The result was keep. — Kurykh 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The page is currently completely, minus two films, unverified by reliable sources. It will probably always be unverified by reliable sources, given the secretive nature of the topic: production budgets. Currently, the list cites Box Office Mojo, but BOM doesn't list sources for where they get their information, and some of the budgets do not match what other sources say for some of their films. At one point, they had Spider-Man 3 at 250 million, and 300 million before Variety reported the "official" budget as 258 million. Pirates 3 is another one where BOM reported the budget as $225 million. They did this before the movie was film, and then changed it to 300 million. They provide no source that said the film went over budget by 50 million, they just changed their number (thus that isn't very reliable). Budgets should usually always be taken with a grain of salt, as studios are more reluctant to report spending 3-400 million on a film, as it doesn't tend to look well for the company. Another problem is the "adjusted for inflation" list is based on information Forbes. This would generally be reliable, if it wasn't for the fact that Forbes is using Box Office Mojo's information. For one, they adjusted the Superman Returns budget, which Box Office Mojo still lists as $270 million dollars, but if you check the citation in this article, as it's one of only two films that have direct sources, Bryan Singer officiates the budget at 204 million. That makes Forbes' information unverifiable because they are using BOM's unverified information. Something similar occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books, where the concern is was also about verifiability. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
"The page is currently completely, minus two films, unverified by reliable sources. It will probably always be unverified by reliable sources, given the secretive nature of the topic: production budgets. Currently, the list cites Box Office Mojo, but BOM doesn't list sources for where they get their information, and some of the budgets do not match what other sources say for some of their films." I don't see Box Office Mojo cited in the article. I do see that BOM was cited by Forbes.com, and if it's reliable enough for Forbes, it's reliable enough for me. Ditto for imdb.com which is considered reliable as well, more so than even wikepedia.org Mandsford 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The result was keep. — Kurykh 18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC) reply
The page is currently completely, minus two films, unverified by reliable sources. It will probably always be unverified by reliable sources, given the secretive nature of the topic: production budgets. Currently, the list cites Box Office Mojo, but BOM doesn't list sources for where they get their information, and some of the budgets do not match what other sources say for some of their films. At one point, they had Spider-Man 3 at 250 million, and 300 million before Variety reported the "official" budget as 258 million. Pirates 3 is another one where BOM reported the budget as $225 million. They did this before the movie was film, and then changed it to 300 million. They provide no source that said the film went over budget by 50 million, they just changed their number (thus that isn't very reliable). Budgets should usually always be taken with a grain of salt, as studios are more reluctant to report spending 3-400 million on a film, as it doesn't tend to look well for the company. Another problem is the "adjusted for inflation" list is based on information Forbes. This would generally be reliable, if it wasn't for the fact that Forbes is using Box Office Mojo's information. For one, they adjusted the Superman Returns budget, which Box Office Mojo still lists as $270 million dollars, but if you check the citation in this article, as it's one of only two films that have direct sources, Bryan Singer officiates the budget at 204 million. That makes Forbes' information unverifiable because they are using BOM's unverified information. Something similar occurred at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books, where the concern is was also about verifiability. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply
"The page is currently completely, minus two films, unverified by reliable sources. It will probably always be unverified by reliable sources, given the secretive nature of the topic: production budgets. Currently, the list cites Box Office Mojo, but BOM doesn't list sources for where they get their information, and some of the budgets do not match what other sources say for some of their films." I don't see Box Office Mojo cited in the article. I do see that BOM was cited by Forbes.com, and if it's reliable enough for Forbes, it's reliable enough for me. Ditto for imdb.com which is considered reliable as well, more so than even wikepedia.org Mandsford 19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC) reply