122:
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
281:
it comes to production budgets. If you cannot verify where Box Office Mojo gets their information then it doesn't meet the policy. You are taking things at face value, and that isn't how you should use sources. The "population of earth" is based on a census that taken. That isn't even the same thing, why, because a studio knows how much they spent on a film. You don't have to "guess", because you had to cut the check. Whether they want to tell the truth is up to them, but a website the posts a rumored budget and passes it off as "true" doesn't make that budget information any more reliable. Box Office Mojo isn't providing any time of information that states where they are getting these numbers, which is the point of verifiability. If you cannot verify where someone gets their informatin then you cannot use it. BTW, your argument that this is based on an edit war is completely misleading. Since for one thing, I'm the one that initiated the discussion on the talk page about the unverifiability of the page months ago. No one has since provided sources for each of the movies, hence the AfD.
381:
reliability policy, which states that the source have "established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." As far as the information on BOM and IMDb is concerned, it's self-published information, as they don't say how they attain the information. IMDb even states on their site, " the bulk of our information is submitted by people in the industry and visitors like you." If they claim someone from the "industry" gives them information, it would be good to know what information they are giving, and what information is being given by the general public. They claim to have a "large number of consistency checks to ensure it's as accurate and reliable as possible", yet miss so much. So, they don't provide a source for where they get their information, and they have a large amount of fact checkers who miss obvious things like the proper composer to a film, the fact that one fictional character cannot portray another fictional character, but yet that's a reliable source.
456:"the industry" as they refer to it. I never claimed that anyone can edit every portion of that site, because they cannot. There are sections that one must actually request a change, and wait until they "review" your information. I've done this, and nothing changed. I didn't even get so much as an email explaining why the change wasn't made, especially since I provided plenty of sources and reasoning that contradicts their information. I've requested information from them. I've requested sources from BOM and IMDb, and never received a reply, and I've done this more than once. If you cannot provide verification of where you get your information, then you are not reliable. The information could be simple self publication. BOM is most likely using some sort of "estimation" technique, because they have several movies that incorrect budgets. Just recently checking again,
232:. We might as well cite a Knowledge (XXG) pages as a source. As far as "fix and improve", burden of verifiability and reliability is with those that add it, and is subject to instant removal if not met. You can't say "how we'll use Box Office Mojo for all the budgets, and when it's wrong we'll just use another source". You've just created a problem, because if it's wrong, or we won't say wrong, but just contradictory to what a studio officially releases, then the question becomes "what else are they saying that is contradicted by the production studio?" This is the idea of verifiability. We can verify that BOM has a number, but we cannot verify where the got that number, hence they are not a reliable source in this instance. We can verify where Forbes' got their number, it was from BOM, which means the information they supplied isn't reliable.
515:
budget for both before the films were ever shot. It was based on an early interview where someone stated that the budget for both would be around 450 million, so BOM just divided that in two, before the film was ever shot. That isn't very good editorial oversight, that's just making an assumption. The big problem in that is who is to say that while filming the second movie they just stopped when they reached 225 million? Then, after the third film came out, they had 300 million up there. No explaination for the change, no source to show where they got their information. That isn't a reliable source, when they don't publish who is feeding them information.
773:"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
646:(where information comes from readers like us) and the mere estimates of Box Office Mojo, which does not seem to take into account Singer's official budget confirmation. The topic of high-budgeted films is notable, yes, but it doesn't warrant an indiscriminate list. I also agree with Totnesmartin about his criticism for what it means for a film to be the "most expensive"? The topic seems to have been Americanized. —
237:
information. If someone can provide a reliable source for each of those films, then there isn't a problem. But right now, only two have independent-third party sources, which means that the rest can be removed and we'd be left with a rather short list. The is the reason the "List of most valuable comic books" was deleted.
