Talk:The X-Files: I Want to Believe/Archive 3

Xzibit Song

In the commentary, it states his song was originally used for the credits. How do I source it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.143.64 (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

By saying that it was on the audio commentary for the DVD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mamaferk (talk • contribs) 01:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It is not commentary to correct a falsehood

David Duchovny said his movie failed because it opened against the second weekend of Batman; when Step Brothers had a great first weekend. He also says "nobody" would have opened against the first weekend of Batman; but Mamma Mia did precisely that, and was a massive hit all over the world.

If its his, and Gillian Anderson's (completely non-expert and not terribly objective) opinion that their movie would have done much better with a different opening date, fair enough. But not everybody happens to remember the U.S. release schedule for the Summer of '08, and many would assume The Dark Knight must have been so feared that no other movie opened against it; when in fact, most of the films that opened on or around that date did quite well. (That's what tentpoles tend to do for summer film ticket sales. A rising tide lifts most boats, and only sinks the leaky ones).

It's clearly not acceptable to let Wikipedia be a source of inaccurate information. It's not commentary to correct some celebrity's clearly mistaken opinion, and in fact many more highly-rated articles than this do precisely that. I see nothing in the guidelines that says "Make no attempt to correct factually untrue statements because this would be commentary".

Not even touching Anderson's bizarre statement that the movie did badly in America because we only like movies with lots of CGI and sex. First of all, so do most foreign audiences. Second of all, this movie flopped in France, Japan, The UK and Australia. Really, almost every market it opened in. Ms. Anderson shouldn't have stooped to nationalist caricatures to explain the failure of a movie that got very bad reviews all over the planet.

Mamma Mia opened the same day as The Dark Knight. It's one of the two or three most successful films of the year. It had no violence, explosions, CGI, or sex (unless you count bad singing as sex). Not really getting why it's not kosher to bring this up as a simple matter of factual accuracy. If there is no attempt to set the record straight on a matter of objective fact, nor any attempt to present a countering point of view, the article is effectively being used to make excuses for a poor box office performance. Xfpisher (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not claiming as fact that the box office performance would have been better with a different release date. The actor is complaining because his film failed. We are not "making excuses". The comments from the actors stand by themselves simply as disgruntled actors. No one will think anything else, and attempting to "correct" or "disprove" them is not our role. (FYI, the two films you listed - Mamma Mia! The Movie and Space Chimps are completely different genres from both the X Files and Dark Knight and would appeal to completely different audiences.)

I'll state for the record by the way, that I have no desire to "defend" the film. I haven't seen it and have no interest in doing so, even though I did see the first one and did watch the series. Simply put, we cannot edit war over this matter. Please wait to see what the outcome of this discussion is. If there are no other editors who reply within a few days, we can file for a third opinion and see what that brings. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

It's an unsourced commentary. Either use his quote or don't, but don't dilute it unless you can find further sources to back it up. Verifiability, not truth, as the saying goes. Mamma Mia is irrelevant to this article. Rehevkor ✉ 19:27, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

