This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Not very good with Wikipedia, but shouldn't we set up the 'Bad Boys 3' / 'Bad Boys III' searches to redirect here? Currently Bad Boys 3 re-directs to Bad Boys 2's sequel section and Bad Boys III redirects to the franchise page. -- 82.43.114.79 ( talk) 23:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
What happened to the Bad Boys for Life? Why did it got deleted. Please bring it back?
Don’t want to start an edit war with DiscoSlasher666, so bringing the discussion here. Bad Boys for Life was shot in-part in Mexico City, however just as Deadpool shot in Canada and Star Wars shot in the UK, this does not instantly earn a “co-production” credit. Two of the sources provided by Disco are suspect as to their dependability (bordering on gossip/celeb tracking) and two of them actually indicate the US as the sole-production company, so not sure why he even listed them.
To support my stance as the US being the sole country of production (aside from there only being American producers and production companies), I linked the British Film Institute and The Numbers.com, two sites commonly used on this site as reputable sources.
If anyone has any thoughts on the matter please chime in, and if things continue to get reverted back and forth I’ll just bring it to a third-party admin. Cheers. TropicAces ( talk) 18:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)tropicAces
Interesting reference discussing how it has succeeded at the Box Office for any interested editor here Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
TropicAces, the recent revert you made has several issues. First and foremost, it was a wholesale revert that undid changes you are NOT contesting. For example, "currently" was removed in the third paragraph, which I think you would agree is language we should not be using in an encyclopedia. Second, you already tried this change back on July 12th. When a bold edit doesn't work out, it's best to discuss as opposed to simply reverting. I've restored the status quo for now, but I'm open to suggestions and an in-depth explanation as to why you feel these changes are needed. Grammar-wise, I think the status quo version is superior. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Smith also produced the film with Jerry Bruckheimer and Doug Belgrad". Something like this would work better: "
It was also produced by Smith, Jerry Bruckheimer and Doug Belgrad".Then there's the issue of "mostly positive" vs "well-received". In past discussions, the rough consensus is that when RT and MC don't fully agree with one another, the summary statement should probably be avoided. Betty and others on at least one occasion have suggested the use of "well-received" as a good compromise when both aggregators disagree, because "well-received" is simple language that embodies the range between mixed and mostly positive. It stands for anything positive basically. We need to keep in mind that MC's point scale rating here is 59, which is two points away from being called "generally positive". It's clearly at the high end of the mixed/average range. If we leave "mostly positive" in place, then it is ignoring MC's assessment and should be moved to the body instead with proper in-text attribution. If it's going to remain in the lead, we need a better solution. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 16:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Nyxaros, I see you're back to your old habit of
re-reverting until someone takes you to the talk page. Is it not clear to you that
this source doesn't support the claim, "Critical reception was mostly positive
"? The exact quote from the source is "generally positive", meaning that reviews trend positive. Injecting "mostly" into that interpretation is not something we should be doing. You are also messing with something that's been in place for 4 years now. At the very least when reverted, you should be leaving the status quo in place while seeking consensus for your proposal on the talk page. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
personal interpretation, just being reasonable. ภץאคгöร 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
buying it. ภץאคгöร 20:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
the so-called "community" is ... (an imaginary consensus)"
I never said "consensus" (those are your words), but I did say "discussed", of which there were no objections among 3 editors and 2 that supported back in 2020. There have also been many dozens, if not hundreds of edits to that section since without any changes to these two lines, indicating some level of silent acceptance. The community in this case is the activity level in the article. As with most films, it dies down several months after the film's release. 4 years later, the community has certainly moved on for the most part, which is why I said "essentially". I also linked to NOCON above, which is the policy on how to treat discussions that end in "no consensus". The only "imaginary" things happening here are the tricks your eyes are playing on you and what you think is being said.
The sources definitely didn't support it."
This is another confusing statement from you. The current version of the Critical response section quotes the two sources directly. How can a quote not be supported by the source? It appears you are arguing for the sake of winning and not really paying attention to what you are saying. You have yet to produce a convincing argument. How about you stop wasting time here? -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened: |
Not very good with Wikipedia, but shouldn't we set up the 'Bad Boys 3' / 'Bad Boys III' searches to redirect here? Currently Bad Boys 3 re-directs to Bad Boys 2's sequel section and Bad Boys III redirects to the franchise page. -- 82.43.114.79 ( talk) 23:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
What happened to the Bad Boys for Life? Why did it got deleted. Please bring it back?