739:
Hardly point making, since the "point" was made quite awhile ago, with nothing done to the article. Let's say, hypothetically, that it's agreed that BOM and IMDb and any placed that doesn't explain where they get their information is considered unreliable. That leaves 2 films that have sources which
642:
media's reports about the 21st century's blockbusters, but it needs to be written in a way to avoid recentism -- more and more money will be spent on films as time goes by. This list, however, is not warranted beyond the handful of top entries, especially considering the user-submitted setup of the
641:
prose article. There's no use for the rest of the entries, as nothing indicates that their production budgets are important to note. There's a whole bunch of them in the $ 100 million group -- what's the notability of these films so far down the ladder rungs? There should be prose coverage of the
624:
define "expensive" - where's the borderline? Small film studios could call their biggest film expensive, yet the same money would be run-of the-mill to a big studio. Also, countries like India make lots of films which are expensive to them, yet which western countries could afford easily. So there's
236:
can be considered a "reliable source", but if they say something to the effect of "an insider said.." you couldn't use that as reliable information. The same principle applies here, as Forbes is saying "according to Box Office Mojo", and Box Office Mojo isn't saying diddly about where they got their
455:
That isn't contradicting myself, you are simply trying to twist my words. You told me to do something, I told you I've done it before. The site is user submitted, their own description tells you that, but what they do not tell you is what information comes from users and what information comes from
280:
Show me where IMDb is a trusted source. I take part in quite a few FACs for films, and IMDb is the first thing to go if it's cited in an article. It's a user submitted site. Sorry that isn't reliable. Box Office Mojo doesn't provide a source for their information, so that makes them unreliable when
121:
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
704:
The concern with WP:V and WP:RS would delete the majority of the page, if not all but two of the films. That was leave a pretty bare article. I believe that that you proved the point that people were trying to make, that "what is expensive" is subjective, and I believe Erik made a suggestion about
694:
I'm a pretty g'damned staunch deletionist and generally dislike lists of all kinds, but this is clearly a list that's worth keeping which concerns a highly relevant and interesting topic. All the hair-splitting about what "expensive" really means is overly pedantic, subjective and not particularly
574:
I never doubted the subject was notable, it is. But the subject is highly unverifiable. Budget information is not a very public topic, but yet, using BOM or IMDb means we have to trust they are getting information from an "insider"? We cannot verify they aren't just making up the numbers based on
406:
Your arguing that IMDB has no editorial control, so it cant be trusted. At the same time your arguing that the editorial control exerted by IMDB makes it unreliable. You cant have it both ways. If you can send them an error you see in the database and they correct it, thats editorial control. All
380:
What you are not grasping is the fact that an organization can be reliable, but not all of its information is equally reliable. It's called editorial oversight, and IMDb and Box Office Mojo have yet to show they do that. The fact that IMDb tends to have quite a few mistakes, means they don't meet
262:
IMDB is a trusted source. Box Office Mojo is a trusted source, trusted enough to be used by Forbes. You seem to be using some sort of philosophical argument about truth. Knowledge (XXG) isn't about truth, its about verifiability. If you have another source, use both. Think more about my argument
514:
Because verifiability and reliabiliy are the burden of the adding editor, and budgets are topics that are not always released, and rumors become facts for some places. Disney has never released an official budget for the two Pirate sequels, yet Box Office Mojo has a budget for both...they had a
725:
Two films would actually still be content, so the request to delete would fail on that issue alone. While I'm not going to comment the debate over what's reliable or not (because it would take ages to read through just through
Bignole's contributions), the issue of "what is expensive" is quite
668:
of film budgets. Not in a detailed way, since there is already an article on just film budgets, but more in an overview to explain how the idea of "most expensive" is not an exact science, and even estimations (like
Superman Returns) can be way off the mark of an "officially released" (but not
726:
clearly being discussed with more attention to trifling detail than the big picture. What's expensive isn't subjective unless one gets ridiculously philosophical and relativistic. Someone appears to be trying to throw out not just the bath water, but the healthy baby with it; it smacks of
575:
rumor floating around. BOM is great for box office stuff, but that doesn't mean it's got verifiable evidence for the budgets. Where is this 270 million
Superman Returns budget coming from? Singer was asked in an interview what the budget was, and it wasn't near 270 million.
