Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of highest-grossing films/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by The Rambling Man 15:41, 28 February 2012 [1].

---

List of highest-grossing films

List of highest-grossing films (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured list candidates/List of highest-grossing films/archive1

Nominator(s): Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list status because I believe it gives a comprehensive overview of the topic. It is as complete as it I can make it without more information being made available. Betty Logan (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Just curious. What's up with no 1917? No source for it? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 14:46, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

None of the sources have 1917 down. The Numbers and Variety really start at 1920, and the AMC Filmsite starts at 1915 but misses out 1917 and 1924. Wikipedia's film year article reckons it was Cleopatra and they have been right in most cases, but they don't have a source for it or any figures. Betty Logan (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

As I reckoned was the reason. That's a bummer too. I am not really a reviewer so I will give you the summary of what I feel on the article. I feel the list article is well organized and taking care of (by you I might add). The article is very reliable at telling the source's side of the story and the notes are really appropriate when there's two or more different sides to the story as well. I don't feel I should vote yay or nay on supporting it as a featured list article because I have edited it but I do feel that you (as a editor) deserve a thumbs up for all the work you put over it. Congratulations on that. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from WFC

Opening comments from WFC: Wow. At first glance this is a worthy candidate. Due to its length this could take some time to review, but it's definitely on my to-do list. A few initial observations: Background shading is excessive: shading the film's cell rather than the entire row would look better in my opinion. *Additionally, coloured backgrounds are normally accompanied by a symbol such as †, so that readers using text based browsers like Lynx do not miss out on any information. I would recommend updating the coloured background by month, rather than a specific date. I.e. "Background shading indicates that at least one film in the series is playing as of January 2012 in theaters around the world", rather than "14 January 2012". The references with a red background on this page are not working: [2]. I have to say, considering the number of references and bearing in mind that all of them went dead recently, it's an impressively small number. —WFC— 00:48, 15 January 2012 (UTC) I've fixed the references; they were still there but TCM had just altered the urls for some reason. As for the highlighting, I think I've done what you had in mind, but you better take a look. I didin't know whether I should put the daggers at the start or the end of the line like a footnote; I opted for the start to distinguish them from footnotes, but if you think they'd be better at the end that is easily sorted. As for the playing dates, I actually think updating every day is pointless (it's just done that way so it's automated), but I think updating it once a month would introduce unnecessary lag. Basically theatrical release is a weekly thing so it should ideally correllate with that. The purpose of the highlighting is two-fold: to let readers know which data is subject to change, and to aid editors in tracking the films on release. In view of that I'm not sure we even need a date: if a film is highlighted the data hasn't been finalised, if it's not then it's because the film has closed and final figures have been entered, so I'm thinking we should just scrap the date because it's more a key for our chart than an encylopedic claim (I'm thinking it's technically untrue anyway, because the key really indicates what Box Office Mojo is currently tracking, and a film can play in a theater without being tracked). Betty Logan (talk) 11:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Nice work with the references, and the shading looks great. Unfortunately putting the daggers at the start affects the table's sort function (for The Twilight Saga): putting daggers immediately after film titles should solve this. Updating once a week would work too, if you prefer. The frequency of updates is largely down to you (I only update List of Watford F.C. players every 4-6 weeks), but having a date of some sort is important: it informs the reader how up-to-date the information is. —WFC— 18:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Support. I'm happy that the data meets FL standards, and that the lead covers the right points. For the director's benefit, I should point out that I haven't covered criteria 1. —WFC— 16:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments from RexxS

I hope you don't mind, but I've updated the † symbol to the {{dagger}} template, because † is often unreadable by the screen readers used by the visually impaired, while the template is intended to be universally readable.

