User talk:Rebel14

Orphaned non-free image File:Sea Life Charlotte-Concord Aquarium logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sea Life Charlotte-Concord Aquarium logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:41, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RfC

Before I start the RfC, how should we write it? Here's Option 1: "Seeking additional comments whether to list a sole film production company on infobox based on billing block/press release or add multiple production companies based on secondary sources". Option 2: "Seeking comments to settle dispute on how/which film production companies to list in infobox". I'm not married to these. These are just starting points. Armegon (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The latter seems to be a longer process but it is one to consider since we have a few other secondary sources that contradict what is claimed in Variety and Screendaily. Deadline states in their article

Legendary East is handling China, where we understand the movie does not have co-pro status so the return is about 25%. Toho has Japan.

This quote discusses distribution of the film through Legendary East's deal with the China Film Group Corporation. Where if co-production status is reached the studio will receive 43% of Chinese revenue, thus this criteria would qualify any such film as a Sino-foreign co-production. But we see this status is not reached and is therefor treated in an economic sense as a foreign film when it comes to China, with it only earning 25% of the revenue.

Overall I am leaning towards the former due to its simplicity, but I believe context should be given about these secondary sources. But if that's too biased then I'd prefer the first one. What do you make of it?--Rebel14 (talk) 02:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alright. RfC is up. Now we play the waiting game and monitor the talk page to see who responds and we make our case. Armegon (talk) 20:50, 19 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC November 2020

The Rfc is finally getting some attention. Head on over there to strengthen our case. I already provided some examples. Armegon (talk) 22:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]