Talk:Timelapse of the Future

While you may consider this article depressing or disturbing, please remember this page is only for discussing improvements to the article. Wikipedia is not censored, but articles do have to meet certain standards.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Resource Exchange If you have access to this resource, or if you need to verify a citation from this reference, check out WikiProject Resource Exchange.Resource ExchangeWikipedia:WikiProject Resource ExchangeTemplate:WikiProject Resource ExchangeResource Exchange articles Film: Documentary / American / Animated This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles This article is supported by the Documentary films task force. This article is supported by the American cinema task force. This article is supported by the Animated films task force. Animation: American / Films / Computer / Web Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animation, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to animation on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, help out with the open tasks, or contribute to the discussion.AnimationWikipedia:WikiProject AnimationTemplate:WikiProject AnimationAnimation articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Animated films work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Computer animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by the Web animation work group (assessed as Mid-importance). YouTube Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject YouTube, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of YouTube and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.YouTubeWikipedia:WikiProject YouTubeTemplate:WikiProject YouTubeYouTube articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject YouTube To-do: edit history watch purge A list of articles needing cleanup associated with this project is available. See also the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : see list. Assess : Apply the assessment scale on Unknown-importance YouTube articles + Unassessed YouTube articles Cleanup : See cleanup listing Maintain : This WikiProject Stubs : Category:Stub-Class YouTube articles Other : Substitute {{WikiProject YouTube/Invite Members}} on user talk pages Check out edit requests on Talk:List of YouTubers Internet culture Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. WikiProject Internet culture To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : View all requested internet culture articles Expand : Pick an article from here or here Photo : Category:Internet culture articles needing images Stubs : All stubs are located here Other : Category:Internet self-classification codes (!?); Try to get YouTube to FA; Tag all articles you find with {{WikiProject Internet culture}} See also Category:Internet culture articles needing attention Astronomy: Astronomical objects / Cosmology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to Astronomy on Wikipedia.AstronomyWikipedia:WikiProject AstronomyTemplate:WikiProject AstronomyAstronomy articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Astronomical objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects. This article is supported by Cosmology task force. Futures studies Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Futures studies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Futures studies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Futures studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Futures studiesTemplate:WikiProject Futures studiesfutures studies articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. United States: Animation / Cinema / Washington / Seattle Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Animation - American animation work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Film - American cinema task force (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Washington - Seattle (assessed as Low-importance).

The reception section seems to include quite a bit WP:USERGENERATED ratings, which are not WP:RELIABLE. These should probably be removed. Reviews from bloggers are not normally acceptable either. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 23:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edited. Thanks! GeraldWL 08:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't want to jump in and try to do it myself because I'm not familiar with this filmmaker.

It is unusual but it does seem like there might be acceptable in this case to list the number of Youtube hits and likes, but I'm not sure of turning that into a "97.3% approval rating" is a reasonable WP:CALC or contrived WP:SYNTHESIS. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 15:57, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are few problems I'm going to try and breakdown and explain that I don't think could be adequately explained in an edit summary, or even a few edit summaries.

In the intro/lead the sentence "Grossed more than any other of his works in approximate," doesn't really make sense. I know basically what the sentence is trying to say but it not a clear or well written. I would cut this sentence fragment out maybe add something else in later in a separate clearer sentence.

Also "grossed" does not seem like the best way to to phrase this estimated revenue information. I think it would be best not to use the "gross" field in the Infobox. This is not a box office gross, in the sense intended by Template:Infobox_film, (from public screenings, or a theatrical run). This is more like home video revenues or VOD revenues (which are not normally listed in the Infobox).

The Reception section, includes the following sentence (x), which I suggest rephrasing (to y):

• (x) It will be able to generate USD23,600-188,500 in CPM according to Social Blade, making it Boswell's video to generate the most money.
• (y) As of November 11, 2020, based on the number of views the film has received, analytics company Social Blade estimated revenues of $24,000 to $190,000.

It could be rephrased in other ways, but the tense is wrong, the use of an unexplained acronym ([[CPM) even if wikilinked is not good either. It is probably true that this was Boswell's most successful video, but the text should not jump to that conclusion either (without comparison to his other works we should not assume). Also that earnings estimate is a very broad possible range, it is more than a bit vague. It might be better to say something like "estimated revenues of over $20,000". This is quite different from a regular film article, maybe there are examples of other successful YouTube films that this article should be following?

The article isn't locked, and I could make these changes myself but I didn't want to make any complicated changes (or deletes) without explaining them first, and risk accusations of disruptive editing. If others are willing to improve the article that's fine by me, but I will try and fix it myself later if others don't do it before then.

TLDR: "Gross" needs rephrasing. -- 109.79.176.62 (talk) 17:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did all but the infobox one. I believe it's fine to put that estimation there and it doesn't seem like following what the infobox specifically said is needed, and it {{est}} is given, so can't really see any problem with that. GeraldWL 09:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. I remembered to check back and see if I needed to do any work on this and was ready to go but I'm glad to see that wont be necessary. You've certainly improved it enough to address my main concerns and hopefully it will make more sense to readers than when I read it. Except for removing the figures from it from the infobox...

I've seen editors get very annoyed and delete figures from the Infobox because they did not literally represent "box office gross" because a film was not shown in theaters. Then again I've seen other editors put home video revenues in the Infobox or do some very dubious calculations to otherwise inflate the Infobox figure (some of pandemic box office gross figures are very misleading because it is hard to know if they are including only the revenue from drive-in, or VOD or what). What really bugs me is when editors make all kinds of efforts to include weird figures in the Infobox (budget or gross) but fail to make the effort to explain somewhere in the article body what those figures actually mean. So because there is a footnote and some text in the article body explaining what the figures mean, I'm not going to belabor the point. (You could always ask Project Film for an opinion.) I made a minor edit, but I think I'm all done. Thanks. -- 109.78.194.234 (talk) 01:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)![reply]

No worries! Thank you too for bringing this up. GeraldWL 06:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]