Jump to content

Talk:2015 in film

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Disagrreement

[edit]

Why did you change the editings of User:Robodog619; You made a great mistake and you should erase your editings and do it according to the editing of User:Robodog619.Like this:

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures $1,668,912,312
2 Furious 7 $1,514,827,481
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios $1,405,035,767
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment $1,157,094,892
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $851,602,426
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia $752,595,343
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures $682,330,139
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures $570,489,358
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox $555,108,088
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures $542,686,737

Why did you insist on that thing; Why; What will happen if it will remain in that way; — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.86.255.196 (talk) 19:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale for conversion has already been explained. If you disagree, the burden is yours to explain why this level of detail is important, and to support your argument with links to existing Wikipedia policies or guidelines. Consensus is not determined through voting or edit-warring, it's determined through discussion, and thus far you haven't presented any clear rationale for your position, except that the long form exists in other articles. That's a weak argument. If there are typographical errors in lots of articles, would you suggest that we not fix any in this article? Formatting that is inconsistent with widespread community guidelines should not be perpetuated just because nobody thought to change it sooner. Change has to start somewhere. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused about which style is more correct. I try my best to stay out of edit wars, and I really apologize that I was in edit wars on this page. I assure you that wasn't my intention at all. I just thought the style cyphoidbomb suggested was more correct, but now I don't know which is more correct. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 03:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Techincally neither conform to the MOS. This version has an unecessary level of precision but conforms to the requirement that the precision is consistent while this version violates the MOS by having different levels of precision. While $1.4 billion may have the same number of decimal places as $851.5 million, it is not the same level of precision. I was under the impression that a consensus had been reached to write figures in tables such as this to hundreds of thousands i.e $1,405,035,767 would be written as $1,405,000,000 and $851,602,426 as $851,600,000. Both numbers would then have the same level of precison but would not have unnecessary precision. Betty Logan (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Table format

[edit]

The long-standing approach to these tables was to simply present the full number as given in the source as seen here. There were concerns that this approach violated MOS:LARGENUM which states "Where explicit uncertainty is unavailable (or is unimportant for the article's purposes) round to an appropriate number of significant digits; the precision presented should usually be conservative. Precise values (often given in sources for formal or matter-of-record reasons) should be used only where stable and appropriate to the context, or significant in themselves for some special reason." In response to this guideline, the table format was changed to this. However, as I explained at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Archive_58#MOS:LARGENUM_issues I believe this also violates MOS:UNCERTAINTY which states "The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended." Even though you can argue that 1.1 billion has the same number of decimal places as 1.1 million it is not the same level of precision, and if we are comparing quantities the grosses should all have the same level of precision. Currently there are two versions under dispute, and two solutions which were put forward at the Film project. I will present these below:

1. Long-standing version with unnecessary level of precision (violates MOS:LARGENUM)

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures $1,668,912,312
2 Furious 7 $1,514,827,481
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios $1,405,035,767
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment $1,157,094,892
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $851,602,426
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia $752,595,343
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures $682,330,139
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures $570,489,358
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox $555,108,088
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures $542,686,737

2. New version with different levels of precision (violates MOS:UNCERTAINTY)

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures $1.67 billion
2 Furious 7 $1.5 billion
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios $1.4 billion
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment $1.16 billion
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $851.5 million
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia $752.5 million
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures $682.3 million
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures $570.5 million
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox $545.5 million
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures $542.7 million

3. The first solution put forward at the Film project which rounds to hundreds of thousands. This satisfies the MOS and has the added benefit of being numerically sortable for tables where this function is necessary.

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures $1,668,900,000
2 Furious 7 $1,514,800,000
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios $1,405,000,000
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment $1,157,100,000
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $851,600,000
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia $752,600,000
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures $682,300,000
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures $570,500,000
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox $555,100,000
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures $542,700,000

4. The second solution put forward by AngusWOOF at the Film project involves using a simple scaling unit and also rounds to hundreds of thousands; identical to the approach at K-pop#YouTube_views. This is also similar to the approach used by the World Bank and the IMF to present financial data.

