Talk:Blockbuster (retailer)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Bias

Nothing about the class action? The latter part of the page reads like an advertisement of Blockbuster services -- especially the comparisons to Netflix. Also, information regarding Blockbusters previous legal settlements and criticism has been removed.

Spluurfg 14:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there's definitely something odd going on here.-Wafulz 19:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It still reads like an advertisement. Removed the marketing and rewards stuff.:: Monitorer (talk) 08:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Many of the criticisms I've read on other sites are based on lack of personal information on the corporate policies...Such as "Ihateblockbuster.com" cites a story about them trusting a computer over a human being. Not only would it mean the Manager on Duty or CSR being fired, but it's policy: Computer databases do not lie, they only display the information put into them. We're trained to trust in what the Point of Sale system says, you'd be surprised how many people will attempt to scam a blockbuster store out of money, free movies, etc etc. But, in comparison to Netflix, I'm surprised there's no comment on their lawsuit against the company...I found it rather interesting. However, I can tell you it's not written like an advertisement, nothing I've read here makes me feel like I'm being sold to...Perhaps you can cite why you think it is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Neurologic (talk • contribs) 13:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Also: Why removal of the rewards programs information? Now that seems biased. Netflix's article has information on it's services, blockbuster total access, and rewards programs, are services. Do not edit the article in favor of netflix! Neuro√Logic 13:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

This article is definitely full of bias. It needs to read like an encyclopedia article but instead in some sections it reads as a pros and cons verses Netflix article. Tedmoseby (talk) 04:10, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Movie Selection/Controversy

The article says Neflix has 70,000 titles in it's selection compared to Blockbusters 40,000 titles. Blockbuster's website now reports a selection of of more then 75,000 titles and Netflix now reports more then 80,000 titles. Just thought I would add the article should be updated.

~Trumania —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.153.91.229 (talk) 20:23, August 21, 2007 (UTC)

I read this response and made some calls, just for the general interest; a quick call to NetFlix PR department and the claim NetFlix has "approximately 135,000 films available combining rental and 'no longer available' DVDs still listed for instant viewing as well as instant viewing only films". A not-so-quick call to BlockBuster's PR department and they claim to have "between 90,000 and 100,000 films for available (sic) rent in many formats" Lostinlodos (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Games and Movies

I personly believe that there should a section or article that reveals all of the games at block buster and since some of the workers are a member of this site and Michael mad if you are reading this I am sorry can you ever forgive me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.194.189 (talk) 02:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Such a list is impractical beyond reason. Not all stores stock the same thing, and you'd essentially be trying to create a list of every popular movie and game ever made on major formats. It's an absurd notion and would add no value to the article. If you want to know if your local Blockbuster has a particular movie or game, call them.129.171.233.77 (talk) 21:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Block Party

Anyone remember anything about Blockbuster's Block Party stores that they opened? I don't think anyone on here has mentioned them and I don't see a separate article about them. So as soon as I can get enough information about it I will be updating this article shortly. I heard about Block Party from a co-worker of mine so I figured it was already posted on here. Venomscarnage (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I added a little on them. They were only opened in two cities, and lasted a little over a year. Very little information exists online about them beyond some initial press releases; the Albuquerque location is STILL listed as a viable entertainment location in some online directories. While my friends and I have memories about the place, including themed layouts and such, without citable references, they can't be counted on nor added. Student Driver (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What is Blockbuster incident #070819-005769

Anyone know what that is? I google it and get hundreds of pages but they all list slight variations of this article. Does anyone have the actual link that describes what Blockbuster incident #070819-005769 was? They refuse to comment what you call customer care and PR. Lostinlodos (talk) 19:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Blockbuster & Porn

"Representing themselves as a family-friendly chain, Blockbuster has never rented or sold pornographic titles (except in the New Zealand market)" - I live in Melbourne, Australia and I have to say the Blockbuster nearest to me stocks porn. LamontCranston 18:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Whoever gave the quote, you got a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.68.141.186 (talk) 10:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I myself am SAM of a local blockbuster, it is part of new hiring training modules and is stated in our ToU and legal documents for new member sign up. The fact that it sells porn anywhere, is subject to scrutiny in my opinion, corporate is extremely involved in individual store operation. I doubt that such a blatant violation of the company policy would go unnoticed. Neuro√Logic 13:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I work and have worked for over 5 years in Blockbuster Denmark - even in various shops, and we have been renting pornographic titles a few years ago and we still sell them in most (if not all) danish Blockbuster shops. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.150.82.90 (talk) 10:54, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Throttling

On the advice of Luna Santin, I am bringing this issue to the talk page. Over the past week or two an edit war has been simmering between about a half-dozen IP addresses and accounts. In general the anonymous editors seem to oppose the inclusion of Blockbuster's alleged practice of "throttling", repeatedly replacing the section with a single quote from Blockbuster's public relations department. [1], [2], [3], [4]. I attempted to resolve the dispute by rewriting the section in question in a neutral manner, including both Blockbuster's response and the company's official terms of service. I also removed the accusations that Blockbuster was engaged in editing its own Wikipedia article, as I could not verify that any of these IP addresses actually belong to Blockbuster. However, these edits were reverted as well. [5], [6]. I do not wish to edit war over this topic, but the section as it currently stands, is completely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Feezo (Talk) 14:16, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

As there has been no discussion on this topic for four days, I have reverted the article. Feezo (Talk) 20:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Blockbuster claims not to throttle and Netflix claims to. I saw news articles about this but I don't know where they are now. William Ortiz (talk) 02:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe this should be added back even though it's kinda late. I've also been looking for discussion of their supposed policy of editing films or recieving different cuts than other retailers. I thought there was a controversey section to this article that once included discussion about some stores stocking Girls Gone WildIRMacGuyver (talk) 20:05, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Rick Munarriz - Netflix shareholder

Since the Munarriz article begins by acknowledging that Netflix practices throttling — and ends by stating his full disclosure policy, I don't think it's fair to try to undermine his credibility. As he does not conceal this potential conflict of interest, I think the reference is valid. If it is not, then we shouldn't include it at all. Feezo (Talk) 00:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing problem

A great number of single use IP addresses have been making similar edits to this article over the last few weeks. These edits are almost always applications of the undo function, always with the default edit summary. None of these addresses have responded to any comments either on this talk page, their own talk pages, or in other edit summaries. The edits are not exactly vandalism, but show a definite pattern of whitewashing complaints about Blockbuster and qualifying criticism about it. One address even attempted to speak for the company, although I have been unable to verify that the address belongs to Blockbuster. I want to make it clear that I do not have a vendetta against Blockbuster; I myself removed accusations that the company was editing its own Wikipedia article, because I was unable to find a reliable source that reported this. Feezo (Talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne Huizenga

How can the Blockbuster article have no mention of Wayne Huizenga, clearly the most notable and important person connected with the history of the company? Was his name edited out at some point? Huizenga bought the company in 1987 and took it public in 1989, and grew it from a small chain to the national market leader. I have not gone through the edit history carefully, but this just bizarre and counterfactual. --MCB (talk) 21:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC) And, what about JOHN MELK???? HE IS THE ONE WHO BROUGHT IT TO HUIZENGA!!!

