User talk:Betty Logan

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

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

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

Thanks for the update of the inflation table, just one thing, you forgot, in your sandbox, to add the Avatar 2 2025 re-release, even if the movie is not in the top 10, so we can have a correct gross :)--Luke Stark 96 (talk) 01:42, 6 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's best to look at hard sources:

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

Betty Logan (talk) 10:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC) Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

See .

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

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

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

I thought the SMECCV C and D ratings were on par with the ESRB M and AO ratings. Sorry again. Also, could you please review this sandbox, before adding to main article? Upset New Bird (talk) 00:15, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Don't make assumptions—always check the summaries against the sources. Which article is your sandbox for? Betty Logan (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

It is for the article Television content rating system. Upset New Bird (talk) 01:54, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

It's full of sourcing templates. It will have to be properly sourced before it can be added to main space. Betty Logan (talk) 11:05, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I have attached templates asking others to add sources, like Television_content_rating_system#Croatia. Upset New Bird (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's not how it works. You shouldn't be adding unsourced content and expecting other people to source it. Betty Logan (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Then what are the reasons why Template:More citations needed exists? If your claim is true, the template cannot exist. Upset New Bird (talk) 20:33, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

The template is intended only as a temporary measure. Every factual claim on Wikipedia should be sourced per WP:V. Sometimes, editors add unsourced material, especially to stub/start-class articles. Or maybe a source dies or becomes deprecated. Rather than remove it, it is sometimes better to tag it to give other readers an opportunity to locate sources. But unsourced content should not remain in an article more a few weeks, and vast quantities of unsourced content should not be added to articles where virtually everything is sourced. The template is not an open invitation to add unsourced content; if you want to add content to an article the onus is on the editor adding the content to add the sources per WP:BURDEN. Betty Logan (talk) 21:23, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree that the burden is on the editor adding content. My point was more about how the project handles imperfect reality. In practice, unsourced content appears frequently, and templates like Template:More citations needed seem to function as a pragmatic bridge between ideal policy and real-world editing behavior. I wasn’t suggesting it’s a license to add unsourced material, but rather that its existence reflects how Wikipedia balances principle and practicality. I hope you understand. Upset New Bird (talk) 21:30, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

The templates are a pragmatic way of dealing with editors who unwittingly break the rules. It is is not a license for established editors to dispense with sourcing obligations. Betty Logan (talk) 21:44, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I agree that established editors should not treat the template as a substitute for proper sourcing. My point was more about how the project as a whole manages imperfect contributions in practice. The existence of the template seems to reflect that Wikipedia operates in a space between strict principle and collaborative gradual improvement. I understand that your thoughts may differ. Upset New Bird (talk) 21:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of accolades received by the 2002–2007 Spider-Man film series § Where to go with this page OrdinaryOtter (talk) 03:03, 5 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Wallace Shawn § Time to split off the filmography section?. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 10:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

You are invited to join the talk about James Bond skills Talk:James Bond#c-Nealmueller-20260306191200-Nealmueller-20260303195700

"It has been argued that M's pivotal role in the plot of Skyfall qualifies her as a Bond girl or Bond woman."

Source: Bond girl

Furthermore, while Moneypenny's status is not in dispute, she is technically bond's sidekick for only the opening minutes of the film, M meanwhile, acocmpanies Bond throughout the majority, so unless i have been watching an alternate cut of the film this whole time, M is deserving of being listed as both the main sidekick and sacrificial lamb (on account of her dying due to the villain's henchman as stated in the article itself)

Thank you for your time. Tamblingb (talk) 22:36, 19 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I have responded to your comments on the main Bond girl page. Betty Logan (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi. I am the person who made the edits you have undone. I am new to Wikipedia and was unaware of the 700-word rule. I apologize for any problems my inexperience may have caused.

I have noticed in the past that these summaries are often inconsistent with the actual plots of the movies they concern, and this one contains a number of inaccuracies.

I was trying, out of respect for the author, to keep as much as possible of the original text, while rewriting it in a way that would reflect the plot of the film. I was watching the film as I wrote, so the plot line was fresh in my mind.

