhantomMenace" rang up a socko $13.5 million in four days in 403 galaxies in Japan. The weekend take beat previous all-time champ "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" by 20% and tripled "Titanic's" bow. Including two sets of weekend previews, the tally in Japan was approximately $18 million.

That's consistent with tradition, as Japan was the most lucrative offshore territory for the original "Star Wars," ponying up $58.4 million in 1978 out of its $198.6 international haul. The "Star Wars" reissue made $15.2 million there, the second-best result from its $117.2 million gross, trailing the U.K.'s $26 million.

It's safe to estimate that the George Lucas epic coined at least $25.6 million from 2,343 screens in 22 countries as its cume zoomed north of $85 million nearing the end of its sixth week of international release. Pic pocketed $1.5 million on 115 in Argentina (the second-highest weekend preem in history behind Titanic") and $328,000 on 35 in Israel (a Fox record). Sudiani (talk) 17:33, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I just checked about the performance of the other films in the first trilogy. In a chart Variety published for the top-grossing foreign films in Japan to January 1984, Star Wars was third (behind E.T. and Jaws) with rentals of 4,455 million Yen. Return of the Jedi was fifth with 3,700m Yen and Empire Strikes Back was ninth with 3,149m Yen. At the time, the Dollar was worth 230 Yen so rentals of $19m, $16m and $14m. In 1978, the rate was 210, which gives a rental of $21m for Star Wars. This chart indicates that the original trilogy were very popular in Japan although also indicates that the $58 million figure may be inflated by possibly using a different exchange rate than from 1978, but that is a general issue with having grosses in multiple currencies.Sudiani (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, so do we think the Variety number may be including rentals? Something not normally included in box office totals. It's odd that sites like Box Office Mojo etc report much lower numbers. Anyway, that's what the source says so it's what we have. Thanks for taking the time. Canterbury Tail talk 18:07, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

No, the Variety $58 million doesn't include rentals. I was just showing the rental figures reported at an earlier date for comparison to show that the gross was similar to the rental they reported previously. The reason the websites report lower numbers is that they don't have much older data as they have only been around for the last 20 years or so and don't have the history or access to resources that someone like Variety had. As I say, I imagine the figure you quoted is just the 1997 reissue grossSudiani (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Charles Vanel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Claude Dauphin.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani. You mentioned that you had a link to the Variety article on the Robocop 3 page for the overseas box office gross. Would you be fine with adding the link for proof?

I posted the link on the article (url=https://varietyultimate.com/archive/issue/WV-01-3-1994-40). This is page 42 where the chart is, but the article (which is what is available on variety.com) starts on page 1 per my citation. It is a site with paid subscription so unless you subscribe, you won't see the number but at least it hopefully shows there is a chart there. Below is an extract from the chart of the data from the films listed 51 to 65 which you can compare to other websites (at least the domestic figures which sites like Box Office Mojo have). The columns are Domestic, Foreign, World. The grosses are for the calendar year 1993, which is why the RoboCop 3 first figure is lower than the $10.7 million per Box Office Mojo. The domestic figures may differ from Mojo as Mojo didn't exist in 1993 and doesn't track daily box office for those years. The asterisks denote that the grosses exclude the 1992 box office.

Incidentally, I stumbled upon a later chart that Variety published on October 17, 1994 with worldwide grosses from January 1 1993 to October 10 1994 where they have an updated figure for RoboCop 3 with a domestic total of $10.7m, foreign of $36.3m and a total of $47.0m. Again, here is the page where you can see the chart (https://varietyultimate.com/archive/issue/WV-10-17-1994-148) but without subscribing, you can't see the detail but RoboCop 3 is the first on the second column under Robin Williams!

51. A Perfect World (WB) 27,021,771 20,487,438 47,509,209 52. Hero (Col)* 20,172 47,182,000 47,202,172 53. Death Becomes Her (U)* — 47,173,000 47,173,000 54. Malice (Col/New Line) 45,002,295 2,018,267 47,020,562 55. The Three Musketeers (BV) 45,482,830 1,407,073 46,889,903 56. Age of Innocence (Col) 31,372,647 15,021,475 46,394,122 57. Hocus Pocus(BV) 39,348,105 5,154,006 44,502,111 58. The Good Son (Fox) 44,292,783 — 44,292,783 59. Fortress (Miramax/CTS) 6,739,141 36,625,339 43,364,480 60. Much Ado About Nothing (Goldwyn) 22,548,086 20,607,587 43,155,673 61. RoboCop 3 (Orion/CTS) 9,790,328 33,169,712 42,960,040 62. Robin Hood: Men in Tights (Fox/CTS) 35,306,853 7,220,631 42,527,484 63. Snow White & the Seven Dwarfs (BV) 41,634,471 — 41,634,471 64. The Beverly Hillbillies (Fox) 41,161,301 — 41,161,301 65. Sneakers (U)* 965,518 40,131,000 41,096,518 Sudiani (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I noticed that you have also used the same article for the worldwide grooses for Teenage Mutant Nijna Turtles 3 and The Super Mario Brothers Movie. Would you be able to provide a link to those as well? If you would like you can provide an extract as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobretti1 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