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross ($ millions)
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures 1,668.9
2 Furious 7 1,514.8
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios 1,405.0
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment 1,157.1
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar 851.6
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia 752.6
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures 682.3
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures 570.5
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox 555.1
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures 542.7

Before any more attempts are made to alter the format of the table we should discuss the issue here and arrive at a consensus. My preferred format is option 3, but option 4 is also acceptable to me too. In regards to option 1, I believe that the editors in favor of this should put forward an argument as to why that level of precision is required. Option 2 is a no-go for me: it doesn't comply with the MOS and it looks aesthetically poor how it changes units from a "billion" to a "million" halfway down the table. Betty Logan (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Betty, does Option 2 contravene MOS:UNCERTAINTY because the decimal places are not consistent? If that's the case, I'm fine with picking an arbitrary number of places, say, two decimals for either millions or billions, (ex: $750,337,257 --> $750.34 million or $1,668,912,312 --> $1.67 billion) I think I intended to do that the last time around, but I dropped the ball. I tend to prefer the prose $N.NN billion and $N.NN million format over Style 3 or 4, since that is what we'd use in prose, a la "As of November 10, 2015, Black Mass has grossed $62.6 million in North America." Style 3 gives me some pause, since a value like $570,500,000 appearing in a table only seems like it's asking for greater precision and daily updates from box office gross enthusiasts. Option 4 might be fine for a table, but it is inconsistent with the prose format. Also, should we have this discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film for the widest participation? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care what the format is. It all works for me. The only reason I reverted was because I thought consensus was reached earlier to have the one Cyphoidbomb suggested. I will be doing no more edits regarding this thing. Blaze The Movie Fan (talk) 23:13, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
MOS:UNCERTAINTY says the number of decimal places should be the same unless different precision is intended. However, we should have the same precision because mathematically it is poor practise to compare homogeneous quantities of different precision. If you look at the IMF and World Bank examples you will see each column of data has the same precision and the same number of decimal places because it is simply good practise. We can't go far wrong if we structure our data the way global financial institutions format theirs. Betty Logan (talk) 11:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Brought here by a msg at Talk:MODNUM.) The pertinent MOS passage is
The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended.

Probably the word "decimal places" should be read as "decimal places or significant figures". I'd round it all to 3 sigfigs like this:

5.

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross ($ millions)
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures 1,670
2 Furious 7 1,510
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios 1,410
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment 1,160
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar 852
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia 753
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures 682
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures 571
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox 555
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures 543

See how much cleaner that is? And the reader's understanding isn't reduced one iota -- in fact it's increased, since brainpower isn't wasted dealing with the static of extra figures that make only 1/10 of 1% difference to anything. The figures should be right-aligned too, but before morning coffee I'm not gonna tangle with table syntax. I hope this helps. EEng (talk) 12:54, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I guess I'm okay with that. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not taking a position on which table to use, I'll leave that to everyone else to establish consensus. But, any objection to right aligning the amounts columns? I think the presentation is cleaner when the decimals and commas all line up in a column. I can't find a policy or guideline that addresses this, and alignment is inconsistent in other articles (for example, the tables at World Bank right-aligns the amounts; but the tables at IMF do not). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Right-alignment is the general standard for tabulated numerical quantities so there are no objections from me. I am a bit surprised the MOS doesn't advise it ether. Betty Logan (talk) 18:50, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objection from me. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw this discussion mentioned at WT:MOSNUM; you all seemed to be working things out fine but if you really want extra comments as below ... I agree that such figures are best shown in millions or even, especially when they eventually start to climb above $10,000 million, billions. As the range is small, it's best to simply show them to the same number of decimals (if the range was very much larger, then we'd consider showing them to the same number of significant figures). To avoid confusing the reader and back-and-forth editing, I agree with Betty Logan that it's best to round them to only to the figures shown; it's not obvious to the reader that 1,510 might mean 1,515 and editors are quite likely to "correct" the rounded value if they spot that the actual value was 1,515. If showing four figures seems too precise in future years, then consider switching to billions, e.g. $9.51 billion, so long as the table's consistent. Right-justify the figures and show "$ millions" (or "$ billions") in the header; no need for the World Bank's fussy "(millions of US dollars)". NebY (talk) 18:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

next steps

[edit]

