Talk:1958 in film

message: This chart ranks films by their theatrical rental as opposed to box-office gross, since this was the system in place at the time. Even though the chart isn't cited it uses the theatrical rental amounts as compiled by Variety magazine. An editor has since started inserting box-office grosses into the chart, which renders the chart meaningless since it conflates the two sytems. I can't link online to the Variety charts, but as you can see at the 1958 entry at this chart, the changes mean the chart no longer matches up. Unless the full chart can source box-office grosses for all the films, then it should not not be altered, since having box-office gross for some films and gross rental for others (which is roughly half the box-office gross) makes the chart useless. Betty Logan (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If it could be uniformly, and reliably, switched to gross, then I guess that would be alright as it gives some degree of consistency with the modern year-in-film articles; but if it's a mix-and-match situation then go for rental as it's consistently present for everything there. All of one or all of the other, but no admixture. GRAPPLE X 02:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

text: The confusion over the metric is understandable, but to aggressively reinsert the incompatible data while completely failing to address the reason for their removal is not the right approach for addressing the errors in the table. Betty Logan (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: ♠Your arrogance does you no favors. There's no sourcing for many (most?) of the year lists of top films, & the ones that have sources can't make up their minds if they're relying on lifetime or first-release figures. Neither can you, apparently. And an rv of a sourced, cited edit with nothing more backing up than "I know better" does not persuade me. I'd far rather have it clarified just exactly what the sourced cites are claiming to be referring to. Most of them don't. So, pray tell, unless I want to make this a year-long project (& I have no intention of engaging in anything remotely approaching that, I can assure you), just exactly what in the hell am I supposed to rely on, when the very sources being used don't agree on anything?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:33 & 04:34, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I have taken the time to write out a very detailed explanation of the problem and you are still failing to address the underlying reason I reverted you. Will you please acknowledge whether you understand the difference between a box-office gross and a gross rental yet? Adding box-office grosses to a rentals chart is like adding 100 meter track times to a table of 200 meter track times. It is just nonsensical. I actually agree that many of these lists need fixing and I would like to work collaboratively with you, and if you really want to resolve this dispute and get the article to the state where it ranks films by the 1958 box-office runs then we have to resolve the issue of the metric. Betty Logan (talk) 09:47, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You're so smart, explain this & this. The very source I was relying on, & it's okay for 1962, which is including rankings after re-release. I'm relying on the very sources everybody else is. And you're giving me a hard time?  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:18, 23:19, & 23:20, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: You are not relying on the sources everyone else uses, at least not in the case of this particular chart. And to clarify I reverted you because you were mixing box-office grosses and gross rentals. Also, will you please acknowledge that you now understand the difference between a box-office gross and a gross rental because this is at the root of the problem! This chart uses Varietys rental lists as a source. If you click on the little citation numbers next to the grosses it will tell you where the data comes from. I don't have a problem with your source per se, but you you can't mix two different metrics as you were doing. If you are going to add films by box-office gross you have to convert ALL the films to box-office grosses. For example, we have South Pacific in top place with a rental of $16.3 million in our chart, but according to The Numbers that converts to a box-office gross of $36.8 million. The film at #2, Auntie Mame has a rental of $9.1 million which according to The Numbers converts to a box-office gross of $23.3 million. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof is at #3 with $7.8 million, and that converts to a box-office gross of $17.6 million. Then we get to #4, No Time for Sergeants, on a rental of $7.5 million, which The Numbers does not have an entry for. And there we start to run into problems! If we are going to rank 1958 by box-office grosses we need to convert No Time for Sergeantss gross rental to a box-office gross! If you don't convert all the rentals to grosses then the chart will be wrong. Also, please bear in mind that "all-time" and "first run" box-office grosses will only be different if the film has had more than one release. The 1962 chart you link to above is wrong by the way: The Longest Day was actually the biggest film of the year according to contemporary Variety lists, and that gross for Lawrence of Arabia came from reissues. Betty Logan (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Insertion of box-office gross figures into a chart of theatrical rentals 

message: Should films set in 1958 be included on this list? --Traveler100 (talk) 20:27, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[1958 (film)]] 

message: I have concerns regarding the edits by User:Walkingtalkingmammal. Twice now he has removed films from the list with edit summary "adding films/data" when he is clearly removing films from the list as you can see at  and . I find these edit summaries highly inappropriate since they are misleading, and furthermore, they do not explain why these films are being removed. After I restored The Naked Maja to the list on the grounds that it is a 1958 film, he subsequently removed the film again without addressing any of my concerns. Since an adequate explanation has not been offered for removing this film, I am going to restore it to the lists, and I would appreciate it if it is not removed without a valid explanation this time. Betty Logan (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inappropriate edits