175:
the burden of proof is on the ones adding the information, and right now, only two articles could stand up to verifiability, one for sure since Singer is personally quoted, which means at the moment almost every one could be removed completely from the page.
332:
than was actually working on the project. If you like, I can provide you with an interview with the director of that film scrutinizing IMDb for listing someone he's never once met. If you think that IMDb is so trusted, please go to
201:
the inflation adjusted table comes from Forbes, any movie budget can be sourced to IMDB. If two numbers conflict, add both and source both. Problems in an article, are not a good reason for deletion, but to fix and improve. Yes,
306:
IMDB is not user submitted, except for plot summaries and a few other features such as trivia and movie mistakes. If it is user submitted, log in and change one of the numbers and send me the before and after link here.
441:
Again your contradicting yourself. Your previous argument was that they can't be trusted because anyone can send them information and they accept it. Now you are saying they can't be trusted because they don't accept
127:
695:
constructive. If there's a problem with verifiability, delete content, not the page as a whole. Work on actually fixing the problem instead of trying to decide the issue through bureaucracy and ruleslawyering.
223:
Since when did IMDb become a reliable source for this type of informatin? Forbes is using BOM information, and as far as BOM is concerned, it's just as user submitted as IMDb. Please read the two policies on
370:
lists errata every day, that doesn't make it an unreliable source, you are "grasping at straws." You have made all these arguments already on the talk page. WikiProjects are not
Knowledge (XXG) policy.
316:
You can have anything changed if you can provide a good reason and some proof of the need to change it. The proof doesn't even have to be that good. You are talking about the website that once listed
844:
The article expains it are estimates that are given. IMDB, Mojo & the
Numbers are not just fansites, there are runned by profesionals, therefore can qualify was reliable (enough) sources. --
114:
464:
are both off. So again, if their budgets are being contradicted by a more reliable source, it makes one wonder where exactly they are getting their numbers. BTW, it was
87:
82:
600:
This information is all verifiable. I don't see the issue? If you think the sources are bad, find better sources. However, I do agree the article needs more sourcing.
416:
I've sent them errors, on the pages that are restricted from editing by readers. Nothing changed, not even when I've provided links to sources that contradict them.
91:
74:
637:
because the topic does not warrant an indiscriminate list of films' production budgets. Only the top few entries are really notable, and there should be a
548:
447:
408:
372:
308:
272:
215:
493:
The subject of the article (the most expensive to make films of all time) is notable, but I agree that it needs to be better sourced.
17:
211:
78:
848:
836:
806:
790:
777:
755:
734:
720:
699:
684:
659:
629:
616:
604:
590:
569:
553:
530:
509:
497:
483:
450:
431:
411:
396:
375:
352:
311:
296:
275:
252:
218:
191:
166:
154:
If we can find appropriate citations I think the article is significant enough to stay, although I think we should definitely
145:
56:
829:
70:
62:
863:
36:
540:. Seems to serve a purpose in terms of what lists we can allow, not a mere indiscriminate collection of information.-
655:
862:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
740:
state that the budget was made "official" (not true, just official). Why have an entire article for two films?
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
825:
643:
363:
268:
159:
638:
542:
506:
612:: Remove all unreliable IMDB or BOM sources, and keep films with reliably sourced budget information.
210:
and other leading economic indicators. This appears to be a disruption deletion over an editing war:
203:
562:
613:
731:
696:
367:
727:
271:, its not truth, its the best estimate available and the source that provides that estimate. --
799:
787:
750:
715:
679:
626:
585:
525:
478:
468:
who insisted that being "user submitted" meant you could simply change things at will, not I.