In general, this is a most impressive collection of related lists and the nominator should be congratulated for the work put into it. I have a few comments to make about accessibility:

• The images all have sensible alt text which greatly benefits accessibility.
• Three of the All four of the tables have captions, which is a real bonus for anyone using JAWS or similar screen readers.
• I have problems with distinguishing blue/green hues, so I find the colour "lightblue" (#ADD8E6) a poor choice as background against a wikilink (#0645AD). It's not too bad for most folks, but it would be nice if a different colour were picked that gave better contrast with the blue wikilinks.
• The accessibility of tables generally benefits from marking the column and row headers with scope="col" and scope="row" respectively. The section at WP:DTAB gives examples, or you could look at List of ministers of law and human rights of Indonesia as an example of where the row header is the second column (in this case the Title would probably be a better row header than Year or Rank).
• The table "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" is interesting as it contains collapsible tables within the main table, and some of the collapsible tables contain multiple sub-tables. The mechanism works well for sighted visitors, but is clearly not designed with screen readers in mind. All of the content is available in the html delivered to the browser, so a screen reader could work through all of the information one item at a time. In that sense, it is not inaccessible, but since the headings at the top (Rank, Series, Total worldwide box office, No. of films, Average of films, Highest-grossing film) are actually in a different table from other pieces of information, the visual appearance of a single table is an illusion (This can be seen at 800x600 where the columns no longer line up - I know we don't support 800x600 but this is only to illustrate what is happening). The result of this is that none of the headings can be connected with the data to which it should be related (other than visually) - and this means that a screen reader will be unable to navigate around the information in the way it could if this were a single table.

I'd recommend scoping row and column headers for the first three tables, as this is easy to do and produces quick benefits. The fourth table is a problem, as I can understand the visual appeal of its structure, but I believe it falls short of our best practice for accessibility of data tables. Perhaps someone like Graham87 could be persuaded to look at the table and comment on how it sounds to him through JAWS. If he found it acceptable, I'd be willing to set aside my reservations in this case. --RexxS (talk) 16:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the dagger issue so thanks for sorting it out. I've added a title to the chart that was missing one and I'll get onto the row and column scoping tomorrow. Have you got any suggestions for the color highlighting? I'm not that precious about it so I'm happy to go with more or less any color scheme. As for the franchise table, I appreciate it is unorthodox, but there were some very good reasons at the time for its construction, namely all these reboots and spin-offs blur the lines between what is in a series and what isn't, so the soft groupings we have more or less solved that problem—interestingly we haven't had a single edit war since we created it over the summer. Rather than getting side-tracked by accessibility issues, it may be simpler to make the whole chart "go away" and port it into Film series since technically "highest-grossing films" is a topic distinct from "highest-grossing film franchises". Each of the other charts explicitly deal with the subject of the highest-grossing film, so the franchise chart is a bit out of sync and it may be more appropriate for it be in an article that actually covers film franchises. I think we'd still have comprehensive article without it, just a bit more focused and tighter in its scope. Betty Logan (talk) 20:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for adding that caption; every little bit helps. If you need any help with the scoping, just ping me. Generally, yellows give the best contrast with the blue wikilinks and something like   #FFFF66   meets WCAG AAA standards. However, you're using yellows for the sub-tables in the last section, so it might be confusing.

I still like the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" and it would be a shame to get rid of it. If you were willing to remove the collapsible stuff, it could be written as a normal wikitable and improve its accessibility. Let's not worry at the moment and see what other reviewers say. If you want, I could make a version of the table in a subpage so you can see if you like how it would look? Let me know. --RexxS (talk) 21:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem with removing the collapsible elements is that we either have to ditch all the stuff in the sub-tables i.e. giving the table a permanent collapsed form (thereby sacrificing about 90% of the information in the table) or we construct it to have a permanently expanded form retaining all the information that we have in the sub-tables, but by doing that we lose the distinction between the primary and secondary content which will make it look like one huge muddled mess (just expand all the tables and sub-tables and see what a monstrosity it would be). The first option gives us a table that is drastically reduced in its information value, the second a table that will be so unwieldy it will be virtually unreadable. Both options dramatically reduce its effectiveness for the vast majority of readers. If there was a good alternative solution we probably would have thought of it, but the choices seem to be between incoherence and reducing the information we can provide. The current table allows a reader to make comparisons at franchise level, at series level, and in some cases such as the Bond films at actor level, and I don't see how else we can do that, and if we don't do that we fall short in what we currently offer to most readers—it seems perverse to offer less to everyone because not everyone can have more. Could we do something along the lines of an appendix for the screen readers if they can't read the table? I appreciate all the article content must be available to everyone, but I honestly think that the collapsible table delivers the content in a way that is of maximum effectiveness to the majority of the readers; I think if we can include the content in two forms then no-one is penalised at the expense of someone else. Betty Logan (talk) 22:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

