Talk:List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedily deleted because... it is an annual tradition to start a new list of the #1 films in America.

Deadpool highest grossing R-rated information dispute

Back on March 8, 2016 [1], I reverted your edit because the information you were adding to the article was incorrect. Deadpool actually became the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016 on its 2nd "day" of release and not its 3rd weekend. I tried to explain this to you on your talk page with no resolution, just a "Regardless of what point" statement from you, meaning to me, that you, or User:Fruitloop11 (who started disputing on your behave), didn't care that where your information was entered into this chart made your statement untrue, instead of just moving your statement into the chart where it would be a true statement. User:PabloBeal rephrased your edit [2], stating that during the 9th weekend of the year, Deadpool became the third highest R-rated film of all-time, which was a true statement. On March 29th, during the 14th week of 2016, Deadpool became 2nd highest grossing R-rated film of all time. I have entered this information and edited previous statements within the chart. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 10:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

User:PabloBeal rephrased your edit [2], stating that during the 9th weekend of the year, Deadpool became the third highest R-rated film of all-time, which was a true statement. So then there was no point in removing that statement, which you did so anyways.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 10:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The edit was removed when it became redundant after the film became second on the list, not third. As editors remove when it states a film has the highest grossing weekend of the year. When another film opening weekend is higher, the previous statement is removed, like it was here. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 10:39, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Well that wasn't what I originally added. I added my edit to show that Deadpool had became The highest grossing R-rated film of 2016also what is your take on adding a list at the bottom of the chart saying which film was the highest grossing R, PG, PG-13, and G film of this year, as part of our dispute resolution?

You should give you opinion on my proposal, because we started this over where Deadpool being the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016 should go.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 10:50, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, Deadpool became highest grossing R-rated film of 2016 during its first weekend of release, 9th weekend of the year. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 11:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

^ See this is what I'm talking about. I offer a compromise and you completely ignore it stating your same no nonsense again.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:09, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Hendawg, please explain what problem exists with Fruitloop's proposed alternative. And both of you - comment on content, not each other. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I was asked where in the chart should the information be entered. I repeated, like I have since March 8th, where the statement needs to be entered into the chart to be a true statement. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 12:44, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Your edit is not acceptable to other editors, and adding it again to the article - once it's un protected - will result in an indefinite block for edit warring. So I ask again, what problems are there with the proposed alternative from Fruitloop, other than the fact that it's not yours? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Explain it to me. I give zero fucks about which movie made how much money, or when it made that money, or how many bad words were in it or what have you. So tell me what is inaccurate about the specific edit Fruitloops proposed, or about the Pablobeals alternative, or whatever. Give me details. This is a discussion. So discuss. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't state no nonsense, I state facts. And my edits are only unacceptable to one editor I believe using two pages. I have given all the facts about this situation in my first statement in this "discussion". If the editor is so determined to place the statement "Deadpool became the highest grossing R-rated film of 2016", it should be place into the chart where it is a true statement, during Deadpool's first weekend of release. I don't know how more simplier I can say that. Maybe you can bring another administrator into the conversation that might give two fucks about making sure WP articles are factual and true because ALL OF THIS could have been avoided March 8th if Fruitloop or his IP address just move his statement into the chart where it is a true statement. Maybe you can tell me 'specifically' what you all are trying to discuss? Because there is no compromise for this statement... it's either placed in the article where it is a false statement or placed into the article where it is a true statement. I choose the latter. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 14:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

You're wrong. Either it's placed into the article in a form and location for which there is a consensus, or it's not placed into the article at all. You don't get to say that there will be no compromise. See also WP:CONSENSUS. Now, you can either participate in forming that consensus, or you can continue to refuse all compromise. I can guarantee one option is better. Now, since I missed it, want to give me a link to the investigation that showed the IP and Fruitloop11 were socks? Because that's quite the accusation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:38, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Last thing you wrote is just not going to happen with you, so a consensus with you is near impossible. Yet it seems you are the one not wanting to come to a consensus.Why is it so hard for you to answer my question HENDAWG229? It's like you get a thrill out of edit warring. If you enjoy fighting with people online do it somewhere else not here. Just tell us if you agree with my proposal instead of changing the subject, which you continue to do. It's not that hard, maybe you are refusing to answer because you know that will end the problem and you enjoy fighting with admins and other users too much to let that happen.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