Would it be appropriate for me to rewrite the summary in its entirety, keeping the 700-word limit in mind? Or should I leave this to a more experienced editor? I do have writing experience: I am a retired translator. ~~~~ Stevebal (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Take a crack at it, it's not a perfect summary, but it is a functional summary. But if you can improve the wording and tighten it up at the same time that would be great. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I've rewritten it by cutting out some details that seemed less important and adding some missing information and have also tried to adopt the language actually used in the film where possible. It is now under 700 words. Let me know what you think. Stevebal (talk) 17:43, 28 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

It reads well, and you've done a good job on tightening it up. Overall, it's better written. Thank you for your effort. Betty Logan (talk) 23:32, 30 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I didn’t ignore previous edit summaries. Iacowriter (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

Unless you mean something else. Because it seems you liked what I did on Titanic. Iacowriter (talk) 04:40, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I certainly do not like what you did at Titanic, which is why I reverted you. Please go and read the guidelines I have linked to in my edit summaries. Betty Logan (talk) 05:09, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I’m still learning some rules I wasn’t aware of. I apologize. Iacowriter (talk) 14:21, 26 March 2026 (UTC) Reply

I heard they might be making a recut version of the wolfman in theaters to save its reputation it be like the uncut version on dvd difference is no pacing more deleted scenes added dialogue edited about Lawrence mentioning he got a letter from Gwen about his brother's disappearance and Gwen mentioning it those are movie mistakes on the uncut because they physically met in theaters she went there to inform in and the cgi needs to be fixed with the bear and deer even the transformation scenes needs to be improved to almost look more practical hope it gets a better score on Rotten Tomatoes. Mobakui (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

We ought to give it's director a campaign for it just like Zack Snyder's justice league and the Godfather, Coda: The Death of Michael Corleone. Mobakui (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

That's not how Wikipedia works. And please start discussions about specific articles at the article talk page in future. Betty Logan (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Do you think Werwulf will be an improvement over the wolf man remakes GizzManny (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

@Betty Logan Why did you revert my edits on Nicolas Roeg's films only to then reinstate the changes I made yourself? You also did not replace the dead links I replaced on the Don't Look Now page, and claimed my edit was "This really isn't helpful.", which makes no sense. The URLs are dead, why would they remain dead? JPHC2003 (talk) 22:04, 15 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

I certainly did replace the dead links—I actually spent a good 20 minutes picking through your edits. However, you messed up the formatting and changed some of the date formats. The references have a consistent style and layout (per WP:CITEVAR and also for ease of editing). In the case of Walkabout you also made style and content changes (changing "per cent" to "%" for the Rotten Tomatoes percentage, despite there being no MOS-based rationale for initiating this change), and you also deleted the average rating and the source it was attributed to without providing a reason for your edit. I appreciate you were trying to fix the articles, but just racing through articles making slap-dash edits isn't the correct approach. Betty Logan (talk) 22:27, 15 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

The only dates I changed were the access dates. If you are replacing the dead URLs with live ones isn’t that what you are supposed to do? Also, Rotten Tomatoes removed their average score feature, and by changing "per cent" to % this makes it more like the established Rotten Tomatoes prose. I’m not doing this in a slapdash manner at all. JPHC2003 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Once again, I have had to weed out the layout changes and restore your fixes at Don't Look Now. It is difficult regard this edit in good faith, after I specifically asked you not to alter the formatting of the sources. This is not helpful, collaborative editing; you may disagree with how the references are formatted and set out, but it is the established style of the article. Betty Logan (talk) 01:06, 16 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Relax, I see the error now, I just didn't go into source editing mode. I'm not trolling or anything ridiculous like that. JPHC2003 (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of highest-grossing films in the United Kingdom, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A dates error. References show this error when one of the date-containing parameters is incorrectly formatted. Please edit the article to correct the date and ensure it is formatted to follow the Wikipedia Manual of Style's guidance on dates. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_the_United_Kingdom&preloadparams%5b%5d=1351067627"}]]}">report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 19:40, 25 April 2026 (UTC) Reply

Here's the reliable sources for the Wikipedia page of List of children's films- Kitty Clive (1956)^[1] , The Adventures of Alice (1960)^[2] , A Tale of Two Toads (1989)^[3] , A Grand Day Out (1989)^[4] , The Wrong Trousers (1993)^[5] , A Close Shave (1995)^[6] and Wallace & Gromit: A Matter of Loaf and Death (2008)^[7] . ~2026-27001-65 (talk) 15:29, 6 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

You've reverted my edit below on Help:Using colours in March, with the edit comment of "Does not maintain the compatible color combinations".

