Should this article's infobox include Blackstone Group in the "owner" parameter?
I submitted a request to remove Blackstone Group from the infobox (see the Request for updates to infobox section above, or more specifically, the Re: Blackstone Group subsection). Hilton Worldwide is a publicly traded company. According to infobox template documentation (bold emphasis mine), we should "Use [the owner] parameter to list ownership percentages for private companies owned by a few key individuals or to list ownership percentages for joint ventures, if applicable. Do not use this field for publicly traded companies. When listing a company as an owner, use the full legal name of the entity that holds the ownership stake in the article's subject company."
User:Toohool disagrees with the infobox documentation. User:Altamel does not feel strongly either way, but offered the following compromise: "perhaps Blackstone Group could be removed from the infobox while writing a sentence in the introduction about Blackstone's plurality ownership stake". I agreed to this compromise. User:Toohool did not accept the compromise, and User:Altamel closed the edit request saying there is no consensus for update the article accordingly.
I think template documentation supports my argument, but Blackstone Group remains in the infobox and I am not willing to edit the article myself given my conflict of interest (see multiple sections above). I would like for more editors to weigh in on this discussion. Thank you in advance. Inkian Jason (talk) 19:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Shall we update the accreditation section (including the header) with the following? If we fail to reach consensus, the outcome should be removal of the section since we cannot agree on anything to say; if you disagree with that please say so.
Licenses and recognition
EGS is licensed as a university in Malta[1] and is recognized in the Swiss canton where it operates,[2] but is not recognized by the Swiss University Conference, the main regulatory body for universities in Switzerland.[3] In the US, the State of Texas includes the European Graduate School on its published list of institutions that issue "fraudulent or substandard degrees" and notes that it is illegal to use an EGS degree to obtain employment within the state.[4]
While reading this detailed article, I wondered whether articles like this one contribute to fraud. For example, what is the purpose of providing six form letters involved in committing a particular type of fraud? It seems to me that someone with no scruples looking for money could use a WP article like this as a "how-to" for launching a fraudulent business. Would editors please respond with disagree/agree? Thanks. David Spector (talk) 11:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Does this article comply with the neutral point of view policy? (permalink to the version of this article at the start of this RfC) 05:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The lists of countries that use YouTube and of media encoding options are now collapsed. MOS:COLLAPSE normally discourages collapsing the tables. The question is not to either keep the tables collapsed or expand them. Actually, someone said that these tables are too long for an average reader. Shall we retain those tables or remove them? --Relisted.George Ho (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
There have been disputes on several articles changing the grosses in charts to the all-time grosses (thus incorporating reissue grosses). For example, on its original 1982 release E.T grossed $359 million, but that rose to $435 million thanks to two re-releases in 1988 and 2002. The question here is which figure should ideally go in this chart? Option 1: $359 million from the 1982 release; or option 2: $435 million collated from the 1982, 1988 and 2002 releases? This question doesn't just relate to this article but the whole family of year articles. Betty Logan (talk) 18:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Despite technical differences between two CinemaScope formats, both belong to the same movie studio, 20th Century Fox. Does CinemaScope 55 meet WP:PRODUCT guideline? Shall we merge Cinemascope 55 into this article? Why or why not? George Ho (talk) 09:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Post-World War II private domestic investment and corporate profits after tax, both per Gross Domestic Product. Private investment is a source of consumer spending which is in turn a source of corporate profits.
Should the graph with the more explanatory caption shown at right be included adjacent to the passage on the size of the consumer spending proportion of the economy, as per [1]? 22:33, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
We should examine the proposed edits (see diff for details:
however, it goes further in a few respects. Most importantly, biodynamic farmers see their farm as an enclosed, self-sustaining organism, so emphasis is on creating soil fertility and preserving health from within Should be restored
and compost and field preparations meant to harness healing life forces which are said to positively effect fertility on the farm. could be simply: “and compost and field preparations”
As of February 2016, biodynamic techniques were used on 164,323 hectares in 64 countries with Germany accounting for 44% of the global total[1]. Should be restored; valid source and in line with 2011 figures.
Biodynamic agriculture has only become the subject of scientific research within that last few decades, making scientific understanding of this farming method infant at best. Thus far, only preliminary beneficial outcomes have been scientifically established. Critics continue to Do not restore
which highlights the importance of further scientific study.[2] Restore, sourced and unoffensive
This organization is a non-profit, international organization with certifying systems in 45 countries.[3] Restore
biodynamic farms certify through independent certifying agencies which interpret Demeter Farm Standards when certifying a farm. To transition to biodynamic, conventional farms must follow The Farm Standards for three years before being able to market their products as biodynamic, while certified organic farms only need to follow biodynamic standards for one. Restore
Restore table of acreage
Similarly to Organic farming, Biodynamic methods display... Restore in accordance with source
Further research on the biodynamic preparations… Continue discussion about primary studies.
{{Infobox film}} states "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters) ... If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."
Film budgets are not usually released by film studios, but generally entertainment magazines and trade journals can obtain an approximate figure from industry insiders. The "budget" is usually taken to be the "negative cost" which is is generally defined as the costs incurred up to producing a negative, but will omit the distribution costs and profit participation for the stars. Sources will usually distinguish between the negative cost and the subsequent costs, such as Variety observing "the budget, which Disney quotes at around $250 million, with an additional $100 million to market the film worldwide". If different sources provide different figures then these figures are represented as a range.
What is not so clear is how to represent figures that incorporate a tax credit and it is this quandary that is the subject of several ongoing film related discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Film_budget_representation_in_infobox. For example, in the case of John CarterForbes obtained financial documents from the UK treasury which revealed "Total costs came to $306.6 million ... The financial statements reveal that the British tax authority handed Disney $42.9 million (£27.1 million) to make John Carter ... The tax payment to John Carter gave the picture a net budget of $263.7 million which is far more than estimates predicted." Disney is on record as stating the budget is "around $250 million".
The question being posed by this RFC is what should go in the infobox? These seem like the viable options to me:
$250 million (EDIT: the cost as stated by Disney and widely reported at the time)
$306.6 million (the total costs filed at HMRC)
$263.7 million (the net budget, which is derived by subtracting the tax credit)
$306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit) (the bit in brackets could actually go in brackets or as a footnote to avoid clutter)
$263.7 million ($306.6 million before tax credit)
$250–306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit)
$250–306.6 million (the highest and lowest figure available)
Even though the discussions are spread over quite few articles they seem to be going in circles and would benefit from community input, which is the reason for the RFC. I think this article is the best "test case" for the RFC since it has some fairly concrete numbers and uses explicit terminology in how those numbers are delivered, such as an official statement on the finance by Disney, and exact details of the tax filings at HMRC. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Add the tag {{rfc|xxx}} at the top of a talk page section, where "xxx" is the category abbreviation. The different category abbreviations that should be used with {{rfc}} are listed above in parenthesis. Multiple categories are separated by a vertical pipe. For example, {{rfc|xxx|yyy}}, where "xxx" is the first category and "yyy" is the second category.