OK. Just looked through all this you and Mr or Ms administrator has added & I didn't see your "proposal" for an extra chart on the page for highest grossing R-rated, G-rated, X-rated, whatever. My honest opinion is the information is redundant since there is already a highest grossing films of 2016 chart at the bottom of this page. But if your going to do it on this page, then you would have to go edit the other 40 or so highest grossing films of whatever year page with the same chart you would put on this years page. Also, try tagging User:PabloBeal (this page's creator), User:A&ofan75, and User:And1987 and ask them how they feel about your edits and proposals since they seem to be the main editors keeping up this page (& doing a great job, if I may say). Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yep, exactly what I thought you refuse to compromise. You need to be blocked permanently for refusing to come to a resolution and basically saying you will continue edit warring once the page protection expires. All that matters to you is that I don't make any edits to this article. "then you would have to go edit the other 40 or so highest grossing films of whatever year page with the same chart you would put on this years page." Is that a demand??? There are charts from the 1990s that don't have "the First film to go three weekends at number 1 in X year" Why don't you go back and add them? or better yet why don't you remove it from the chart like I keep suggesting since it isn't an actual milestone. Also just because User:PabloBeal created the page doesn't make him the supreme ruler of it.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Really? Do you want me "blocked permanately" because I gave my honest opinion on a "talk page" or do you want me blocked because I don't agree with you. For some reason you think we should go back and forth until I somehow agree with what you are proposing, but I don't and I won't. That's why I suggested you asked others their opinion on the matter. I'm sorry that might hurt your feelings but you should not take this personal, as it seems you are doing. It's just WP. Now I have given my opinion and weighed in on the "discussion" as much as I could. Why don't I let others weigh in with their opinions since we have a whole week to discuss things. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 17:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Fruitloop, no one will be blocked for any length of time because they disagree with you. Asking for other editors to weigh in is precisely correct in this case - so let's see what other editors say. As long as we're not edit warring, discussion can continue. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

No, but I think it doesn't make sense how you accuse me of not wanting to compromise, then when I do you refuse to listen and dismiss what I say. But whatever. We can wait until other users weigh in on this silliness that's been going on for about a month now. Maybe once enough users have came we can vote on where Deadpool milestones should go, and other milestones as well or which should be removed.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 02:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Full Protection

Guys, the Full Protection on the article is scheduled to last for 1 week - but it can last as long as it needs to. More likely, we'll just start with topic bans until enough people have been barred from editing this article to allow it to settle down. Just FYI. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 5 April 2016

I would respectfully like to see an edit for the Note "During the week, Deadpool becomes second highest grossing R-rated film of all-time ($355.1 million) behind The Passion of the Christ ($370.7 million)" as it should be "became the second highest grossing" and has no final period. PabloBeal (talk) 00:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Done seems uncontroversial — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Reliable source

This dispute about Deadpool is both trivial and absurd and those who have butted heads here should rethink their entire approach to Wikipedia editing. Simply put, Wikipedia summarizes what reliable sources say about the topic. So, which reliable source says that this film became the highest R-rated film of 2016 on its 2nd day of release? Conversely, where is the reliable source that says it reached that milestone on its 3rd weekend? Bring forth the reliable sources, summarize them accurately, add them to the article, and the dispute disappears. If reliable sources do not discuss this point, then the trivial factoid does not belong in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I think adding the highest grossing rated films at the bottom of the page is a better idea. That way not only is the highest grossing R-rated movie included, but also the highest grossing G, PG, and PG-13 films are included, and it's completely moved out of the note section of the article. I have a reliable source from Box Office Mojo, so I see no reason not to include it.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 09:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 April 2016

A&ofan75 (talk) 02:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

 Not done Deactivating empty request. — xaosflux ^Talk 19:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

"No consensus" reached on new chart proposal

WP states here that "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." A proposal was made by User talk:Fruitloop for a chart at the bottom of this article that states highest grossing films by rating. I disagreed with the proposal, my opinion being it's redundant as there is already a highest films of the year chart on this page, that lists the films that will appear in this newly proposed chart. No other WP users weighed in on the proposal, so a consensus was never reached. Therefore, per WP:Consensus policy, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." That means, to me, no new chart. Maybe the administrator can clarify this issue for me. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Like User:Cullen328 said if it has a reliable source there is not reason not to add it. Why does there need to be a consensus when you seem to be the only one against it? So what if you Disagreed with my proposal like your disagree with everything I have said. It should stay until others give their opinion on it. There is no reason why it should be removed just because you don't like it. It's insightful.

