This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black Adam (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The budget for this film is not reliably sourced. Box office mojo does not list a budget figure. [1] The numbers does not list a budget figure. [2]
Budget figures need to be properly referenced. The reference can sometimes be omitted from the Infobox if it is clearly verified in the article body, but it is far clearer to include the references in the Infobox too.
Digging into the article history, the budget range was added but attributed to Filmik.com [3] which is not a reliable source. The same editor that added it in the first place removed the reference soon after. [4] $185-200 million is a good educated guess, but it is not a reliably sourced in accordance with the standards of an encyclopedia.
This is why I have removed the budget figures from the Infobox for now. Please do not add them without a credible and reliable source (Variety, LA Times, NY Times). -- 109.76.194.74 ( talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It baffles me why so many people continue to vandalize the budget range. [6] (Just one of many examples on this article alone.) and yet another example [7] -- 109.76.193.172 ( talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Presumably, this movie did in fact cost money to make? Or was this a charity project with everyone participating for free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.192.191 ( talk) 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Extended two-editor dispute
| ||
---|---|---|
Editors are using no or only a single source to say this film is a disappointment. Please use more than that. One source isn't enough. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, well see below;
![]()
@ Roman Reigns Fanboy: This doesn't belong on my talk page, it belongs here. You wrote;
- You haven't stated just how is the Direct source not reliable, but if you wish to challenge it, the place to do that is right → here. You also keep failing to mention the third source I added, and the fourth source that was already on the page, and that I used again for my edit. So again, you reverted becuase of an issue with a single source, while neglecting the other three. Also, you've just started discussing here, after two reverts and a post to my tp. Meanwhile, I came here and posted right after the first revert.
- Erm, no. 3RR is just the bright line. You can be blocked for edit warring before, if you're being intentionally disruptive, and comments like this won't help.
- a) You need to provide a diff to support that bit about "other editors". b) You instantly reverting my edit, (twice now!) is you "imposing your own edits". c) well, if some other editor added it, then why do you care if I correct/improve upon it?
- Ok, well, that's not how we edit articles. Just because you don't like the fact the film is currently a box office disappointment, that some sources are even calling a bomb, doesn't mean that you can put hidden notes dictating to every other editor what they can and cannot add to the article. That kind of gatekeeping isn't allowed. (And I take it this means you did not get a consensus to support such a note on the first place, which means if you have re-added it again, it needs to go.)
- Ah, so now you're accusing me of ownership as well? While you were reverting a second time, (and threatening to revert a third time), and trying to fork the discission onto my talk page, I made one edit followed by a single revert, after which I initiated the talk page discussion... and you call that "ownership"...? That doesn't even take into account your hidden note trying to control content via the edit window, the sheer number of edits you've made to the article, or the argumentative approach you seem to take here on the talk page. And now, looking at your big compromise, you've removed everything from my edit, so how's that a compromise? I already said I didn't care about the WB 'break even' bit becuase it was crystal-ballish and likely to be removed anyway. You removed your hidden note because you had to and that leaves the box office bomb bit. That is supported by sourcing and it's on the list of box office bombs, so how can you possibly justify removing it? If at some point sources state the film made a financial turn-around, then maybe it can be removed then, but not now. Like I said, it's sourced and you have no justification for this. - wolf 13:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@
Roman Reigns Fanboy: I guess we're not done.
This is followed by a staff listing of more than two dozen people, including the CEO, CTO, Managing Editor, writers, podcast producers, etc., all with individual bio's. There is a "Press kit" page, that includes "key stats", such as; 8 million unique monthly users, 13 million monthly page views, 1 million Twitter followers and 10 million monthly Facebook reach. They have links for "Policy", "Terms & Conditions", "Corrections Policy", "Ethics Policy" and "Cookie Policy". They also have a "Contact us" page with email addresses, a physical address (that isn't a p.o. box) and a contact for advertisers. As I've said, if you still wish to contest this source, RSN is the place. (Actually, nevermind, I'll request they vet them myself.) But while we're on the subject of sources, do you wish to challenge the reliability of the other three sources I used? Or the additonal three sources I've noted since? (I keep asking and you keep refusing to answer... what's up with that?)
