User talk:Betty Logan

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

This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

I'd appreciate if you reverted your edit because I checked my new colors with colorblind filters and it improved support for blue-yellow and total colorblindness. VitAlv13 (talk) 12:26, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it on the talk page. Unilateral changes that affect thousands of articles are not appropriate. Betty Logan (talk) 17:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty. If you have time, would you have a chance to look at the deletion nomination I've made for Category:Crime action films? I think these hybrid genre categories are long overdue at looking at. Thank you. Andrzejbanas (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused about what is lacking about my sources, or what exactly a source should contain/mention for it to be sufficient. The sources I mention are similar to extant sources on the page, so I thought that would be enough. Many of the extant sources don't explicitly label their movies as "natural horror" either (particularly many of the AllMovie sources). TheZoodles (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Films need a source explicitly referring to the film as a "natural horror", or an "animal horror" etc. Just being labelled a "horror" is not enough. Until Allmovie changed its genre structure last week every film was sourced in this way. Here is the original Allmovie source for Arachnophobia. The Allmovie links will need to be fixed, but that's a separate matter. Betty Logan (talk) 10:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

aha, I did not know about the AllMovie change. that explains a lot. thank you. TheZoodles (talk) 13:34, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, I didn't know the List of natural horror films had become 90% unsourced as a result of Allmovie's revamp. You did us a favor. I think the film you attempted to add fits the bill for the list, we just need to find a source that explicitly labels it in that way. Betty Logan (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see you have found an alternative source. All's well that ends well! Betty Logan (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty! Do we have the data to update the table with the 2023 inflation?--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 11:36, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 2023 index should be available now so I will update the table this weekend. Do you know if there are there any 2023 reissues we need to take account of, besides Titanic? Betty Logan (talk) 13:32, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In 2023 only Titanic had a re-release (in the top 10 adjusted), with $70,2 million, thanks :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edit, but remember that the re-releases of Star Wars: The Force Awakens are not correct, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Film/Film finance task force#Box Office Mojo, so I think we should not include them in the total--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 20:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are fake news on the movies budget. 95.248.186.16 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Pinocchio (1940 film) § Plot. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:11, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Betty. Theknine2 suggest that not to use "Label" and "Region" columns via updated table. Your comments would be appreciated. However there's two other users opposed over updated table, so I suggested that change "Label" to "Distributor" column via original table. Regards. 2001:D08:2901:3A65:17DE:BAF3:6F67:5D7F (talk) 14:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Technical Barnstar
	For your assistance with the {{inflation}} template. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Spider-Man (2002 film) § Plot section. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 21:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to source. Atleast half of them can be found at List of highest grossing films page. And the history of this page itself can be used as a source Marshmallow2211 (talk) 08:35, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't discuss article content on my talk page. I recommend starting a discussion on the article page if you wish to discuss an edit or propose a change to the article. Betty Logan (talk) 08:41, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, why did you remove my edit on the BBFC page? 2A02:C7C:F05E:6F00:E14E:F0FD:E8F4:FC43 (talk) 17:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be specific about the edit please, because according to your edit history you have not edited the article Betty Logan (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, do you think that this page needs to have the EC protection back? I asked here to the same admin that reduced it in September 2023--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am asking you to intervene against this user because you have already sent him a warning about his edit wars apparently he has not drawn consequences for this and continues to do so as here [1][2] and I can label it as such. In addition, he uses personal attacks of the broken record type

Tag: @Dark4tune AleszJaTuTylkoSprzątam (talk) 09:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Betty. There's recent discussion about production company/distributor. The talk page also mentioned that the Presented by credit can be "given to a distributor, exhibitor and/or financier that provides a majority of the budget." I appreciate your time and review. Thank you in advance 183.171.120.75 (talk) 03:24, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Betty how are you doing ?. Betty an editor erroneously removed a final from Higgins' non-ranking final section from last season. It was listed on Wikipedia with a source from Snooker.org our number one website used for getting references. Can you re add this final please, as the page is auto-protected page. Many Thanks 178.167.169.188 (talk) 22:28, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You recently reverted my edit with a summary of "No reason to artificially restrict the size of the tables within the article. On large displays it just creates excessive scrolling. If the sticky headers are causing issues then it would be simpler to just remove them outright, rather than replacing them with a fix that is inferior for the vast majority of readers." Just so you are aware, the majority uses mobile per User Agent Breakdowns, which is where the sticky headers are mostly needed for very tall/wide tables. I'm glad you are fixing it. Please also fix the screen reader accessibility issues per MOS:COLHEAD. Also, if you want sticky headers without the scroll, you can use Template:Sticky header. Jroberson108 (talk) 04:39, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The scroll table is restrictive on both large and small displays. Without the scroll table I can see five full rows on my phone, but with it I can only see three rows and have to scroll to see the final two columns, and it is also fiddly to scroll through. I am not particularly bothered about the sticky headers—they were only added a few months ago, and the article survived for years without them. They are mostly a gimmick where the data in the table is intuitive and take up valuable screen space on small devices. Betty Logan (talk) 05:19, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate you pinging me in your reply as I am not subscribed to your talk page. Don't forget that there is also landscape orientation. I mentioned an alternative to the scroll, so use either one if you want sticky headers. Sticky headers with or without the scroll have their uses on small screens, especially for very tall tables. When scrolling down to read data, instead of having to continuously scroll up and down to read forgettable headers to associate with the data, the headers stay in view. You are welcome to your opinion, so use it or don't. If you feel the table has memorable headers and isn't "very" tall, then remove the sticky headers once you test it on mobile in both orientations. It's not about survival, but improving accessibility for others. Please also fix what sounds like a long standing MOS:COLHEAD accessibility issue. Jroberson108 (talk) 05:59, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What's your problem? You haven't even seen the movie to be sabotaging what I do. And I'm not going to insist on breaking the rules. I only ask one thing of you: leave me alone. JeanMercier90 (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am required to leave a warning on your talk page as a precursor to reporting you for edit-warring. Betty Logan (talk) 03:25, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]