If Mamma Mia! is irrelevant to this article, so is The Dark Knight. Again, it's not that Duchovny's opinion needs to be 'corrected'; it's that the article is putting forth an non-factual statement, the incorrectness of which is not going to be immediately evident to many readers who didn't happen to memorize the Summer '08 release schedule for North America. Someone could actually quote Wikipedia as a source for inaccurate information on the basis of this. I'd personally like to see the actors' comments stand with this one correction to Duchovny's quote (Anderson's is clearly pure opinion), but VERIFIABILITY is precisely what is at issue here, not truth. It is VERIFIABLY wrong to say NO movie would have opened against The Dark Knight, when two actually did; one of which was a massive worldwide hit with a domestic gross almost seven times higher than that of the X-Files film. And the other one was from the same studio as the X-Files film, and grossed about ten million dollars more domestically. And it's silly to say in response that they were different genres, when the very paragraph we're arguing about has a quote from Gillian Anderson that claims her movie failed because it was a completely different type of movie than The Dark Knight. In fact, they are not the same genre at all. Mulder and Scully are not comic book superheroes, and everyone agrees this movie was not action heavy. So correct the statement, or remove it. But if you want me to believe Wikipedia's guidelines say that it's not only acceptable but mandatory to let objectively false statements go unchallenged, you're going to have to show me where they say that, and give me specific examples of this, from top-rated articles. Xfpisher (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Dark Knight is relevant as far as Duchovny made it relevant by his comment. The purpose of the quote is to express Duchovny's opinion of why the film failed, correct or not? You shouldn't add further to it at all. You can challenge it in the prose if, and only if, you can find reliable sources to back it up, otherwise you're adding original research. Also, I believe Wikipedia:Verifiability the policy you should be looking at. You shouldn't need examples from other articles, as we're following policy here, not articles. Rehevkor ✉ 20:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. the article is not making the claim, the actor is, and it is presented accordingly. As for the comparison between the different films, you would be hard pressed to successfully argue that the audiences for Mama Mia and Space Chimps significantly overlap with that for Dark Knight, and you would be adding your own interpretation in doing so. On the other hand, Duchovny himself is quoted (in the same article as the first quote) as saying "We’re competing for the same audience with what they’re saying will be the highest grossing film of all time." --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Again, this is absurd. Duchovny isn't saying "No film of remotely equivalent genre would open against The Dark Knight". He's saying that The Dark Knight was so utterly destructive to the gross of any film opening anywhere near it (in fact, overall box office was excellent in the opening weeks of The Dark Knight) that no studio would dare to open a film against it. But two did, including the studio that made his film. And both those films had better domestic performances than his movie. Granted, they were very different from The Dark Knight. And so, whatever he may say, was the X-Files film. How is Duchovny an expert on this subject? He is an authority on his own performance, and nothing else. He is not an authority on box office, or film audiences. But he is being quoted as if his opinion has some special weight, and is being allowed to make a verifiably unfactual statement. His opinion is irrelevant. The facts are not. What's interesting to me is that you are both defending and to some extent agreeing with his opinion, while criticizing me for simply providing facts that call one aspect of it into question. It's still the reader who has to decide, but the reader should have all the facts. Otherwise, this is just a fan page. Xfpisher (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

"Facts" are nothing without sources. Rehevkor ✉ 20:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Xfpisher, I find it hard to believe that the article's quoting of an actor's opinion makes this a "fan page". We are not claiming the film failed because of Dark Knight, the actors are. This follows text about a series of negative reviews where critics basically slam the film. If anything, the quotes make Duchovny and Anderson look a bit whiny, from my perspective. --Ckatz^chat_spy 20:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how your perspective is relevant here. Different readers would interpret these comments in different ways. But what should be consistent is a respect for factuality. So why not simply tell the reader Duchovny is wrong, and two films did open against Batman, and here's the link to box office mojo that verifies that fact (though really, just providing links to the articles for those films can tell the reader when they were released) And can I ask how common is it to let two actors who appear in a film be the only ones who get to comment on its box office performance? Xfpisher (talk) 20:39, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The weight of the quote is not being discussed here. What you're failing to listen to is the simple matter of sources. There's no point bombarding the reader with information that is not immediately relevant with no sources to back it up. No sources, no deal. End of story. Full stop. Period. Rehevkor ✉ 23:42, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed response, I was getting over a cold. Anyway, if it's simply a matter of providing a source, that's pretty damned easy. So you're saying if I provide a link to Box Office Mojo or Variety, to show that Duchovny is mistaken about 'nobody' opening against The Dark Knight, it's okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xfpisher (talk • contribs) 14:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

No. You'd have to provide a reliable source where someone contradicts or explains Duchovny's statement and explain how Mamma Mia etc. (films with almost 100% different audiences) would be in competition with Batman and the X-Files. Otherwise, it's original research. Rehevkor ✉ 16:42, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me you're doing 'original research', by concluding that a big budget action packed comic book superhero movie has the same audience as a mid-budget talk heavy attempt to revive a TV franchise about paranormal detectives. Even though the very paragraph we're discussing has Gillian Anderson saying that there was very little overlap between the audiences of those films, at least in the U.S.; and that Americans want movies like The Dark Knight, and not X-Files I Want to Believe. She knows as much about this kind of thing as Duchovny, which isn't saying much. Duchovny said NO studio would have opened ANY movie against The Dark Knight. It's a separate quote entirely where he says his movie was competing for exactly the same audience. I'm not attempting to correct that. Just the factually untrue statement he made. You're assuming he meant something else. I'm simply taking his statement at face value, and pointing out that it's incorrect, so that the reader will have more information. Xfpisher (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Simply quoting someone is not original research by any stretch of the imagination. It's all fine and dandy providing extra information, but without sources there's no information to give. The problem here is you're reading too much into it. We're just expressing his opinion, that's right; it's just his opinion, the fact he stared in the film gives his opinion weight. The real world accuracy of it is irrelevant. I encourage you to expand further on the section with further research into why the film may have "failed", provided you supply sources. Sources. Sources. Sources. See, I liked you 3 times in case you didn't pick up on the numerous times I mentioned it above. Rehevkor ✉ 20:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This is just stupid to reference Mamma Mia in this article. The point of Duchovny's comment was that the X-Files film and The Dark Knight were being targeted at the same audience. The market for Mamma Mia wasn't going to be interested in either The Dark Knight or The X-Files. Ridiculous to include that.184.59.7.32 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC).