I wonder the reasons why it does not maintain the compatible color combinations, although it seems better to me. Thanks! Upset New Bird (talk) 00:12, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

What are your benchmarks for determining whether it is better or not? Betty Logan (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I meant just the rearrangement of current colors. Upset New Bird (talk) 02:13, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The colors are arranged in such a way to optimise contrasts for color-blind people. How would re-arranging them make the layout better? Betty Logan (talk) 09:35, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

The left is current arrangement, and the right is my proposing arrangement. Upset New Bird (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

You still have not answered my question. How is this an improvement? Betty Logan (talk) 12:21, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

In fact, there is very few specific reasons. It is merely a visual design improvement. Upset New Bird (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

I don't understand what a "visual design improvement" means in this context. In the version on the left, the top row houses all of the psychological primary colors starting with yellow & blue, which are less common in color blindness (red/green blindness is more common). While editors are free to choose from any column, it makes sense to use the ordering of the colors to encourage colors that are less common in color blindness. You also have the anochromatic (white/black shades of gray) on the top row too; in reality, if you only need 2–3 colours it would actually be better to use the anochromatic spectrum. Ultimately the table appears to be designed from an accessibility perspective, not a visual design one. It's best not to alter things if you don't understand the reasons why it was designed that way in the first place. Betty Logan (talk) 15:39, 21 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

• Pure colors for red/green blindness: white, yellow, blue, black
• Pure colors for blue/yellow blindness: white, cyan, red, black

Therefore, the combination of these is "white", "yellow", "cyan", "blue", "red" and "black". I hope that you understand. Upset New Bird (talk) 01:17, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Not really. Cyan is not superior to gray because cyan’s identity depends heavily on blue and green perception. It can be difficult to distinguish it from green in the case of Tritanopia, and difficult to distinguish from blue in the case of deuteranopia. White, gray and black are your core colors. After that, I would say blue & yellow because protanopia/deuteranopia (red/green deficiencies) is far more common than tritanopia (blue/yellow color blindness). But this is getting off the subject now; I reverted you because your provided no rationale for restructuring the table, and when I pushed you on your reason I did not get a coherent scientific reason. If you have a coherent scientific reason then I suggest initiating a discussion on the talk page and presenting your reasons so they can be interrogated properly. Making this table sub-optimal can make the Wikipedia experience sub-optimal for color-blind readers. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

OK, I understand now. By the way, I added the source of ESRB M and AO rating in Video game content rating system, so I hope that your recent reverts will be undone. Thanks. Upset New Bird (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

It has been explained on multiple occasions that all ratings/restrictions/prohibitions must be sourced in each and every article that the claim is made. Just because something is sourced elsewhere in Wikipedia; a reader should not be forced to read another article to confirm the veracity of a claim. Betty Logan (talk) 20:07, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

OK, then I'll add the source to every corresponding article. Upset New Bird (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 20:09, 22 May 2026 (UTC) Reply

Hi Betty Logan,

I recently added the Macau and Papua New Guinea sections to the article.

I noticed that Papua New Guinea has a 24+ rating, while the comparison table currently only goes up to 21+. Would you mind updating the comparison table when you have time? It may also need the colours adjusted for all countries.

Thanks for your work on the article.

RainCandy U (talk) 03:21, 14 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Sorry about the box office bomb thing but I had to get your attention can you remove the American parody films Category and replace it with the parodies of horror Category on the Killer Klowns from Outer Space article because it's not a direct parody and there was only minor parodies at the beginning of the film. GizzManny (talk) 20:38, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply

Do you think the upcoming Werwulf is an improvement over the wolfman remakes? GizzManny (talk) 21:01, 29 July 2026 (UTC) Reply