The link is the same as comes from the same chart. The data from those parts of the chart are:

41.Dragon(U) 35,109,129 21,488,000 56,597,129 42. Last of the Mohicans (Fox/Morgan Creek)* 1,832,525 54,736,189 56,568,714 43. What's Love Got to Do With It (BV) 39,100,956 17,367,296 56,468,252 44. Mutant Turtles 3 (New Line/Fox) 42,273,609 12,214,177 54,487,786 45. Rookie of the Year (Fox) 53,133,660 - 53,133,660 46. Loaded Weapon 1 (New Line) 27,979,399 23,200,000 51,179,399 47. Point of No Return (WB) 30,038,362 19,886,353 49,924,715 48. Distinguished Gentleman (BV)* 12,641,848 36,750,000 49,391,848 49. Beauty & the Beast (BV)* — 48,641,000 48,641,000 50. Nightmare Before Xmas(BV) 48,116,450 — 48,116,450

71. Super Mario Bros (BV/various) 20,915,465 17,997,000 38,912,465 72. Body of Evidence (MGM/DDL) 13,275,426 24,662,825 37,938,251 73. Honey, I Blew Up the Kid (BV)* 47,159 37,167,000 37,214,159 74. Man Without a Face (WB/Majestic) 24,760,338 11,880,134 36,640,472 75. The Pelican Brief (WB) 35,997,563 — 35,997,563

This isn't really how Wikipedia works! You can't go round asking people to provide proof for material that is not accessible for free online. There is lots of content sourced from books and other non-online material. There has to be an element of trust that people put reliable content. The point of the source is so that you can check to that source but the onus isn't on the editor to give you free access to it. Sudiani (talk) 22:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Suadiani but I just don't have the kind of money to be subscribing to Variety. Since I can't view the sources, I don't know how reliable they are. One last thing. I noticed that you added worldwide grosses for Scrooged, Naked Gun, and Groundhog day. But the worldwide grosses do not add up with the overseas gross. For example the Naked Gun made $78.8 million domestically and $61 million overseas according to the Variety article you found. That would equal $139.8 million, not the $140 million listed. Are these worldwide grosses supposed to be from the Variey articles or are they estimates that you came up with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobretti1 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I suggest you read up on Variety. It's one of the most well-known entertainment publications for 115 years! Thousands of articles on Wikipedia use Variety as a source, in particular for box office data. See MOS:FILM that says that Variety is a source for box office data. $139.8 million rounded up equals $140 million! See Template:Infobox film which says that you should "Use condensed, rounded values". If the overseas figure (which is the only number reported in the article rather than a worldwide figure) is not given a decimal place, it does not make sense to add one for the total. So you have $79m + $61m is $140m. The $61m could be $60.5m to $61.4m so to say $139.8m would be incorrect. It is possible that the total is only $139.3m but the difference between this and a rounded figure of $140m is negligible. Sudiani (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