The actors are not film marketing experts nor authorities in box-office patterns; their opinions carry no more weight than the cinematographer's or the film editor's opinions of why the film did poor box office. In each case they are both non-authoritative and not disinterested, and non-authoritative opinions add nothing to our understanding of the film's behavior in the marketplace. The two stars can speak authoritatively about their performances or their relationship to the script or their experiences with the director. But their uninformed opinions about box-office events are non-notable. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Note I've removed Xpfisher's additions regarding Mama Mia. It is the same text that this editor tried to add almost two years ago, which was rejected per this same discussion. There has been no apparent shift in consensus that would justify this effort to re-add it now. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:53, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Thought I recognised that name. But yeah, consensus had not changed in any way. Why he or she thinks it's safe to include now I have no idea. Rehevkor ✉ 15:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

The Reception section needs major pruning

I don't see the point of going into so much depth about 'specific reviewers' comments. It seems like an attempt to bend over backwards to say "Well, some people liked it." Let people follow the link to rotten tomatoes if they're interested in reading in-depth. If nobody has anything to say about this, I'm going to cut back substantially on this section, which is taking up too much room on the article. Xfpisher (talk) 19:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You can't do that, read the guidelines. When I tell you to read the guidelines, it is for a good reason. I'll revert your edits if you do so, because we don't tolerate vandalism here on wikipedia. --TIAYN (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have something to say about it. :) The point of the "Reception" sections is to provide readers a sample of what critics have said about a film, balanced by the overall consensus. Obviously, it is unrealistic to be comprehensive, but by including some reviews, readers can get an idea of what made a film good, bad, or just mediocre. Featured and Good Articles under WikiProject Films use this sampling approach. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 19:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's still too long. It's almost unreadable. Admit it. Your eyes pass over it quickly, looking for something of interest. I'm not saying get rid of the whole section. But cut it down. Xfpisher (talk) 20:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It may be better to choose fewer reviews and expand these. There are a lot of one sentence reviews, where we could be more exploratory with a portion of them. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 20:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start. Since slightly less than a third of reviews were even slightly positive, there could be two negative reviews, and one positive one (say Ebert's). Xfpisher (talk) 14:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment TIAYN and Xfpisher, please stop edit warring in the article and settle this matter on the talk page. You've both exceeded the three-revert rule today, and any further reverts may lead to a block. (By the way, this is a content dispute, not vandalism.) --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree, I suggest you both leave the section alone until consensus can be reached. Rehevkor ✉ 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, that suggestion was not followed. TIAYN clearly isn't interested in dialogue--TIAYN has unilaterally declared the IMDb to be an illegitimate source for any form of information about movies. So let's figure out what's really legit here. I'll start a thread on this page. I will hold back from editing the article for now. Xfpisher (talk) 10:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my experience, IMDb is not a good source to use. It is acceptable to provide basic cast and crew information like what is in the infobox, but the trivia there should never be quoted. I have seen it wrong or blatantly copied from the film's Wikipedia article. What element of IMDb is being debated here? Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 11:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

IMDb is linked to every single Wikipedia article about a movie or any movie. It's the definitive source. I agree with the guideline about not using it as a source for trivia, anecdotes, and upcoming films, because those areas are open to outside contributions from unqualified users. But that is not what we're talking about here. We're talking about awards, and when people want to know what awards a particular film won, they go to IMDb. It keeps tabs on a huge variety of awards, more than any other source. Not the Portals and the Constellations to be sure. But in case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia doesn't even know the Portals and the Constellations exist. There is no Wikipedia article for either award. The Constellations are a fan award that has been around for three years. The Portals are a promotional device for Michael Hinman's fansite, which allow individuals to vote multiple times online for the same film. Does that sound like something Wikipedia should be citing as a serious award?Xfpisher (talk) 13:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I did a few search engine tests about these awards, and I agree about their lack of importance. I did not find anything reliable about the Portal Awards. Constellation Awards seem to have a little more attention, but there only seem to be press releases like this. Both should be excluded. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Stop saying i didn't want to discuss with you. I even sent you a message on your talk page. You have been the one not wanting to discuss. Stop blaming me!