As there has been no further comments, it appears that consensus has been reached - yes? Should a new thread be started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film to confirm the consensus should be carried to all "XXXX in film" articles? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:02, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barek I think that's reasonable. Would you mind taking the lead on it, please, since I'm somewhat involved in the discussion? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping to get a few more comments than we have. We still don't seem to have a definitive solution, and have several options open to us. For instance, if we go with EEng's proposal I still don't see why 1,510 is preferable to 1,515, or 1,670 over 1,669 (million). If we are going to have precision to a million then I don't see the problem with rounding to a million either, which would be consistent with the approach used by the World Bank. While I accept the argument for curbing unnecessary precision I think we should take care to not over-compensate either. Betty Logan (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Betty Logan: - Thanks, I had missed that open question. I suspect the main project page should see more traffic to get further discussion on the open points, so I can bring a summary of the above discussion over there.
@Cyphoidbomb: - No problem; I should be back at my laptop sometime later today - so I'll go ahead and summarize the above points at the project page later (several hours from now). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, after reading the discussion further, I'm holding off on copying the discussion to WT:FILMS. I think it may be better to start an WP:RFC on this page for now so as to not break up the discussion onto multiple pages. If no objections, I'll start one. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No objections. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:30, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. It shouldn't be too difficult to resolve because we all seem to be roughly on the same page with this. But yeah, let's get a community decision for this family of articles. Betty Logan (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quick mention, using the word Billion leads to possible ambiguity for regions that do not use the short scale for numbers. Also, it becomes a bit more difficult for regions where other systems are used, such as India. Listing the number fully, i.e. "1,000,000,000" rather than "billion" makes it easier. Kid Bugs (talk) 06:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't listing the number as 1,000,000,000 be just as difficult for Indian readers who would expect to see 1,00,00,00,000? Not that it particularly matters since we use a Western formatting style. I guess I don't particularly understand how this would be easier. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Both numbering systems are decimal, the difference in comma placement when using written-out digits is much easier to deal with than to see "one hundred crore" in place of 1000000000, regardless of where you place the commas. Also, you note that we use a western formatting style, but Canadian French uses long scale (thousand million for 1,000,000,000).
If the width of the column in question was shorter it could be appropriate to do something to shorten it up, like having the header note figures given in millions i.e. Worldwide gross ($ millions). However, the number of characters in the column header makes the width enough that we do not need to shorten up the numbers to make it fit, at least not until Star Wars X. Kid Bugs (talk) 05:32, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another compromise would be a hybrid of the two approaches:
Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
(in $000,000s)
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures 1,669
2 Furious 7 1,515
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios 1,405
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment 1,157
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar 852
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia 753
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures 682
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures 571
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox 555
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures 543
It would keep everything in number format, but would eliminate the redundancy in the table. Quite a few major publications handle financial reports in this way such as CNN: [1] Betty Logan (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the right justified format for the dollar amounts, but I notice on 2016 in film there are references that will mess it up.
Maybe exclude the individual references, and instead have a line at outside the list to the effect that numbers were obtained from Box Office Mojo unless specified otherwise. Kid Bugs (talk) 23:36, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Table format survey

[edit]

There were discussions above about making the number format consistent with MOS:LARGENUM. Christmas seems to have thrown us off track slightly, so I will summarise the options above so we can survey opinion. If there is a consensus for one particular version then we can install the new table. If not we can file a formal RFC, but that ultimately could result in a version none of us particularly like. Betty Logan (talk) 08:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the various options (I am starting a new section to maximise editorial input):

1. Long-standing version with unnecessary level of precision (violates MOS:LARGENUM; I have taken the liberty of adding right-alignment per a suggestion in the discussion)

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures $1,668,912,312
2 Furious 7 $1,514,827,481
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios $1,405,035,767
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment $1,157,094,892
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $851,602,426
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia $752,595,343
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures $682,330,139
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures $570,489,358
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox $555,108,088
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures $542,686,737