What I mean is I don't have access to the Variety articles because they are far too expensive for me to subscribe to them. This is why I have to ask what the articles say. Also for Robocop 3, if an updated figure in a later Variet magazine is shaown as $47 million, shouldn't that be listed as the worldwide gross. Also for Groundhog Day, if the worldwide gross was $105 million according to the same used for Robocop 3's gross article, shouldn't the overseas gross be $34.1 million instead, as 70.9+34.2 = 105.1 million, not 105 million. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cobretti1 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Again, you have heard of rounding, haven't you? $105.1 milllion rounded is $105 million! Variety's tracked domestic gross for Groundhog Day in 1993 was $70,835,374 which, with $34,167,000 foreign, gave a total of $105,002,374. Mojo listed the total as $70,906,973. I don't know which of those domestic totals is correct. I have no reason to disbelieve the higher figure. If you used that figure, the worldwide figure is $73,973 over $105 million but regardless, as per my earlier comment and Wikipedia guidelines, you should "use condensed, rounded values" so $105 million is perfectly acceptable. I see that there has actually been a 2021 re-release with a gross of $166,447 (per Mojo) or $190,870 (per The Numbers) which, with the higher figure would bring the worldwide total to $105,264,843 but the rounded gross is still $105 million. Given the differing figures floating about it doesn't really make sense to pretend to be accurate, which is one of the reasons that Wikipedia policy is in place. With Robocop 3, yes, I will update the article when I am ready to look at that chart in more detail but given you kept deleting what I put, wanted that to stop before updating further. Sudiani (talk) 15:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hello there Sudiani. I saw you have updated Airplane!'s wolrdwide box office gross to $171 million. However according to an afi article a DV news item says it made $130 million worldwide,https://catalog.afi.com/Film/53895-AIRPLANE?sid=2eaefcd4-9aee-4446-a4f6-9296a2d2ab37&sr=17.567005&cp=1&pos=0 and a Daily Variety article says it made $158 million worldwide.^[1] Is the $171 figure supposed to be an updated version of the inital gross or from rereleases? Also from now on can you add a note or extract which says the gross for Variety articles as they are way to expensive for average people(or even me) to use.

The $130 million on the AFI website is from a April 10, 1981 Daily Variety article. I saw in 1991 that Variety had a worldwide total of $158 million in an article on Howard Koch but when they published a chart of Universal's top 50 worldwide grossers, they had a higher figure which is what I have now shown as the latest data available that I am aware of. It doesn't say much else other than being a top 50 chart with the worldwide grosses so not really sure what you expect me to post. People don't publish whole books up as part of their citations just because not everyone owns the book so not sure why I should post more data from Variety articles other than a citation for the figures quoted. Sudiani (talk) 21:54, 28 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I noted your edit on the LOTR data just now.

We really must be clear with data, and consistent with sources.

If we are to give 2002 (say) data in the text, cited to a 2002 source, and a 2021 data with a 2021 source in the infobox, then we absolutely must state explicitly that the first was "at that time" and the second "in 2021" or we will a) confuse readers b) give the impression (probably correctly) of unreliability c) start an endless confusion and resulting edit-war among editors, some of whom will expect the two figures to be the same, some not, some expecting the data to match the citations, others (apparently) not caring, and we'll have a fine mess. So, clarity is essential. I see that film types seem to believe that data must be continually updated - personally, I think that's not the function of an encyclopedia, and we'd do best to say "in its first year it grossed X amount" and leave it at that - that makes the main point, after all, but if you're determined to give the most recent figure as well, then it must be crystal clear what you are doing. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:16, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

It seems completely bizarre not to include the film's gross in the infobox and to choose the gross at a certain point in time. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Infobox_film. It says "Insert the worldwide gross revenue accrued by the film in its theatrical run". It doesn't say the initial theatrical run. Why would people include out of date information in an online encyclopedia? I agree that the initial gross is relevant and noted in the body of the article that the figure you used was its initital gross and similarly in the box office section to make this clear but the infobox should have its gross, not a gross at a random point in time. Sudiani (talk) 10:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I understand, but the initial gross is what makes the film hit the box office headlines, so it does make sense to quote that figure; the ever-slowing trickle of cash after that is, frankly of far less interest, so there is no reason to find it "completely bizarre": it is completely logical. However, editors have chosen to have both figures in the article, so we MUST distinguish them, and your edit-warring the disambiguating information out is frankly not acceptable, specially as there is a talk page discussion over there already. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Now you are edit-warring! That's totally unacceptable. I've replied on the talk page, but frankly I'm so disgusted at your behaviour that I've had enough of it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani, quick question, do you have a variety source for international figures for the original release of Raiders of the Lost Ark? I only have The Numbers to go off and I think it includes every single theatrical release, not just the initial one. Thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:50, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