It's a shame that nobody else has pitched in on the issue of the "Highest-grossing franchises and film series" table. I do understand your desire to present the table in the most usable form for sighted readers as they will be in the majority. I wanted to make sure that you understood the trade-off that it entails for the visually impaired, who are actually presented with the expanded "monstrosity" as a sequence of tables, and can't navigate sensibly within any table. Anyway, you've done your best to make the rest of the article as accessible as possible, so I expect that reviewers will recognise that in this case, we can't achieve perfection. --RexxS (talk) 18:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, honestly speaking, I can't 100% appreciate the trade-off because I don't exactly know what a screen-reader does with the table. However, I still think an appendix that renders the table into list format is a viable way around the problem for readers not in a position to comprehend the table, since if the information is available elsewhere in the article, then I think the accessibility of the table isn't such a big deal. Betty Logan (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Support: Although the last table is not as accessible as the others, any visitor using a screen reader would still receive all of the information, and would really just be lacking the convenience of navigation that sighted users have. It's a problem that we ought to be looking at, but by no means a reason to oppose this list being considered among the best that Wikipedia has. In all other respects, it's an excellent list, with masses of "lookup" information for film aficionados as well as an interesting commentary in each section. It's a piece of work to be proud of, Betty. --RexxS (talk) 15:33, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Comments – This isn't a full review, but I'm finding quite a few prose-related problems. Someone with a sharp eye needs to review the writing in this list carefully, in case I don't have time to come back. I really wish the lead didn't begin with a distinct similarity to the outdated "This is a list of" opening. Surely more could be done with such an interesting topic. Link James Cameron in the lead, and the many films and series that are discussed. The lead is actually under-citedlinked for my taste, which doesn't occur too often. "While inflation has eroded away the achievements of most films from the 1960s and 70s". According to the MoS, a decade range should be given fully, as in 1970s. Not sure how encyclopedic the phrasing in "there are franchises from that period still going strong" is. "Indiana Jones also saw a successful comeback nearly twenty years after the last film." "last" → "previous"? By definition the third movie wasn't the last one. Avoid contractions like the one in "but don't really compete against today's top-earners". Another one in "doesn't even make the top fifty in the modern market". Issues with calculation: Is "play better" the most encyclopedic phrasing that can be come up with? The whole list needs a thorough checking in this regard, if the things I'm seeing are any indication. "Social and economic factors also impact on the number of people purchasing theater tickets, such as population changes and the growth of international markets." The order of the sentence would be more logical if the factors were put before "also impact...". "and relayed to the distributor, which in turn release them to the media." "release" should be plural in this context, I'd imagine. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:51, 22 January 2012 (UTC) I've corrected them now and made some over alterations along the way. I've linked the films in the lead, but it looks slightly unkempt to me; however if everyone else prefers it this way I can live with it. Betty Logan (talk) 04:03, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Still think another editor should go through the prose carefully, but I don't have time to do so myself now. I'll try to come back sometime during this FLC, but I make no promises. Giants2008 (Talk) 15:14, 23 January 2012 (UTC) Coming back after some time away from the list, and I still see some issues to sort out... Highest-grossing films: Try not to start a sentence with a number, like the year 2009 toward the end of this prose section. "and 2011 currently stands at five." It's 2012 now, so this could use an update of some sort. High-grossing films by year: For the prose part, MoS recommends against ampersands (except for tables and such, but they appear in the writing here). For all the cases where they appear in parentheses, a simple "and" works just fine. Timeline of highest-grossing films: "The Birth of a Nation played a large number of ... engagements". Should "at" be added before "a"? En dash needed in "$50-60 million". "it is likely it did not overtake The Birth of a Nation in total revenue until a much later date, which was still being reported as the highest earner up until the 1960s." The part after the comma is referring to the movie, correct? It reads like it's talking about the date, which is confusing. A re-wording is in order. Highest-grossing franchises and film series: Add "of" to "with a total over $12 billion at 2011 prices." Publisher of refs 10 and 31, and 90 from box-office sources (Turner Classic Movies) needs an s at the end. Spaces needed in the access dates of refs 12 and 13. In the box-office sources, most dates are fully spelled out, while refs 8, 9, and 13 use a shortened format. These should be made consistent throughout; just changing those few is probably the easiest way to do this. Giants2008 (Talk) 19:40, 11 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for going over it, I've addressed most of the issues. I've been through the article with a toothcomb, but I've worked so long on it I think I probably just see what I want to see now. As for point 2 (i.e. "and 2011 currently stands at five."), we may be in 2012 but to all intents and purposes we are still effectively in the 2011 season. There are still several 2011 films working their way towards the list, so I've tried to clarify in the prose the 2011 tally isn't finalized. There really isn't anything to say about 2012 as yet, except that there are no 2012 entries, and there probably won't be until June or July at the earliest. I can always add that, but historically we've always waited until there is something to comment on before incorporating a new year. Betty Logan (talk) 03:43, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support I regularly visit the page to see the ranking... and seeing the other day that it had evolved into this detailed analysis impressed me. igordebraga ≠ 03:52, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Refs 22,64,65 don't point to any citation.--♫GoP♫_T^C_N 15:09, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