426:
391:
347:
291:
247:
186:
140:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
334:
845:
601:
321:
833:
229:
803:
774:
665:
651:
225:
172:
123:
494:
741:
706:
670:
576:
516:
469:
417:
382:
338:
325:
282:
238:
177:
163:
131:
126:
because they are using BOM's unverified information. Something similar occurred at
108:
664:
I believe a prose article would be more acceptable. Something that mentions the
407:
reliable media make errors, and correct them. Thats what makes them reliable. --
50:
647:
566:
824:
lists are inherently notable because they are recorded for their record. A
561:
and cleanup - Subject is clearly notable and of wide interest, article is
505:. Easily verifiable. Whatever happened to fixing rather than deleting? --
317:
128:
Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/List of most valuable comic books
214:, and a "truth" versus "reliable sources" philosophical debate. --
856:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
264:
207:
769:
I don't agree with the nominator's rationale, which is that
328:
film. And listed a completely different music composer for
337:
and ask if it is an acceptable source on a film article.
104:
100:
96:
130:, where the concern is was also about verifiability.
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
866:). No further edits should be made to this page.
786:encyclopedic list, mostly reasonably sourced.
171:And if reliable sources cannot be found? Per
8:
828:wouldn't be notable but this is. Just like
625:no absolute definition of "expensive".
162:, as "most" indicates a superlative.
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
446:changes. Its a delicious irony. --
24:
366:and show me it before and after.
212:Talk:List of most expensive films
206:is an art, but so is calculating
830:List of highest grossing films
448:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
409:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
373:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
309:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
273:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
216:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
1:
669:necessarily factual) budget.
71:List of most expensive films
63:List of most expensive films
883:
705:how to "fix the problem".
362:Again, submit a change to
849:16:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
57:18:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
859:Please do not modify it.
837:08:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
807:21:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
791:21:08, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
778:19:51, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
756:19:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
735:19:12, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
721:18:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
700:17:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
685:16:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
660:15:59, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
630:15:32, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
617:15:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
605:14:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
591:14:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
570:13:39, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
554:10:13, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
531:14:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
510:08:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
498:06:56, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
484:11:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
451:04:02, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
432:23:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
412:23:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
397:05:35, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
376:05:28, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
353:05:03, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
312:05:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
297:04:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
276:04:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
253:03:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
219:03:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
192:02:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
