Talk:Bankable star

message: This page hasn't had any discussion in two years?! CapnZapp (talk) 10:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  archived discussion? 

message: There currently is a Multiple Issues slapped onto the main page, but with no elaboration whatsoever here at the talk page (indeed, no discussion at all...). 
I'm going to remove that; at the same time inviting the person(s) involved in adding the template(s) to add them back, only this time actually explaining what they feel is wrong about the page.
Please do not just revert back the templates without starting a discussion of what is lacking and how it can be remedied.
Cheers, CapnZapp (talk) 10:04, 26 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  issues 

message: This page is missing vital nformation about The Ulmer Scale, which contains the largest database of star bankability and was founded by myself, James Ulmer (see my entry in Wikipedia under my name)..  I created The Hollywood Reporter's "Star Power" and "Director Power" series, conducted the surveys and wrote the articles for 8 years while I was International Editor at the Reporter from 1988-1997.  I then went on to improve and expand those methodologies in a new expression, and company, called The Ulmer Scale.  I also wrote the St. Martin's Press book, "James Ulmer's Hollywood Hot List -- The Complete Guide to Star ranking," in 2000. Our website is www.ulmerscale.com.  I am new to Wikipedia editing and will not have the time right now to include the background on our company, but it can be found on www.ulmerscale.com.  
I would appreciate it if the editors of Wikipedia would include The Ulmer Scale in their definitions of star bankability.  We just came out with our brand new 2009/10 edition, which was featured on "Entertainment Tonight" last week and also appeared in the New York Times (the Carpetbagger blog) and the Los Angeles Times, New York Magazine, and Bloomberg (in an article coming out next week). 
Many thanks, James Ulmer Jamesulmer (talk) 01:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is lacking in many respects, and I agree that some more information on the ulmer scale would be good here. There's more info on that at the A-list article right now. Perhaps the two articles could be merged since they seem to duplicate a lot of the same information. Siawase (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

text: I added a bit about the Ulmer Scale sourced to NPR  after James Ulmer tipped me off about the link on my talk page. Siawase (talk) 11:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Ulmer Scale 

message: This is just a minor quabble, but the 2006 list has 11 names, with the justification apparently that both Tom Hanks and Tom Cruise tie for #1, but it's not numbered that way, and anyway if that were the case than the numbering should be 1, 1, 3, 4, etc; a three-way tie would make the numbering 1, 1, 1, 4, 5, etc. I'm not objecting to including the list as-is, but it makes it look like an oversight to call it a top 10 list when it has 11 names on it. I didn't change anything because I wasn't sure whether to just truncate the list, add an explanatory note, or just follow the "2006" text with "(top 11, due to tie)" or something along those lines. Perhaps someone more intrepid can work it out, I just thought it'd slip past the attention of most viewers. Mr0t1633 (talk) 00:59, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Much simpler, a name was added to the tail end of the list without a source, making it 11. I reverted it. Siawase (talk) 10:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top 11 ? 

message: [ Bankable director] redirects to . The article should be changed to refer to something like bankable participant in making a film. -- Tomdo08 (talk) 14:54, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bankable director 

message: The only external link was broken, so I deleted it. However, I left the section blank in case anyone has something to add.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hstevens86 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Note that we don't normally remove broken external links, instead we tag them with . That link you removed had an archived copy at the Internet Archive so I restored it. Although it looks like it may be a subscription site anyways. -- œ™ 05:06, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: External Link broken

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bankable star. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050320100935/http://www.eonline.com:80/News/Items/0,1,4909,00.html to http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,4909,00.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bankable star. 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512191946/http://victorian.fortunecity.com/cloisters/46/ch10.htm to http://victorian.fortunecity.com/cloisters/46/ch10.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello, fellow Wikipedians,
I think that "Bankability" is a much wider concept (finance, development projects...). Therefore, "Bankability" should have its own Wikipedia page, not just a redirection to "Bankable star" (which I am in favour of keeping). I intend to make the changes within some weeks. Alvarosinde (talk) 11:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Bankability is a much wider concept

message: Can somebody with industry knowledge add mention of box office draw here? The search  gives 220 hits but not here. It looks like none of them try to define or discuss the term in general. This article is probably the best candidate for a redirect on Box office draw/Box-office draw but it requires some content. PrimeHunter (talk) 19:43, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Box office draw