I've sorted it. Thanks for pointing it out. Betty Logan (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Comments First of all, good on you for taking on this list. It covers quite a significant topic and receives thousands of views each day. The comprehensiveness and detail of information is amazing. Just a few picks:

• "The superhero genre has also seen a revival" - revival from when? Source?
• In the 'High-grossing films by year', what do the figures in brackets mean?
• I suggest anchoring the asterisks like you have the other notes.
• The Bond 'Eon productions' sub-set and its sub-sub-sets are a bit confusingly laid out. Not sure if much can be done about it, though.

—Andrew_stalk 22:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've initiated the changes you have recommended:

1. I've altered the wording as per this edit. It's hard to track down references that analyse the emergence of the superhero film in recent years, it just kind of happened. I've worded it so it comes across less as a claim/analysis and more like an observation of the data with a link to a list of superhero films (as you can see from the wikipedia list of superhero films, there were only two feature length movies prior to 1978, and since Superman 4 there have only been two calendar years where a superhero film hasn't been released).
2. The grosses from the original theatrical runs are included in brackets. This is done because many of the Disney re-releases have seen the Disney films take over the record. On one hand it speaks of the enduring popularity of these films, on the other it isn't a straight fight when other films from the year where more popular in the original market, therefore I feel it is best to present both perspectives. The bracket notation is explained in the introduction to that section in the first paragraph, but I guess many readers (myself included) sometimes look at charts without reading the accompanying text, so I've added an explanation to the key for the chart.
3. I've anchored the asterisks.
4. We're kind of limited with what we can do with tables. I think being able to expand and collapse tables aids the reader in indentifying what belongs to what because the reader can just study one entry, and the expansion helps to make it clear what films belong to which series. The Bond franchise entry is the most complicated table, because you have three separate series, and within the Eon series we've divided by actor too. We could get rid of the actor divisions and maybe simplify it slightly, but I think we would be losing information if we did this. Each Bond actor's set of films tend to be regarded as a cohesive serial, and covered in those terms by published literature.
5. On another note, I'm in two minds over the inflation map caption. The map looks like it is updated periodically, so I'm not convinced we should label it as a "2009" map, since it will possibly be updated to a 2010 or 2011 map at some point and the article caption will become incorrect. The aim of the map is not to really show inflation rates of a particular year, it's just illustrating the concept that they are different across the world. Anyway, it's not a big deal, and I can live with it either way, but if anyone else has a view on that I'd like to hear it. Betty Logan (talk) 09:41, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Re the inflation map: yes, fair enough, it makes sense to remove the year. Also note per WP:CAPTION that there should be no full stop/period at the end of the caption. —Andrew_stalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Very comprehensive and well-written. Well done. —Andrew_stalk 03:38, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Oppose some initial thoughts First up, after RexxS's comments about the concealed info, I would point everyone to WP:COLLAPSE, which, as part of the MOS, means this list currently needs some work before it meets that criterion. A few issues in the lead, turns of phrase like "Traditionally", "diminished the importance", "theatrical earnings are still an important metric"... which, while I'm sure are true, don't have any basis in fact (verifiable fact, that is!) that I can see. It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny. Don't repeat unambiguous first names (e.g. Steven for Spielberg) once you've mentioned them in full once. "($10,000,000R)" looks very odd to have that footnote inside the closing parenthesis. Ref here should be Ref(s) since there are many examples of multiple refs. Dislike blank cells, so those with "unknown" budgets should be positively marked as such. Would make sure refs are in numerical order (e.g. look at Frankenstein which has 72 followed by 57). "The Birth of a Nation was essentially the first Hollywood blockbuster." what does "essentially" mean here? And is this referenced anywhere? "Timeline of the highest-grossing film record" why are some years in italics? Series wikilinks in bold italics? Is that