Reception sections in FA articles such as 300, Mulholland Drive and V for Vendetta (who again are all FA's) have alot more reviews then this. We can't just cut down to two awards, it won't give the "comprehensive" look which the guidelines talk all about. We can reduce it to 5 or 6, but not 3. --TIAYN (talk) 17:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's stick to the awards debate for now. I said I'd hold off on changing the reviews section. But it does need to be more readable, and it can't be geared towards the kind of lame "Well on the one hand this person said this, but this other person said that" kind of writing. Most reviewers thought the movie was bad. A few thought it was passable. That's what the article says upfront, and that's really all there is to say.Xfpisher (talk) 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with making it more readable, i just don't want to remove any reviews. But if you can make it more readable, be my guest. --TIAYN (talk) 18:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Awards and Nominations

X-Files: I Want to Believe has received zero awards nominations. If you go to IMDb, which maintains the most comprehensive listing of film awards anywhere on the internet, you find zero nominations for any award. It came close to getting nominated for the Golden Raspberries (not a compliment, but a widely recognized anti-award, with its own Wikipedia article), and that was the closest it came. The Constellation Awards have just been presented for the third time ever. They are for Canadian genre fans, and have a bias towards films and shows made in Canada, which is fine and explains why Gillian Anderson got nominated for a film made in Canada, but Claudia Black won that award because she does a TV show made in Canada. They do not have a Wikipedia article devoted to them. I can't find any reference to them online that isn't either on their own website, or some person's blog devoted to genre stuff. They use online voting, which is inherently suspect; but I'll give them this, they don't seem to allow competitive multiple voting. That's the 'Portals'. A promotional device for a fansite run by Michael Hinman, which was originally called "SciFi Portal", then "SyFy Portal", hence the name, although the current site has a different name entirely. The Portals also have no Wikipedia article. No professional in the film business would ever think of bragging about a Portal award. I suspect most would be embarrassed about it, particularly if they didn't win anything else. That's because it's not an award. It's a contest among particularly dedicated fans of various genre franchises to see who can vote the most times in one day. Anybody with a blog can start his or her own award, and lots of people have. Is Wikipedia going to acknowledge those awards as well? I think neither award should be mentioned. I think it's problematic to cite an award when the reader can't use Wikipedia to find out the nature of that award. And I think the Portals in particular lower the standard for inclusion to the point where no standard can be said to exist. So I'm still holding back from editing that section again (as TIAYN did not), but I am not satisfied with the current state of that section, and nobody who cares about maintaining high standards for Wikipedia articles should be content with it either. Xfpisher (talk) 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the full explanation. As I said in the previous discussion, I agree with your assessment. Let's wait to see what TIAYN has to say before taking action, then we can try to address other issues with the article, such as the one-sentence reviews. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 14:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Xfpisher (talk) 14:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First IMDb is not a reliable source, various WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES says so. Its used as an external link, and not a source. The Portal Awards may not be notable, fine. But the constellation awards have been mentioned by various publishers. And claiming that i you didn't hold back on the editing is a LIE. You got blocked for the same reason i was. Stop lying.

Also stop saying i'm not collaboration, when you are the one that's pushing for IMDb which is not considered a reliable source for Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Reliable sources and other wikipedia guidelines and rules before you POV push again for IMDb.--TIAYN (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for IMDb--I'm just pointing out that it's a very respected and relied-upon source for determining which awards a given movie has received, or been nominated for. I'm sure you've used it yourself, many times, and so has any film buff or fan of a given franchise. The guideline you mention isn't related to what we're discussing. It only relates to anecdotes, trivia and films in development, and I agree with it completely. But this is not trivia, or anecdotal, or about future films that may never be made. It's about which awards were given, or not given, but they have to be LEGITIMATE awards, otherwise Wikipedia would have to recognize anybody who set up his or her own awards ceremony online. When more than a year after a film has opened, IMDb says it hasn't gotten any awards nominations, that means it hasn't been nominated for any of the hundreds of awards they monitor. And I note you still haven't dealt with the fact that neither the Constellations nor the Portals have Wikipedia articles. Are you saying Wikipedia isn't a reliable source either? Erik has said my argument has merit. I'm still waiting for an argument from you as to why these awards should be included. Particularly the Portal Award, which again, was awarded to the group of fans who organized the best for multiple daily voting online. That's not an award at all. It's a contest to see who has the most spare time. Something you and I both clearly have far too much of ourselves.  ;)Xfpisher (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm ending this discussion with this: I've removed those two awards (which you had a problem with, for the spirit of collaboration). --TIAYN (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And to further the spirit of collaboration, I will excuse myself from any improvements to the section dealing with reviews, although it still needs pruning. Pleasure doing business wit ya. ;)Xfpisher (talk) 19:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sequel