WHO THE HECK IS THIS JOE GUY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 500southpalm (talk • contribs) 18:49, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Largest DVD Rental Chain

"Blockbuster Inc. (NYSE: BBI) is the largest chain of DVD and video game rental stores in the world.[citation needed]"

Oh, really? Can we have a citation, and maybe a lock, it seems like this article has gone through a lot of bollock edits. CylonSix (talk) 14:27, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't seen blockbuster in ages.

Is it me or has the amount of blockbuster stores decreased in the UK I haven't seen anything of it for a few years now. RoflOhLol (talk) 22:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

More shisha bars, fewer Blockbusters, eh? Wonder what that's about...216.37.253.152 (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Blockbuster Music

There is no mention of the Blockbuster, Inc. music chain from (I believe) the early 90's until it was sold to Wherehouse Entertainment in late 1998 to early 1999. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.66.245 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Late Fees?

There's no mention of the "No more late fees!" debacle, which I recall being something of an upset to a great many people. As well there's nothing about the current state of affairs over late fees with blockbuster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.210.217.203 (talk) 21:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The traditional definition of a late fee is a fee accrued with the continued days of keeping a movie over it's due date. These no longer exist. There is a 7 day grace period after the rental of a movie, where no fee is issued. After 7 days beyond the due date, a $1.25 restocking fee, is the only semblence of a late fee you pay, it does not go up, or down, it stays $1.25 until 37 days, at which point the movie is "Auto-sold" by the computer, to said account. Should it be returned, it can be refunded with store credit, but that is rare, auto-sale is a problem to some people being unfamiliar with the policy, but it is explained at all new member sign ups since it's creation, and the policy is explained upon inquery by the CSRs or Manager on Duty. Sometimes issues arise because people secure accounts with cards, usually credit cards, however the use of a debit card is possible. Doing so, means as soon as the movie is auto-sold, the Previously Rented Product (Corporate mark-down pricing on products which have been rented or used before sale) price, which is typically 10-20 dollars lower than it's 'New' price. However, the issue is: Should the movie be around...19 dollars, for example, and you have 15 dollars left in the bank, when it is charged to your debit card, it results in overdrawing the account. Overdraft fees are expensive, average of around 30 dollars, on top of what you must pay the bank back for the movie, so this movie becomes 49 dollars...Which could have bought you a new game, or a couple new movies, rather than PRP. Hope that helped! If you're wondering my source, I am a SAM (Assistant Manager) of a Blockbuster store. Neuro√Logic 13:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've added information about both the 2005 late fee issue and the 2002 settlement to the article, including a number of news references. Avruch ^T 16:41, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

As an employee, let me just suggest a wording change. In the article, there is a reference to "extended viewing fees" and "additional daily rentals". We do not use the former term any longer (for legal reasons, related to the lawsuit), and simply refer to any charges on the account for rentals kept beyond the due date "additional daily rentals" (ADRs). The EVF term is outdated and the wording should be changed accordingly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.164.160.153 (talk) 23:05, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how this thing works but I just wanted to point out that reference 88 is used in regards to the 2005 issue with regards to the unclearness of the no late fees policy, but links to an article written in 2001 about a separate lawsuit that was filed against blockbuster in 2001. This whole section needs to be gone through as I believe there is a fair bit of confusion of facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.220.170.54 (talk) 23:54, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

is wiki just free advertising for big companies?

-is wiki just free advertising for big companieswith rules that stop unhappy customers beign heard? Don't talk to me about the Neutral POV! It is nonsense. Crucible1999 (talk) 22:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Do not continue to spam your blog link to Wikipedia articles or talk pages. It has been redacted here. Do not re-insert it. Talk pages are for improvement of articles, not for personal grievances against the subject of the article. --MCB (talk) 04:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, so that would be a yes, then?Crucible1999 (talk) 08:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy works both ways. If there is something specific in the article that violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, (i.e., the business guidelines) then feel free to fix it, or ask about it here. Regarding the external link, blogs are not usually considered a reliable source. To understand why, consider that a company's marketing department could hire professional writers to write biased reviews under a pseudonym. Astroturfing, as it's called, is thus one reason why we don't permit links to blogs. We take our neutral point of view policy seriously; Wikipedia most certainly does not exist to provide free advertising; we do however require that criticisms be by a reliable source. See the preceding link for more information. Feezo (Talk) 09:49, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Feezo. I think I understand better now. It did feel rather like I was being unfairly policed. So many of the article's claims have no citations, yet are allowed to stand, while my edit was removed straight away. Should unsourced claims which seem to favour Blockbuster be allowed to stand? Crucible1999 (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Biased

I've been looking over the edits done to this page, and it seems pretty biased, in support of the "Netflix vs. Blockbuster War" and "Netflix is winning!"...Now this is pretty silly, Netflix has sections discussing it's services provided, and the section discussing Blockbuster Rewards program and total access pass system is removed, because it sounds like an advertisement, seriously? I'm all for a criticism section, but this is getting out of hand, as an employee for blockbuster, I've got a WP:COI issue, so I will not edit the article about this subject, however: I sincerely believe in comparison of the articles, Netflix is in much better quality, simply because this article is subject to Point of View related edits in favor of Netflix. Neuro√Logic 13:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

About not having pornographic movies...

The Blockbuster I go to has a back room with pornographic movies. 68.82.44.212 (talk) 04:48, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

good for you, its a franchise store, not corporate. 98.169.85.28 (talk) 07:50, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Out of date

• Movielink from 2007 - "but it can be assumed that the deal will include." This needs updated. - Davodd (talk) 00:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

More sources about Blockbuster

• Goldman, David. "Blockbuster is 'bleeding to death'." CNN Money. March 24, 2010.

WhisperToMe (talk) 13:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

• Gandel, Stephen. "How Blockbuster Failed at Failing." TIME. Sunday October 17, 2010.
• WhisperToMe (talk) 08:11, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

"Recent Stuff"

I think, online, Blockbuster lets a member now rent videogames, download rentals, can play on certain devices. Maybe I misread the articles or something and didn't see these things acknowledged. 24.48.160.108 (talk) 14:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

They do let you rent games now at no extra cost. They even mention that on the website. If they do charge extra for games online with the site also mentioning that games are at no extra cost then I am sure they will get some lawsuits.--68.81.176.14 (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Great article in Newsweek magazine

http://www.newsweek.com/2010/09/23/the-rise-and-fall-of-blockbuster.html

-- John Broughton (♫♫) 01:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Regional office

According to this, Blockbuster had a regional office in Houston:

• "Blockbuster bid may turn hostile." Houston Business Journal. Wednesday December 29, 2004.