2. New version with different levels of precision (violates MOS:UNCERTAINTY unless different levels of precision are intended; no right-alignment due to a mix of words and numbers)

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures $1.67 billion
2 Furious 7 $1.5 billion
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios $1.4 billion
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment $1.16 billion
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $851.5 million
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia $752.5 million
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures $682.3 million
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures $570.5 million
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox $545.5 million
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures $542.7 million

3. The first solution put forward at the Film project which rounds to hundreds of thousands. This satisfies the MOS and has the added benefit of being numerically sortable for tables where this function is necessary.

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures $1,668,900,000
2 Furious 7 $1,514,800,000
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios $1,405,000,000
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment $1,157,100,000
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar $851,600,000
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia $752,600,000
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures $682,300,000
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures $570,500,000
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox $555,100,000
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures $542,700,000

4. The second solution put forward by AngusWOOF at the Film project involves using a simple scaling unit and is identical to the approach at K-pop#YouTube_views. This is also similar to the approach used by the World Bank and the IMF to present financial data. Uses "$000,000s" to denote the scale, which is consistent with usage at CNN.

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
(in $000,000s)
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures 1,669
2 Furious 7 1,515
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios 1,405
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment 1,157
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar 852
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia 753
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures 682
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures 571
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox 555
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures 543

5. A slight variation on the one above proposed by EEng which sees the figures round to the nearest 10 million. Uses "$ million" to denote the scale which is consistent with the World Bank.

Extended content
Highest-grossing films of 2015
Rank Title Studio Worldwide gross
($ millions)
1 Jurassic World Universal Pictures 1,670
2 Furious 7 1,510
3 Avengers: Age of Ultron Marvel Studios 1,410
4 Minions Universal Pictures / Illumination Entertainment 1,160
5 Inside Out Walt Disney Pictures / Pixar 852
6 Spectre MGM / Columbia 753
7 Mission: Impossible – Rogue Nation Paramount Pictures 682
8 Fifty Shades of Grey Universal Pictures 571
9 The Martian 20th Century Fox 555
10 Cinderella Walt Disney Pictures 543

Poll

[edit]
  • Support 4 AngusWOOF's proposal has grown on me. I think it represents the best option in terms of precision (option 1 is too much and option 5 is not enough). It also minimises the redundancy of options 2 & 3. It is also unformly numeric as well which means it is sortable should that feature be added at some point down the line. Option 1 isn't really an option since it violates the MOS, and I dislike option 2 (inconsistent precision and the change in unit makes it looks messy). Betty Logan (talk) 09:00, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 1 Some films stay in exhibition until the bitter end, and from one week to the next may very well have their total gross go up by less than $1000.00. Some users (me for one) may look for those small changes, and the most common source used (Mojo) does give numbers to the single unit. I do not see how it hurts to go that far, whereas using a precision in the millions will show some films as flat long before they have been removed from general release. Kid Bugs (talk) 22:57, 18 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New movie

[edit]

Hi, I added a new movie; but I was unfamiliar with the terms date= and accessdate= and their differences in the edit page. So I entered both of them the same. Is it incorrect? Can someone please give me a brief info about the terms? 5.235.92.58 (talk) 15:06, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Short version, date= is when the source you referenced was published/posted. accessdate= is when you read/checked it. -- ferret (talk) 15:24, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks 5.235.92.58 (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Film credits in "Notable deaths"

[edit]

Is it possible to leave only two films credits to each person in the "Notable deaths" section? Since 2015 is passed, we could try to save some space in the page... -- AleCapHollywood (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you took care of this. Per WP:FILMYEAR you are correct. -- ferret (talk) 18:26, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on 2015 in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2015 in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

December

[edit]

Did something happen to the December section of the table? I went through the history and don’t see anything deleted by accident, but I didn’t check all the versions. It seems odd that no films would have released that month. After Midnight 0001 16:10, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_in_film&oldid=1241871966"