Gillian Anderson's exact statement when being interviewed in Sweden recently, and asked about a third film was, "Um...Probably...they have talked about maybe doing it..um...in 2012. I think there were discussions about that. Um I don't know whether that's going to happen or not...but...um there isn't any reason not to do it. It was fun. It was hard work. I feel..um...a certain commitment to that er group of people that I worked with and err we still enjoy doing it when we do it and there's no reason not to come together and do it again if they can pull it off OR find some reason to make it."

I got that off one of the few X-Files fanboards remaining on the internet, and it's very evident that Anderson knows nothing about any concrete plans, and is just stating her willingness to do another movie if asked, which she clearly hasn't been.

Frank Spotnitz has done several subsequent posts on his blog, responding to fans asking if Anderson just greenlit a third X-Files movie, by saying nothing at all was happening, and there was nothing to report.

Now. We can use her ENTIRE UNEDITED quote, plus other later quotes from Chris Carter and Frank Spotnitz, which indicate nothing is happening, and there are no negotiations going on, and they aren't even working on a story treatment yet, and there may be no third film at all. Or we can just leave things the way they were before this highly misleading quote was added. Your choice, TIAYN. But it won't stay the way you want it. Trust me. Xfpisher (talk)

I don't know if you checked here before reverting, but I did exactly what I promised. Anderson's quote is now longer and more informative. One of IWTB's writers and producers, who would certainly know if there were any plans to make the movie in 2012, or even any negotiations going on, says nothing is happening. I can also post a link to an audio file of Chris Carter being interviewed much more recently, and being asked about his future projects. He doesn't mention anything about a third X-Files movie in the works. And of course he would. But really, all you have to do is read Anderson's own words. She never said it would happen. She said she didn't know. Frankly, the quote should never have been used, because it's meaningless. But if we're going to use it, we're going to use it the right way.Xfpisher (talk) 14:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Accolades

Rather than get into an edit-war, I'll post my opinion here about the so-called "accolades". What we are talking about here is a nomination-for-a-nomination, not a nomination, and certainly not a win. How is this notable? ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 15:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Glad I checked. Okay, let's discuss it. First of all, the linked source refers to it as a nomination, which it clearly was perceived to be, or it wouldn't have been reported as such--it's a two-tiered nomination process, and that's where the confusion stems from. Secondly, how many movies were given a theatrical release in 2008? Box Office Mojo lists 608. Okay, most of those were never even going to be considered for a Razzie, but there's still a whole lot of bad movies to be considered, and out of all of them, only ten got on that shortlist. How many movies get nominated for an Oscar these days? Ten. Are the Razzies, in part, a spoof of the Oscars? Yup. So isn't being one of the final ten films considered for 2008, in fact, a nomination? Obviously. Why didn't it make the final list? Probably because not enough people saw it (who in their right mind thinks Attack of the Clones is worse than this movie? But people were much more disappointed by a bad Star Wars movie than a bad X-Files movie). Now why is any of this significant? Because being one of ten movies out of hundreds released that year to be considered bad enough to wind up on that list is an objective indicator of how people perceived the quality of this film. You don't get on that list for nothing. You can quote this or that critic, but this actually means a whole lot more about how the movie was seen by ordinary moviegoers than all of the reviews combined. It's a very brief section, it's an award that has its own Wikipedia article, it's of interest to the reader, and 'trivial' isn't really an argument for deleting it. I could argue that a lot of other things in the article you did not remove are trivial--if you reduce it to its bare essentials, the article would be maybe a third its current length. I have no quarrel with your other deletions. I understand some pruning must be done. I strongly disagree with this particular deletion. Nominations for well-known awards are always included. This is a nomination, and it is a well-known award, albeit not a terribly coveted one. If it hadn't been reported in the media, you'd have a point. But in fact, if it wasn't noteworthy, it wouldn't have been noted.Xfpisher (talk) 11:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