WhisperToMe (talk) 16:10, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Category

I didn't feel this needed a new category, and is probably easily fixed: Which David Cook is the founder? Link is a disambiguation. TheoThoughts (talk) 01:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Article name

The name of this article violates WP:MOSNAME by including the "Inc." designation (which, by the way, is the wrong designation since Blockbuster presently does business as an LLC). I propose moving the article to Blockbuster (video rental store). Thoughts? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Blockbuster Express

Have I missed something, or is there a reason there isn't any information on Blockbuster Express on wikipedia? --danhash (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Canadian Shutdown

All remaining Blockbuster stores in Canada are being shut down now, as of August 31st, 2011. http://www.am980.ca/channels/news/local/Story.aspx?ID=1531108 Article should be amended to note this. 99.247.11.10 (talk) 23:55, 31 August 2011 (UTC) Brian from Canada

It does now. 70.24.246.151 (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't the area served: North America be changed? It no longer serves "North America". Celynn (talk) 21:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Area Served

Area served seems very misleading. It doesn't serve the entire area of each place it lists, for example: Blockbuster no longer serves Canada yet the article lists the area served as "North America." Wouldn't it be more accurate to lists the countries in which it operates instead? I've brought this question up before but it's gone unanswered for several months. Celynn (talk) 15:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

• I agree it's misleading, I modified it so it only lists the countries we know BB is left at. Sometimes it's just easier to do then get consensus 15:56, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wonderful, thank you very much. I'm new to editing so I don't like to just muck about on articles by myself. In the future I'll be a little more confident. Celynn (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding to the list of complaints

Most of this article is rendered in barely-English. Why is it so poorly written? I'd try to rewrite it, but if I did only 1/10 of it would remain. Huw Powell (talk) 09:56, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Legal case: Blockbuster US vs Blockbusters UK

This article completely glosses over what actually happened in the UK when Ritz video was acquired. Most of the UK indeed got the Blockbuster name change, but not on the South Coast. The in the Portsmouth Area (possibly further afield) all Ritz stayed Ritz for a very long time (3+ years) because there was already a UK video rental business operating in that area called "Blockbusters" (plural). I remember being confused by this as a kid, and I remember belonging to one of the local variety too, as well as a Ritz. There was a legal case where US backed Blockbuster sued UK Blockbusters for the name, and I believe the US won in court and the Blockbusters were forced to rebrand (as I seem to recall "Movies Movies Movies", but I might be wrong.)

Unfortunately, with all the legal stuff going on with the UK administration and the fact that people repeatedly miss name "Blockbuster" as "Blockbusters" it's really hard to find sources. Memsom (talk) 09:14, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Defunct

Hello. I saw that it said Blockbuster was defunct although it isnt,so I removed that for now. Thanks. P.S I cant sign my name bc im on PS3 and it wont let me sign my name — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.214.219 (talk) 21:11, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Blockbuster Entertainment Award

Blockbuster Entertainment Award redirects here, but there is no mention of it in the article...Freikorp (talk) 05:59, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Considering that over 120 articles link to 'Blockbuster Entertainment Award', I have created a referenced sub-section for it in the article. Freikorp (talk) 05:03, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

And now I've created a stand alone article for it, sub-section in this article has a link to the main article. Freikorp (talk) 03:35, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

What "is" is

I think we need some discussion on the lede here -- should it be "is" or "was"? Since the announcement to close all remaining company-owned stores and wind down its Netflix-like internet/mail rental system, the only "service" this entity will provide will be streaming video under the "Blockbuster" imprint, a business hard to distinguish from what the Dish Network does already under other names. Blockbuster, as what it was for 90% of its existence-- a retail outlet or an entity which "rents" videos -- is clearly very soon going to be in the past -- shouldn't we say so? The fact that the Dish Network is still going to brand some of its products with the Blockbuster name and logo doesn't seem to me to constitute continued existence. Clevelander96 (talk) 20:15, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

If it exists in any form, as a subsidiary or even just an active brand, then it's an "is". Exactly what it is may change—i.e. it is a streaming video service and was a chain of video rental stores—but I don't see why we should be scrambling to force it into the past tense. Britannica has been publishing encyclopedias since 1768. Printed and bound books were their stock in trade for more than 250 years. As of 2010 they are no longer making or selling physical media, but we haven’t started referring to them in the past tense. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 20:30, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right and it's premature to say "was" -- but when a company that was established as a bricks-and-mortar retailer and once employed 60,000 people announces that all remaining company-owned stores will close, ends its online rental system, and continue to exist only as an imprint for certain streaming content, all of which will in fact be provided by the Dish Network, something has happened. Perhaps "was" in the lede could be paired with "major retail chain"? Unless the Dish Network is going to prominently use the brand to identify some kind of special content or function, then what is "Blockbuster"? Britannica, though no longer producing a print edition, continues to exist as a privately-held independent company. Clevelander96 (talk) 16:10, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

There are more than 1,000 branches outside the U.S. that are still in operation and as far as I'm aware are not set to close. When the last Dish Network/Blockbuster LLC store officially closes in the U.S., it may be time to split the article into two: The Blockbuster in the U.S. which is a brand of streaming videos, and the international Blockbusters which are still operating separately as retail stores.

For the U.S. one, I'd agree, the lead should be something like "Blockbuster is an online streaming video service of Dish Network, etc. etc… The company started as a chain of brick and mortar stores that rented VHS tapes, was a major retailer, etc. etc., purchased by Dish, etc., closed its last U.S. store on X date, etc." Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 16:29, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Take a look at Zenith, RCA, and Westinghouse for cases where the company is dead, but the brand, zombie-like, lives on. Generally, when the corporation dies, it's a "was", and the brand goes under the present company. Disambiguation pages often result. John Nagle (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That's pretty much exactly what I said. Split the article between active retail stores (international and independent) and the use of the trade name, just as is done at RCA (trademark), to use your example, which is still an "is". Zenith Electronics and Westinghouse Electric Company (as well as licensees like White-Westinghouse and Westinghouse Digital LLC) are still present tense as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 22:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

We should probably switch to "was" some time in 2014, as the remnants of the company are liquidated. John Nagle (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Area Served Edit

Please remove Area Served Canada Blockbuster exited Canada in 2011. 76.64.107.233 (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Done. Removed. Msw1002 (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge with David Cook (Blockbuster founder)

I would argue that Cook has no apparent notability beyond Blockbuster, and almost all the content in this new article would be covered in the parent, as it is all about the company. Happy to be overruled if not. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:30, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I had redirected the article here in the first place, but the article's initial author apparently disagrees. So, we discuss. I agree with SGGH's assessment that Cook has no apparent notability beyond Blockbuster, and that the History section is really just a rehash of the history of Blockbuster, not a telling if Cook's biography. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

i was not really trying to merge with the two please let me edit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penalphil123 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It is understood that Penalphil123 (talk · contribs) was not trying to merge the two articles. He is clearly trying to create a separate article. The discussion here is about whether that separate article is warranted or not. I (and SGGH) believe it is not. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:57, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• Delete! This discussion should be about deleting. How can someone born in 1982 set up a business in 1985? Total nonsense. Warren (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The 1982 birth was likely a typo. Based on the CNN Money citation I've found and added, Cook was likely born in 1952, not 1982. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:53, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Any more comments? Going once, going twice... WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:52, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
    • ... gone. Merge complete. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:26, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Endgame

Today, what's left of Blockbuster changed their logo and site. Online services are now at "blockbusternow.com", with a new grey "Blockbuster on demand" logo.[7]. The old "blockbuster.com" site has been stripped down to matters concerning the liquidation of the brick-and-mortar business: "Beginning on February 3, 2014, we expect to start the process of charging former subscribers for non-returned product..." [8] This is getting closer to a "was" rather than an "is". --John Nagle (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

This Is The End

This is The End was the last video rented at A Blockbuster and not Blockbuster entirely; also, cited source redirects to a dead link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.5.223 (talk) 20:09, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

What's with the Great Recession template?