I had a quick search but didn't see anything. The film didn't really go out of release in the US. It was still on their top 50 chart the week before its reissue so possibly was still on release in other overseas territories then too. Per IMDb, it was reissued in the UK in January 1982 so there is no clear defined cut off point as to when an "original" release would end. Sudiani (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thank you for taking a look Sudiani. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:56, 12 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Darkwarriorblake I see you reverted most of my edits to the page following the research I did for you. As per WP:FILMBOXOFFICE, you shouldn't use the term North America in box office pages as it is not specific enough. I think if a reissue does perform reasonably well at the box office, it is notable, so felt that recording it placed second on opening is notable. As was the fact that it gave Spielberg the top two for the weekend. Sudiani (talk) 08:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Don't take it personally Sudiani, I've taken like 4 film articles through FA in the last few months and every time they come down on me for length of the article (though how can you be comprehensive about an old, well performing film without being lengthy) and overdetailed. I might have been too overzealous, I will take another look at it. I will read the article you linked, it might be something worth discussing because saying US and Canada seems very unwieldy. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:55, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani, I've taken another look at it and replaced North American with US and Canada where applicable. I can see what you're going for with it placing behind E.T., but I think it comes across as trivia rather than an accomplishment of the film itself. I've readded the source in and kept it alongside the part mentioning theaters were playing it a year later, so I think the only part of your edit not kept is the placing behind E.T. I do appreciate your help Sudiani, so please don't take it personally. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani, can you give me an idea what "Groves, Don (October 8, 2001). "'Pie' flies as sequels score o'seas". Variety. p. 14." on American Pie (film) says or send me a screenshot? I'm trying to tidy it up but because your ref is mixed in with others I don't know what content is sourced by it and what isn't. Thanks Darkwarriorblake (talk) 18:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Darkwarriorblake I expect it included the information in this online version https://variety.com/2001/film/box-office/sequels-shine-o-seas-1117853797/ ("That more than doubled the numbers for the first “Pie,” which went on to rank as Germany’s top grosser last year, minting $33.5 million") Variety's online reporting differed from the printed weekly version. My source was the printed weekly version but might be better for you to use the online version (which might be the Daily Variety version). The Screen International source would cover the weeks at number one in Germany. Sudiani (talk) 19:31, 8 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your edit on American Pie, sorry I don't follow your talk page so I didn't realize you had replied.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

If a film is released as part of a double feature, does that mean both movies are joint hits if they come packaged together in cinemas? The box office chart books I purchased on Amazon don't typically list double bills. ChewNaChunkx (talk) 09:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Setting aside the definition of a hit, I think it depends on the format of the double feature. Often, the double feature contained a B movie, so unlikely that the success of the main film would be attributed to the B movie too or that the B movie would be listed in charts as most people are going to watch the main feature, not the B movie. Where a double feature involved two main features, then it is likely that both would be treated equally. Often these successful double features of two main features are likely to have been successful already on their own. I don't know what books you are referring to but websites such as Box Office Mojo don't seem to be able to handle double features well. For example, the Wikipedia article for double features refers to the double feature of Toy Story and Toy Story 2 in October 2009. Looking at Box Office Mojo they attribute the gross incorrectly to Toy Story only as I imagine their database cannot easily handle double features. I don't know specifically why you are asking me the question but if we look at Variety's charts for 1971, Patton and MASH were reissued as a double bill. Both had been separate number ones the earlier year and wouldn't seem appropriate to exclude one of the main features. Presumably when Variety listed them as double bills, it was because the films were marketed equally together. Hope that helps. Sudiani (talk) 21:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking at this further, it seems that Box Office Mojo do show the double bill for Spider-Man/Men In Black II https://www.boxofficemojo.com/release/rl695436801/?ref_=bo_we_table_9 and split the gross between the two films, so do recognise the release of two main features together and treat them together. Sudiani (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Hungerford Town F.C., you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Southern League.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 30 August 2021 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of 1995 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page While You Were Sleeping.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani, can I ask do you have any Variety references about the international performance of Terminator 2? I'm particularly interested in it's ranking against other films that year. Box Office Mojo doesn't include the foreign figures for some reason so Beaty and the Beast looks like it outperformed it and The Numbers includes post-release releases, so I need more contemporary figures. I can find things that include the total box office for the film but not necessarily that it was THE biggest film of the year or how it compared to its next nearest rival. Thanks Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:26, 22 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi. This page shows the highest grossing films for the year. There is a link there to an archived Box Office Mojo page for T2 from 2017 prior to a global reissue. That shows T2 as the number one film worldwide for the year and also brings up their 1991 worldwide chart which is not dissimilar from the Wikipedia list (https://web.archive.org/web/20170701134138/http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=1991&p=.htm). The Box Office Mojo list is not complete as only has 30 films with an international gross. The only one I added to the top 10 was Naked Gun 2 1/2. There might be others missing. However, looking at the Top 20 grossing domestic films that are missing and their worldwide gross per Wikipedia, it is probably relatively complete. The missing top 20 films from the archived Mojo page (with their worldwide gross per Wikipedia) are Father of the Bride ($129m ww), TMNT2 (about $100m w/w), Prince of Tides ($135m ww), What About Bob (?) and 101 Dalmatians (not sure if re-released internationally 1991). I haven't seen a worldwide annual chart from 1991. Daily Variety reported on June 26, 1992 about Columbia TriStar Film Distributors International reporting their international grosses for the fiscal year ended Feburary 28, 1992. It says their top grossing film during that period was T2 with a gross of $141.5 million to that date. Second was Look Who's Talking Too with a gross of $73.1m (will need to update Wikipedia for this). Variety published an all-time top 20 worldwide list on October 18, 1993 where they listed T2 with a gross of $490m. They were still listing this gross in a similar chart in 1998. The only other film they listed from 1991 was Robin Hood with a gross of $390.5m. Hope that helps Sudiani (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