I think this is just another attempt from you to stop me from making contributes to this article. It's a shame I have to put up with this Harrassment over my edits. I left your edits alone why can't you leave mine alone? Also when the administrator watching over this said So I ask again, what problems are there with the proposed alternative from Fruitloop, other than the fact that it's not yours? He was right you are willing to go through anything to stop me from editing I'm willing to bet you would continue to do this for months If you have the chance. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 16:42, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I was asking for a reliable source about the disputed Deadpool information. I did not say that every single thing that a reliable source says should be added to this or any other article. Look at the article title. It says nothing about ratings. Unless reliable sources on a routine basis actually discuss the box office figures for PG13 rated films separate from other films, or R rated films separate from other films, then we do not need this information, in my opinion. It's trivia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

My bad I thought you were referring to reliable sources in general You're right the article says nothing about ratings, but it also says nothing about highest grossing films for that year either. And prior to the 1989 charts doesn't even appear. Isn't that trivial as well? Did the person who first started posting highest grossing films by year get consensus before posting it?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 15:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Fruitloop11, editors do not need consensus to begin new, well-referenced articles about notable topics. They just do it. If anyone disagrees, they can pursue deletion. Once an article exists, however, then consensus is needed for contentious changes. Yes, things that are not discussed in reliable sources are trivial and unworthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. That's a basic principle of editing Wikipedia as I see it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I have filed a report at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard please no one mess with any users edits, until a resolution has been reached.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 16:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

That discussion was closed with the issues referred back to this talk page. Anyone editing in good faith and in compliance with policies and guidelines is welcome to work on this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:06, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you not see where I said it also says nothing about highest grossing films for that year either.? Why didn't you remove that as well?--Fruitloop11 (talk) 06:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, it seems pretty obvious to me that the concept of "box office number one" is directly connected with "highest grossing" whereas breaking the data down by "film rating" adds an unrelated factor. Also, similar articles from 2015 and 2014 and other years are structured the same way. So, my edit was based on logic, consistency and consensus. Why did you revert, Fruitloop11? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:59, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

"Also, similar articles from 2015 and 2014 and other years are structured the same way." Well look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1988_box_office_number-one_films_in_the_United_States or https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_1987_box_office_number-one_films_in_the_United_States. They don't have a top 10 highest grossing films of a year at the bottom of their page. Where is the consensus on that? Did any users vote on adding that to the year charts? Also I have a feeling you and HENDAWG229 might be connected in some way. --Fruitloop11 (talk) 07:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Go right ahead to add that information to the 1987 and 1988 articles, with my blessings, Fruitloop11. Check their history and talk pages if you want to know if there has been discussion. I do not know. As for your bizarre theory that HENDAWG229 is my sock or vice-versa, that is an absurdity. Look at my user page for a few minutes. I have been editing here in good standing for nearly 7 years and have made major contributions to hundreds of articles on a wide range of topics. Do not write any more silly things, please. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:32, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

on the contrary, I was asking for your blessings to start removing the top 10/20 highest grossing charts by year starting from 1989 onward. About the You and HENDAWG229 being the same person. Maybe it was silly, but it seems to me like you joined in and added to the already big edit dispute and made it even bigger. I thought you wanted a dispute resolution between us two. I know you think listing ratings is pointless but I don't see it, I don't think I'll ever see it that way. It's like thinking listing world champion fighters by weight class is pointless. If you have an alternative to the rating thing I would like to hear it. Also off topic do you live in Israel? I've always wanted to visit there.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 18:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No, Fruitloop11, I do not live in Israel although I have visited there twice. As my user page says, I live in American Canyon, California. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Rearranging of charts

User talk:Tahc, I have reverted your BOLD edit to the article List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States in order to start a discussion of why you may think these charts should be rearranged and to have other editors (User talk:PabloBeal, User talk:And1987, User talk:A&ofan75, etc) to give their opinion on your edit per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I would first like to express that, besides the highest grossing ratings chart at the bottom of the page, I think there wasn't anything wrong with the way this article was formatted as it is formatted like the other Box Office Number 1 films articles here on WP. I also notice that this looks like your first time editing this page or one like it. I would ask why did you choose this year's article and not any of the other 40 or so year's article to rearrange? You and other editors are welcome to discuss your edits here and see if we can come to a consensus Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 21:25, 13 April 2016 (UTC).