compliant with MOS? Ouch, just seen that triple-mutiple embedded "show" for James Bond, really, really inaccessible. " is playing in the week commencing 10 February 2012 in theaters around the world." how do you know what films are playing around the world? This needs constraining. (I know that they're still playing Octopussy in Udaipur...) Wall Street Journal is The Wall Street Journal. Ref 14 - " "All--Time Box-Office Hits By Decade and Year" that double hyphen should be a single hyphen. Ref 19 has a spare period. Should add publisher info about works like The Daily Telegraph (and location info for global information). Ref 30, author can be linked. Box office source 6 needs a space. Ref 57 has a spare period. Refs 63 and 64 point at the same Google book but are formatted differently. Ref 131 has a spare period. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC) Thanks for your observations. Most I have taken on board, a few others require further discussion: This seems to be the biggest issue for reviewers. However, there are strong reasons for the collapsible format. This is what the chart looked like in the middle of last year. Since a franchise can have many divisions, some editors felt it had neutrality issues, and it needed to be clear exactly what films we were including in this chart. The collapsible table received strong support because it was able to facilitate the multiple points of view. I feel it would be detrimental to go back to this type of table and reintroduce the neutrality concerns, so the only other option would be to break it down into a list of tables. By doing this I think you then lose the aesthetic advantage of actually having a chart (just fully expand the chart to see what I mean) and being able to compare the franchises at different levels. The collapsible table received a strong consensus in the discussion—in fact not a single editor voted against it. Now I'm aware that it goes against a guideline, but the guideline is only an accessibility consideration, and I did propose above including an appendix which would make all the data available; an appendix would satisfy WP:COLLAPSE which permits collapsible elements in tables to conceal information if it is only consolidating what is already available in the article. If this is still not acceptable personally speaking I would rather abandon the pursuit of an FL grading, since I don't think it is in the interests of the article to ditch the collapsible table. I've rejigged the lead to make it sound less like analysis and more like an observation of what is covered in the article. Hopefully it is compliant now. It may just be me, but the "Issues with calculation" section makes me wonder if any kind of list like this could ever stand scrutiny. – You should wonder, that is kind of the whole point of the section! There is a debate that questions the validity and motives of the industry metrics; however, as editors it is not our place to question the legitimacy of industry practices, we only require it to be verifiable, and it is in major trade publications. That said, there are two other charts on the list which are not affected by the issues outlined. Removed first names. Taken the "R" out of the brackets although I'm not 100% convinced of this, because when it was in the brakets it was clear the note referred to that figure only. Do you think having "R" outside of the brackets could cause readers to think the note applies to both figures? I am worried it is ambiguous. Added an (s) to "Ref". Added "TBC" to blank cells; let me know if there is something more appropriate I can put in there (other than the actual budget figures of course). I haven't put the refs in numerical order. I've tried to order the refs in the order the information appears i.e. refs for grosses first, and then refs for budgets. Obviously this puts some of them out of numerical order, but it seemed more logical to me. However if you still think it's is better to have them in numerical order I will do it. Birth of Nation is generally perceived as being the first proper film, in terms of its techniques, its structured narrative etc, and instead of making thousands in a few local theaters it made millions nationwide, and as a consequence the first real blockbuster. It is included in one of the sources, but "first blockbuster" is subjective anyway, and I don't want to get bogged down in an analysis of its impact on the medium since it is only an image caption, so I've tried to convert it something that doesn't really require a source. Some years are in italics to indicate years that are not record setting years; for instance 1940 is when Gone with the Wind took the record, but added to its gross with reissues (1947, 1954, 1961, 1967, 1971); its 1971 record was the record that was defeated by The Sound of Music. I'm not explaining this very well, but I wanted to distinguish between years where a film took the record and years where it just added to its record. I