Why is the Great Recession article template at the bottom? There is no reference in the article connecting to it, and the collapse of Blockbuster is attributed to competition and changing customer needs, not the recession. Unless there's a solid reason for keeping it, I might be bold and just delete it, but I'll wait in case it was placed there as part of an edit in progress. 68.146.70.124 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Undid edits by anon.

Undid a batch of edits by 45.46.134.255 (talk · contribs). No edit comments, no cites, somewhat confused. Not blatant vandalism, but not meaningful improvement, either. Also undid some blatant vandalism by another anon. --John Nagle (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Blockbuster LLC. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blockbuster.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090216082434/http://www.videobusiness.com:80/article/CA6387895.html to http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6387895.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:18, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Remaining locations

According to this, there are 38-39 locations still open. I don't know how up-to-date that is. But I seen an episode of the YouTube series "Abandoned" which featured Blockbuster and it said 14 are still open. Is there a up-to-date franchise list somewhere to see where the remaining locations are? Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 18:44, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I didn't find one, but then again, I didn't look all that hard. I'm sure the info can be uncovered if someone would decide to really dig for it. The YouTube link you posted above, unfortunately, wouldn't be a reliable source. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:26, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

That video in question used information from my site(without referencing it)..I complied the list that there was 15(he confirmed one had closed, making it 14) and now updated it, so it has 12. Reference 2 on this article contains an interactive map. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying that you are trying to use a personal website as a reliable source on Wikipedia? You know that isn't permitted, right? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:44, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's not the average personal web site. It cites its sources extensively and provides links to them. Also, the Wikipedia article isn't saying that the site is correct – it just refers to what "one website reports" (although the site seems very good and diligent, aside from being a personal site). There was a significant amount of further detail in the article, such as a discussion of the status of the stores in El Paso, but that information was deleted from the article just a few days ago. I'm not sure why. Sources such as newspaper articles were cited in that deleted portion. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I am aware of the source rules. As BarrelProof said other sources are linked(some cross-linked here as well). (When I first started it, I though people would doubt me unless I had linked sources.) I did delete some things on this article mistakenly the other day but hopefully it's been restored..if not feel free to add it back in/discuss here. If you have any concerns about my site, please feel free to email me there or leave a message on my talk page. :-) -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 23:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you're not familiar with WP:ADV, which covers external links in general, even those within inline citations. It states, "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent". This is very clear. Creating a personal website that contains links to other sources and then directing Wikipedians there is dishonest. Simply link directly to the sources and bypass the personal site altogether. Please remove all references to your personal website. We don't need to escalate this any further, thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:30, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I will continue with your wishes once you riddle me this: What if my site was officially recognized or endorsed by Dish/BB LLC? What if it was linked to on every Blockbuster.com document and "franchise.html" redirected to it? Would you treat it any different? Just because I was the one who put it up, does it make it any less reliable? I ask, please try finding a more updated "reliable" source..One that doesn't just share info from this article -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Patrick Boots CEC: I spent some time away from Wikipedia the past six months, and the limited time I hopped on, I didn't have a chance to respond to your latest comments until now. There are several problems with the position you're taking. The first and most obvious issue is linked to in my last post. That information stems from the behavioral guideline WP:COI, which strongly discourages editing that ties an external relationship to the material you are adding to Wikipedia. Here, you clearly have an external relationship to the source per your own disclosure. While the source you are citing might technically pass the sniff test for reliability, it's an unnecessary redirect to a personal website. There's no reason we can't simply transplant the sources you've used there and include them here as a substitute. Otherwise, this can be seen as a way to drive traffic to your personal site. There are only limited circumstances in which a personally maintained source can be used, and that is covered by WP:SELFPUB. Your source does not qualify.

I would also caution that since you have recently run into issues at another article regarding the use of reliable sources, you might want to reconsider your position here. Properly supporting the information and claims you add to Wikipedia is a very important concept that helps editors avoid being charged with original research, which is not permitted. In addition to that personal website possibly being a violation, your edit here led to another editor's edit later that helped introduce Google Maps as a reference to back up your claim(s). Google Maps in of itself is not a valid reference and verges on original research; those refs should be promptly removed as well. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

According to WP:USESPS, a reliable source can be a self-published source if: "It has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, It is published by a reputable publishing house, It is 'appropriate for the material in question', It is a third-party or independent source, and It has a professional structure in place for deciding whether to publish something." I believe that The Blockbuster Fan Page (BBFP) is reliable on all of these points, except for the second one, which WP:USESPS explicitly states and I agree with. All information regarding removed stores on the map is sourced. The BBFP is idependent of Blockbuster LLC, DISH, and their Franchisees. When information is presented to The BBFP, measures are taken to see if the information is correct. Google Street View Captures are checked (which is why most are linked as Google Maps Data), local newspapers are considered, and the stores are called to see if their phones are still in service. If these measures show the store as closed, then it will be removed from the map and store count. Due to the extensive sourcing, there should not be doubt to its authenticity, but due to the fact that it is a personal web page, that isn't going to change in some people's minds, for whatever reason. The BBFP does not involve claims about third parties and Blockbuster LLC is not based entirely on The BBFP, as it deals with much more than The BBFP, which is directly about the number of franchise-owned locations of Blockbuster currently. If you have any contradictions to my claims here, please reply and back it up. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 17:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

First of all, WP:USESPS is an explanatory supplement page intended to help clarify the guideline WP:SPS, which supercedes it in every way. WP:SPS clearly states:

Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources.

Do you have previous work in this field that has been reliably published by a third-party? So far, I have not seen any indication that's the case, and therefore, we couldn't consider the author of BBFP an established expert in the field. In another major content guideline WP:RS, this is reiterated in WP:RSSELF along with more clarification.

Look, I understand you mean well, and it's great that the number of stores that are still in existence is important to you: you've dedicated a personal webpage on the subject. The problem remains that you are skirting Wikipedia's no original research policy by performing your research on a personal website. That just doesn't sit well with me. It's still original research, albeit one step removed from being performed directly on Wikipedia. The lack of editorial oversight by an editorial staff or peer review is one of its biggest issues. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

@Patrick Boots CEC: If you have no further comments, I'll assume you've dropped your contention in the matter and will proceed with removing the inappropriate reference. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

A discussion of this issue was just started at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#BlockbusterFan, and I suggest that the discussion continue there, rather than here, until that discussion is archived. —BarrelProof (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Now that the discussion has been initiated, I agree. --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Request For Comments on The Blockbuster Fan Page

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus of repondents, including those previously uninvolved with the topic and the dispute, is against including this. The one supporter besides the nom has not provided a clear policy-based rationale, much less refuted those offered in opposition. The forum-shopping complaints may have merit.

