Talk:The Evil Dead

message: "Who will be next possessed by the evil dead?
 Will anyone survive this night of terror? I won't tell.
 See this movie, you won't regret it!!!!!
 The Greatest Horror Movie of All Time!!!!!"
-- What is this? Ad copy?
I don't know what the hell is this  LeronJomes (talk) 14:49, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: After looking into this, it seems as though sourced content was changed by a blocked editor, .  The article originally cited a book that said it grossed $2 million overseas, but he  to say that it grossed $27 million overseas.  And now, a few years later, an IP editor changed the gross, saying that "the numbers says $29 million".  It turns out that the IP editor seems to be citing this source, from The Numbers, which does indeed say the worldwide gross is $29 million.  This is in direct contrast to Box Office Mojo and what the book apparently says.  What should we go with?  In the meantime, I've added both numbers to the infobox. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, I've been watching this article for sometime and have reverted them unsourced gross a few times . Thanks for adding The Numbers source. I was wondering if the "newer" gross has something to do with re-releases. I mean  this link mentions a release date of 10/26/2018 next to the United Kingdom territory. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 11:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yeah, if it's from re-releases, that might explain why no other source is even close to that number.  It doesn't look like there's any detail in The Numbers, though. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Were those theatrical runs? If not then we should not be adding those as per Template:Infobox_film#Parameters. Isn't it? - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:25, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

text: It's generally odd for them not to provide some source or context for how they get that 27 million figure. It's all over the international section as an overall revenue amount with no actual details. I've not seen them do that before. I do know in the past when I've seen something off, like there was with Superman Returns once, I reached out via email and then adjusted their page when they were presented with evidence to the contrary of what they have.   BIGNOLE   (Contact me) 18:29, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The Numbers is not contradicting Box Office Mojo The discrepancy comes from BOM only recording the gross in the United States and Spain (2.4m + 0.3m). The Numbers has both the US and foreign gross (2.4m + 27m). In this case BOM is incomplete; that does not necessarily mean The Numbers is correct, though, because that 27 mil figure is a huge amount for an early 80s low-budget horror film. This isn't a case of vandalism though because somebody thinks they are adding legitimate information. Personally I would get that figure double-checked before adding it because The Numbers is prone to mistakes. Betty Logan (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide gross 

message: I have engaged in a sorely needed rewrite of the summary, which had a number of sub-Wikipedia quality text issues, including: 
* impenetrable and poorly constructed sentences, including run-on sentences; 
* style problems, such as repetitive vocabulary and poor sentence flow;
* fan-wiki-style oddities hostile to Wikipedia's general audience, such as terms from elsewhere in the franchise (e.g. "Deadite") that do not appear in this movie at all and are not explained in the summary (they needn't be explained further, of course, because they shouldn't be there at all and need to be replaced by descriptions the casual reader will understand); 
* a series of nonsense-inducing gaps in events summarized, such as people suddenly shooting each other without mention of a gun, when it's a plot point previously that no such weapons were available (this is a horror movie, after all). 
Other issues requiring fixes can be found by reviewing my edit summaries.
Another editor has raised concerns about length from the improved summary, and, while recognizing that the summary as it existed before my improvements was simply not up to snuff in a great many ways and required a great deal of improvement, I understand those concerns completely and aim to work to trim and consolidate the text. Though some of those additions are certainly needed to make sense out of the less-than-sense-making text there now, a great deal of the necessary improvements can likely be consolidated and winnowed down to prevent any concerns about bloat.
I've reached out to that editor to discuss the matter constructively, and will hold off on that necessary work on the summary for at least a day or two to facilitate the opportunity for it to be a collaborative effort. If anyone else would like to assist, please weigh in. RiverCityRelay (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: A suggestion, you can use your own sandbox to edit a well-written summary that fits within the constraints before introducing it to the article proper. DonQuixote (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Rewrite of summary

message: Can anyone help me make this actor's article? LeronJomes (talk) 14:50, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creating The Richard DeMinacor Article