I think an Admin needs to go ahead and block you. You are disrupting the article and reverting every user who is new or you disagree with. User talk:PabloBeal, User talk:And1987, and User talk:A&ofan75 are the only users you'll let make any contribute to the charts. That's why you keep listing their names I agree with what User talk:Tahc has done, and he has a right to make edit to improve the article You are not the owner of the article

Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone

--Fruitloop11 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@HENDAWG229:

1. I have to agree with Fruitloop11 on not owning articles.

2. I am glad you did try to start a discussion on this-- but I did not notice it at first because (a) you did not link to this discussion in your edit summary (when it was an obvious chance to do so) and because (b) you did not ping me here at this discussion.

3. To repeat from my edit summary, "you cannot just revert changes you do not like and cite WP:BRD. You have to give some reason(s)."

4. You reverted all edits -- of which I consider labling the tables with section names to be the most needed -- but in your discussion above only mentioned the order that the tables appear in. You should not revert all/other improvements to a page even if think one particular changes does make the page worse in your view. As I also said "If you think it is bad to clearly label the tables, you have to say why that is a bad idea."

5. In my view (and in the view of Fruitloop11, it would seem) it is better to have Highest-grossing films by rank at the top of the List of 2016 box office number-one films in the United States page, because readers who come to this page are more likely to want that information than information on which was the top film in any particular week, etc. The fact that other pages like this may do it one way is not a good reason to follow the page pattern in this case. Once consensus is reached on the best way to arrange the tables on any one page (e.g. this page), we can format them all the same with little trouble. It would only matter what (if any) the rationale used in discussions on those other similar pages was. If those pages do not have any better rationale than my rationale here, then those pages would not have any valid precedential value here.

6. In saying "... besides the highest grossing ratings chart at the bottom of the page..." you also seem to have accidentally indicated an agreement with that change... but you otherwise indicated your disagreement with that change. So if I am reading that wrong, you may want to restate what you meant to say. tahc ^chat 04:05, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Tahc: 1) Never stated I "owned" any article on WP... that was the other editor's opinion. I can also edit the article and revert edits I think we're unnecessary. 2) In my edit summary when I reverted what I thought was your unnecessary edits, I added a link to WP:BRD as well as a link directly to this talk page discussion. You were first notified when I reverted your edits and when I mentioned you at the beginning of this discussion. I know I get a notification when I am reverted and mentioned in a conversation. 3) I stated in that before mention discussion you were mentioned in, that I saw nothing wrong with the way the charts "were" formatted before you changed them (i.e. discussion heading says "Rearranging the charts"). 4) The title of this article is "List of 2016 box office number one films in the United States." The first chart did not have to be labeled because it is the chart that lists the "2016 box office number one films in the United States." 5) This chart, in my opinion, should remain first on the article since users coming to a page named "List of 2016 box office number one films in the United States" might first want to see the chart that lists the 2016 box office number one films in the United States. The second chart on the page was "Highest grossing films of 2016", which was already labeled as such.

6) And if you read the other discussions on this talk page, I am attempting to remove the chart at the bottom of this article's page because I feel it's redundant to list highest grossing films by rating when there is already a highest grossing film chart on the page. Therefore, I was stating I agreed with how the page was formatted before the chart at the bottom of the page was added and you made your edits. Now, per WP:BRD, "If your bold edit was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If your reversion was reverted, then do not re-revert to your version. If you re-revert, then you are no longer following BRD." I am returning the article to the way it was formatted before your first BOLD edit until after this discussion is concluded and a consensus is met. Thank you. HENDAWG229 (talk) 05:27, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

No that's wrong. You do think you own the page. Just look through your edit history to the article you have reverted everyone except the three users you have mentioned User talk:PabloBeal, User talk:And1987, and User talk:A&ofan75. Let tahc keep his edit without you modifying it --Fruitloop11 (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

$300 million alert

During this week, or the next week, I think it'll be good information to say that Zootopia will become the tenth animated film to gross over $300 million in the domestic box office. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.174.134.180 (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Should we put that in on when The Boss won the weekend, or the place when The Jungle Book will win? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.58.55 (talk) 16:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)