Assuming good faith and that the nominator wasn't aware of Wikipedia editorial community norms, I offer some advice: Please now be aware that pursuing essentially the same request, seemingly in hopes of eventually "winning", to multiple venues is against Wikipedia consensus policy, as it's a drain on editorial time, patience, and goodwill. Please also be aware of conflict of interest policy, promotion policy and link-spam policy; beginning any proposition on Wikipedia with something like "I would like to include a ... page that I own" virtually guarantees failure of the proposal. If independent reliable sources cite or recommend your site as a resource, then it might be included, but as its author you're not in a neutral position to tell our readers or editors how valuable it is. Many of us do significant amounts of content work on other websites, but this doesn't create an "entitlement" to have them listed here, even on an article dominated by one's own contributions.
 — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  19:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

---

I would like to include a fan page that I own, The Blockbuster Fan Page, on Blockbuster LLC. It is currently the only source that updates on the number of Blockbuster's franchise-owned stores. (BB LLC had a list, but it has not been updated since 2014.) Please See Talk:Blockbuster LLC#Remaining Locations and WP:Reliable Sources/Noticeboard#BlockbusterFan .. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Survey

• Include -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
• You really want to include this, don't you? Still, per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS an individual article/WikiProject/etc. can't override global consensus, and that consensus will likely never change. Oppose based on the policies given in the aforementioned discussions. — Gestrid (talk) 04:51, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - thank you for updating the RFC for clarity. I'm still voting oppose because while I commend you for your work maintaining the Blockbuster legacy, your fan site doesn't meet the criteria of a reliable source, since you are too close to the subject, and we can't tell if you have a conflict of interest. Timtempleton (talk) 05:38, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – per previous comments provided in the last two discussions. This effort to shop around for an acceptable consensus is beginning to infringe upon WP:FORUMSHOP, and I would recommend that the poster withdraw the question in accordance with the recommendation at WP:RFCEND. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:10, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment Basically, for those who haven't read the discussions linked above, the OP wants to include the fansite they own as a reliable source. They didn't get the answer they wanted in the discussion above or at WP:RSN, so now they've started this RFC. — Gestrid (talk) 12:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Summoned by bot. Not a reliable source and I see no reason to include a link to the fan page. Meatsgains (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
• Include as an external link seems fair, if it is one of the main external website covering the topic, and interested people want to do further reading on it can go there. (talk) user:Al83tito 06:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Comment - if any journalists use the materials in the website and write articles on it, the content reflected in those articles has the potential to also provide information to expand the body of this article.(talk) user:Al83tito 06:29, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Assuming it's important to the subject as a whole to include up-to-date store counts at all, there is a store locator on blockbuster.com which looks to offer the exact same list (but with the addition of one more in Texas). The fan site looks like a useful resource for Wikipedians, as it includes links to the reliable sources that we should include in the article. If it makes sense to include the content at all, base it on the e.g. Quartz source, not the fan site that got the information from Quartz. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose. Wikipedia is based on what is reported in independent reliable sources. A fan page is not such a source, so there's no reason or justification for using it as a reference or for including information that can only be sourced to it. We're under no obligation to maintain an up-to-date list of shops, or any list of shops at al – Wikipedia is not a directory. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Detailed Discussion

• Just a disclaimer that the poster updated the RfC description with this edit. At least one response above may have been impacted by the unannounced change. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:11, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• user:Al83tito: Your comments above assume that it's being proposed to add this as an external link, when in fact, it's is currently being used as an incline citation. Since the RfC description is unclear, you may have missed that and may want to update your comments accordingly. Just an FYI. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Blockbuster LLC. 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/20101205145626/http://money.usnews.com:80/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/2/6/15-companies-that-might-not-survive-2009.html to http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/flowchart/2009/2/6/15-companies-that-might-not-survive-2009.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.blockbusterexpress.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131025054228/http://www.blockbuster.com/ to http://blockbuster.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:04, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blockbuster LLC. 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/20120417035701/http://www.elanmediapartners.com/media/584/elan_release_6_oct_2010.pdf to http://www.elanmediapartners.com/media/584/elan_release_6_oct_2010.pdf
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/ResLibraryView.asp?BzID=553&ResLibraryID=19771&Category=1027

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on Blockbuster LLC. 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/20101113051837/http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/chap0009.htm to http://www.businessweek.com/chapter/chap0009.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121017051248/http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3146206 to http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=1&cId=3146206
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201174655/http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=563 to http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=563
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201174710/http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=574 to http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=574
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720172603/http://www.tvpredictions.com/blockbusterblu041008.htm to http://www.tvpredictions.com/blockbusterblu041008.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720065329/http://www.blockbuster.com/corporate/internationalOperations to http://www.blockbuster.com/corporate/internationalOperations
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201174856/http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=616 to http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=616
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/32156/20100702/blockbuster-says-to-delist-from-nyse.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721175542/http://dishnetwork.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=8778&item=31591 to http://dishnetwork.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=8778&item=31591
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111030162141/http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blockbuster-express/ncr-exploring-options-blockbuster-express-including-sale-25493 to http://www.homemediamagazine.com/blockbuster-express/ncr-exploring-options-blockbuster-express-including-sale-25493
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120327131536/http://www.onlysydney.com.au/shopping-services/music-video-dvd/rental-outlets/blockbuster to http://www.onlysydney.com.au/shopping-services/music-video-dvd/rental-outlets/blockbuster
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104003641/http://www.gcrossinc.com/en/info_exampleFailure.htm to http://www.gcrossinc.com/en/info_exampleFailure.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115221240/http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/Help/aboutus.aspx to http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/help/aboutus.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081201174903/http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=706 to http://blockbuster.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=706
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720023158/http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/Help/PayPerRentQuickStart.aspx to http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/Help/PayPerRentQuickStart.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628224148/http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/bandsignup/all-rental-plans.aspx to http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/bandsignup/all-rental-plans.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101017014151/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/09/the-new-way-to-rent-click-collect to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/09/the-new-way-to-rent-click-collect/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120715050650/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2012/05/service-update-introducing-in-store-exchange-total-access to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2012/05/service-update-introducing-in-store-exchange-total-access/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111126153920/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/11/service-update-click-collect-games/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/11/service-update-click-collect-games/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628225056/http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/help/aboutus.aspx to http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/Help/aboutus.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110812140922/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326025300/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/04/service-update-new-site-features/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/04/service-update-new-site-features/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120608234836/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/05/bb-insider-video-01%20may%202010-pilot to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/05/bb-insider-video-01%20may%202010-pilot
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120326025310/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/05/service-update-iphone-app-mobile-app/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2010/05/service-update-iphone-app-mobile-app/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110228080908/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/02/service-update-stores-great-nights-in-start-with-blockbuster/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/02/service-update-stores-great-nights-in-start-with-blockbuster/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423082015/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/04/service-update-pay-per-rent-price-drop/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/04/service-update-pay-per-rent-price-drop/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110423081256/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/04/service-announcement-introducing-blockbuster-top-ticket/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/04/service-announcement-introducing-blockbuster-top-ticket/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110628224441/http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/rent/top-ticket.aspx to http://www.blockbuster.co.uk/rent/top-ticket.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110719102131/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/07/service-update-introducing-the-blockbuster-marketplace/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/07/service-update-introducing-the-blockbuster-marketplace/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115201705/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/09/service-update-the-new-blockbuster-experience/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/09/service-update-the-new-blockbuster-experience/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110185339/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/10/service-update-full-tv-genre-launch/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2011/10/service-update-full-tv-genre-launch/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130115202215/http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2012/02/service-update-february-2012/ to http://blog.blockbuster.co.uk/2012/02/service-update-february-2012/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:34, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The Blockbuster Block Party

my reveted edit about The Blockbuster Block Party was revent beacuse of copyright issue (i did not mean for it to look the way it did) is there a way we could put in that section without effect the copyright iusse? Fanoflionking