thought it was clear, so I will have to think about how to approach this. There is not much that can be done about the bolded series titles; that is just how Wikitable code renders the titles. I think the embedded tables for the Bond films actually make the information much more digestible. It is clear which films are part of the Eon series and which aren't, which actors did which films, all at the click of a button. If we had half a dozen tables vertically stacked down the page I think it would make the information much more difficult to comprehend. For instance, it is instantly clear how much the Pierce Brosnan films have made in comparison to the Connery films, and with a click you can see how the Roger Moore films compare with each other. If these tables were all sprawled out then it would make it much more difficult to compare the franchise at its different levels. If you have a table for Craig films, and for Moore films, and then Connery films etc it becomes much more difficult to see how they rate against each over; this way they are in a condensed space, you can see how they performed relative to each other at a glance without having to scroll up and down the page and you can refine it to the level you want. how do you know what films are playing around the world? Well we have a source for the table, and it uses the same key. We are basically just emulating what is done here: [3]. They don't make it clear how they define what is playing, but my guess is films that are on general release that they are tracking. I could put that in the article but it would possibly be original research. In practical terms highlighting indicates to readers that the data for the highighted film is subject to change, and it also aids editors in identifying which films need to be updated. We could simply change our caption to read "subject to change" or something like that if it is unacceptable as it is. Obviously I can't really tell you what "currently playing" actually means, since the source isn't explicitly clear on the matter. Wall Street Journal corrected Ref corrected Ref corrected I don't fill in the publisher for national newspapers like The Daily Telegraph simply due to the fact I was made to remove them a while back in a GA review on the basis that we don't use the publisher parameter for nationals. I was told it was for regionals, and was directed to the guidelines for news citations: Template:Cite_news states This is commonly omitted for major publications and This parameter should normally be left blank. I'm happy to go ahead and fill them in provided someone isn't going to come along and ask me to remove them again, so I think we should clarify this first at the sourcing board. Personally speaking I don't care either way, but there is something like 200 references in this article so I'd like to be sure on this matter. Ref corrected Ref corrected Ref corrected I'm aware of the different citation format. Both references refer to the same book, with the same ISBN, however, they are hosted on Google books in two different forms. One has page numbers and the other doesn't. They both have different parts visible, so the one that doesn't have page numbers can't be accessed using the page number version. However, the best I can tell they are exactly the same book, just hosted in two different forms on Google Books and unfortunately I can't provide page numbers for some of the citations, just a link. If you have any suggestions as to how to get around this I'm happy to implement them, but it seems to be a quirk in Google's hosting of the books so I dealt with it as thoroughly as I could. Ref corrected Betty Logan (talk) 04:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC) A couple of responses. Not sure still if you have adequately explained to the reader what the italic years mean, and as for the bolding in the series title, that's not as a result of the wikitable, it's down to the {{Highest-grossing films franchise}} template which really should be adjusted to not use bold. I'm still nervous about the multiple nested collapsed tables but won't oppose over it. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:41, 20 February 2012 (UTC) I'd actually forgotten about explaining the italics, it had gone out of my mind, but I will get onto it sometime today. I don't know how to remove the boldtype from the series headings; I tried to use "plainrowheaders" but it didn't remove the bold, and the Help manuals don't seem to explain how to do it so I just assumed it weren't possible. I think it helps to distinguish the series titles from the film titles so it didn't bother me that much, but if someone can show me how to remove the bold I'll be happy to do it. Betty Logan (talk) 10:18, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

• I still have some reservations over the unnecessary bolding and embedded collapsed tables, but won't oppose at this stage. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.