It's very in-depth, thank you Sudiani. The sources I can find suggest it made over $300 million abroad so I wonder if that $141.5 million is returns to the studio or just Tristar's cut. However that tops up to the currently reported 520 mill worldwide, no re-release seems to justify a 30 million increase. It's incredibly frustrating because so many contemporary sources talk about how well it's doing abroad, and I have broken down figures like it having earned 50 mill in Japan in two months and 31 in the UK, but I can't find something that states the 300 mill so I just went with Box Office Mojo. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

I had initially wondered whether the figure reported for T2 in that article was the rentals but the article is clear that it is the gross. The figure was at end of Feb 92, so possibly still had grosses to come during 1992, however, I think the main reason is that Columbia TriStar did not have all foreign distribution rights. I have found another article from Variety dated Jan 27, 1992 which states that T2 was the highest-grossing film internationally with a gross of $263m but that independent companies owned a major slice as well as showing it as Columbia TriStar's highest grosser with $142m. Looking at IMDb, it was distributed by Guild in the UK and Toho-Towa in Japan so with the CTSFDI gross of $142m at that date plus the figures you mention for Japan and UK comes to $223m alone. The article gives an international gross of $260m for Dances With Wolves in second place and Robin Hood $201m in third. Sudiani (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Yes that'd make sense, there's like 5 different studios involved in the film as well so it's probably a complex financial setup. Thanks Sudiani Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:29, 1 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of 1994 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Buena Vista.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi Sudiani! Is the box office number you added to the Super Mario Bros. (film) article accurate? The $38 million one. It's not mentioned here[2] Timur9008 (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! Way late reply but I've added the url(that you provided) for the Mario film box office. For future I think it would be best if you add the urls yourself first and also note the information is behind a subscription. Timur9008 (talk) 18:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Hi! The url for the 1993 box office no logner exists. Does another url exists? Timur9008 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

? Timur9008 (talk) 09:35, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

I do not know. Probably. Looks like Variety updated their archives (and urls). I don't currently subscribe so cannot check. That's why the archive url is helpful as that points to the archived page. Given that most people don't have a Variety archive subscription, it's not that useful to have an up to date url. Not every source on Wikipedia needs to be online. Not being online doesn't change the validity of the source or data. Sudiani (talk) 19:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! Timur9008 (talk) 06:14, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply

  Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edits to Scream (1996 film), please use the preview button before you save your edit; this helps you find any errors you have made and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history, as well as helping prevent edit conflicts. Below the edit box is a Show preview button. Pressing this will show you what the article will look like without actually saving it.

 

It is strongly recommended that you use this before saving. If you have any questions, contact the help desk for assistance. Scream (1996 film) uses list-defined references. When you remove content and references from the body of the article, then you must go to the references section and comment out the unused reference or delete it. Don't expect other editors to clean up after you. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Kirch Group, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Franco Rossi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 8 October 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you add ShutterSTOCK Liner Entertainment to the film distributors in the United States, they are fairly small and new but are still there. Also Vertical Entertainment is a medium sized company. 2600:1700:1D21:7D00:8811:57F6:A709:4308 (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Added Vertical. The page requires the distributor to have a Wikipedia page to be added to the list and currently there is no article for Shutterstock so cannot add them. Sudiani (talk) 23:18, 26 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! 2600:1700:1D21:7D00:647F:937C:DB68:4955 (talk) 02:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Sudiani, the recent discussion about Talk:Mission: Impossible – Fallout#Production company/Distributor. Would you take a look? 113.210.105.113 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page The Servant (1963 film), may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of plays adapted into feature films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gordon Parry.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks Sudiani for the why-i-don't-had-thought-it ^^; addition of the flag in the "List of highest-grossing films in Italy" page :)
JiunoLujo :: Talk

09:12, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of plays adapted into feature films, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Reigen and Henry King.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of plays adapted into feature films, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rio Rita.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)Reply