@Fanoflionking: The issue appears to be that you copies it word for word from elsewhere. Rewrite it in your own words. - Galatz גאליץ^{שיחה Talk} 16:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

i created a section in my notes page do you or someone mind help rewirte it in an approte way Fanoflionking

References

There is only 1 left according to this reference. https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/theres-only-one-blockbuster-left-on-the-planet/ar-BBUsytk?OCID=ansmsnnews11 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dw122339 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

A Blockbuster store in Morley, Western Australia, Australia, will close at the end of March this year. Currently, there are still two around the world. You also have to read this: https://thewest.com.au/business/retail/australias-last-blockbuster-store-in-morley-wa-closing-its-doors-ng-b881122768z --AnhDucYang (talk) 00:08, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"Morley, Western Australia" in the lead section

The last sentence of the third paragraph in the Blockbuster LLC article reads:

Eventually just two stores remained open by 2019: one in Bend, Oregon, United States, and another in Morley, Western Australia, which is set to close at the end of March 2019.

If United States has been added to the lead section to be read as Bend, Oregon, United States (where a Blockbuster store is the only one currently in the United States), why do we not include Australia in the lead section? Both terms in italic are countries. Without adding Australia to the lead section, not everybody knows what Western Australia is (without linking it in the article or going to the Morley, Western Australia article). Western Australia is one of the six states of Australia, and we should perceive the meaning of that term. Morley, on the other hand, is a suburb of Perth, Western Australia; however, the Morley article does not mention the name of Australia in it. To be precise where the location of the Morley Blockbuster store (the last video retail store of Blockbuster in Australia) is, it makes sense to include Morley, Western Australia, Australia in the article. --AnhDucYang (talk) 22:57, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

The examples aren't equivalent. Oregon is fairly obscure if you're not a U.S. citizen. On the other hand, the fact that Western Australia is the western part of Australia is extremely self-evident and it looks wrong/redundant to state the similarly named country after the territory in that case. Context matters, not just applying the same logic to both places because they're part of the same sentence. UpdateNerd (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

How is Western Australia extremely self-evident? Australia is a country. It is important to include the country in the lead section because Western Australia is a territory of the country. Is it still questionable? Why is Bend, Oregon, United States still fine in the lead section? --AnhDucYang (talk) 22:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

This is nonsense. Just how many Western Australias do you think are in the world? The name of the copuntry is included in the name of the state. Do you really think any readers are going to come across "Western Australia" and ask themselves "I wonder what country that is in?" They may not know or realise that Western Australia is a state, but so what? Repeating Australia will not inform them. If they were curious, they would click on the link. The Oregon thing is not the same at all, because Oregon does not include the name of the country. Repeating Australia either makes the writers of Wikipedia look like idiots or makes it look like we think that our readers are idiots. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I think Western Australia is the only one in the world. There is only one link to that name under the "Australia" section of the article. Morley, Western Australia is also mentioned in that section, as well as in the lead section. I know Morley is a town, which is not equivalent to Bend, a city in Oregon, and which is usually followed by an Australian state as part of an article title (not by a city like Perth). Oregon/Western Australia and United States/Australia seem to be equivalent, respectively, so I follow their logic that way. I do not think repeating Australia may be potentially harmful to our readers, even though the name of the country may seem a little redundant to Western Australia. If Australia is omitted in the article, I think some readers, who may not know of the western part or a state/territory of Australia, will think Western Australia is a country. I am not trying to make this frivolous. However, since Australia's last Blockbuster store in Morley will be gone in the next three weeks, the same sentence mentioned in the quote above will likely not stay intact in the article. According to The West Australian, in citation, their report of the Morley store closing does mention "Bend, Oregon" without ever mentioning even the word "United States" in it (see the link I provided in a previous section of this talk page above). For some reason, United States was added in this edit without any objection. If our readers want to know where Bend, Oregon, is in, they click on a link to that name, so the country is definitely not needed after it in the article's lead section, as Australia is not needed either. Furthermore, we have related discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). --AnhDucYang (talk) 16:19, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Note: UpdateNerd has just removed United States in this edit. I think we have solved the problem. --AnhDucYang (talk) 16:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing United States at this point to make things easier. I had the idea of adding it when the distinction of "U.S. store" was removed from the article. And like you said, it's not going to matter in 3 weeks after the Australian store closes anyway. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:36, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The store will close on March 31 locally, so its status remains "active" until that date. --AnhDucYang (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Addition of The Blockbuster Fan Page

Hello, I recently made an edit to Blockbuster LLC which added The Blockbuster Fan Page as an external link, but it was removed on the basis of WP:SPAM and WP:NOTLINK. I believe that it should be there and that these policies don't disallow it's inclusion, looking at WP:RS, as well as WP:ADV, The Blockbuster Fan Page seems to match the description of a reliable source. Their count of open franchise-owned Blockbuster stores is supported by local news articles and they seem to be the most-up-to-date source on that count. It doesn't look like most fan pages, so that's why I take to the talk page to ask why it's a contested addition. -KevinTheGuy (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

KevinTheGuy: This has been discussed recently, and the consensus has been not to include it. See the following:

Talk:Blockbuster LLC/Archive 1#Remaining locations

Talk:Blockbuster LLC/Archive 1#Request For Comments on The Blockbuster Fan Page

Hopefully that helps. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:05, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello GoneIn60, I had started another project when I noticed your reply here recently.. the argument on those links mainly stems from one policy, who seems to prevent The Blockbuster Fan Page from being added as an external link - which seems to be allowed for fan pages on articles about other defunct retailers such as Ames, RadioShack, Grand Union, and A&P.. why not for Blockbuster? -KevinTheGuy (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In case you missed it, there were links in those discussions to this one posted at WP:RSN: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 226#The Blockbuster Fan Page / Blockbuster LLC. The policies you should look at specifically are: WP:ADV, WP:COI, and WP:SPS. It was decided by consensus in an RfC and at WP:RSN that the link should not be included anywhere in this article, citing concerns laid out in those relevant policies. As far as other articles containing links like this one, then they probably haven't had the oversight that this article has. I haven't looked at them, but if it's a similar situation, then the link(s) in question should probably be removed. It would be best to discuss on their respective talk pages if you're not sure. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:12, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

The Blockbuster Fan Page was and is being removed because of the preconceived notion that all fan pages are unreliable, period. Even though the information added to the franchise-owned store count is sourced, we check the phone numbers and addresses of the stores given, and the information has been republished by credible sources, it's apparently still not enough to have it allowed as an external link at least - originally I had added it as an inline citation. Some people are just opposed to addition - I can't change that. Thanks for trying to help, though. -Patrick Boots CEC (talk) 02:54, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