167:02:33, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
146:01:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
32:Please do not modify it.
826:list of films by budget
644:Internet Movie Database
269:population of the earth
160:List of films by budget
199:Keep and speedy close
639:Most expensive films
204:Hollywood accounting
368:The New York Times
753:
748:
718:
713:
682:
677:
588:
583:
528:
523:
481:
476:
429:
424:
394:
389:
350:
345:
294:
289:
250:
245:
189:
184:
143:
138:
874:
861:
751:
746:
742:
716:
711:
707:
680:
675:
671:
666:secretive nature
598:Keep and cleanup
586:
581:
577:
526:
521:
517:
507:Hemlock Martinis
479:
474:
470:
462:Freddy vs. Jason
427:
422:
418:
392:
387:
383:
348:
343:
339:
292:
287:
283:
248:
243:
239:
187:
182:
178:
152:Cleanup and Keep
141:
136:
132:
112:
94:
53:
34:
882:
881:
877:
876:
875:
873:
872:
871:
870:
864:deletion review
857:
744:
709:
673:
610:Keep and verify
579:
552:
549:r e s e a r c h
519:
472:
420:
385:
341:
285:
241:
180:
134:
85:
69:
66:
51:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
880:
878:
869:
868:
852:
851:
839:
809:
793:
771:
770:
764:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
689:
688:
687:
632:
619:
614:Alientraveller
607:
595:
594:
593:
556:
546:
535:
534:
533:
500:
488:
487:
486:
436:
435:
434:
401:
400:
399:
357:
356:
355:
301:
300:
299:
257:
256:
255:
196:
195:
194:
119:
118:
65:
60:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
879:
867:
865:
860:
854:
853:
850:
847:
843:
840:
838:
835:
831:
827:
823:
820:
817:
813:
810:
808:
805:
801:
797:
794:
792:
789:
785:
782:
781:
780:
779:
776:
768:
765:
757:
754:
749:
747:
738:
737:
736:
733:
729:
724:
723:
722:
719:
714:
712:
703:
702:
701:
698:
693:
690:
686:
683:
678:
676:
667:
663:
662:
661:
657:
653:
649:
645:
640:
636:
633:
631:
628:
623:
620:
618:
615:
611:
608:
606:
603:
599:
596:
592:
589:
584:
582:
573:
572:
571:
568:
564:
560:
557:
555:
551:
550:
545:
544:
539:
536:
532:
529:
524:
522:
513:
512:
511:
508:
504:
501:
499:
496:
492:
489:
485:
482:
477:
475:
467:
463:
459:
454:
453:
452:
449:
445:
440:
437:
433:
430:
425:
423:
415:
414:
413:
410:
405:
402:
398:
395:
390:
388:
379:
378:
377:
374:
369:
365:
361:
358:
354:
351:
346:
344:
336:
331:
327:
323:
319:
315:
314:
313:
310:
305:
302:
298:
295:
290:
288:
279:
278:
277:
274:
270:
266:
261:
258:
254:
251:
246:
244:
235:
231:
227:
226:verifiability
222:
221:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
200:
197:
193:
190:
185:
183:
174:
173:verifiability
170:
169:
168:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:
149:
148:
147:
144:
139:
137:
129:
125:
116:
110:
106:
102:
98:
93:
89:
84:
80:
76:
72:
68:
67:
64:
61:
59:
58:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
858:
855:
841:
821:
818:
815:
811:
800:Greg Grahame
795:
788:Greg Grahame
783:
772:
766:
752:(Contact me)
743:
728:point-making
717:(Contact me)
708:
691:
681:(Contact me)
672:
634:
627:Totnesmartin
621:
609:
597:
587:(Contact me)
578:
558:
547:
541:
537:
527:(Contact me)
518:
502:
490:
480:(Contact me)
471:
465:
461:
457:
443:
438:
428:(Contact me)
419:
403:
393:(Contact me)
384:
359:
349:(Contact me)
340:
329:
326:Spider-Man 3
303:
293:(Contact me)
284:
259:
249:(Contact me)
240:
233:
198:
188:(Contact me)
179:
155:
151:
142:(Contact me)
133:
124:unverifiable
120:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
846:Patrick1982
767:Strong Keep
602:CraigMonroe
330:Ghost Rider
230:reliability
834:Bulldog123
563:WP:RUBBISH
804:MetsFan76
775:Mandsford
538:Weak keep
814:I think
745:BIGNOLE
710:BIGNOLE
674:BIGNOLE
580:BIGNOLE
520:BIGNOLE
495:TJ Spyke
473:BIGNOLE
421:BIGNOLE
386:BIGNOLE
342:BIGNOLE
324:for the
318:Aunt May
286:BIGNOLE
267:or even
242:BIGNOLE
181:BIGNOLE
135:BIGNOLE
115:View log
822:tallest
819:biggest
798:as per
656:contrib
458:Jason X
439:Comment
404:Comment
360:Comment
335:WP:FILM
322:Carnage
304:Comment
260:Comment
164:Calgary
88:protect
83:history
832:, no?
635:Delete
622:Delete
263:about
234:Forbes
158:it to
92:delete
52:Kurykh
732:Peter
697:Peter
543:h i s
109:views
101:watch
97:links
16:<
842:Keep
816:most
812:Keep
796:Keep
784:Keep
692:Keep
658:) -
652:talk
648:Erik
567:Halo
559:Keep
503:Keep
491:Keep
460:and
444:your
364:IMDB
228:and
156:move
105:logs
79:talk
75:edit
46:keep
565:. -
466:you
320:as
265:GDP
208:GDP
113:– (
48:. —
802:.
730:.
654:•
371:--
307:--
107:|
103:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
81:|
77:|
650:(
117:)
111:)
73:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.