Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 180 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Hi, about your Guinness sandbox, I just want to let you know that not only Jaws had a re-release, but also The Sound of Music, with $1,601,237 earned so far, and on October 3 Avatar 2 will have a re-release. And also I would like to know your opinion about this, when you have time, thanks--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at the other discussion. It will update the Guinness chart, although my focus has been on Jaws given that it has almost certainly broken back into the top 10. Betty Logan (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yes I saw that, so when we will update the table next year Star Wars 7 won't be in the top 10 anymore--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think it makes sense to include Web 1.0 in the lead since it would clarify the difference between what Millennials had (dial-up Internet, static webpages) vs the more robust Internet Gen Z kids had in 2008 (YouTube videos, broadband).--Jw00231 (talk) 18:19, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's WP:JARGON and irrelevant. Betty Logan (talk) 19:37, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Who Framed Roger Rabbit? § Organizing the cast section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 08:26, 1 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty Logan, I'm reaching out to you as a participant of the Film/finance task force in the hope that you'll review my request for Ryan Kavanaugh, a film financier, here: Talk:Ryan Kavanaugh#Trimming details for NPOV. The page is a contentious topic, and I'd appreciate a neutral editor looking over the request. I am happy to discuss further on the article Talk page. Thank you Francine72790 (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --~2025-32417-38 (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2025 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 1 December 2025. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2025 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Betty Logan. Your wiki edit anniversary was 2 days ago, marking 17 years of dedicated contributions to English Wikipedia. Your passion for sharing knowledge and your remarkable contributions have not only enriched the project, but also inspired countless others to contribute. Thank you for your amazing contributions. Wishing you many more wonderful years ahead in the Wiki journey. :) -❙❚❚❙❙ GnOeee ❚❙❚❙❙ ✉ 13:57, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really that long?? Wow. Can no longer get away with being 29 on here! Betty Logan (talk) 17:12, 18 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Michelle Trachtenberg § Personal life and death section. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 05:54, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Since Abigail is not truly a Dracula movie nothing relating to the title or even mentioning the name Dracula can you remove it from the modern list on the Universal Monsters article it's just a Universal vampire film like An American Werewolf in London is a universal Werewolf film. ~2025-39634-51 (talk) 23:12, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You need to initiate a conversation on the article talk page. The regular article editors are best placed to do deal with this request. Betty Logan (talk) 12:08, 10 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would the Wolfman from 2010 still be considered one of the biggest box office bombs it made $142.6 million in its box office. ~2025-39863-84 (talk) 01:11, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to discuss article content I suggest initiating a discussion at the article talk page. Please remember, you cannot remove a sourced factual claims simply because you disagree with it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sinners (2025 film) § Synopsis. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:15, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	Have a great Christmas, and I hope 2026 brings you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! Cheers SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 21 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A green Father Christmas—I approve! Hope you have a great Christmas too, and hopefully it won't be blighted by too many infoboxes... Betty Logan (talk) 21:47, 22 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

Hello Betty Logan, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2026. Happy editing, — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 02:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

— Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 02:56, 26 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I hope you had a merry Christmas too :) Betty Logan (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you, sjones23. Hope you had a nice Christmas. Betty Logan (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Hello Betty Logan, I removed the Australian range since McCrindle is also from Australia (their main source), and seeing that the Millennial date section is already cluttered with multiple ranges. It’s most likely that the Australian census is going to change their range this upcoming August for their 2026 census update, similar to how Statistics Canada changed theirs from 1977–1993 to 1981–1996. Australian news outlets don’t use the 1981–1995 range, and instead go with McCrindles’ or Pew’s range, including an Ipsos report that worked with Australia on a recent Gen Z research work this past September (which is seen on the Gen Z article). I would have assumed that the edit was fine. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 20:47, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Bureau of Statistics report in 2022 that contradicts and uses Pew’s 1981–1996 range: https://www.abs.gov.au/articles/back-my-day-comparing-millennials-earlier-generations#:~:text=Sources-,Overview,back%2520in%2520my%2520day%E2%80%A6'. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted on the talk page and made the edit. The newer October report contradicts with the earlier July report that came out in the same year. The newer version made by the Australian Bureau of Statistics uses 1982–1996 based on the “age 25 to 39 in 2021” description. Do you want to include that in the date range section? Personally I don’t think we should since it’s showing how unreliable Australia’s Bureau is, and should wait for the 2026 update. If you don’t agree, then the newer report with the 1982-1996 range should be the one added to the date range section, not the older 1981–1995 one. ChicagoGirlD (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to thank you for all the effort and time you put into Wikipedia. Have a great day. ☺️ OrdinaryOtter (talk) 10:25, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I'm wondering if you have a moment to take a quick glance at the Queerbaiting article. My impression is that much of the page is not written from a neutral POV, but I'm not completely sure. I'm asking because you're a very experienced editor who may have some insight. If you don't have time or don't feel qualified to assess, that's okay! Have a great day. OrdinaryOtter (talk) 23:33, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a particularly good article. It's hard for me to tell whether it violates NPOV because I am not familiar with the subject; ultimately, though, "neutrality" in a Wikipedia context only means we have to give proportionate coverage to views and opinions expressed in reliable sources, rather than creating a completely neutral article. For me, the bigger problem is the WP:COATRACK approach that has been adopted. Betty Logan (talk) 20:10, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hope the year is off to a good start. I will not be on Wikipedia for a week, so I'm wondering if you could keep an eye on MrJr1999. You've already seen their edits with Watership Down (film), and they seem to make a lot of minor and not-helpful edits along with some plain low-level bad ones, which I've warned them about (with no apparent response; mobile user, maybe). Their M.O. isn't clear to me, and it may be a case of WP:NOTHERE. Any checking would be greatly appreciated. Erik (talk | contrib) 12:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Even I though I seemingly encountered him at Watership Down he had not come up on my radar. It looks more like a competency issue than a behavioral one, but I'll keep an eye out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:05, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he's back in action. He's just hit a couple of articles on my watchlist. Betty Logan (talk) 12:31, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Most of their edits are so minor, and none seem to rise to explicit vandalism. For example, I can't tell if they're not understanding the use of DEFAULTSORT or purposely using it badly. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) 13:23, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's disruptive. If aren't prepared to engage with concerns then that amounts to WP:NOTHERE. I suggest we escalate him through the warnings and let nature take its course. Betty Logan (talk) 14:29, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Super Mario Bros. Movie § Removal of Japan as production country. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 14:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Iron Giant § Edit War. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:47, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, can we put a note somewhere that says to only use Box Office Mojo in the top 50? Because every movie only has BOM as source, but an editor keeps putting TN in the table, I reverted him once but he did it again, I don't want to do an edit war, thanks--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a question. Currently, the Video game content rating system article says "cannot play unless accompanied by an adult" for 12 and 15 ratings in Korea and "cannot buy without parental consent" for CERO D rating, but the Game Rating and Administration Committee article says just "suitable for ages 12/15 and older" and the Computer Entertainment Rating Organization article does not say "parental consent" at all for D rating. I don't know which one is correct, and I'm trying to unify it into the correct one. Thanks! Upset New Bird (talk) 03:05, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It's best to look at hard sources:

• GRAC 12,15, 19 appear to be prohibitive ratings because the guidance is saying they cannot be used by people under those ages: [1]
• CERO B,C,D all look strong advisory. CERO Z is the only one that is prohibitive: [2]

Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but I found that there's age-restricted for rating GRAC 12 and 15, but unpunished. [3] Upset New Bird (talk) 10:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:56, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, the English version exists: [4]. Article 46 (1) 3 says, "A person who provides game products in violation of the rating classification under Article 21 (2) 4 pursuant to Article 32 (1) 3 shall be punished." Upset New Bird (talk) 10:59, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I am happy for you to apply the correction, but also add this source here: Video_game_content_rating_system#South_Korea Betty Logan (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Also, from 1 April 2009, the movie ratings in Japan were revised: children below the age of 12 are unrestricted from viewing PG12 films, but parental guidance is strongly recommended for them. See the article Eirin. Upset New Bird (talk) 20:13, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, the summaries must also be updated along with the correct sources. Everything on Wikipedia has to be WP:Verifiable. Betty Logan (talk) 20:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I found that the source [5] says that those under the age of 12 must be accompanied by a parent or guardian for PG12 rating. Upset New Bird (talk) 20:25, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's great, but sources must be added to the article when you change information, otherwise the new information will not be sourced. Betty Logan (talk) 20:37, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

However, it seems that there is clear age restriction for only R15+ and R18+, but not for PG12, per source. Upset New Bird (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing the article Australian Commercial Television Code of Practice, it says: on ABC, the voiced-over board specifies the age by saying "parental guidance is recommended for persons under 15 years" for PG rating. Upset New Bird (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But as the note points out, that is just one broadcaster. Broadcasters don't set the rules: the Code of Practice is the final authority on what the ratings mean; whilst the PG includes age guidance for public exhibition and home video, the television equivalent does not. Wikipedia has to reflect the sources. Betty Logan (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is there the reason why "PEGI !" rating is removed from comparison table (Although the rating is clearly explained in the article PEGI)? Upset New Bird (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I am getting tired of explaining this. The table has to reflect the summaries. The summaries have to be sourced. The correct process is this: 1) Update the summary; 2) Add a source (a proper source, not a link to another Wikipedia article; 3) Then update the table. I don't mind you updating the articles but please follow Wikipedia's rules. Betty Logan (talk) 01:17, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

See [6].

The explanation of "PEGI !": In addition to the numerical PEGI ratings, you will also see the "Parental Guidance Recommended" rating for some non-game apps, introduced by PEGI for storefronts that use IARC. This serves as a warning that these apps can offer a broad variety of user generated or curated content. Typically, this applies to products such as Facebook, Twitter or YouTube. Upset New Bird (talk) 01:19, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is irrelevant. The point isn't whether the rating exists or not, the point is that you could have just added the source to the article. See WP:BURDEN. Betty Logan (talk) 01:21, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I thought Canada's R and A ratings were on par with the USA's NC-17 rating. Sorry. Upset New Bird (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]