"...because of the preconceived notion that all fan pages are unreliable, period"

I sense a little left over bitterness. A careful reading of the policies and discussions linked above show that it's more complex than that. Being a fansite doesn't automatically disqualify a source, but it is a big concern. There were other concerns as well. One editor said, "We're under no obligation to maintain an up-to-date list of shops, or any list of shops at all – Wikipedia is not a directory." Another said, "If the information about the few remaining Blockbuster stores is notable and accurate, it will be found in independent reliable sources.". The closing comments at the RfC by SMcCandlish is probably the best one to read if you don't have the time or interest to read them all. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:42, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

I can see where both of you are coming from. One editor did say "Fansite, not reliable, period." and another said "The Blockbuster Fan Page doesn't even remotely resemble a reliable source.".. and one editor is right, we aren't under any obligation to maintain an up-to-date list of franchise-owned Blockbuster stores. But we aren't, we're just linking to a fan page who is and echoing their results. And those results were echoed elsewhere in reliable sources: Blockbuster Video Has Become An Alaskan Tourist Attraction (Vice News/HBO), Be Kind, Rewind: Blockbuster Stores Kept Open In Alaska (CBS News), and Blockbuster has Survived in the Most Curious of Places - Alaska (Washington Post). The official Blockbuster list isn't updated, so The Blockbuster Fan Page is the more current source. -KevinTheGuy (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

You should read WP:EL, specifically WP:ELNO (points 1 and 11) and WP:ADV. The external link fails several qualifications, and there is also no added benefit to the article with its inclusion. The official website, which exists as both an incline citation and an external link, supports the estimated 10 stores remaining. Perhaps you haven't visited in a while, but it has been updated. And not that this part really matters, but 2 of the 3 sources you linked above say nothing about 10 stores remaining. In fact, one of them says 12. This is all the more reason not to worry so much about the exact number. The handful of sources we can find out there are emphasizing that some stores still exist and explore them because there is still some interest in seeing what they look like (when you haven't seen one in years). The number isn't all that important to the big picture here.

By the way, I find it peculiar that you have exactly one article edit on Wikipedia, which was an attempt to add the disputed link. You made a comment at User talk:Justlettersandnumbers#Edit on Blockbuster LLC when that editor reverted you, and several months later decided to start a discussion about the link on this talk page. I'm not sure if you're affiliated with Patrick Boots CEC, but please be aware of the policies surrounding sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry if you weren't already. Both of you have gone weeks at a time without editing, and yet here you both are in the same discussion barely days apart championing the same cause. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe you're mistaken, Blockbuster's franchise-owned store list hasn't been updated..The Blockbuster Fan Page is the only source actively updating it's information - The articles in question have outdated information, because well, they are older. (Comparing the publication dates and edits on WP show the same information). Sure, they're reliable, but an editor of these articles will most likely not go back and update these numbers, while The Blockbuster Fan Page will.

I started this account after finding The Blockbuster Fan Page and when my friend suggested I should add it to the WP article for Blockbuster. I didn't know why an editor removed my original edit, leading me to some of the WP policies. I then took it to the talk page and here we are now. I plan on using my account for other edits in the future, but for now, it's just Blockbuster.. I don't really know who that user is other than their involvement in past efforts to add this as a citation, and upon further examination, you guys had a discussion together on Talk:Chuck E. Cheese's. It seems that you have some shared interests.

I've started a declaration on WP:THIRD to get a third opinion on our disagreement. -KevinTheGuy (talk) 16:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

You're visiting an outdated link. Go to blockbuster.com and click "Find Blockbuster Store Locations" in the upper-right. As for Patrick Boots CEC (who commented earlier), if you would have read the discussions linked above, you would have noticed he owns that fan page. Those discussions also established a clear consensus against adding the site. You also have yet to explain why you think the fan page does not violate the guidelines I linked to. Your main reason so far is that you believe the site will stay updated, but WP:EL sets other requirements. The external site in question needs to provide additional information outside of what's already present in the article. It fails that basic recommendation in addition to the other concerns I linked to above.

And I'm sorry, but it is odd that for someone who just stumbled across that website to be pretty confident that it will stay updated. WP:THIRD, by the way, involves an informal way of getting a third opinion when there is a dispute between two editors. Don't forget you were reverted by Justlettersandnumbers, so this involves more than two. For someone who joined Wikipedia less than 3 months ago with exactly one article edit, it's surprising to see you taking such a strong stance over an external link that you claim you have no vested interest in. I'm not sure I'm buying that. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:50, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:ADV, a guideline you linked to, is an addition to WP's COI policies and in relation to spam-bots and links that may be revenue-generating. It says that one shouldn't add external links that they own or maintain - I don't have any affiliation with The Blockbuster Fan Page or Blockbuster LLC. I don't believe it can be revenue-generating, since it's a fairly basic web page design which doesn't have advertisements or donation features by the looks of it. WP:ELNO says that most fan pages should not be linked - WP:ELMAYBE (#4) suggests that it can be considered, which is why I declared a third opinion - we can't come to a conclusion ourselves.. And speaking of, WP:THIRD says that "3O is usually flexible by allowing a few exceptions, like those involving mainly two editors with an extra editor having minimal participation." - Justlettersandnumbers has not really participated in any discussion and not here. And what makes you think the official Blockbuster website will stay updated? You said so yourself, there is a live, outdated link, which is Google result #3 for "Blockbuster Video".. Blockbuster LLC is a shell division of DISH nowadays. -KevinTheGuy (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:ELNO #1:

Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. In other words, the site should not merely repeat information that is already or should be in the article. Links for future improvement of the page can be placed on the article's talk page.

✗ Fail The fansite does not provide any real benefit to the article beyond what it already contains. The number of remaining blockbuster stores is rather insignificant to the overall picture. We prefer to get this information from reliable sources anyway. So other than a number that may or may not stay up to date, it adds zero value and is certainly not a unique resource at the moment, considering we already have a reliable source cited in the article that lists the same number.

Per WP:ELNO #11:

Blogs, personal web pages and most fansites (negative ones included), except those written by a recognized authority.

✗ Fail The only exception to this are fansites written by a recognized authority. Clearly, the fansite doesn't meet this exception.

WP:ELMAYBE is for links to be considered, before moving on to WP:ELNO which lists a more stringent set of qualifications that it must not violate. WP:ADV was directed at Patrick Boots CEC originally, since he does own and maintain the link, but it can still apply here. Since the site fails WP:ELNO #1 (or at least is very questionable), any attempt to include it would bring up the concern that the editor attempting to add it is trying to drive traffic to that site unnecessarily. So while you have not admitted to any affiliation with the site, the action itself can imply that you are, especially coming from a brand new editor with no other contribution when this discussion began. --GoneIn60 (talk) 01:26, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request :

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Blockbuster LLC and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

In my opinion it need not be added. G (talk) 05:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

@GoneIn60: I had taken some time off from WP since the time of your comment. To address, you say that "We prefer to get this information from reliable sources anyway" meaning you've prejudged The Blockbuster Fan Page as an unreliable source. You also said that "Clearly, the fansite doesn't meet this exception" in regards to being written by a recognized authority on that subject per WP:ELNO - seeing how the statistic information posted by The Blockbuster Fan Page has been reproduced by many sources, and are verified to be accurate, and that it has stayed up to date, than I would say that point has not failed. How clear do you believe? Relating to my comment, the Blockbuster in Sandy recently announced their closure via Facebook and The Blockbuster Fan Page had updated it's numbers on the same day as that post. Hence further belief to think that The Blockbuster Fan Page will stay up to date.