It's covered by what I assume is a reliable source, but isn't this an issue of WP:UNDUE? It's an extremely minor "accolade", enough so that "accolade" should not apply. I'm not saying it shouldn't be mentioned, but its own section with a single source with a passing mention? Яehevkor ✉ 11:21, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Where would you put it? I think it's a questionable application of 'undue', since the Razzies get a lot of media attention (more than most serious awards), and only ten movies ended up on that penultimate list. I'm not saying it's a major accolade--when you get right down to it, the Razzies are the direct opposite of an accolade, or a parody of one--but again, for it to have been considered so seriously for that 'award' gives the reader some indication of how the movie was generally perceived, and the accolades section (which I did not create, see discussion further up on this page) seems the appropriate place to put it--it was 'accoladed' for being an exceptionally bad film. And because so few films get that close to a Razzie, it seems worthy of special attention, particularly for a film like this, which didn't get all that much attention. You might say this is its primary claim to fame. If it had been a bigger budget movie, I think it would have made the final list of nominees--it's actually worse-reviewed than several of them. But I am certainly open to suggestions. (editing this in) I apologize for one mistake in my posts above--there were thirteen nominees in the category this movie was considered for--doesn't materially impact my argument (13 out of hundreds is still pretty selective), but I should have looked more carefully--it is my edit, after all, but I went to the linked source, and then miscounted.Xfpisher (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

Charts

This is original research plain and simple. The first source [1] makes no mention of the charts, the second [2] makes no reference to the film. WP:SYNTH applies; without a source that explicitly states "the film was not in these charts," it has no place here. Яehevkor ✉ 20:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