Don’t want to start an edit war with DiscoSlasher666, so bringing the discussion here. Bad Boys for Life was shot in-part in Mexico City, however just as Deadpool shot in Canada and Star Wars shot in the UK, this does not instantly earn a “co-production” credit. Two of the sources provided by Disco are suspect as to their dependability (bordering on gossip/celeb tracking) and two of them actually indicate the US as the sole-production company, so not sure why he even listed them.
To support my stance as the US being the sole country of production (aside from there only being American producers and production companies), I linked the British Film Institute and The Numbers.com, two sites commonly used on this site as reputable sources.
If anyone has any thoughts on the matter please chime in, and if things continue to get reverted back and forth I’ll just bring it to a third-party admin. Cheers. TropicAces ( talk) 18:20, 18 January 2020 (UTC)tropicAces
Interesting reference discussing how it has succeeded at the Box Office for any interested editor here Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:18, 26 January 2020 (UTC)
TropicAces, the recent revert you made has several issues. First and foremost, it was a wholesale revert that undid changes you are NOT contesting. For example, "currently" was removed in the third paragraph, which I think you would agree is language we should not be using in an encyclopedia. Second, you already tried this change back on July 12th. When a bold edit doesn't work out, it's best to discuss as opposed to simply reverting. I've restored the status quo for now, but I'm open to suggestions and an in-depth explanation as to why you feel these changes are needed. Grammar-wise, I think the status quo version is superior. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 05:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Smith also produced the film with Jerry Bruckheimer and Doug Belgrad". Something like this would work better: "
It was also produced by Smith, Jerry Bruckheimer and Doug Belgrad".Then there's the issue of "mostly positive" vs "well-received". In past discussions, the rough consensus is that when RT and MC don't fully agree with one another, the summary statement should probably be avoided. Betty and others on at least one occasion have suggested the use of "well-received" as a good compromise when both aggregators disagree, because "well-received" is simple language that embodies the range between mixed and mostly positive. It stands for anything positive basically. We need to keep in mind that MC's point scale rating here is 59, which is two points away from being called "generally positive". It's clearly at the high end of the mixed/average range. If we leave "mostly positive" in place, then it is ignoring MC's assessment and should be moved to the body instead with proper in-text attribution. If it's going to remain in the lead, we need a better solution. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 16:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Nyxaros, I see you're back to your old habit of
re-reverting until someone takes you to the talk page. Is it not clear to you that
this source doesn't support the claim, "Critical reception was mostly positive
"? The exact quote from the source is "generally positive", meaning that reviews trend positive. Injecting "mostly" into that interpretation is not something we should be doing. You are also messing with something that's been in place for 4 years now. At the very least when reverted, you should be leaving the status quo in place while seeking consensus for your proposal on the talk page. --
GoneIn60 (
talk)
18:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
personal interpretation, just being reasonable. ภץאคгöร 19:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
buying it. ภץאคгöร 20:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
the so-called "community" is ... (an imaginary consensus)"
I never said "consensus" (those are your words), but I did say "discussed", of which there were no objections among 3 editors and 2 that supported back in 2020. There have also been many dozens, if not hundreds of edits to that section since without any changes to these two lines, indicating some level of silent acceptance. The community in this case is the activity level in the article. As with most films, it dies down several months after the film's release. 4 years later, the community has certainly moved on for the most part, which is why I said "essentially". I also linked to NOCON above, which is the policy on how to treat discussions that end in "no consensus". The only "imaginary" things happening here are the tricks your eyes are playing on you and what you think is being said.
The sources definitely didn't support it."
This is another confusing statement from you. The current version of the Critical response section quotes the two sources directly. How can a quote not be supported by the source? It appears you are arguing for the sake of winning and not really paying attention to what you are saying. You have yet to produce a convincing argument. How about you stop wasting time here? -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 15:35, 5 June 2024 (UTC)