G, Thanks for the third opinion. -KevinTheGuy (talk) 01:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I honestly didn't think you were coming back. Looks we got the third opinion you requested which ended up disagreeing with your position (in addition to the consensus in the discussions linked above which also disagree), yet you are still pursuing this for some reason. I strongly advise that you re-read these discussions very carefully, as the concerns you keep coming back to have already been addressed. We're beginning to beat a dead horse here, however, I'll do you one final courtesy:

"...you've prejudged The Blockbuster Fan Page as an unreliable source"

Perhaps you're already forgetting that Patrick Boots CEC fought this tooth and nail at WP:RSN, which is where you're supposed to take it when editors disagree on what is and isn't reliable. That discussion is linked near the top in my 2nd post. The consensus there was that the site isn't reliable; plain and simple. You can disagree with its result, but this isn't a case of unfair "prejudging".

"...in regards to being written by a recognized authority on that subject..."

Being mentioned by another reliable source may help to some extent, but a "recognized authority" is typically defined as a "published expert in the field" as mentioned at WP:SELFPUB. I know this isn't explicitly defined at WP:ELNO, but you will find that this is the generally accepted definition. This concern has also been discussed, which you can find at one of the links above. In a nutshell, the author of that site – P B CEC – is not a published expert or a recognized authority, which is one of the primary reasons it failed the litmus test at WP:RSN.

The final dagger is that if we have reliable sources publishing the same number as that fan site, why would we need an external link to the fan site? It's not providing a unique resource beyond what we already have in the article. Per WP:ELNO #1, it shouldn't be included on that basis alone. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Break (2.5 years)

Hello, I am responding to this archive talk in response to accusations by @GoneIn60: that my edits are unconstructive and disruptive. The edit mainly in question regards the third paragraph of the lead of Blockbuster LLC. The former edit read "...2018. As of June 2020, the only remaining physical Blockbuster (a privately owned franchise) store in the entire world remains open in Bend, Oregon..." which is factually inaccurate. The edit that I made is constructive since it reverted errata seen in 961808669, 954580259, 945947701, 934441685, 930767896, 926243566, 916484176, 910135521, debatably 909683511, and 909191975. It also isn't disruptive since it provides the source that information was originally reported by and supported within the article. Whether or not additional sources report on the same information it is customary to include the first source. See List of African-American fraternities, Hypophysitis, Dance Dance Revelation, Llaqtapata, and others. The Blockbuster Fan Page was the first source to publish the status of Blockbuster in Bend, Oregon following the announcement and official closure of Blockbuster in Morely, Western Australia. KevinTheGuy (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Blockbuster Fan Page is unacceptable, and you know this from the discussion above (scroll up), as well as the other linked discussions. Why you believe the BFP website needs to be included is beyond me and beyond reason. You must have a close affiliation with either the site or Patrick Boots CEC, or both, and are attempting to drive traffic to the site in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue to try to add it, this will escalate. I advise against it. Unless you bring something new to the table, this will likely be my last reply. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

You didn't even respond to my comment. I appreciate the work the webpage has done, that is all. Although I have read past discussions including "Patrick Boots CEC" I don't know him personally. I thought the point of an encyclopedia would be to reflect on history accurately. I did not and have not since seen a single source step up to try and track the number of Blockbuster stores - and maintain that list. There's been a handful of quack journalists who accepted "fact" - 51 stores according to Dish according to franchise.html, which is still up by the way, or who tried to track the number themselves but never updated their articles or maps. A lot of them are citations in this article because by your metrics they're more reliable. The Blockbuster Fan Page was the first source to publish the status of Blockbuster in Bend, Oregon being the remaining location. KevinTheGuy (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant. We have other sources from reliable publishers that we can use. There's also a consensus against including the personal website. Ignoring it is disruptive, plain and simple. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Also, you keep bringing up the old blockbuster.com/franchise.html, but it doesn't make any sense to. When you go to www.blockbuster.com today and click "Blockbuster Store Location" in the upper-right, a popup appears showing only the Bend store location. That old link you keep marching out in your arguments hasn't been in use since early 2017. This is the 2nd time I've had to point this out to you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

I understand that the information is very outdated. Even so, the link still exists. It still shows up in search results. The Blockbuster Fan Page took this already-outdated information and actually verified each store's status using their addresses, telephone numbers, and Google Maps captures. Those sources don't necessarily lie. By 2017 a large portion of the stores had already closed but journalists and you folks needed an official number to work off of. You'd rather trust a journalist, who could have given a more accurate figure but in no way intended to update that figure? So when the figure changed, the journalist would no longer be accurate? KevinTheGuy (talk) 00:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The link's existence outside of Wikipedia is not Wikipedia's concern. BFP has nothing to offer that we don't already have sources for. Also, it's important to note that we don't allow editors to create personal websites to get around the No Original Research policy. That's probably the most disturbing violation of the conversation dating back to Patrick Boots CEC. You claim no affiliation with the website and that you don't know that editor personally, but your staunch support of the website with arguments very similar to that editor (and posting within 2 days of that barely active account throughout 2017) makes it a hard pill to swallow. We've beaten the dead horse long enough... --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm going to chip in here, as KevinTheGuy came to the Teahouse to raise his concerns that his edits were being regarded as unconstructive. See discussion here, (or this diff towards the end of the conversation). I felt I have to repeat my remarks to him here, namely that http://cybernight.elementfx.com/buster.html isn't a Fan Page - it's a one man band webpage built in a few minutes in a basement, and I can see why we wouldn't allow it. I've never seen anything like it if it's really a 'Fan Page'. I'm really sorry, but that'd never, ever get accepted here, nor can you use content from it. Whilst what little content there is there might well be 100% factual and accurate, I would also never be willing to regard it as an acceptable Reliable Source. The fact that it's been around and has been 'Wayback Machined' is irrelevant. This is now a case of WP:DROPTHESTICK, and further attempts to reinsert that source would also be regarded by me as unconstructive. Nick Moyes (talk) 00:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, Nick Moyes. The two editors, who claim no affiliation with one another, have gone through extensive forum shopping – RSN, RFC and other discussions on this talk page, and now the Teahouse. I have a feeling the message is landing on deaf ears, but we'll see. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

OK, well the moment this strays into disruption or long-term WP:3RR (and it's looking very close now), just let me know and I will issue an editing block, or request a fellow administrator to do so. Having been unwittingly dragged into this discussion, I can now see that what were originally good faith edits have turned into a protracted edit war, with one side wanting to change content based upon what everyone has told them is now a reliable source, yet is totally unwilling to see that consensus is against them. Continued attempts to add unreliable sources (or statements based on those sources, but without using a citation) IS disruptive. And that has consequences which are designed to avoid that disruption and wasting community time. Nick Moyes (talk) 09:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)