It is an abuse of the no original research guideline to say that a source which clearly proves a given assertion has to support it in words. For example, if I say "Such and such movie was #1 at the box office on this date", all I have to do is link to a chart that shows it at that position--no text explaining it was #1 is needed. This is no different. The Numbers is an accepted source. It maintains yearly Top 100 charts for domestic DVD sales. This movie is not present on the chart for 2008 or 2009, which are the years in which the great majority of DVDs would have been sold. Therefore it did not make those charts--the fact that it is not mentioned on the charts PROVES that it did not make them, which is what is being asserted, and which is therefore completely substantiated. If the charts mentioned the movie, that would prove it did make the charts. This is about as simple as simple gets. Original research would be me compiling my own chart, based on scattered records I compiled from across the internet. Now I don't want to get into an edit war, but perhaps you'd like to take this to the dispute resolution noticeboard? Just successfully resolved a dispute there regarding another article. The no original research guideline simply does not apply here. Try another argument.Xfpisher (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is pretty clear on this. You are "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Chart positions, or lack of, are not explicitly stated by the sources. Unless you have another source to bring I don't see what there is to discuss here. Sorry dude. Яehevkor ✉ 23:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not combining materials. How on earth do you reach that conclusion? It's one source--the charts--the other source is related to the dollar gross, and is not relevant to our discussion. The absence of this movie from the charts is explicitly stated by it not being on the charts--no other logical conclusion is possible--you are mistaken in thinking that it has to be explicitly stated in a sentence--charts are a valid source of data, and are frequently used here. Btw, 'sorry dude' seems to be a bit of a personal comment, which is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia guidelines, so try to avoid that in future--we're having a discussion, not an argument. I understand you are holding firm on this point, but so am I, and you can't unilaterally declare the dispute at an end, and you know that. Again, please show me a RELEVANT argument as to why a chart from a website commonly cited on Wikipedia is not a valid source. Are you saying this DVD was one of the top 100 sellers in either or both years mentioned? If so, it should be on the Top 100 charts for those years. It is not. That's quite unequivocal and explicit, and no combining of material has been resorted to. Why does this matter? Because the purpose of the article is to inform the reader. The reader may be wondering if the film performed well on DVD, or why there has been no sequel in all this time. By providing the reader with a chart demonstrating that the DVD sales were so poor that the movie was not one of the Top 100 sellers for the year it was released in or the year after that, the article can help explain this without resorting to editorial comment. If you insist you are immovable on this point, I will pursue dispute resolution. But it would be better if we discussed this further before that happens, and another perspective would be useful. I respect your opinion, but I just don't find your argument persuasive. I think you have misapplied the guidelines in question--what's more, you seem to keep changing your mind about which one to use. Is this original research or combining material? In point of fact, it's neither. I read the section on combining material, and it doesn't remotely apply here--the examples cited point to using multiple sources to push an opinion. This is using one source to demonstrate an undisputed fact.Xfpisher (talk) 00:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence—to state that the film was not "one of the 100 best selling DVDs in the US" would require a source that specifically says so, rather than one that requires an inference from a source which doesn't. Even aside from that issue, I have to question the inherent worth of the information. Something about its overall gross would work, or a figure for what it did sell, but I hardly imagine it was in the best-sellers lists in China, India, etc either, but there's no call for including those either. I can't see the need to misapply a source for a trivial aside. GRAPPLE X 01:40, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You get into a car. You look around. You don't see your friend Bob. You say "Bob's not here." This is not an inference. It's an observation. In this case, the value of the information is that the reader is wondering if the DVD did well, and may not know enough about the context to draw a conclusion--16 million dollars sounds like a lot of money to most of us. But in fact, it's a very poor gross. Wikipedia articles routinely say this or that film performed badly at the box office. DVD sales can be equally important to the future of a film franchise. If the reader is wondering why there's been no sequel, learning that the DVD didn't make the Top 100 chart could be helpful.Xfpisher (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Grapple X, so far a source that specifically says the film did not chart has not been presented or found. Яehevkor ✉ 10:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You are combing information from two sources that do not directly support each other. Neither source directly supports the text. It's simply a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH. Don't look for the examples for support of your actions here - look at the actual body of the text "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." This is exactly what you're doing. "If one reliable source says A, and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C that is not mentioned by either of the sources" You are doing this except using what source A and B don't say and then coming to C. No where in any source provided does it say the film did not chart. This is original research, this is not allowed by policy, no walls of text can counteract that. And please don't waste my time by claiming some kind of personal attack for using the words "sorry dude". Яehevkor ✉ 10:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I won't bring it up again, but try to avoid that kind of language, okay? This isn't a message forum on a fanboard (in which context I heartily agree it would not remotely amount to a personal attack). Now as to your argument, again you are stating something that is factually untrue--your summation of the no combining sources guideline is correct, but doesn't apply here, because I'm not doing that. A reliable source says "These are the Top 100 selling DVDs", and a film is not present on that list, that means it didn't make the list. It's an observation--not an opinion, not a point of view, not an inference--a fact. Substantiated by one source, and if I found some blog article that mentioned it didn't chart, how would that strengthen the observation in any way? Now question--by 'combining sources', do you mean that I'm referring to two different yearly charts? I consider that one source, but I'll offer a compromise--just say that it didn't chart for 2008. The curious reader can then go to the source, and easily skip ahead to 2009 to learn it didn't chart there either. That would end any suspicion that sources are being combined--and since an commonplace observation is not an inference, or a point of view, that argument is already defunct. I only mentioned both years because the DVD came out in early December of 2008, but perhaps I was being overly thorough. If you don't accept this compromise, I have to ask--how can you say I'm combining sources if there's undeniably only one source? How is it original research when the source comes from the same website that has been referred to in that section since its creation?Xfpisher (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Xfpisher, I'm not in the mood for drama like last time (another long winded issue of original research), so I'm going to go down avenues of dispute resolution rather than communicate with you directly. But I ask, please drop this before you waste anyone else's time. Cheers, Яehevkor ✉ 10:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm offering a compromise (which I understand you didn't see before you posted this response to your own response). It would be inappropriate to go to conflict resolution without at least considering my offer. But if that's what you want, fine--just tell me when and where. To me, this isn't a trivial point, because it goes to how valid and important Wikipedia guidelines are applied. And misapplied. How are you going to make the case that I'm combining sources when it's just one source? Let's not waste time--accept the offered compromise. And apologies for the XFpisher of--um--how many years ago was that?  :)Xfpisher (talk) 10:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Still OR, source doesn't mention the film at all. 86.139.94.183 (talk) 13:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I am responding here after seeing a request at WP:EAR. It seems to me that this is not really a question of OR or SYNTH and it is a waste of energy to argue around that aspect. A little common sense would go a long way here. The real issue is whether or not this belongs in the article at all. I would say that as a US film, the US DVD chart positions are relevant. SpinningSpark 14:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