Your comment and my response are in this this thread, where they arguably belong, instead of the thread below. There is already a lengthy back-and-forth between us, no need for it to spill into another thread. I started the next thread for that very reason, so that it could be focused more on the article's content regarding box office performance, instead if a single content dispute. I'm sure other editors will appreciate not having to wade through our posts there as well. - wolf 04:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
After seeing THR's report that a sequel is unlikely and even sources who say it'll make a profit that it'll make profit due to ancillary home media (PVOD/streaming/discs etc), I've decided to self-revert [23]. It does seem every source agrees it won't break even at the box office at all. And WB doesn't consider anymore potential money enough for a sequel. So I don't see a point in disputing any longer. If someone thinks otherwise and wants to revert me or make any other changes to what I added, please feel free. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Considering what the "future" section currently states about a sequel, what, if anything, should be stated in the lead? - wolf 09:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It needs to be upgraded because Black Adam is nominated and the people deserve to know that this movie was great as well, despite the box office bomb 2A02:214A:8114:A400:5507:AB0C:9F5D:FC7A ( talk) 10:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Nyxaros, I see in your recent edit, you combined some elements and removed opposing claims, choosing "negative" as the consensus in sources. However, we know that MetaCritic has classified the overall reception as "average or mixed". There are also quite a few sources out there that counter the ones listed in the article:
All of these list the overall reception as mixed, and one of those is a more recent publication from Variety, which interestingly is also used to also support "negative" in an earlier publication. I don't think we should be labeling the overall critical consensus on Wikipedia when it has not been clearly labeled in sources. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
"According to Rebecca Rubin at Variety, overall reception was mixed, but her colleague J. Kim Murphy described the film as drawing negative reviews."
This violates WP:NOR and is evidence of a hostile bias towards the film and possibly also Dwayne Johnson and/or film makers of color in mainstream Hollywood productions, depending on how the context is interpreted. It should be corrected or removed and that rest of the article should be policed for more evidence of original research and/or further negativity bias. 74.104.130.145 ( talk) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Be wary of source headlines, which are not a reliable source, that use these terms or superlatives, and are then not backed up by the body of the source." This article lacks such multiple high-quality sources calling it a bomb but highlights the break even point and other financial data, so those should be what is used. This has been an issue across these superhero articles lately, and I and others have started to deal with them at the likes of The Flash (film) and The Marvels. I'm planning on rummaging through this article when I have time to to clean it up and review the sourcing. Remember, all statements need to be sourced, especially labels we use on films. We can't interpret a label or phrasing like this that actually mitigates what is actually going on with a film's performance. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 04:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Should the references to Sabbac later in the article be changed to Ishmael? I mean they're technically one and the same (i.e. Sabbac is Ishmael's villain name). Visokor ( talk) 07:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Black Adam (film) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 180 days
![]() |
![]() | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) 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 article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The budget for this film is not reliably sourced. Box office mojo does not list a budget figure. [1] The numbers does not list a budget figure. [2]
Budget figures need to be properly referenced. The reference can sometimes be omitted from the Infobox if it is clearly verified in the article body, but it is far clearer to include the references in the Infobox too.
Digging into the article history, the budget range was added but attributed to Filmik.com [3] which is not a reliable source. The same editor that added it in the first place removed the reference soon after. [4] $185-200 million is a good educated guess, but it is not a reliably sourced in accordance with the standards of an encyclopedia.
This is why I have removed the budget figures from the Infobox for now. Please do not add them without a credible and reliable source (Variety, LA Times, NY Times). -- 109.76.194.74 ( talk) 13:32, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
It baffles me why so many people continue to vandalize the budget range. [6] (Just one of many examples on this article alone.) and yet another example [7] -- 109.76.193.172 ( talk) 22:15, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Presumably, this movie did in fact cost money to make? Or was this a charity project with everyone participating for free? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.192.191 ( talk) 16:49, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
Extended two-editor dispute
| ||
---|---|---|
Editors are using no or only a single source to say this film is a disappointment. Please use more than that. One source isn't enough. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 03:13, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, well see below;
![]()
@ Roman Reigns Fanboy: This doesn't belong on my talk page, it belongs here. You wrote;
- You haven't stated just how is the Direct source not reliable, but if you wish to challenge it, the place to do that is right → here. You also keep failing to mention the third source I added, and the fourth source that was already on the page, and that I used again for my edit. So again, you reverted becuase of an issue with a single source, while neglecting the other three. Also, you've just started discussing here, after two reverts and a post to my tp. Meanwhile, I came here and posted right after the first revert.
- Erm, no. 3RR is just the bright line. You can be blocked for edit warring before, if you're being intentionally disruptive, and comments like this won't help.
- a) You need to provide a diff to support that bit about "other editors". b) You instantly reverting my edit, (twice now!) is you "imposing your own edits". c) well, if some other editor added it, then why do you care if I correct/improve upon it?
- Ok, well, that's not how we edit articles. Just because you don't like the fact the film is currently a box office disappointment, that some sources are even calling a bomb, doesn't mean that you can put hidden notes dictating to every other editor what they can and cannot add to the article. That kind of gatekeeping isn't allowed. (And I take it this means you did not get a consensus to support such a note on the first place, which means if you have re-added it again, it needs to go.)
- Ah, so now you're accusing me of ownership as well? While you were reverting a second time, (and threatening to revert a third time), and trying to fork the discission onto my talk page, I made one edit followed by a single revert, after which I initiated the talk page discussion... and you call that "ownership"...? That doesn't even take into account your hidden note trying to control content via the edit window, the sheer number of edits you've made to the article, or the argumentative approach you seem to take here on the talk page. And now, looking at your big compromise, you've removed everything from my edit, so how's that a compromise? I already said I didn't care about the WB 'break even' bit becuase it was crystal-ballish and likely to be removed anyway. You removed your hidden note because you had to and that leaves the box office bomb bit. That is supported by sourcing and it's on the list of box office bombs, so how can you possibly justify removing it? If at some point sources state the film made a financial turn-around, then maybe it can be removed then, but not now. Like I said, it's sourced and you have no justification for this. - wolf 13:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
@
Roman Reigns Fanboy: I guess we're not done.
This is followed by a staff listing of more than two dozen people, including the CEO, CTO, Managing Editor, writers, podcast producers, etc., all with individual bio's. There is a "Press kit" page, that includes "key stats", such as; 8 million unique monthly users, 13 million monthly page views, 1 million Twitter followers and 10 million monthly Facebook reach. They have links for "Policy", "Terms & Conditions", "Corrections Policy", "Ethics Policy" and "Cookie Policy". They also have a "Contact us" page with email addresses, a physical address (that isn't a p.o. box) and a contact for advertisers. As I've said, if you still wish to contest this source, RSN is the place. (Actually, nevermind, I'll request they vet them myself.) But while we're on the subject of sources, do you wish to challenge the reliability of the other three sources I used? Or the additonal three sources I've noted since? (I keep asking and you keep refusing to answer... what's up with that?)
Your comment and my response are in this this thread, where they arguably belong, instead of the thread below. There is already a lengthy back-and-forth between us, no need for it to spill into another thread. I started the next thread for that very reason, so that it could be focused more on the article's content regarding box office performance, instead if a single content dispute. I'm sure other editors will appreciate not having to wade through our posts there as well. - wolf 04:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
After seeing THR's report that a sequel is unlikely and even sources who say it'll make a profit that it'll make profit due to ancillary home media (PVOD/streaming/discs etc), I've decided to self-revert [23]. It does seem every source agrees it won't break even at the box office at all. And WB doesn't consider anymore potential money enough for a sequel. So I don't see a point in disputing any longer. If someone thinks otherwise and wants to revert me or make any other changes to what I added, please feel free. Roman Reigns Fanboy ( talk) 06:17, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
|
Considering what the "future" section currently states about a sequel, what, if anything, should be stated in the lead? - wolf 09:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It needs to be upgraded because Black Adam is nominated and the people deserve to know that this movie was great as well, despite the box office bomb 2A02:214A:8114:A400:5507:AB0C:9F5D:FC7A ( talk) 10:56, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
Nyxaros, I see in your recent edit, you combined some elements and removed opposing claims, choosing "negative" as the consensus in sources. However, we know that MetaCritic has classified the overall reception as "average or mixed". There are also quite a few sources out there that counter the ones listed in the article:
All of these list the overall reception as mixed, and one of those is a more recent publication from Variety, which interestingly is also used to also support "negative" in an earlier publication. I don't think we should be labeling the overall critical consensus on Wikipedia when it has not been clearly labeled in sources. -- GoneIn60 ( talk) 21:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
"According to Rebecca Rubin at Variety, overall reception was mixed, but her colleague J. Kim Murphy described the film as drawing negative reviews."
This violates WP:NOR and is evidence of a hostile bias towards the film and possibly also Dwayne Johnson and/or film makers of color in mainstream Hollywood productions, depending on how the context is interpreted. It should be corrected or removed and that rest of the article should be policed for more evidence of original research and/or further negativity bias. 74.104.130.145 ( talk) 02:15, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Avoid weasel words. If any form of paraphrasing is disputed, quote the source directly. Describing a film with superlatives such as "critically acclaimed" or "box-office bomb" is loaded language and an exceptional claim that must be attributed to multiple high-quality sources. Be wary of source headlines, which are not a reliable source, that use these terms or superlatives, and are then not backed up by the body of the source." This article lacks such multiple high-quality sources calling it a bomb but highlights the break even point and other financial data, so those should be what is used. This has been an issue across these superhero articles lately, and I and others have started to deal with them at the likes of The Flash (film) and The Marvels. I'm planning on rummaging through this article when I have time to to clean it up and review the sourcing. Remember, all statements need to be sourced, especially labels we use on films. We can't interpret a label or phrasing like this that actually mitigates what is actually going on with a film's performance. Trailblazer101 ( talk) 04:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Should the references to Sabbac later in the article be changed to Ishmael? I mean they're technically one and the same (i.e. Sabbac is Ishmael's villain name). Visokor ( talk) 07:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)