But there is no chart position - it didn't chart at all. The issue is using the chart that doesn't show this film as a source then stating as such, that's using a source for something that isn't explicitly stated in the source, that's OR. Яehevkor ✉ 15:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A chart is a valid source of data. A chart does not explicitly state things in words--you read it differently than you read a prose piece. Therefore, the standards for a chart are different than when a source like an article is employed. Now, if I cited an article about top-performing DVDs of 2008, and I said "This article doesn't mention X-Files 2, therefore it was not a top-performing DVD", that would be a clear case of my drawing a conclusion that was not supported by the source. Maybe the writer just forgot to mention it. But nobody forgot to put X-Files 2 on the chart. It isn't there because it didn't sell enough copies. If it had sold enough copies, it would be there. Q.E.D.Xfpisher (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You asked for uninvolved opinions, and I gave you mine. I really don't want to get drawn into an interminable debate on the meaning of the text of policies, but let me ask you this; do you seriously believe that there is a risk that the statement "the DVD did not chart" is at risk of being false because it does not appear on the DVD chart? SpinningSpark 16:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion on it being true or false is not really relevant here, but surely without an explicit source no one here can presume it to be true or false? In all my years of editing, this is not how it's worked here. Яehevkor ✉ 17:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

The question wasn't quite "what is your opinion on it being true or false", but rather do you believe it might be false because of its absence in a chart it is claimed not to be in? SpinningSpark 18:03, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

And my answer is that it's not the place for Wikipedia editors to make assumptions. Wikipedia:Verifiability is pretty clear that material must be directly supported. This is not directly supported. I don't see why two polices should be ignored to enter trivial information into an article. Яehevkor ✉ 11:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I am not suggesting ignoring policy. I am suggesting that with a little common sense this can be seen as within policy. SpinningSpark 13:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't see it that way - the policies are clear. Яehevkor ✉ 18:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not how the WP:OR guideline is meant to be applied, Rehevkor. You brought in somebody to back up your interpretation, and now you're arguing with that editor as well. Clearly you're not going to convince Spinningspark, anymore than you convinced me. In truth, you've made no arguments to back up your interpretation at all. You are just insisting, over and over, that only your interpretation is correct, but you can't really explain how WP:OR applies in this instance, or produce clear examples of it having been applied this way in the past. If you want, you can pursue this further up the chain of dispute resolution. Of course, a few days ago, you were saying this was a waste of everyone's time. To me, the edit itself is less important than that these crucial Wikipedia guidelines not be used inappropriately. Anybody who looks at that chart will agree that the DVD for this movie did not make the chart. If there can be no alternate interpretation of the chart, there can be no question of original research, let alone verifiability--and remember, the guideline exists so that Wikipedia editors won't take it upon themselves to interpret data in questionable ways. Not to box them into the narrowest possible definition of what is acceptable. It exists to liberate us, not imprison us.68.174.153.226 (talk) 10:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I didn't bring someone in to back me up, I asked for neutral assistance, I'm under no obligation to agree with them either. OR and verifiability policies are clear that material must directly and explicitly support the text, to me no amount of mental wrangling shows me that this is happening here, and I have a right to challenge it. So, is it original research that you believe should be made exception to (and why exactly?), or do you honestly believe it's not original research at all? The source is being used to "advance a position not advanced by the sources" (again, quoting OR, a source cannot advance a position by not even mentioning the subject) which is something no Wikipedia article of any quality should do, try getting the article though WP:FAN with that text in place.

I know how it works, but clearly you expected your views to be supported, and thus far they haven't been--which should at least have given you pause--can you not entertain the mere possibility you are wrong about this? It is not original research. Period. It does not violate any of the guidelines you have put forth, and yes I have read them carefully, and the examples provided to guide editors don't bear any resemblance to this. At all.Xfpisher (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

"but you can't really explain how WP:OR applies in this instance, or produce clear examples of it having been applied this way in the past"

Eah? My explanations have been clear, even quotes of the policies supporting - I'm sorry that you chose to ignore them. And have you even provided any examples? You can't criticise for not providing examples when you yourself have not provided any. Here are some from me: every article in Category:FA-Class film articles, I challenge you to find a source used indirectly in such a way in any of these articles as they passed the FA criteria. Яehevkor ✉ 17:39, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You haven't actually cited any examples yourself of people using charts the way I did being told they can't do that. You cited examples that bear no relation to my edit. Again, please explain, in clear language, why WP:OR means that when NOBODY can read a given source and fail to reach the exact same conclusion I did, that means I'm doing something original. Do you not understand that the point of WP:OR is that it's often possible to reach multiple conclusions from the same material? This is not the case here, therefore WP:OR does not apply. You have admitted yourself that there is no chance that my edit is not factual. It's not an interpretation, an opinion, a supposition, or an inference. It's an undeniable fact, plainly evident to anybody who looks at the chart to see if this movie is on it. Undeniable facts, patently obvious from reading a simple chart that comes from an accepted online source of data for Wikipedia articles, can never be considered original research. Period.Xfpisher (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC)