User talk:Adamstom.97/Archive 5
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Adamstom.97. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 | → | Archive 10 |
Your GA nomination of Chapter 1 (Legion)
The article Chapter 1 (Legion) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold 
. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chapter 1 (Legion) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlexTheWhovian -- AlexTheWhovian (talk) 12:03, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Chapter 1 (Legion)
The article Chapter 1 (Legion) you nominated as a good article has passed 
; see Talk:Chapter 1 (Legion) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlexTheWhovian -- AlexTheWhovian (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
Let's revisit the Spiderverse thing
It's been a little under a month since we both started talking about working on the page for Spider Man: Into the Spiderverse over here In talking about it in one of the edit summaries you said " this version stays while the discussion takes place.", the problem is though that there has been no discussion, you said your problems, I said mine and then nothing, meanwhile there is an article that I think needs some trimming, but I'm not doing anything because I'm kinda waiting for you to respond. --Deathawk (talk) 03:14, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry Deathawk, I haven't been on Wiki much over the last month so this just sort of slipped my mind. Perhaps if you could come up with some specific issues that you think should be changed from the current version (i.e. specific details you think shouldn't be there) then I could better respond to that, and we can go from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- It's cool I understand the issue I have is that it contains a lot of excessive content that makes the read awakward
Take for example the first paragraph of the production section
Following the November 2014 hacking of Sony's computers, emails between Sony Pictures Entertainment Co-Chairman Amy Pascal and president Doug Belgrad were released, stating that Sony was planning to "rejuvenate" the Spider-Man franchise by developing an animated comedy film with Phil Lord and Chris Miller. Sony executives were set to discuss the project further in a discussion regarding several Spider-Man spin-off films at a summit in January 2015.[3] At the 2015 CinemaCon in April, Sony Pictures chairman Tom Rothman announced that the animated Spider-Man film had a July 20, 2018 release date, and would be produced by Lord and Miller, Avi Arad, Matt Tolmach, and Pascal, with Lord and Miller also writing a treatment for the film. Rothman said that it would "co-exist" with the live-action Spider-Man films, though Sony soon stated that the film would "exist independently of the projects in the live-action Spider-Man universe".[4]
The fact that "Sony executives were set to discuss the project further in a discussion regarding several Spider-Man spin-off films at a summit in January 2015." is not needed, as is a listing of the various producers in the next paragraph. It would be a much easier read if we just said
Following the November 2014 hacking of Sony's computers, emails between Sony Pictures Entertainment Co-Chairman Amy Pascal and president Doug Belgrad were released, stating that Sony was planning to "rejuvenate" the Spider-Man franchise by developing an animated comedy film with Phil Lord and Chris Miller. [3] The project was then officially announced at the 2015 Cinemacon by Sony Pictures Chairman Tom Rothman[4] At first Rothman has said that it would "co-exist" with the live-action Spider-Man films, though Sony soon stated that the film would "exist independently of the projects in the live-action Spider-Man universe".[4]
I also think we could put the release date changes under release although that isn't my main concern here. --Deathawk (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- I think I would be okay with taking out that summit line, but we should definitely be listing the producers in the body. They are very much notable enough to be included, and we want to fit as much of the stuff in the infobox into the body as possible. Also, the release date changes are listed in the release section, I just think it is good to note them chronologically in the development section since they help show the changing status of the production in-context. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
- More than anything I think the phrasing is just awkward, we introduced the movie, or at least the idea of the movie so we don't really need to introduce it again when we talk about it being announced. if that makes any sense. Also virtually nothing is really said about the producers other than they're attached to it, which is a tell tale sign that it may not belong in the section (instead belonging in the infobox). If we had info about how the producers came aboard, or what they actually contributed to the project, than that would be one thing, but as of now we don't, and thus I think it doesn't really make sense to include them in the sentence. --Deathawk (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Their contribution is that they are the producers - they are literally making the film. We aren't talking about some production assistants or something. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's actually the thing though, the term "film producer" is a very wide umbrella term, which doesn't exactly have a concrete meaning. In some cases they may simply provide the financing and that's it, in others they may be involved in more creative decisions. However we don't really know what their actual role is in this production. Regardless the issue boils down to phrasing, all in all there are five names attached to that sentance and there really doesn't need to be. --Deathawk (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- We don't get to pick and choose who to include because we think there are too many names. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Then why do we included any at all the paragraph would still hold the same meaning if we stated "The project was then officially announced at the 2015 Cinemacon by Sony Pictures Chairman Tom Rothman[4]" no content is actually lost by that change. --Deathawk (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Are you joking? You can't delete information and then say "no content is actually lost". If you aren't going to take this seriously then I'm not sure I wan't to have this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I should of actually said no meaning is lost rather than content Look at Toy Story 3 article for example, the producer Darla K. Anderson is never mentioned in the production section because presumably there is nothing noteworthy to say about her inclusion. Similarly while there were two producers for The Hunger Games one is never mentioned in the production section for similar reasons. My point is just because they are listed as producers does not necessarily mean that they have to be included in the production section. --Deathawk (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Well that just seems silly to me. I think I'll take this over to the film project to see what others think. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:57, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- I should of actually said no meaning is lost rather than content Look at Toy Story 3 article for example, the producer Darla K. Anderson is never mentioned in the production section because presumably there is nothing noteworthy to say about her inclusion. Similarly while there were two producers for The Hunger Games one is never mentioned in the production section for similar reasons. My point is just because they are listed as producers does not necessarily mean that they have to be included in the production section. --Deathawk (talk) 02:55, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Are you joking? You can't delete information and then say "no content is actually lost". If you aren't going to take this seriously then I'm not sure I wan't to have this discussion. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Then why do we included any at all the paragraph would still hold the same meaning if we stated "The project was then officially announced at the 2015 Cinemacon by Sony Pictures Chairman Tom Rothman[4]" no content is actually lost by that change. --Deathawk (talk) 02:35, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- We don't get to pick and choose who to include because we think there are too many names. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's actually the thing though, the term "film producer" is a very wide umbrella term, which doesn't exactly have a concrete meaning. In some cases they may simply provide the financing and that's it, in others they may be involved in more creative decisions. However we don't really know what their actual role is in this production. Regardless the issue boils down to phrasing, all in all there are five names attached to that sentance and there really doesn't need to be. --Deathawk (talk) 02:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- Their contribution is that they are the producers - they are literally making the film. We aren't talking about some production assistants or something. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:52, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
- More than anything I think the phrasing is just awkward, we introduced the movie, or at least the idea of the movie so we don't really need to introduce it again when we talk about it being announced. if that makes any sense. Also virtually nothing is really said about the producers other than they're attached to it, which is a tell tale sign that it may not belong in the section (instead belonging in the infobox). If we had info about how the producers came aboard, or what they actually contributed to the project, than that would be one thing, but as of now we don't, and thus I think it doesn't really make sense to include them in the sentence. --Deathawk (talk) 01:48, 14 January 2018 (UTC)
Not sure what happened to that page but it certainly got messed up. and I mistakenly moved your entry to the wrong place. Sorry. Meters (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, I saw that it was all a big mess. A problem with a ping being formatted like a transclusion or something. No harm done. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
Ways to improve The Gifted (season 1)
Hi, I'm Dan Koehl. Adamstom.97, thanks for creating The Gifted (season 1)!
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add relevant categories for the article
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Dan Koehl (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
AoS "MidseasonBreak" source
Hey Adam. I was just looking over the source you added and it didn't really confirm that the last episode to just air was indeed the final of the pod. I personally feel it might be, but the source doesn't actually state it, either from the EPs or Screen Rant's own wording. So I think the few places you use it in the production section should be adjusted, or we should be on the look out for another source that does state it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe that was a bit presumptive of me, but I did think this lined up with what we already had, with the two pods and the fact that they were basing splits on airing splits. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:14, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The only reason I'm being cautious, is from the promo for the next new episode, the imagery made it seem like they are retaining the existing poster etc. I don't know if they are going to be switching it up, or sticking to the same one for the whole season, but maybe for the moment, we just use the source for the next ep title and the Olympics break and hold off on the "this is the end of the pod" info? Though yes I do agree, this seems like a nice break point for the two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds fine. From what I can tell, I did not think they were going to be having as definitive changes as last season like same poster, no official subtitle this time. They just seem to be telling one big story split into space/future for 10 episodes, and then present/trying to stop the future for the next 12. But I may be wrong about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- I can see that being a possibility. We should just be safe than sorry. I will reformat the info as we have now. I'm hoping Jed, Mo, or Jeff will give an interview, either on the past episode, or for the next new one talking about all of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds fine. From what I can tell, I did not think they were going to be having as definitive changes as last season like same poster, no official subtitle this time. They just seem to be telling one big story split into space/future for 10 episodes, and then present/trying to stop the future for the next 12. But I may be wrong about that. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
- The only reason I'm being cautious, is from the promo for the next new episode, the imagery made it seem like they are retaining the existing poster etc. I don't know if they are going to be switching it up, or sticking to the same one for the whole season, but maybe for the moment, we just use the source for the next ep title and the Olympics break and hold off on the "this is the end of the pod" info? Though yes I do agree, this seems like a nice break point for the two. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
GotG Vol 2 GA
I'm sure you've seen, but the GA failed because the comments couldn't be answered in the time allotted. There are still some outstanding ones regarding the cast and reception section. Don't know how you want to approach it, and thoughts on renominating soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- I'm still making my way through my watchlist after taking almost a month off over the holidays to get away from some abusive users and to rest. I'm probably going to be less active than I was before, but there are still pages that I want to be working on including all the existing MCU articles. I haven't got to looking at any GotG2 stuff yet, but thouht I might get there this weekend. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:19, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. No rush. Just wanted you to know the situation. I also am going to be less active moving forward myself, but will still be on the MCU articles as well, and willing to help when I can in GA reviews and such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Also too, I'm trying to split and create season articles for Punisher and Runaways since both have been renewed. Both unfortunately currently do not have a lot of material to make the split easy (since you and I were both away) so they are will both entail finding and adding the necessary content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- I finished Punisher pretty quickly and have been meaning to get to it since, but I removed it from my watchlist before it came out and so I keep forgetting to get to it. I am a few episodes behind on Runaways, but will hopefully get a chance to catch up soon. I will also be looking at season splits for The Gifted, though after the trouble I've been having at that page I don't know if it'll happen straight away there either. Not to mention the growing backlog of articles I want to get to GA. We'll see how we go. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I have just had a look through the GA review, and I feel that all we need to do is add a few more reviews and then sort out where we are getting the character descriptions from. All of the other issues that I can see seem to be personal issues that the reviewer has, and not really in line with the guidelines and such. We should be able to re-nominate her pretty quick, but I'm not sure what to do about those descriptions at the moment. I have also got all caught up with the Runaways and Punisher pages, so I should be helping out with those soon as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Also, I've been thinking about perhaps changing Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to more of an overview page, and then putting more work into the individual soundtrack articles. I still stand by my reasoning for having the Music article as it is, but I just think the soundtrack articles get more attention and will be better to maintain if we put all the information for each score there. Also, if we ever want to get all of those to GA, I think we'll struggle without the details that are currently at the Music article. I don't know when I'll get to doing this, but I thought I'd let you know here to see if you have any thoughts on that. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with your assessment of GotGVol 2 and where we stand. Those were my thoughts as well. I've been off for a week, so I haven't checked in yet on Runaways or Punisher to see what, if any, work you've done to them. I agree with what you feel for the music page, making it more of an overview. Though I still think we can find a happy medium between the more info on the Music page, and the less info on each soundtrack article, so we boost up the soundtracks, but don't completely strip everything from the Music article. I potentially have some more free time on my hands in the coming weeks. I'm going to try to sure up Black Panther with premiere info, some AM&W stuff too, and then can try to focus my efforts to GotG Vol. 2 so we can try renominating. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I will probably do any music work in my sandbox as a proposal first. I have just stopped watching the Black Panther page, so I won't really be helping out with that for the next two weeks, but I will try do what I can for the other pages. I should have a bit more time over the next few weeks as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't got to expanding Runaways or Punisher yet, but I did just sort out the critical response and analysis sections for Luke Cage (season 1) and got it to a place that I am happy with, so I went ahead and nominated that one for GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
🤔
What is the problem in my edit on Avengers: Infinity Wars? Why don't you provide reason in edit summary? HARSH RATHOD (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was reverting what appeared to be vandalism. Apologies if I was wrong. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:27, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Please re do it. I just reduced the page bandwidth. Like this way pages are processed faster. There were so many useless 'spaces'. HARSH RATHOD (talk) 11:07, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know what you are talking about, but I'm pretty sure the changes you made were not what we usually do. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
New Page Reviewer Newsletter
Backlog update:
- The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
- We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!
New Year Backlog Drive results:
- We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!
General project update:
- ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
- Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Official or fan?
Do you know if this image is real or fan-made? If real, do you know if it's already been uploaded somewhere? Argento Surfer (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) I think that is fan made. Assuming this is in relation to the MCU version, the only official images of Thanos and the Gauntlet released have been the one currently on Infinity Gems, the promotional art from SDCC this year, and a screenshot from the first trailer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
The View
Hi there. I was the editor that nominated The View (talk show) for GA, and I wanted to notify you that I've done a lot of revisions on the article based on your suggestions and that it is ready for another review. Thanks! DantODB (talk) 01:11, 17 February
dispute resolution about Spider-man Homecoming
First of all, I would like to apologize for all the inconvenience I have been causing so far. Secondly, I noticed you and other users that support that the post credits scene should not be mentioned have been intentionally ignoring my arguments regarding the matter. WHY are you doing so? just because i have caused you trouble doesn't mean you shouldn't listen to me. The post credits scene, whether a joke or not, does NOT have to be discarded from the plot just because it doesn't have anything useful to the plot, about 6-7 other films in the MCU have post credits scenes that are jokes and do not provide any useful information to the plot, but they are still mentioned because it provides information about the post credits scene existing. If anybody wants to know whether there is a post credits scene in the MCU movies or not, most of them come to wikipedia to get that information, and they look mainly at the plot do determine this, and not providing that information confuses people about whether there exists a post credits scene in the movie or not, and very few people have the time and patience to read the ENTIRE wikipedia page JUST to find information of the post credits scene existing or not. also, i would like to make it a valid point that the discussion about the post credits scene being added or not has been removed, and even if ANYBODY opposes your opinions, you just won't listen. So please, send a message to my talk page and we will try to solve this dispute.
Featured List Barnstar
|
The Featured List Barnstar | |
| Thank you for your time and effort helping to promote List of accolades received by Deadpool (film) to Featured list status!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC) |
Thor: Ragnarok
Hey, you recently made a "Big c/e" at Thor: Ragnarok but it looks as if some technical errors were created in the process. I fixed what I could but can you look at the Chicago Tribune review in the reception section as I can't tell what was intended there. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:22, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @TriiipleThreat: I think I got it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks guys, I was using the new visual editor which is what I think caused those problems. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
post-credits scene in plot
Please discuss at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Mentioning post-credits scenes in plot summaries AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 00:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your input. For Captain America: Civil War, I suggest removing "During the mid-credits" phrase as that it was shown right after the closing title card credits, but before the detailed scrolling list of credits, and mainly because it is directly related to the plot (Bucky goes back into hibernation). The Spider-Man one following the entire closing credits sequence is more of that extra unrelated to film thing, but hints "Spider-Man will return". AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Soft hyphens
Hyphens are not randomly added characters. It's a completely normal character to break a long word at the end of a line. You are forcing a large part of our users to scroll horizontally, or scroll more than they already have to do, to see the whole table. A soft hyphen doesn't render if the screen is wide enough to show the whole table, so users with wide screens are not hurt, and users with narrow screens are helped. See MOS:SHY. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- But you are randomly choosing where to put them. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing random about putting them between syllables in long words in narrow table columns. I previewed several times to identify the best spots. MOS:SHY specifically mentions narrow table columns. If you have a wide screen then try narrowing the browser window in my version until your browser can just show the whole table. Then view your version in the same window. You will suddenly need to scroll horizontally to see the whole table. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I have a small screen and do have to scroll horizontally myself. I am just questioning the way you went about deciding where to put them, not the need for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I looked at the wide table here: [1]. I saw the columns "Avengers films" and "Doctor Strange" were wide. I identified what forced them to that width: "Cumberbatch" followed by a reference number is not line wrapped by browsers. So I inserted a soft hyphen enabling browsers to line wrap "Cumber-batch" on narrow screens but still displaying "Cumberbatch" without hyphen or line break on wide screens. I previewed and saw it helped a little and would help more to do the same for "Hems-worth". Everything was very careful. Not a single of those soft hyphens could have been placed better anywhere else in the whole table. If you think otherwise then please identify it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- Again, I just feel that you went about this the wrong way. Perhaps you should go to the talk page of the article, explain what you want to do and why you are doing it like that, and see if anyone has any issues. If not, then I won't stop you from making the change. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- I looked at the wide table here: [1]. I saw the columns "Avengers films" and "Doctor Strange" were wide. I identified what forced them to that width: "Cumberbatch" followed by a reference number is not line wrapped by browsers. So I inserted a soft hyphen enabling browsers to line wrap "Cumber-batch" on narrow screens but still displaying "Cumberbatch" without hyphen or line break on wide screens. I previewed and saw it helped a little and would help more to do the same for "Hems-worth". Everything was very careful. Not a single of those soft hyphens could have been placed better anywhere else in the whole table. If you think otherwise then please identify it. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:11, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- No, I have a small screen and do have to scroll horizontally myself. I am just questioning the way you went about deciding where to put them, not the need for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:52, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
- There is nothing random about putting them between syllables in long words in narrow table columns. I previewed several times to identify the best spots. MOS:SHY specifically mentions narrow table columns. If you have a wide screen then try narrowing the browser window in my version until your browser can just show the whole table. Then view your version in the same window. You will suddenly need to scroll horizontally to see the whole table. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:18, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for March 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spider-Man: Homecoming, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tom Holland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
Reverted Thor: The Dark World edits
Hi,
I saw that you reverted my edit on Thor: The Dark World regarding the Collector. Wouldn't "plays" be the incorrect tense, since Guardians of the Galaxy came out after Thor 2? Packer1028 (talk) 00:01, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
- Tense can be a bit tricky, but the idea is that he was already playing the character in Guardians, which started filming before The Dark World came out, and historically speaking we would consider "Benicio del Toro plays the Collector in Guardians of the Galaxy" to be a correct statement, even if it is not the only way we could write that. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:07, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
MCU articles
Thanks for the final c/e on GotG Vol 2. I want to try to get a c/e done for Ragnarok soon so we can nominate it for GA (we have until April 6th I think). And I also want to try and c/e the IW production article ahead of IW's release. I am sitting on a bunch of articles for JJS2 and Punisher too. Really wish I had the Eye of Agamotto to get through all this haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:34, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- I know, it is all a bit much and I am busy doing uni at the same time! I felt like some more reviews for Guardians couldn't hurt, and I was also going to have a look over Ragnarok, but I think it is pretty good at this point. I wouldn't be against nominating it sooner rather than later if for no other reason than to say over at the good topic review that it is ready. For TV, I sort of have a bit of a list that I plan to move through starting with Iron Fist season 1, which needs a lot of work, now that I have got Luke Cage season 1 nominated. I also have other things in the back of my head that I want to get to, including Music, tie-in comics, and those splits I brought up at the MCU page, so we'll just have to see how we go. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:59, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Definitely. Adding to those at the end too would be Team Thor and whatever is going to happen with that (either be a group article, or individual ones). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
You realize i can have you blocked, right?
You of course realize that 3 reverts isn't some sort of electric fence, right? You can get blocked if you leav ethe appearane that you would absolutely revert well-past three if you knew you wouldn't get blocked for it, right? I think you somewhat misunderstand how reverts work; when two editors have differing viewpoints, you use the talk page to sort them out. Continuing to revert only marks you as something with opposable thumbs who hasn't yet learned the social graces of normal people. In short, you cannot win by revert-warring. You can, however, get blocked for it, and I am strangely okay with that. I will give you ab out an hour to revert before I report you. That isn't me being friendly. My AGF for your behavior expired long ago, so please - test my resolve, sport. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. Read them. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Read them. Maybe you should brush up on WP:EDITWAR? The clock is ticking but please, ignore it. This is your sole warning about what will happen. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:44, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
New Page Review Newsletter No.10
ACTRIAL:
- ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.
Paid editing
- Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies. A further discussion is currently taking place at: Can a subject specific guideline invalidate the General Notability Guideline?
Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled
- While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.
News
- The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
In order to avoid crashing into each other repeatedly
As your AN/I failed to bring about whatever result you were seeking, I am proactively suggesting that we stop going back and forth with our edits. If one of us reverts the other one, we go to the talk page immediately and sort things out. I think we're both clear that we aren't going to convince anyone of the strength of our arguments via edit summaries. This will afford us the opportunities to avoid edit-warring or incivility complaints getting filed. If we cannot find agreement, we should file RfCs, in order to bring more opinions than our own to discussions. I refuse to believe you are so far gone that you cannot see that this is a good proposal, but I guess we'll see how you address it in the New Mutants and the Gifted articles where we're ancountering editorial friction with one another. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:33, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am happy to consider any suggestions to improve the situation, as the whole thing bewilders me and I wish it wasn't such a problem. My biggest issue, other than your language and arrogance (which I could ignore if I wasn't facing it in arguments so much), is that you always seem to find a way to have your preferred version of the article remain while we discus, even when there is a stable version of the article from before there was ever a problem. The reason I champion STATUSQUO so much is because we are constantly in positions where we just can't seem to agree on the most basic things, and so having some neutral, objective metrics to work with should only be a positive. We should be able to have a disgreement, put the article back the way it was, and then discuss, and the fact that you never allow that is what causes much of my frustration towards you. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:01, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- For instance, the line about The New Mutants being an installment of the X-Men seriea has been in the article for well over a year, and has been discussed multiple times over at Talk:X-Men (film series) where consensus has always been that we can't support the idea that this is more than a single film series. That's not coming from me, it is a reinforced decision made by many different editors. So how come you get to change it to something else without having any discussion, and then refuse to let it be restored to the version that actual consensus agreed on? If an IP editor made a random change to an article without discussion that went against consensus, and then reverted you when you put the article back to how consensus decided it should be, you wouldn't stand for that. So why should I stand for you doing the same? Surely you can see why there is a problem here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- I understand your frustration, and my response is only going to sound like more arrogance: most of the time, my edit is correct in both fact and use within Wikipedia.
- Usually, my criticism is about OR inferences drawn from citation or synthesis. As per the specific example you provided about consensus arrived at the X-Men article, it bears pointing out that it isn't the consensus within the article. Were the contributors to the article advised of the discussion elsewhere? If not, then its difficult for folk to weigh in, right?
- Let's stick to the article discussion pages. It seems like a pretty good way to keep things calm. If we cannot find agreement, then an RfC will help us find the middle ground. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think that sums it up: you know/think you are right, and act like it. But when you are dealing with someone who also thinks they are right (like me) then you are just going to have problems. Like, you think there is no consensus to follow at New Mutants and I disagree so you acting like I am obviously in the wrong rather than leaving the article alone and explaining your perspective is just not helping. That's why I think it is important to act as if either of us don't know who is right and try to utulise objective arbitration wherever possible, such as restoring to the STATUSQUO rather than arguing about whose version of the article stays before the discussion begins. If you allowed me to follow STATUSQUO and we both work to go to the talk page earlier, then I think we'll make a lot more progress. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks
I appreciated your comment on the ANI thread concerning me. It was useful to have a neutral third party opinion on the issue, thanks. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 06:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, just thought my opinion may be helpful there. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, opinions are always welcome. Have a great day and nice to meet you Adam. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 07:42, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
FWIW
It's not cool to show up on an ANI thread just because it involves me. You have in your entire edit history contributed to four other ANI threads (two started by you, one about you, and one about you and another editor), so it looks really bad when you jump in and make a comment, even a relatively benign one, in a thread I started about another editor who has nothing to do with you. Since it was apparently benign, I'm not going to make a big deal about it, but I'd really appreciate it if you only showed up in discussions involving me if they (a) also involve you or (b) are on fora to which you regularly contribute. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I wasn't sure if it was considered bad manners or not, but like I explained in my comment I saw the issue because I was watching the page for the thread I started above, and thought it would be all good for me to make a neutral, third-party suggestion given you had commented on my thread (which had nothing to do with you, btw). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:48, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I'm an ANI regular -- I've probably commented in well over a hundred threads that did not involve me directly -- and I had actually commented extensively on your conflict with Jack previously, so the parenthetical clause is a bit of a misrepresentation.
- Anyway, if you are going to make neutral third-party suggestions in the future, please do your research more carefully: your second and third sentences included a lot of inferences as to the origins of the dispute, which were completely wrong; Spacecowboy was accusing me and a number of other users of downplaying/whitewashing a supposed racist scandal for which the group in question is in his opinion best-known, making it a lot easier to read "Your username has 88 in it!" the way I did, and the initial misspelling of my username had nothing to do with it (unless Spacecowboy had gone back through my whole edit history, knew how I reacted to misspellings, and intended from the start to respond the way he did, but that's a bit tinfoil-y).
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was just making a comment on what it looked like from my perspective. No need to make a big deal or read into everything. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- BTW, if you are going to show up as a "neutral third party" on ANIs in the future, I think you should probably stay away from threads about racism/fascism/Nazism dog whistles and number symbolism. Rest assured that I don't think there was any malice on your part when you commented that two Asian actors looked similar, but the fact that your reaction to the reaction to it indicated that you didn't even know that that would come across as racist means that those dog-whistle things are not a strong suit for you. That's perfectly fine if you are not going to overreact when you get yourself in trouble, or undermine other editors with legitimate grievances based on your own lack of sensitivity. But you have to avoid overreacting when you get yourself in trouble and undermining other editors with legitimate grievances based on your own lack of sensitivity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, you need to slow right down there buddy. I have never said anything remotely like that and will vehemently defend myself whenever I am falsely accused of it. To be clear, the statement that I made which was taken as racist is (in reference to a character appearing in both a TV show and a film, and being portrayed by different actors in each appearance)
if we are talking about both iterations and don't mention that the film one was played by someone else, then readers could get confused and think that Chung was in both
. Have a very careful read of that, because it pretty clearly states that I wanted to let readers know that in the character's film appearance she was portrayed by a different actor, because otherwise the reader may not have known that since we can't assume that they have read the film article. No where does it say anything about what the two actors look like, in fact it is all about how the reader probably doesn't even know that a second actor exists! How could I make a racist claim about people thinking too Asian actors look the same when I think those people don't know about one? Honestly, the fact that I was labelled racist because of this completely innocent and defensible statement, a label that is now apparently coming back to haunt me, is truly outrageous. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)- You see, I don't doubt that that is what you meant. Please read my comments more carefully -- I never implied that I doubted it. The problem is that you don't seem even to recognize the possibility that it could be taken the wrong way: someone who is more sensitive to things like this would notice that. And in the ANI thread yesterday, you seemed to think the only way I could interpret someone repeatedly shortening my username to the unintuitive "88" was because of some unfortunate past experiences on my part.
- And it is unintuitive and difficult to interpret in a non-accusatory way: can you seriously find me anyone who has ever addressed you as "97", or Favre as "93", or Spacecowboy as "420"? I've called you "Adam" a bunch of times, even though that only appears to be an arbitrary part of one word of your username when "97" is separated by a dot.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- You literally said
I don't think there was any malice on your part when you commented that two Asian actors looked similar
. That isn't remotely what I said. You are unlikely to get a great response from me when you are trying to take the high road while making ridiculous false claims. I am happy to admit when I am in the wrong, and I know I am in the right here. If somebody took offence because they thought I said something racist, and I apologised for the misunderstanding, explained what I was actually trying to say, and then offered to move on, I would expect them to also apologise for giving me that label and agree to move on with me. That is the reasonable thing to do.
- You literally said
- Okay, you need to slow right down there buddy. I have never said anything remotely like that and will vehemently defend myself whenever I am falsely accused of it. To be clear, the statement that I made which was taken as racist is (in reference to a character appearing in both a TV show and a film, and being portrayed by different actors in each appearance)
- BTW, if you are going to show up as a "neutral third party" on ANIs in the future, I think you should probably stay away from threads about racism/fascism/Nazism dog whistles and number symbolism. Rest assured that I don't think there was any malice on your part when you commented that two Asian actors looked similar, but the fact that your reaction to the reaction to it indicated that you didn't even know that that would come across as racist means that those dog-whistle things are not a strong suit for you. That's perfectly fine if you are not going to overreact when you get yourself in trouble, or undermine other editors with legitimate grievances based on your own lack of sensitivity. But you have to avoid overreacting when you get yourself in trouble and undermining other editors with legitimate grievances based on your own lack of sensitivity. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I was just making a comment on what it looked like from my perspective. No need to make a big deal or read into everything. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:52, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- The long-and-short-of-it is that a user completely misinterpreted something I said as being racist, and then managed to erode any apparent good faith that I may have interpreted their actions as having throughout the rest of the conversation as they insisted on ignoring reason and the explanations of multiple editors. Now, separately from that, I made a suggestion based on a brief look at a dispute you were having because things were obviously getting heated and after having a look at the situation it appeared like you were making a big deal over a small misunderstanding (and you have a penchant for reading way too far into the smallest details and making massive deals out of nothing)—I thought a neutral opinion would help cut through the nonsense and end the issue quickly, and it did appear to do so, but now you are here telling me to back off because an idiot called me racist once. You have caused me a lot of grief over the years, but this is just unacceptable. I suggest you back off now before things go even further down the rabbit hole. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're right. I apologize. You said something that could be read as "the two actors look the same", which in turn could be read as racist, but you didn't actually say that the actors looked similar.
- Now that I have apologized for my misremembering something I read four months ago, are you going to retract or apologize for the groundless remark that
[I] have caused [you] a lot of grief over the years
, or at least provide some evidence for it? If I recall correctly, most of our negative interactions were initiated by you reverting my edits witgout explanation. - Anyway, you don't seem to have actually answered me -- can you recall anyone ever referring to you as "97"?
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:48, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- Why do you care?! Honestly, I want to know. Why do you need to get so far into all the gritty little details of everything that everyone says? I'm sure there are some people who are so ridiculously specific about every little thing they say that each word means something important, but we don't all live in an Aaron Sorkin show. Perhaps I am wrong, and Spacecowboy is an evil genius who subtly spells people's names wrong to make them mean different things and compares others to Nazis using elements of their name that they came up with themselves. But the point of my comment is that I think this is unlikely and that you were blowing something way over board when nothing sinister was meant by it at all. Why should he have meant something by it, when anybody else would look at the conversation and see a standard sarcastic response that was potentially meant to elicit frustration from you but nothing more? And why do I need to provide evidence to support my statement, when you know full well that in a general sense our interactions have always ended in large, heated discussions that neither of us really want to have? Why is that general understanding not enough for you? For instance, I know you are being a sarcastic asshole by pretending to apologise for calling me racist while still calling me racist, I don't need to try and dig into your psyche to discover the true intentions of your comments here. Sometimes, things are just not that complicated. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:04, 6 April 2018 (UTC)
- The long-and-short-of-it is that a user completely misinterpreted something I said as being racist, and then managed to erode any apparent good faith that I may have interpreted their actions as having throughout the rest of the conversation as they insisted on ignoring reason and the explanations of multiple editors. Now, separately from that, I made a suggestion based on a brief look at a dispute you were having because things were obviously getting heated and after having a look at the situation it appeared like you were making a big deal over a small misunderstanding (and you have a penchant for reading way too far into the smallest details and making massive deals out of nothing)—I thought a neutral opinion would help cut through the nonsense and end the issue quickly, and it did appear to do so, but now you are here telling me to back off because an idiot called me racist once. You have caused me a lot of grief over the years, but this is just unacceptable. I suggest you back off now before things go even further down the rabbit hole. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:40, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Legion
are you aware that the season premiere already aired? i had everything update before the revert.97.106.151.168 (talk) 04:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- I never said anything about it having not aired yet. The article is a complete mess, so it is just going to be easier to start again from a clean slate. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:35, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
- As in restoring everything? I was clearing up the confusion in the recurring section cause I know half of the recurring actors were credited in the co-starring bill instead of guest starring.97.106.151.168 (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- For this series, most of the non-starring roles are credited as co-starring so it doesn't make sense to not include them. Not every rule can be applied uniformly across different TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:43, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
- As in restoring everything? I was clearing up the confusion in the recurring section cause I know half of the recurring actors were credited in the co-starring bill instead of guest starring.97.106.151.168 (talk) 04:29, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Re: Thank you
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Likewise, Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 and Thor: Ragnarok would never have reached good article status without your tireless contributions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Thank you for all the hard work on the MCU articles, particularly before we nominate article when you provide a thorough copy-edit to the article to have it be in the best possible shape for review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:28, 10 April 2018 (UTC) |
Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
I apologize if I have started an "edit war", but the reality is that what I typed in is the "real" plot of the movie as written by Sony. Look it up on their website and IMDb. I don't see anywhere on the Internet about this "classic Spider-Man mold" plot. Cineplex (talk) 04:55PM, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- We don't just copy pre-existing premises like that, especially with flowery, non-encyclopaedic language. The other version is paraphrased to be appropriate for Wikipedia, based on the given source. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
First appearances
It's alot more specific if a characters first appearance is detailed in all forms of media appearances e.g film, television, video games. An example of this would be the A Song of Ice and Fire character articles which shows the characters first appearances in the novel, show and video game, as can be seen in Jon Snow and Tyrion Lannister's articles. The Optimistic One (talk) 05:54, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Also the first Iron Man video game was released simultaneously with the film, meaning that Tony Stark's first appearance is in both the first Iron Man film and video game. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I can see that it is more specific, but that doesn't change the fact that a section named "First appearance" is for the first appearance, not multiple first appearances (which obviously doesn't make any sense). As for the video game stuff you added to both articles, they are not canon to the MCU. There may be a place for them in the article supported by reliable sources that discuss how they were influenced by the film version, but they are not on-par with his appearances in actual MCU properties. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with both points. It doesn't matter if they are "canon" so long as we are giving the reader the most complete set of information. I am reverting back to TOO's version. bd2412 T 14:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- The infobox should only be the true first appearance in many cases. On articles such as Tony Stark (MCU) and Phil Coulson, since both cover all appearances in the whole universe, regardless of medium, only the very first appearance should be noted for both, since all subsequent appearances are based on that very first one. In a case like Jon Snow, since the books and TV series are separate (though based on the same things), it may be beneficial in those instances to note the first appearances in each separate medium. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- Phil Coulson is a major character in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and an important character in the first few MCU films. The MCU show's are very different to the films, they are not the same or even similar, BD2412 made a good point. We are giving the reader the most complete set of information, it's more helpful if we list the first appearance in all forms of media appearances. Jon Snow's first appearance in the GOT video-game is also listed, also you said the books and TV series are separate (though based on the same things) for GOT, so what about the film and tie-in comics, they are are separate (though based on the same things) as well. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- But AoS is still set in the MCU and continues Coulson's narrative from the films. That is the distinction. Iron Man is still the first ever appearance for Coulson. AoS is not a new, separate first appearance, but a continuation from those early films. Unlike Jon Snow as I stated. You have the literary character Jon Snow and the TV series Jon Snow. Though there are similarities between the two, they are ultimately not the same because the TV character diverges from the source material at some point, and is essentially a new creation for TV. So in that instance noting both first appearances is helpful. Versus the MCU, where the Coulson appearing in the films, TV series, One-Shots, and comics are the same character each time, not a new iteration for that medium. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- So tell me this, what difference is Jon Snow's first appearance in the video-game compared to Tony Stark's first appearance in the first Iron-Man game. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have no knowledge of Game of Thrones or its other media so I can't make any comment to that. Regarding the appearance in the Iron Man video game, that was a tie-in to the film, so it can essentially be considered the same appearance as the film (and again, no need to make mention of it as a "First"). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:30, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- So tell me this, what difference is Jon Snow's first appearance in the video-game compared to Tony Stark's first appearance in the first Iron-Man game. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:07, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- But AoS is still set in the MCU and continues Coulson's narrative from the films. That is the distinction. Iron Man is still the first ever appearance for Coulson. AoS is not a new, separate first appearance, but a continuation from those early films. Unlike Jon Snow as I stated. You have the literary character Jon Snow and the TV series Jon Snow. Though there are similarities between the two, they are ultimately not the same because the TV character diverges from the source material at some point, and is essentially a new creation for TV. So in that instance noting both first appearances is helpful. Versus the MCU, where the Coulson appearing in the films, TV series, One-Shots, and comics are the same character each time, not a new iteration for that medium. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- Phil Coulson is a major character in Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. and an important character in the first few MCU films. The MCU show's are very different to the films, they are not the same or even similar, BD2412 made a good point. We are giving the reader the most complete set of information, it's more helpful if we list the first appearance in all forms of media appearances. Jon Snow's first appearance in the GOT video-game is also listed, also you said the books and TV series are separate (though based on the same things) for GOT, so what about the film and tie-in comics, they are are separate (though based on the same things) as well. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:37, 21 April 2018 (UTC)
- The infobox should only be the true first appearance in many cases. On articles such as Tony Stark (MCU) and Phil Coulson, since both cover all appearances in the whole universe, regardless of medium, only the very first appearance should be noted for both, since all subsequent appearances are based on that very first one. In a case like Jon Snow, since the books and TV series are separate (though based on the same things), it may be beneficial in those instances to note the first appearances in each separate medium. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I disagree with both points. It doesn't matter if they are "canon" so long as we are giving the reader the most complete set of information. I am reverting back to TOO's version. bd2412 T 14:20, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- I can see that it is more specific, but that doesn't change the fact that a section named "First appearance" is for the first appearance, not multiple first appearances (which obviously doesn't make any sense). As for the video game stuff you added to both articles, they are not canon to the MCU. There may be a place for them in the article supported by reliable sources that discuss how they were influenced by the film version, but they are not on-par with his appearances in actual MCU properties. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Captain Marvel
Don't be overzealous and try to reconsider. Both of those people have been working together and that gives the new readers an idea of a team. Also if there were third person involved then we could make the list look this way:
- X and Y
- Z
No, then no problem! @Favre1fan93: I'm summoning you for your input. Harsh Rathod Poke me! 11:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Overzealous, huh? We don't indicate teams like that in the infobox, as you will see if you have a look at films where some writers work together and others don't. And if you take a look at the documentation for Template:Infobox film you'll notice why: it pretty explicitly says to separate multiple people in every parametre. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
- Per template documentation, each person is listed individually. We do not include "and" and "&"s. The format reverted to is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Okay! No big deal.
You can't teach old man new tricks.
Harsh Rathod Poke me! 07:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Infinity War
Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I am about to unwatch the Infinity War article (and any related MCU articles) so I can avoid spoilers as best I can, in case you notice less activity from me on those articles in the coming days. I'm seeing the film Friday afternoon and can't wait. Also wanted to pass along a hearty enjoy for you as well when you get to see it. Can't believe we are only days away! See you on the other side! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
- I stopped watching a little while ago, I knew you would keep everything in good order until closer to the time. I'm going on (my) Thursday so I'll be able to keep an eye on everything for a couple of days until you have seen it. Hope you enjoy it as well, I am very excited for it! - adamstom97 (talk) 11:43, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Really enjoyed the film. I'm working through some articles I've saved to add in. No rush, but if you get a chance, I'd love some help on the production article dealing with casting stuff, especially since we had info on some who would be in IW who weren't. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am also happy with the film, still riding a bit of a high from seeing it the other day actually. I will do my best to help out over the next while, hoping to have some time in the next few days to sit down and go through some stuff. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm still processing it all and trying to find people to talk to it about! I'm going again next week so I'm looking forward to seeing it again! And like I said, absolutely no rush on this! The production article has (miraculously) gotten through the premiere unscathed, I think in part because it is separated out. So that will give us a good buffer to craft it as we need, such as including the info on THAT return, any other smaller cast notes (maybe) like Parker's classmates, relevant Stone info, and commentary on all that actually happened. And then as I said above, looking at how we are presenting "Actor A was confirmed to appear in IW/the sequel/both" based on who actually did appear in IW. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- One thing I was thinking might help with the production article, but you may not think it is a necessary change, is considering adjusting to a structure more like the TV articles. That would combine all of the casting news into its own section rather than have it mixed all throughout the page. I just thought that if we were going to make a change like that then it may be worth considering it now before we go trying to add a whole lot more stuff in. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I was thinking something like that might be good too. And ultimately make it more of a "The characters appearing in Infinity War include..." rather than "X confirmed they would appear in A and B, while Y was confirmed for B" etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93: I have restructured the content from the production page in my sandbox. It definitely needs some work, particularly the casting section, but I do think this is going to be the way to go. With all the new information coming out now and over the next year or so, I think we are going to have a pretty good article here. We can break up all of the text with some images and more subheadings like the one I started for the titles. We can continue working on it in my sandbox if you want, but it may be just as easy to make the change at the actual page and have everyone work on it from there. What do you think? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually wasn't thinking pulling all of the content like that. What I was thinking, was doing something very reductive, along the lines of something like this (still in a "Casting" section):
- Throughout the production process, multiple actors were confirmed to be reprising their MCU roles. The actors appearing in Infinity War include: RDJ as Iron Man,[source] ..... and Chris Pratt as Star Lord.[source].
- And then after listing all the returners, we could go more into prose with the new characters. Because I think we'd still get into trouble by saying "In this month, this person confirmed this", especially for characters (aka Valkyrie) being confirmed but then not appearing. Let me try writing it up so I can show you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, all I have done is rearrange everything so the info was in the right places. I didn't intend to leave the casting section written as it is, just wasn't sure whether you thought we should implement the restructure and then rework the casting stuff or if you wanted to get the casting section right before moving to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. Yeah I think we should get the restructures right first and then make the change in the article. Otherwise, I think it won't look or flow well. I'm working on that in my sandbox, but have not gotten further with much of the restructuring. I've pretty much just dumped all the casting info there as you had done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TriiipleThreat: I don't know if you've been following the conversation Adam and I have been having, but wanted to ping you if you had any thoughts on the matter (it is in regards to how we present the casting info on the IW production article). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, all I have done is rearrange everything so the info was in the right places. I didn't intend to leave the casting section written as it is, just wasn't sure whether you thought we should implement the restructure and then rework the casting stuff or if you wanted to get the casting section right before moving to the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- I actually wasn't thinking pulling all of the content like that. What I was thinking, was doing something very reductive, along the lines of something like this (still in a "Casting" section):
- @Favre1fan93: I have restructured the content from the production page in my sandbox. It definitely needs some work, particularly the casting section, but I do think this is going to be the way to go. With all the new information coming out now and over the next year or so, I think we are going to have a pretty good article here. We can break up all of the text with some images and more subheadings like the one I started for the titles. We can continue working on it in my sandbox if you want, but it may be just as easy to make the change at the actual page and have everyone work on it from there. What do you think? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I was thinking something like that might be good too. And ultimately make it more of a "The characters appearing in Infinity War include..." rather than "X confirmed they would appear in A and B, while Y was confirmed for B" etc. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:56, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- One thing I was thinking might help with the production article, but you may not think it is a necessary change, is considering adjusting to a structure more like the TV articles. That would combine all of the casting news into its own section rather than have it mixed all throughout the page. I just thought that if we were going to make a change like that then it may be worth considering it now before we go trying to add a whole lot more stuff in. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:49, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm still processing it all and trying to find people to talk to it about! I'm going again next week so I'm looking forward to seeing it again! And like I said, absolutely no rush on this! The production article has (miraculously) gotten through the premiere unscathed, I think in part because it is separated out. So that will give us a good buffer to craft it as we need, such as including the info on THAT return, any other smaller cast notes (maybe) like Parker's classmates, relevant Stone info, and commentary on all that actually happened. And then as I said above, looking at how we are presenting "Actor A was confirmed to appear in IW/the sequel/both" based on who actually did appear in IW. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
I think we should group as many names as we can together but listing them all together is almost unreadable or at the very least very uninteresting, tedious reading.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'm taking a stab at something in my sandbox. I'll let you both know when it is ready for your thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, so I have a very crude version of what I was thinking in my sandbox here. I don't have references in place, and there is probably some text still included that will ultimately not be there, but the formatting I went with is as follows: Paragraph 1 just lists [Actors as characters] for all returning MCU actors. Next paragraph is casting info for new actors/characters (so Dinklage, the Black Order and Marquand). Paragraph 3 follows the format of paragraph 1, in listing all expected reprising actors who will return from IW, plus additional reprises (ie Hawkeye). Paragraph 4 is the same as paragraph 2, any new casting info for the sequel (which is just Sanada at this time). Paragraph 5 covers cameos, and the final paragraph is about the Netflix characters. Let me know how you guys feel about this. If we like it, I'll get to work in earnest to format it correctly and get all the info in that I may have missed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97 and TriiipleThreat: Did either of you happen to see the edit I made regarding this? I was away for a couple days, and just wanted to check in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have sort of been avoiding this until I can dedicate myself properly to it. I think between us we are on the right track here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. In that case, I have some free time on Wednesday, and I'm going to take the time to actually format this in my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think we both have similar ideas on what needs to happen here, so it may just be a who gets to it first kind of thing (probably you) with the other joining in after that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've made the changes to the article, so we can now work from the live article. But the general idea of making the "casting" section has been implemented. I fully took out the Valkyrie info, but I don't know if we should include that in some form. That info is sitting in my second sandbox currently if we want to add it in some way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's a good start, I'll try and get in and help with cleaning up stuff soon. A few points I do want to bring up: is there a reason that you put casting before writing? We usually do it the other way around, though it isn't really a big deal. The opening paragraph of the casting section that just lists everybody that has returned seems like a crazy big WP:SEAOFBLUE and I was wondering if we wanted to try and break that up a bit. This brings up another, in that we state some casting news in the development section and then ignore that for the casting section. I just think it would help if we began the section with the line about Downey signing his new contract, and then listed all the actors returning from the other Avengers films, and then for the rest of the returners we noted what franchises they came from (or at least their main franchise), just to help break it all up. I also think there should be more emphasis on Brolin than just having him in the list with everyone else. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with all those points, and think we can work on that. As to placing it before writing, since that section talks about specific characters, I felt it was better to have known the actors/casting before, but I'm fine moving it after writing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It might help if we didn't force it all into one subsection. We could devote a single paragraph to casting in each of the other sections like we did at The Avengers (2012 film).-TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll write up a draft for comparison and see if that's any better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TriiipleThreat: I felt we had that currently, but the issue I felt we were running into was because of the back-to-back nature of filming, we were not entirely sure who was confirmed for which film when (ie see Rudd Renner, and Tessa Thompson). I've moved the article back to my sandbox and attempted some of the things Adam recently suggested to remove the WP:SEAOFBLUE (a bit). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see, on another subject why not move Writing to Development? I know these Marvels films have a different process, but typically most of the writing is done during the development phase.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually this makes a lot of sense. Also it may help with the sea of blue by moving some of the links to Writing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I believe the idea behind including writing in pre-production, was because of the very first sentence we have there that said Markus & McFeely had begun work on the screenplay. Also because of the update they provided in June 2016, that is after the Silvestri info. In my brain, with both of those sentences, it would logically be good to have writing as the next subsection in pre-production. But even if we kept writing there under pre, but before casting, that still could help with the sea of blue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually this makes a lot of sense. Also it may help with the sea of blue by moving some of the links to Writing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I see, on another subject why not move Writing to Development? I know these Marvels films have a different process, but typically most of the writing is done during the development phase.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- @TriiipleThreat: I felt we had that currently, but the issue I felt we were running into was because of the back-to-back nature of filming, we were not entirely sure who was confirmed for which film when (ie see Rudd Renner, and Tessa Thompson). I've moved the article back to my sandbox and attempted some of the things Adam recently suggested to remove the WP:SEAOFBLUE (a bit). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I'll write up a draft for comparison and see if that's any better.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- It might help if we didn't force it all into one subsection. We could devote a single paragraph to casting in each of the other sections like we did at The Avengers (2012 film).-TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with all those points, and think we can work on that. As to placing it before writing, since that section talks about specific characters, I felt it was better to have known the actors/casting before, but I'm fine moving it after writing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's a good start, I'll try and get in and help with cleaning up stuff soon. A few points I do want to bring up: is there a reason that you put casting before writing? We usually do it the other way around, though it isn't really a big deal. The opening paragraph of the casting section that just lists everybody that has returned seems like a crazy big WP:SEAOFBLUE and I was wondering if we wanted to try and break that up a bit. This brings up another, in that we state some casting news in the development section and then ignore that for the casting section. I just think it would help if we began the section with the line about Downey signing his new contract, and then listed all the actors returning from the other Avengers films, and then for the rest of the returners we noted what franchises they came from (or at least their main franchise), just to help break it all up. I also think there should be more emphasis on Brolin than just having him in the list with everyone else. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've made the changes to the article, so we can now work from the live article. But the general idea of making the "casting" section has been implemented. I fully took out the Valkyrie info, but I don't know if we should include that in some form. That info is sitting in my second sandbox currently if we want to add it in some way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think we both have similar ideas on what needs to happen here, so it may just be a who gets to it first kind of thing (probably you) with the other joining in after that. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:08, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- That's fine. In that case, I have some free time on Wednesday, and I'm going to take the time to actually format this in my sandbox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have sort of been avoiding this until I can dedicate myself properly to it. I think between us we are on the right track here. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Markus & McFeely are first mentioned in Development and Sivestri isn't mentioned in the section at all so I think placement in the development section is fine. It also helps balance the article as its not over loading one area over another. Again like the casting section, because its all placed together the timeline may jump around.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:42, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- For clarification, I was talking about this sentence (
In January 2016, ... Markus and McFeely had begun work on the screenplay for the first film
and this sentenceMarkus and McFeely provided an update on the writing of the films in July, saying they were...
in the pre-production section regarding why it seemed good to have writing follow this content, but I understand your point. I would also not be opposed to restructuring the sections as a level 2 heading "Development and pre-production" and then subsequent level 3 "Writing" and "Casting" sections. And then continue with level 2 "Filming" etc. as we have it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)- Or, thinking some more, if those 2 sentences I was pointing out get moved into the writing section, I think what you've been suggesting Triiiple can work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think some of the changes you guys are suggesting I was working towards in my initial draft version, if you want to have another look at that and maybe incorporate some of those ideas. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- In lieu of that, what about this layout? It incorporates some of Adam's ideas from his sandbox, with some of the more recent things I was mentioning to Triiiple, and Triiiple's suggestions of including Writing above Casting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer having a distinct preproduction section. I am not concerned with the chronology but if you want to move those two bits of information to the writing section then that's okay.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- So would we like to proceed for the time being with the layout version Triiiple suggested (for ease, it was this), with me moving those few writing bits I was concerned about into the Writing subsection? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since I haven't really been keeping up with the incremental changes that you guys have been making, I decided to take the most recent version of your sandbox Favre and give it a c/e to get closer to a version I would be happy with. This version began with the one you have in your sandbox, and from there I basically just gave it a c/e. The biggest change is that I have tried to structure the writing section to follow a sort of 'development, IW, A4' order, and really tried to cut down on the quotes and any redundancy as well. I also gave the wording of the casting section a bit of a rewrite to show what I was sort of intending before, moved a couple bits of info around like some writing stuff into the writing section, and hid the home media info since that doesn't really feel like it applies to the production of the films (perhaps it should be moved to the films' marketing/release sections?). Let me know what you guys think of my version in relation to yours. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Adam, I like what you did. I'll just look over the copy edit to see if there is anything taken out I would I have kept in, but I think it looks great. I did just move the 2 sentences I've been talking about into the writing section. I'm happy with this if we want to move this to the live article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- And I did move the Netflix character info to casting, as I think that is the better location for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just felt that it shouldn't be in casting since no one was actually cast. I first moved it to writing, along with the info on choosing which characters to appear, but it also didn't feel right there given there is no indication that any of the characters were written into the scripts. That is why I finally moved it to the main development section, since it sort of shows an evolution of the whole concept and the final line from the Russos in that paragraph is further clarification on their general approach to the films. I'm happy to move it back to writing, but I just don't think it makes sense to have them in the casting section. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I can see it going either way, but I felt it did make sense to go in casting because, even though none were cast, it talks about the discussion and thought process about potentially doing so. Either way, that's a minor thing with your larger adjustments. Also, are you okay with the two writing things I moved? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yip, they look good. If you wanted to see what another location for the TV info would look like, you could try between the second and third writing paragraphs. That means readers will move from discussions on working in with the wider universe, to why they aren't working in with the TV part, to which characters they are going to use now they are not including the TV characters. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I've made that change so we can have a look at it now. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:33, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- That placement is fine too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:54, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- I guess I can see it going either way, but I felt it did make sense to go in casting because, even though none were cast, it talks about the discussion and thought process about potentially doing so. Either way, that's a minor thing with your larger adjustments. Also, are you okay with the two writing things I moved? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:28, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- I just felt that it shouldn't be in casting since no one was actually cast. I first moved it to writing, along with the info on choosing which characters to appear, but it also didn't feel right there given there is no indication that any of the characters were written into the scripts. That is why I finally moved it to the main development section, since it sort of shows an evolution of the whole concept and the final line from the Russos in that paragraph is further clarification on their general approach to the films. I'm happy to move it back to writing, but I just don't think it makes sense to have them in the casting section. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:25, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- Since I haven't really been keeping up with the incremental changes that you guys have been making, I decided to take the most recent version of your sandbox Favre and give it a c/e to get closer to a version I would be happy with. This version began with the one you have in your sandbox, and from there I basically just gave it a c/e. The biggest change is that I have tried to structure the writing section to follow a sort of 'development, IW, A4' order, and really tried to cut down on the quotes and any redundancy as well. I also gave the wording of the casting section a bit of a rewrite to show what I was sort of intending before, moved a couple bits of info around like some writing stuff into the writing section, and hid the home media info since that doesn't really feel like it applies to the production of the films (perhaps it should be moved to the films' marketing/release sections?). Let me know what you guys think of my version in relation to yours. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:10, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
- So would we like to proceed for the time being with the layout version Triiiple suggested (for ease, it was this), with me moving those few writing bits I was concerned about into the Writing subsection? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I prefer having a distinct preproduction section. I am not concerned with the chronology but if you want to move those two bits of information to the writing section then that's okay.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- In lieu of that, what about this layout? It incorporates some of Adam's ideas from his sandbox, with some of the more recent things I was mentioning to Triiiple, and Triiiple's suggestions of including Writing above Casting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- I think some of the changes you guys are suggesting I was working towards in my initial draft version, if you want to have another look at that and maybe incorporate some of those ideas. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:24, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
- Or, thinking some more, if those 2 sentences I was pointing out get moved into the writing section, I think what you've been suggesting Triiiple can work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
Well, I'm pretty happy to move this version to the main space if you guys are. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah looks good. I'll make the adjustments. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Hiddleston in Avengers 4
Please read the cited article. It is from back when Avengers 4 was "Avengers: Infinity War Part 2", and it sloppily shorthands "Avengers: Infinity War Part 2" as "Avengers 2". It is clearly not referring to "Avengers: Age of Ultron", it talks only about Loki's involvement as depicted in Avengers 3, and it looks like an unreliable source. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- I have read the article, and it is very clear. For context, the article was written before the release of Avengers 2, which is when Feige confirmed that Hiddleston would be in both Avengers 3 and 4 (we could get another source for this as there were many covering the event at which Feige said this, but there isn't actually anything wrong with Digital Spy so I don't feel this is necessary). Knowing that Loki was the main antagonist of The Avengers, and having just learned that he will appear in Avengers 3 and 4, the writer ends her article by stating, "That doesn't guarantee he will appear in Avengers 2", which is then obviously a reference to the actual Avengers 2. Your interpretation of the article doesn't really make sense: why would she say Feige confirmed Hiddleston for a film and by the end of the article say that he is not confirmed; and why we should refer to Avengers 4 as Avengers 2, just to refer to it correctly as Part 2 in the next sentence? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:31, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- @JHunterJ: Is there a reason you continue to make controversial edits without discussion even after a discussion has been started (by you)? Do you want to be reported for disruptive editing? I would revert your latest change if it this had not already become an edit warring mess, so I am going to politely ask you to self-revert and discuss first. The "better source" you added is a random site about loaning markets that is definitely not a standard source for reliable entertainment reporting. If you have a problem with the source used, then start a discussion about it, especially when it is a standard and widely used source. Also, you did not provide a complete reference (no archive was provided) when you replaced a clearly properly formatted one, and within a list of properly formatted references, which was just rude. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can we at least use a current citation that relates to the two movies that are no longer "Infinity War Parts 1 & 2"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever issue it is that you have with the source, why not just start a discussion at Talk:Untitled Avengers film? It isn't difficult, you an express your concerns, the community can respond, and the issue will be resolved. This isn't something that needs to happen just between you and me. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- And trying to improve citations isn't controversial. You are welcome to report me for disruptive editing, but I'm trying to improve the article, not disrupt the encyclopedia. I will relocate this discussion to the article talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- The disruptive part is continuing to edit rather than discuss. It was particularly egregious that you ignore the discussion that you started, seemed to move on from the issue, and then made a different edit that was still about the same issue. All I am asking for is a bit of courtesy given there is obviously some disagreement happening here. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:15, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- And trying to improve citations isn't controversial. You are welcome to report me for disruptive editing, but I'm trying to improve the article, not disrupt the encyclopedia. I will relocate this discussion to the article talk page. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:08, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Whatever issue it is that you have with the source, why not just start a discussion at Talk:Untitled Avengers film? It isn't difficult, you an express your concerns, the community can respond, and the issue will be resolved. This isn't something that needs to happen just between you and me. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:07, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
- Can we at least use a current citation that relates to the two movies that are no longer "Infinity War Parts 1 & 2"? -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:05, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Deadpool 2
Yeah he won’t stop reverting. Think it’s worth an ANI report? Rusted AutoParts 04:45, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
- This may be naive of me, but I would rather give him the benefit of the doubt and keep trying at the talk page for a while. I've had a lot of trouble with ANI reports in the past and would rather leave them as a last resort. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:05, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
ACTRIAL:
- WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
- Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
- A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
- There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
- Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
- Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
- The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Not sure if you saw this
But I saw a new user, User:Adamstom98 was editing on the Age of Ultron article. I'm assuming this is not you, but wanted you to be aware, and if you wanted to look into an admin helping out per WP:IMPERSONATOR. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- Wow, I'm not sure how to respond to this. It seems too close to be a coincidence, but I have no experience with anything like this happening. Is there a standard procedure if I feel that this is too close to my username? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
- I mean, I obviously think it's someone trying to intimidate you in some form. I was looking over WP:USERNAME, and it seems like you could maybe report the name at WP:UAA, because I would consider this a WP:MISLEADNAME, especially if they continue editing MCU/superhero-related articles and someone quickly doesn't see the slight differences and thinks it is you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I've reported them at UAA. We'll see what happens. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like they were blocked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Cool, I'm glad that's sorted. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like they were blocked. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I've reported them at UAA. We'll see what happens. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
- I mean, I obviously think it's someone trying to intimidate you in some form. I was looking over WP:USERNAME, and it seems like you could maybe report the name at WP:UAA, because I would consider this a WP:MISLEADNAME, especially if they continue editing MCU/superhero-related articles and someone quickly doesn't see the slight differences and thinks it is you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:36, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 10
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Panther (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Adamstom.97, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
- As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
- Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar:
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
. - Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
"Sif" in Thor: Ragnarok
I thought that info could do as long as the actor had a Wiki article (indicating their notability), also because the real Sif did not appear. But the source was not factually inaccurate by any chance, was it? Because the articles Sif (comics) and Charlotte Nicdao mention this fact, even before I edited them to include the ET source. --Kailash29792 (talk) 09:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I believe it is correct information, but that doesn't mean we should add it. I do think it is suitable for both of those other pages, but in terms of the scope of the whole film this character (fake Sif) and actress are not significant. I mentioned why the others were included, so what about this actress means she needs to be mentioned? She played someone playing someone else who is not in this movie, and she was only on screen for a few seconds. If, for example, they just got a random guy to play the Thor actor in the scene I would be making the same argument. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) How about a potential compromise, where we mention it in the "Pre-production" section at the end of the first paragraph where we talk about Jaimie Alexander not returning? Something like "Sif does appear as a character in the play based on the events of The Dark World, portrayed by Charlotte Nicdao." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think that is probably a better option. Not trying to elevate her to the same level as those other actors, but acknowledging the Sif connection. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll be bold and make this addition. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- I think that is probably a better option. Not trying to elevate her to the same level as those other actors, but acknowledging the Sif connection. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) How about a potential compromise, where we mention it in the "Pre-production" section at the end of the first paragraph where we talk about Jaimie Alexander not returning? Something like "Sif does appear as a character in the play based on the events of The Dark World, portrayed by Charlotte Nicdao." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 22
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Black Panther (soundtrack), you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Vanity Fair and Wakanda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
La La Land
I have addressed all issues raised on the GA review. Rusted AutoParts 14:06, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
- Cool, I've just been avoiding my watchlist over the last couple of days while I was watching the new season of Luke Cage. I'll take a look at what you have done soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:07, 24 June 2018 (UTC)
Moonrise Kingdom
Why haven't you come back to the GAC since I made the changes you insisted on? Ribbet32 (talk) 01:17, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was waiting for you to tell me that it had been done. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
Reverts on article No Good Deed
Adamstom.97, I realize that my recent edits for No Good Deed (2017 film) are not substantial, but they are not without reason. Grammar and clarity for a non-universe sensibility are minor but worthwhile. Please consider specifically editing or managing edits instead of wholesale revert technique. I am fully willing to discuss matters but I find it against WP policy to revert for taste.--SidP (talk) 05:27, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- My latest revert better explained my issues with each of your changes. They were all detrimental or went against established conventions. I can explain further here if you wish. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- I wish you would. Your concerns ignore the grammatical error I corrected; your issue about overlinking actually points to substantiating my link for feature film (vs. what this one in the article is, a short film) and therefore is used for differentiation; and further MOS:REPEATLINK provides clear rationale for my removal of a redundant link.--SidP (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- You did not correct any grammatical error, you actually introduced two:
Wade Wilson tries to save an old man from a mugger, but chooses to change into his Deadpool costume first
is not grammatically incorrect, whileWade Wilson (a.k.a. Deadpool) tries to save an old man from a mugger, but he chooses to change into his Deadpool costume first
introduces an ambiguous reference that could apply to Deadpool or the mugger, which is problematic, while also giving us the redundant parenthetical, since the fact he is Deadpool is already introduced at the end of the sentence, which makes use of a non-standard style (a.k.a.); andThe short was filmed in December 2016 and serves as a tease for the feature film Deadpool 2, but is not a trailer for that film
is also correct, so the change toThe short was filmed in December 2016 and serves as a tease for the feature film Deadpool 2, but it is not a trailer for that film
is also not helpful. Feature film is a common term and should not be linked to (whereas there is likely to be more need for a short film link, especially in terms of what defines a short film as opposed to a feature film which is widely known). And it is standard to have new links in production sections, despite a bit of redundancy in previous sections, because it is highly likely that a user will start reading the article from there. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
- You did not correct any grammatical error, you actually introduced two:
- I wish you would. Your concerns ignore the grammatical error I corrected; your issue about overlinking actually points to substantiating my link for feature film (vs. what this one in the article is, a short film) and therefore is used for differentiation; and further MOS:REPEATLINK provides clear rationale for my removal of a redundant link.--SidP (talk) 05:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
Daredevil s2
Hi
I understand why you undid my edit regarding the featured section, but what's the problem on adding the info that Vincent D'Onofrio was credited as a special guest star in "Guilty as Sin"?
--190.180.168.126 (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- It's just not something we usually note in the cast list, which is a brief overview. Details like this are added at the full list, List of Daredevil characters. There may be an argument for mentioning it in the season's casting section though. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
Damage Control draft and Black Panther GA
Don't know if you saw the notice go up on my talk, but the Damage Control draft was deleted. I think that's actually okay, since all relevant info we had on it is at the TV series list. I think there were some quotes from Gregg and Loeb (from here I believe), so I just put that link in my sandbox. Also, kind of on this topic, Jeph Loeb is doing an AMA today on /r/MarvelStudios, and users there seemed keen on asking about Damage Control (and New Warriors), so maybe we'll get some more insight that we can use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- As long as we haven't lost anything that is all good, and even confirmation that DC isn't happening would be good in terms of closure. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm 90% sure all the draft was, was the content on the List of TV series article, plus that Forbes link I managed to come across again (and save). And completely separate, I'm going through Black Panther with a c/e to nominate it for GA, if you wanted to give a pass at it too. I'm up to the box office section with what I'm doing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was hoping to do a good pass on it this weekend, particularly for the reception stuff, I'm just working around exams at the moment is all. And I just had a quick look through the AMA and I didn't see an answer for DC but there was an answer about working around IW which may be useful. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- All good. We have until June 15 to nominate. I found some third party sources for the AMA info and have already added it in. Mostly for New Warriors, the IW part you mentioned, and the ability to release Most Wanted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just a note on the changing section/subsection headings for the analysis section. I don't want to change anything until more work is done on the actual content but I'm thinking that the headings might work better a little differently once its all been tidied up. Just wanted to let you know instead of just randomly changing it all one day. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- What ever you think will represent the info better, is probably fine with me! I am hoping we can nominate the article though on June 14, so you are aware. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I came here before looking at the work you already completed. I'm going to look it over myself, to see if anything you cut I may feel is important (but I think you did a great pass by the look of it). So I guess when you're all done, if you want to set up the nomination, go for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- One thing just glancing, any reason why you expanded the music section so much? Just feeling because since we do split off the soundtrack to its own article, we generally go broad overview strokes on the film page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did try not to cut anything, the decrease in size was more just rewording things and paraphrasing. For the music, I do feel that it is still a broad overview based on what I intend for the soundtrack page to become (I have been working on it at User:Adamstom.97/sandbox/4). I just wanted to get a few more details in to mostly complete the picture of the cultural work being done for the film without becoming redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- So I've gone through all the c/e edit stuff you did (and you've seen I've adjusted and added a few things back). Circling back to the music adds: I had seen the work you were doing in your sandbox, but I still think the first two paragraphs of added info in that section can each be cut down in half. If you get to moving your sandbox version to the live article, that may help in justifying the removal of content on the film article, but going into the GA review, I don't see it as a big deal. But ultimately, yes, I do think the content should be cut back a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I thought I did a pretty good job of only giving a brief summary. If you think there is too much there you should feel free to try cutting it down yourself, we'll probably find a happy medium that way. By the way, I am currently discussing some changes for the plot summary with Triiiple, and still haven't attempted the reception section. Once those are sorted, I'll be happy to nominate for GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- As a note, I just had a look back at Deadpool (film) where I went through a similar process with the music section. You can see there what the section ended up like, which I think is closer to what you were thinking. I would be happy with something closer to that as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- Here's a quick pass of what I'm thinking to reduce the music section, User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/2. Again, the only reason I'm suggesting, is because I know the actual soundtrack article will go far more in depth with all this info, and since it is split, the film article should give the broad stroke for the reader, in my opinion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- So I've gone through all the c/e edit stuff you did (and you've seen I've adjusted and added a few things back). Circling back to the music adds: I had seen the work you were doing in your sandbox, but I still think the first two paragraphs of added info in that section can each be cut down in half. If you get to moving your sandbox version to the live article, that may help in justifying the removal of content on the film article, but going into the GA review, I don't see it as a big deal. But ultimately, yes, I do think the content should be cut back a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
- I did try not to cut anything, the decrease in size was more just rewording things and paraphrasing. For the music, I do feel that it is still a broad overview based on what I intend for the soundtrack page to become (I have been working on it at User:Adamstom.97/sandbox/4). I just wanted to get a few more details in to mostly complete the picture of the cultural work being done for the film without becoming redundant. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- One thing just glancing, any reason why you expanded the music section so much? Just feeling because since we do split off the soundtrack to its own article, we generally go broad overview strokes on the film page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2018 (UTC)
- Just a note on the changing section/subsection headings for the analysis section. I don't want to change anything until more work is done on the actual content but I'm thinking that the headings might work better a little differently once its all been tidied up. Just wanted to let you know instead of just randomly changing it all one day. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:16, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- All good. We have until June 15 to nominate. I found some third party sources for the AMA info and have already added it in. Mostly for New Warriors, the IW part you mentioned, and the ability to release Most Wanted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was hoping to do a good pass on it this weekend, particularly for the reception stuff, I'm just working around exams at the moment is all. And I just had a quick look through the AMA and I didn't see an answer for DC but there was an answer about working around IW which may be useful. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm 90% sure all the draft was, was the content on the List of TV series article, plus that Forbes link I managed to come across again (and save). And completely separate, I'm going through Black Panther with a c/e to nominate it for GA, if you wanted to give a pass at it too. I'm up to the box office section with what I'm doing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for not getting back to you in the last few days, I am really very busy at the moment. Thank you for going ahead and nominating the article on time, though it is a bit of a pain (for once) that someone was so prompt in picking it up. I'll do a quick last minute c/e now before the review process begins, and then any thing else that needs to be done I'll try my best to help out with. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:20, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- No problem. Do what you need to, I'll be able to keep my eyes on the comments from the reviewer. Also regarding the box office section, I think as it is is fine. Yes it's a lot, but a lot of things happened with the film, breaking records and such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't really have the time or patience to read through it - it is never my favourite section of our articles. I trust that you have a handle on it and any changes that really need to be made will happen during the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
- And conversely, the box office section is one I tend to enjoy working on, more so than reception/reviews.
- Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:26, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've had a look at the reviewers comments yet, but there was one they had regarding the Analysis section I'm wondering if you could look at. If you can, please let me know what you think of the comment, how I responded, and what I added to the article, and then if you think there is anything additional to be done in terms of their comment. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- Looks like you've been doing a good job, I've just found a source that has some more info on the Black Panther Challenge that applies to countries outside of the US as well so I'll add that in and add a response to the review page. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know if you've had a look at the reviewers comments yet, but there was one they had regarding the Analysis section I'm wondering if you could look at. If you can, please let me know what you think of the comment, how I responded, and what I added to the article, and then if you think there is anything additional to be done in terms of their comment. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
- And conversely, the box office section is one I tend to enjoy working on, more so than reception/reviews.
- Yeah, I don't really have the time or patience to read through it - it is never my favourite section of our articles. I trust that you have a handle on it and any changes that really need to be made will happen during the review. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: I have had some time to work on this, and have had a go myself at reducing the box office section in your sandbox. My version would get us down to 66kB of readable prose, which is much closer to the other examples that he is looking at. It is also much closer to what I would want out of a box office section, as someone who is not that keen on them in general. I basically got ruthless and cut out a whole lot of records, especially where it wasn't number one (e.g. "the second-highest", "the fourth-best"). Because we would now be losing so many of the actual records the film has made, I made a list of them and I feel like they could make a decent list of box office records. I know they are not the most popular thing, but I personally think this is the best way to go as the records are all quite notable (especially all the top February ones, and the African ones) but the prose version of them was just not working for me and I think it is the main reason why he finds the article too long. I think if we wrote the lead right for the list of records, we could really emphasise how significant some of those records are and justify the separate article, so I do think it is something to push for.
As another note, I was starting to notice a lot of similarities between this review and my Deadpool one (as mentioned above for music) so I had a look and it is indeed the same reviewer. The page being too big was a major issue in that review as well, and I'm pretty sure to begin with it was a lot smaller than this one is. In the end, cutting it down made for a better article, so that is why I went ahead and tried to make some more cuts for BP today. If we get the box office section right down as I have done in your sandbox, I think we will be pretty close to getting the tick, and also we will be at a level where we may be able to put our feet down if he keeps demanding more cuts. In short, I think we're almost there! Let me know what you think of what I did in your sandbox. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:24, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- I was thinking on it some too, and felt a list might be the way to go. Even though I don't prefer them, I do see the merit of cutting down the prose and separating out the full records to a list. Moreso than what is happening with IW and that separate list. I'm going to take a crack first at a copy-edit myself and then I'll look at yours. I also will go through the larger c/e you just did on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Okay, so I've gone through and cut back some content, as you can see in my sandbox. I have not gone as far as you did, so a couple of things. I appreciate the large amount of reduction you did in your version, but I think it may be a bit too much. I don't feel like my version is perfect, so maybe we can find a happy medium between mine and yours? I don't think we have to try avoiding the "Pre-sale records", "USA" and "Other" subheadings either, and can keep them if need be. To note, with my version of the box office reduction, added into the "live" version of the article, we are at 70kB. If yours was 66kb, maybe with a combined version, we can try to hit around 68kB. Now I want to talk about my list of records content. I've essentially taken everything that was a record in prose in the article version, and made it a bullet. This includes all of the records that were not the top ones (and maybe some more top ones you didn't have). I think including almost all of these should be done, because many are still notable even if they weren't the top. I'd also probably be more amenable to further prose reduction knowing the information would be preserved with this list. What I created obviously needs touching up, and an examination of potentially unnecessary records, but I also think we should start from that too. This consumed much of my time today, so I still haven't gotten to your other copy-edits in the article, so I'll try to hit that tomorrow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- For my list of records, I only considered the top ones, but I actually like including the extra ones that you did so I would be happy to go with something closer to yours. For your version of the prose section, I am a bit reluctant to leave as much in as you did. If you think about how little is in the music section compared to the soundtrack article, we should really be aiming for something similar. With such a comprehensive list of records going to their own article, I would suggest only noting a couple and focusing on retaining the overall structure and narrative. I am of course happy to work out a compromise, or even go through some specific examples together, but I just think that you are still listing too many facts rather than painting a clear narrative. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Great. So I'm going to move my list over to this sandbox so we can work on formatting that there. For the prose, why don't we look at my first pass as a new "base" and cut back from there. Like I said, I'd I think it would be beneficial to have slightly more than your version, but yes I do agree with your comparison to the soundtrack article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'm made a second prose version in the sandbox. It's slightly smaller/adjusted from my first. Explaining a bit on it, I definitely think we should mention the pre-sale records on the main article. Even if we include them in the separate list, they are still pretty notable to make a mention on the main article. Then in my US section, the first paragraph is all opening weekend, plus the projected numbers (which wouldn't be at the list), and the info on the ticket admissions (which is a good parallel/follow up to the pre-sale section). The second paragraph covers the week between weekend 1 and 2, and the second weekend. The final paragraph talks about remaining at number 1, those records (which I think are better as prose and thus wouldn't need to be included at the list), and the small info on the increase because of IW. That last part won't be any info we could convert to the list, so I think that should stay as prose. For other territories, the first paragraph is an overview of the first two weekends, second is for the third and fourth with the additional openings, and final is some of the notable records for the film and rankings. With this second version, we'd be down to 69 kB. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I've done a "compromise" version that I think is alright. Take a look, just note that this version only just gets us down to 68 and I'm not that keen on going any higher than that. Also, if you use the old page preview system (by-pass the new visual editor stuff) you can check the page size without having to actually save any changes to the article. As for the new list of records, I am going to be travelling today and may be a bit busy over the weekend, but I'll see what work on it I can squeeze in. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- I'll have a look over it. I agree we don't want to tread higher. Regarding the previewing and checking size, I was doing that/knew about it, but it wasn't working for me for some reason. I would preview the page, then run script and a box popped up saying I needed to be in preview mode to check size while editing. Hence why I did that quick edit. As for the list, I'm will try to make some content out of it too in the coming day. I'm going to drop a line in the GA review so John knows we are working on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Only one small thing with your version. I think the Fandango 30% share should be mentioned in the US section where it's been. It seems awkward moving it where you did, jumping from pre-sale info to actual sales info. And then maybe just some small sentence/punctuation work (that wouldn't add/change anything), but I'd be happy implementing that as our prose (and keeping your initial version in our back pocket if needed). If you want to see the difference between my version 2 and yours, you can use this DiffChecker url. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- I just felt that we talked about pre-sales, then about final numbers, and then jumped back to pre-sales, so it made more sense to me to keep those pre-sales bits together. Would it work better if that line was the last line of the pre-sales section, so it is a bit of a bridge? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, maybe the end of the section might work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93: I have made this change, let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good. I'm going to do the small c/e pass I mentioned. I'm also able to work on the list tomorrow, at least to get it to a point for you to look at quickly so we can make the move and section reduction and continue the GA review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Since it seem you may be coming on now, and I'm about to head off (yay time difference!) if you look at the list, I started some formatting (much more so with the US section) if you want to futz with that in any way. I'd also love your input and help with crafting the lead section. I don't know if it needs to be as indepth as the Deadpool one, but not as scarce as the other box office record lists. My main goal when I come back on is to go through all the refs in article and include dollar values and/or films (for the "Other rankings") to get that all set. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:00, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Looks good. I'm going to do the small c/e pass I mentioned. I'm also able to work on the list tomorrow, at least to get it to a point for you to look at quickly so we can make the move and section reduction and continue the GA review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Favre1fan93: I have made this change, let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:16, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I've done a "compromise" version that I think is alright. Take a look, just note that this version only just gets us down to 68 and I'm not that keen on going any higher than that. Also, if you use the old page preview system (by-pass the new visual editor stuff) you can check the page size without having to actually save any changes to the article. As for the new list of records, I am going to be travelling today and may be a bit busy over the weekend, but I'll see what work on it I can squeeze in. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- For my list of records, I only considered the top ones, but I actually like including the extra ones that you did so I would be happy to go with something closer to yours. For your version of the prose section, I am a bit reluctant to leave as much in as you did. If you think about how little is in the music section compared to the soundtrack article, we should really be aiming for something similar. With such a comprehensive list of records going to their own article, I would suggest only noting a couple and focusing on retaining the overall structure and narrative. I am of course happy to work out a compromise, or even go through some specific examples together, but I just think that you are still listing too many facts rather than painting a clear narrative. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:50, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Okay, so I've gone through and cut back some content, as you can see in my sandbox. I have not gone as far as you did, so a couple of things. I appreciate the large amount of reduction you did in your version, but I think it may be a bit too much. I don't feel like my version is perfect, so maybe we can find a happy medium between mine and yours? I don't think we have to try avoiding the "Pre-sale records", "USA" and "Other" subheadings either, and can keep them if need be. To note, with my version of the box office reduction, added into the "live" version of the article, we are at 70kB. If yours was 66kb, maybe with a combined version, we can try to hit around 68kB. Now I want to talk about my list of records content. I've essentially taken everything that was a record in prose in the article version, and made it a bullet. This includes all of the records that were not the top ones (and maybe some more top ones you didn't have). I think including almost all of these should be done, because many are still notable even if they weren't the top. I'd also probably be more amenable to further prose reduction knowing the information would be preserved with this list. What I created obviously needs touching up, and an examination of potentially unnecessary records, but I also think we should start from that too. This consumed much of my time today, so I still haven't gotten to your other copy-edits in the article, so I'll try to hit that tomorrow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:57, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
Okay, I'll take a look at the lead and have a think about that. In general I think I'll defer to you here especially for all the actual records and values etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- Alright, the list (in terms of how I feel it should be formatted and all the data) has been included. We just need a lead (of which I've included two sentences I feel should be there), and then if you have any issue with any of the included records or formatting, and I'd like your thoughts on the "quantify" note I put if you have a better suggestion for that. Maybe a note in the lead? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'll try work on the lead now. For that "quantify" note, is there a unique symbol we could use rather than one note for all instances, like how List of highest-grossing films uses that cross symbol for films still in theatres. That way we can use throughout the article without having to have that big list of note pointers at the bottom. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I've given the lead a try, just with the introduction from the film article, a brief summary of the film, and a brief summary of the main records. Let me know what you think. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's good to at least get into the mainspace. We'll just need to get some sources in there. I also took the suggestion to use the cross symbol, it's working much better. Are you good for me to make the split then, so we can continue the GA review? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I say go ahead. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Great. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I say go ahead. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- I think it's good to at least get into the mainspace. We'll just need to get some sources in there. I also took the suggestion to use the cross symbol, it's working much better. Are you good for me to make the split then, so we can continue the GA review? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:50, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Ant-Man
So there was no post credits scene? I thought I’d read one involving Hawkeye. Rusted AutoParts 10:56, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
- There is one, but it is a jokey one that isn't worth mentioning. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:57, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
Request for comments on an FAC.
The Infinity Gauntlet is currently a candidate as a Featured Article. If you have time, I'd appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Draft notices
Hey, Adam. Just wondering if the draft notices you've posted, such as those as Talk:X-Men (film series)#Draft articles, are from a template or if they're your own wording? If it's the latter, would you mind if I used your wording for a substituting template such as {{Draft exists at}}? Thanks. -- AlexTW 05:39, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hey, I just copied that wording from the notices that Favre made for MCU articles. I would ask him first, but making a template sounds like a good idea to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:35, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) It is own wording. And I believe I just copied the wording style and formatting that TriiipleThreat used way back when when the draft space first became a thing and they helped create some of the first MCU film drafts. I would not be opposed to making it a substituting template, if we feel it would have wide enough use to warrant it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)
Just an update, I ended up making the template. It can be found at {{Draft notice}}. Cheers. -- AlexTW 08:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| That was a doozy. Thanks for helping get Black Panther (film) to GA status. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2018 (UTC) |
|
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Thanks. We couldn’t have gotten Black Panther (film) to GA status without your help. - TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:48, 11 July 2018 (UTC) |
Cloverfield
I'll be starting on the GA work for that article tomorrow, just didn't want you to think I've abandoned it. I've only had time to edit during low call volume at work unfortunately. Sock (tock talk) 20:31, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, there are no obligations here. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
- Hey @Sock, no hurry here just wanted to give you a reminder of this since it has been a week. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Glad you did because I definitely forgot! Got some free time tomorrow, I'll get cracking. Sock (
tocktalk) 22:57, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: Glad you did because I definitely forgot! Got some free time tomorrow, I'll get cracking. Sock (
- Hey @Sock, no hurry here just wanted to give you a reminder of this since it has been a week. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Personally, I think the article might need to be failed. Just at a cursory glance, a lot of information is completely unsourced and the production section in particular stands out as lacking detail. It's brimming with potential, and I'm absolutely going to keep working on it, but I think I'd rather bring it up to what I believe is a better standard for GA and then nominate it again myself. I'd be happy if you wanted to return to it when that time comes, should you so desire. Sock (tock talk) 21:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
- Alright then, I will fail the page and if I see it up again in the future I might grab it for review. As a note, the stuff I didn't mention in my review that I thought should be dealt with was mostly to do with the overall narrative of the page, I feel like it should be structured a bit better to represent the secret production/suprise announcement/viral marketing thing that went on as that is one of the most notable aspects of the film to me. Other than that, I say good luck! - adamstom97 (talk) 02:31, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
Thor Ragnarok accolades
Im trying to add The kids choice awards favorite movie actor for Chris Hemsworth to this category but for whatever reason it keeps on messing up Tessa Thompsons teen choice awards nomination for favorite movie actress. Can you please have someone add that to the accolades without having it messing up everything? Kbatra97 (talk) 21:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- If you want a change to be made to the article, you should bring up your concern at the talk page. Go to Talk:Thor: Ragnarok. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:03, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Cloak & Dagger
FYI, I've started separating out the content for season splits in my sandbox. I'm thinking once the first season ends, or we get confirmation season 2 has started to film, we could make the splits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
- I'm happy not to rush into it. If it feels like we have enough to split then we can but we don't need to feel like it should happen right now. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:48, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
- One thing I intend to have a look at, which you could as well if you want, is this series of aftershow videos that includes the cast and Pokaski. I don't know how useful they will be though, I haven't watched any yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: I totally missed your last comment. I haven't looked at them either. But with you adding the ref for filming starting very soon, I was thinking of making the split happen very soon, maybe by the end of this week. On that, which poster do you think we should use for s1? This one is the "official" one I believe, but I fell this one is better. Also, here's s2's. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we can aim for a split on the weekend? And I also think that second poster is better for season one. I was thinking that we should get onto a split for Runaways soon since we are starting to get details on next season, even if we start with a sandbox split first like we did here. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've added all the articles I've been sitting on, so I'm good to go with the split now. And let's go with the second poster. I'm going to find a distinct color and adjust that currently where it is needed. Agree on Runaways. Once we move C&D, we can use my sandbox again for the split and format it similarly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- Maybe we can aim for a split on the weekend? And I also think that second poster is better for season one. I was thinking that we should get onto a split for Runaways soon since we are starting to get details on next season, even if we start with a sandbox split first like we did here. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Adamstom.97: I totally missed your last comment. I haven't looked at them either. But with you adding the ref for filming starting very soon, I was thinking of making the split happen very soon, maybe by the end of this week. On that, which poster do you think we should use for s1? This one is the "official" one I believe, but I fell this one is better. Also, here's s2's. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello Adamstom.97, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 02:59, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
Edits to Thor: Ragnarok
I notice you've twice reverted my edits to Thor: Ragnarok, where I changed the Rotten Tomatoes average rating from "7.5 out of 10" to "7.5/10" to align it with how Rotten Tomatoes rates its films, as well as how the overwhelming majority of Wikipedia's film articles present those ratings. Could you please stop? Songwaters (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was assuming that the article was already consistent with other MCU film articles. If that is not the case then I apologise and you should feel free to restore your edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) "out of" is a preferred formatting over the "/". Other articles may format it as such, but that doesn't mean they are correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:47, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Edits to Guardians of the Galaxy (film)
You have repeatedly edited Karina's status from slave to assistant. Please stop as everyone in the Guardians of the Galaxy talk page has said slave is more appropriate. You have been warned by others about edit warring. Take it up with talk page about assistant vs. slave. Until then, please leave it as slave. The definition of slave is "a person who is the legal property of another and is forced to obey them." That is from a google search, which you had suggested I do. That definition fits Karina. Until the talk page says assistant is the acceptable term, from someone other than yourself, please do not change it again. - Capriaf 22:28 UTC August 8, 2018
- That's not how it works. You need consensus to change an article, not to keep a bold edit that someone is against. While the discussion is taking place on the change the article should be kept in the original state, from before the initial change was ever made. These are basics on Wikipedia, see WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO for more on them. As for your Google proof, I know what the definition of slave is and the film does not overtly match that criteria which is why a decent reference should be provided to support the claim. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Primary animation company for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse
Shouldn't we add that Sony Pictures Imageworks is handling animation for Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse? After all, they have done all of Sony Pictures Animation's in-house animated movies (or at least most of them...), and they updated their website a few months ago to include the film. IceWalrus236 (talk) 01:18, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- I was going to look into that based on a comment made by the directors in the video I just added, but I wasn't sure yet. I think that source from Imageworks themselves plus the Collider video source I just added are probably good to make this change. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:20, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Administrator's Noticeboard
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. — Ƶ§œš¹ [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 04:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
It's unfortunate that other editors seem to feel the need to have a deliberate issue with those that do great work, but don't let it bring you down. You do amazing work for the Television and Film WikiProjects; keep it up! -- AlexTW 03:09, 27 August 2018 (UTC) |
- Thanks Alex, I know you have been up against it before as well so I'd say the same to you. Hopefully I'll be able to get back to it without any more of this stuff happening to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:18, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, it has, that's how I know how much of an annoyance and hindrance it can be, especially when it's the same editors popping up to "contribute" their own issues. Best we can do it just push through and do our best to avoid those that wish to undermine our efforts. Best of luck. -- AlexTW 04:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Adam, the above
other editors seem to feel the need to have a deliberate issue with those that do great work
is an unambiguous reference to me (you and Alex have "teamed up" against me in the past, and Alex wrote it right after you were issued a final warning for a number of things I had called both of you out for several times in the past). I'm not in the mood to ask you to remove personal attacks made by others against me on your talk page, but please do not "immortalize" them on your user page as you did here. Please read WP:POLEMIC. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Very well, I am grateful for your constructive tone and your reasoning is convincing and sound. I won't remove Alex's message to me here as I appreciate his comforting words and friendly behaviour, but I will take the message down from my user page per your request and WP:POLEMIC. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Naturally, I expected some dislike for my support towards you, and it is your user page to do with as you wish after all. Although, I did get a laugh on the use of POLEMIC given the other user's page... -- AlexTW 05:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, I don't really want to go there. Thanks again for the friendly message! - adamstom97 (talk) 05:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Naturally, I expected some dislike for my support towards you, and it is your user page to do with as you wish after all. Although, I did get a laugh on the use of POLEMIC given the other user's page... -- AlexTW 05:27, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Very well, I am grateful for your constructive tone and your reasoning is convincing and sound. I won't remove Alex's message to me here as I appreciate his comforting words and friendly behaviour, but I will take the message down from my user page per your request and WP:POLEMIC. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:17, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry that whole mess went down
Swarm spoke some truth to me at the Spider-Man article. I was pretty pigged headed and I said some pretty rude things. I'm sorry about that. I was out of line. Cheers. --AdamF in MO (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, I believe you made a genuine mistake and that it was just stubbornness that turned it into a mess. I have been known to act the same way, so I won't hold it against you. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:36, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
EDR
The "final warning" logged by Swarm against you[2] is being discussed for its procedural issues on Wikipedia talk:Editing restrictions#WP:ER/UC. You are invited to comment there. Accesscrawl (talk) 03:16, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Accesscrawl: Thank you for the message. Looking through the discussion so far, I'm not entirely sure what it is about and/or how it will impact me. Is this something I should be concerned about, or just something to be aware of? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:15, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- You received a final warning from Swarm and it was logged into a page like a sanction but that page is only about conditional unblocking. Like Arbitrator Callanecc has already said there that there are no basis for such warnings. I thought of notifying you because you were also affected by this action and emerging consensus supports removal of such warnings. Accesscrawl (talk) 11:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello Adamstom.97, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
- Project news
- The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
- As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
- There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.
- Other
- A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.
- Moving to Draft and Page Mover
- Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
- If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
- Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
- The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
- The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
|---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
PCA Noms: Re
Hello. Hear me out (and no, I wasn't trying to be snarky or rude).
I've originally added "All the Stars" in the article as a PCA nominee before realizing it was a part of the shortlist (my mistake). After the final nominations were released yesterday, I went back and made changes.
I tend to leave little comments in the edit summary, such as +PCA noms or -PCA noms, the latter meant that I've removed the nomination from the table because the song wasn't nominated. It's kind of my style.
Yes, I've been around for years, but i'm not actually here. Tis All. Have a great day and great job on the article. MsScorpioMoon (talk) 04:25, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- @Georgia Bird: "The final nominations were announced yesterday dear" is what came across as snarky to me. Either way, the edits were not incorrect so the article is better for them. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
- I didn't mean to come off as "snarky". I just wanted to make an edit, yet you clearly wanted to pick a fight. Good day. MsScorpioMoon (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 14
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Iron Fist (season 2), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Parlay (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
|
Hello Adamstom.97, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
- Community Wishlist Proposal
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
- Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
- Project updates
- ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
- There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
- New scripts
- User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Singer Presents... Elvis
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
--GDuwenTell me! 17:16, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for October 24
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Ant-Man and the Wasp, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lombard Street (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
Please do not assume ownership of articles. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you.
BTW: There's nothing in the (released, cinematic version of) the previous film that "made very clear" that Spider-Man is an Avenger: he joins his mentor Stark (technically an Avenger, but next-to-no mention of that is made in the film, either), Doctor Strange (not an Avenger) and the Guardians (not Avengers) in outer space and on Titan while the Avengers are fighting other mooks back on earth. And if you think the main content of the HR article does not merit mention anywhere in our article, you should say so; if you think it should just be moved to a different section, you should do that yourself, not simply blank it.
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- You might want to have a closer look at your own edits before making up nonsense about other peoples'. Favre provided a source that clarified the main formatting issue you had, and then you reverted that change without explanation. Your other issue, that it "looks terrible", is and never has been a valid excuse to change formatting in a Wikipedia article which is something that I am sure you are aware of. You also added content to the cast section that does not belong there, which is not my problem to deal with I'm afraid. I don't spend time here just to clean-up your mess. You never actually explained the issue you had with the phrase "Also in the month". And finally, [redacted] is literally a scene from Infinity War—and one that was 100% in the released, cinematic version of the film—where Spider-Man is proclaimed to be an Avenger. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, I didn't "revert without explanation": I made a partial revert in two parts for convenience, and the article as I left it still had Favre's changed out source in place. He didn't solve the formatting issue anyway: can you cite a policy or guideline that supports your assertion that
Your other issue, that it "looks terrible", is and never has been [sic] a valid excuse to change formatting in a Wikipedia article
?You never actually explained the issue you had with the phrase "Also in the month".
Do I have to? Isn't it self-evident? As for Spidey being "an Avenger now": OK, you're right. I forgot about that line (I've actually seen the film through six or seven times, but four of those were on a Chinese airline, so it's possible that line was cut for whatever reason). That said, it's entirely possible that Spidey will only be appearing in flashbacks to before that scene, making it an inaccurate description, or that as soon as he shows up in the film he'll say "I'm not an Avenger anymore", given how much the films have flip-flopped on this particular problem and how likely it is, given the financial success of Venom, that Spider-Man (the film rights to which character are still technically owned by a separate company) will be quietly exiting the MCU at some point in the near future. This is why these character descriptions should be cited to reliable secondary sources specifically discussing the film in questions, not secondary sources discussing other related films, or the films themselves, or especially not other related films. - BTW, I've removed the YouTube link from your above post. It looks like a bootleg upload, as I doubt "Mr. Spoiler" gets permission from all the copyright holders to upload their unedited footage to YouTube. Do not re-add it; you can ask Huggums537 what will happen if you revert this removal, or if you post any more such links anywhere on Wikipedia now that I have warned you.
- Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I literally gave you the diffs showing your revert of Favre's reference update. MOS:ITALICTITLE. No, it is not self-evident, apparently. And that seems like a more valid argument re Spider-Man which you should take to the appropriate talk page (which isn't here). Also, I have asked you before to not tell me what to do or threaten me, especially at my own talk page. I think you will find that you get much better responses from people when you treat them how you would want to be treated. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, you gave the diffs, and completely misrepresented their contents -- I reinstated my edit after Favre reverted it without explanation, and left intact the one part he had explained, while you reverted me with the the hypocritical assertion that I (but not Favre or you) am not allowed make such reverts. MOS:ITALICTITLE clearly doesn't apply to "Untitled Avengers" anymore than to "Untitled Avengers film", "untitled Avengers film" or "Untitled Avengers Film", and it is applied inconsistently throughout our article (and throughout the original cited source; still haven't checked the new one). And no, the burden is on you to get consensus to re-add the primary-sourced content you are arguing for (which I would contend is OR), so you should be the one taking it to the talk page. Anyway, your behaviour clearly has not improved at all, and if User:Swarm had not just done me two other favours by semi-protecting Talk:James Gunn (curious how neither you nor any of the other stewards of the MCU articles have been protecting that BLP from vandalism and attacks...) and blanking another user's canvassing I would ask him to enforce the final warning he placed on you two months ago. This is not a "threat", but rather the opposite: I do not intend to do what I really should do, because of unrelated external factors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- Well, that's not what happened. Favre provided the Variety source which you did indeed retain in your subsequent revert, but then immediately after you realised that you had "forgotten" something and, as can be seen in the diff I provided above, you reverted the source change as well. To this day, the article is not using the improved Variety source that Favre provided, so I really don't know what you are on about. I reverted your edit because (a) I was restoring Favre's Variety source since all you said about it was "Note that I haven't checked the new ref yet, so I don't know but suspect it might not solve the problem" (not your best work) and (b) I was reverting your other changes with explanations given. This included the title formatting, because currently we are approaching "Untitled Avengers" as an actual title. If you disagree with that interpretation then the standard approach would be to go to the article's talk page and raise your concerns there. I am well within my right to contest the addition of non-cast information in the cast section without needing to sort out the mess myself. And finally, saying that something is not a threat does not mean it is not one. I know that you are just waiting for me to do something that you can use to get me banned, but until then my priority will always be improving and maintaining these articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, you gave the diffs, and completely misrepresented their contents -- I reinstated my edit after Favre reverted it without explanation, and left intact the one part he had explained, while you reverted me with the the hypocritical assertion that I (but not Favre or you) am not allowed make such reverts. MOS:ITALICTITLE clearly doesn't apply to "Untitled Avengers" anymore than to "Untitled Avengers film", "untitled Avengers film" or "Untitled Avengers Film", and it is applied inconsistently throughout our article (and throughout the original cited source; still haven't checked the new one). And no, the burden is on you to get consensus to re-add the primary-sourced content you are arguing for (which I would contend is OR), so you should be the one taking it to the talk page. Anyway, your behaviour clearly has not improved at all, and if User:Swarm had not just done me two other favours by semi-protecting Talk:James Gunn (curious how neither you nor any of the other stewards of the MCU articles have been protecting that BLP from vandalism and attacks...) and blanking another user's canvassing I would ask him to enforce the final warning he placed on you two months ago. This is not a "threat", but rather the opposite: I do not intend to do what I really should do, because of unrelated external factors. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:16, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- I literally gave you the diffs showing your revert of Favre's reference update. MOS:ITALICTITLE. No, it is not self-evident, apparently. And that seems like a more valid argument re Spider-Man which you should take to the appropriate talk page (which isn't here). Also, I have asked you before to not tell me what to do or threaten me, especially at my own talk page. I think you will find that you get much better responses from people when you treat them how you would want to be treated. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:49, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
- No, I didn't "revert without explanation": I made a partial revert in two parts for convenience, and the article as I left it still had Favre's changed out source in place. He didn't solve the formatting issue anyway: can you cite a policy or guideline that supports your assertion that
X-Men: Films In Development
For the Films in Development Section on the X-Men film franchise page, Marvel Cinematic Universe needs to be it's own section. That is because it will be a reboot of the current franchise and we can't have a reboot in the development section because they are two franchises. Having one franchise in the development section of the other franchise doesn't make sense. Mystic Moore (talk) 02:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
- Do you have a source saying it will be a reboot? If that is the case, then it probably should not be listed at that article at all. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:49, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
You make a fair point. There has been no current confirmation of a reboot but (my opinion, off-record) I doubt that they will integrate a twenty year franchise into the MCU. But whatever happens, there will be a REBOOT of some kind. That is definite. Because it has already been CONFIRMED that X-Men are joining the MCU. So even if everything that has happened in this franchise is not rebooted, the history would be changed to integrate those other characters and storylines. Mystic Moore (talk) 06:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- Uhh, what? We don't know if there will be a reboot or not, like you said, so how do you also think that there will be one? I'm not sure what any of that was supposed to mean. Regardless, we DO NOT know if there will be a reboot or not, so we should not say so in the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, true. We can't say it is a reboot because it has not been explicitly confirmed but the X-Men integrating into another franchise deserves more than just being put in the 'Films in Development' section. It needs it's own section and while we're on the matter, there also needs to be more information in the 'Marvel Cinematic Universe' section. Two lines simply does not cover the news about it in the last eleven months. And to clarify, the X-Men WILL join the MCU (CONFIRMED) so integrating the two franchises will mean a reboot for the X-Men. That WILL change the future of their movies as they will now be part of this universe with the Avengers in it. I have not reverted it yet, nor I will until you agree with me but to me, this is really important. Mystic Moore (talk) 09:03, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
- You keep changing your mind halfway through your comments! Do you want to say that there will be a reboot or not?! - adamstom97 (talk) 18:27, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ant-Man and the Wasp
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ant-Man and the Wasp you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tplaza64 -- Tplaza64 (talk) 01:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Luke Cage (season 1)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Luke Cage (season 1) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 14:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Luke Cage (season 1)
The article Luke Cage (season 1) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Luke Cage (season 1) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of The Rambling Man -- The Rambling Man (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Lesley Ann Warren
Why is Lesley Ann Warren not noteworthy as a guest on Daredevil? I mean, really. She is a movie star. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rpeate (talk • contribs) 21:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
- That is in your opinion. In my opinion, I don't know who she is and definitely would not consider her noteworthy. That difference in opinion is why we don't just add whoever editors personally think are notable. Instead, we have some objective criteria that defines who should be included and takes the chance for argument away—"Only characters that have appeared previously in other MCU media". She does not meet that criteria. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Adamstom.97,
- Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
- Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
- If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
- We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
- With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Agents of Shield -- Daisy Johnson character name
In relation to your recent revert of my edit to the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 5) article, I created a discussion on the Talk page explaining why I believe that "Daisy" is the appropriate name to use to refer to the character. --superioridad (discusión) 21:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Adamstom.97. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 2 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Deadpool (film) copyedits
I noticed that you requested GOCE help for this article in October. I am trying to make some constructive changes to improve the language. Cheers! - tucoxn\talk 20:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- No worries, I appreciate the help. Just disagreed with that change for the reason I gave in my edit summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:15, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ant-Man and the Wasp
The article Ant-Man and the Wasp you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 04:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Arrowverse and Constantine
The IGN speculation is directly contradicted by what an Arrow showrunner has said. Moreover, in the recent summer camp episode on Legends of Tomorrow, Constantine said that he didn't want to lose another child, a reference to events on his own TV show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 22:31, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Please take your concerns to Talk:Arrowverse. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you are the individual who reversed my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- I know, but this is not the place to discuss an issue with a specific article. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:18, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
- Well, you are the individual who reversed my edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.112.229.80 (talk) 02:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)
Swap
If you were to give The Death of Superman a review at its FAC, I'd be glad to give Deadpool (film) a copyedit. JOEBRO64 19:05, 23 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer Joe. I don't think I have the time to give it a proper FAC review at the moment, but if I manage to then it would be great if you were able to reciprocate with a c/e. We'll see over the next few days. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
MCU Good Topic things
I've been thinking for a bit that in the next set of nominations (adding the 2018 films), I think we should remove the Avengers accolades list and not consider the additional Black Panther articles for consideration. My thinking is because it has been noted the Black Panther box office list will not become a featured list per multiple editors feelings on the matter. If that can't become a featured list, and we were to keep it in the scope of the good topic, the topic would result in removal because the article isn't a FL. And on the topic, given that Luke Cage and Iron Fist were both cancelled, if we see what happens with any potential pick up, I felt it might be good to merge back the character lists to the respective main articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with that first part, and I think we can deal with that once we get through this GA review and get Infinity War promoted as well. As for the character lists, I am more sceptical about that. Even with only two seasons it can be a lot of content for the series article. My example would be Agent Carter. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:06, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- True, but at least in the current state of both Iron Fist and Luke Cage character lists, they have no where near the amount of content for characters that the Agent Carter list does. I just feel, given as it is currently, it will be a large task to get them any where near the amount of content we have on the Agent Carter list, especially for the recurring characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- I guess that's fair. As long as it looks somewhat like the list at The Defenders and not like we are trying to cram the Agent Carter list into a full series article. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- Yeah, definitely. If it was Agent Carter level of content, I wouldn't have thought there was a need to re-merge. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- I guess that's fair. As long as it looks somewhat like the list at The Defenders and not like we are trying to cram the Agent Carter list into a full series article. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- True, but at least in the current state of both Iron Fist and Luke Cage character lists, they have no where near the amount of content for characters that the Agent Carter list does. I just feel, given as it is currently, it will be a large task to get them any where near the amount of content we have on the Agent Carter list, especially for the recurring characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I'm just going to continue this general MCU thread and bring up a couple other things:
- I am happy to go ahead and try this character list merge for Iron Fist and Luke Cage, dependent on what else I have to get done today. I will just be using the current state of The Defenders as a model for a more polished version of them.
- Good work with the small reformat you just did with the different streaming services at the main MCU page. I have actually been thinking that it would make a bit more sense to start thinking of the Netflix series and the Disney streaming series as sort of their own things, since things like development and general reception are sort of grouped for them and the ABC/Freeform/Hulu shows are generally talked about as separate things. I'm not suggesting we jump in and do anything major now, but I could see us having separate lists for those and making the list of TV shows even more of an overview than it already is.
- I also do feel we need to have a think about what is in the scope of what page, as I think there is room to move some of the specific development info from the main page to some of the sub lists, which would let us focus on MCU-wide issues at the main page like the potential for crossover between film and TV. I don't know what your thoughts on that are.
- Also good work with what you have started in your sandbox re Team Thor. I know you are just getting started, but I wanted to remind you that we have some stuff from Feige on it at Marvel One-Shots#Potential projects that could be useful.
- I am interested in nominating Black Panther (soundtrack) for GA, and I am pretty happy with how it is sitting at the moment. I have considered splitting it into score and soundtrack album articles, but I honestly feel that it works better as it is even though it feels in a few places like we are talking about two different things. Because of that, I nominated it for peer review to see if others are concerned by having them both in the same article, and so far there have been no issues with this. Unless you had any thoughts on this, I was thinking of just nominating it for GA if nothing comes of the peer review.
- Do you think we need to follow up on this Ant-Man and the Wasp GA review?
- On a related (but more personal) note, I am hoping that we will start to get some of these other GA reviews popping up soon. My nomination of Luke Cage (season 1) is the oldest unreviewed nomination, and has been so for a little while now. I've been reviewing a few myself recently so hopefully a bit of that goodwill gets back around soon.
- Finally, have you seen what I have been doing in my sandbox for Tony Stark (Marvel Cinematic Universe)? I had been meaning to sort it out for a while and suddenly found the time and interest to get started the other day. If I get it to a place that I am happy with then I will probably just drop a note at the article's talk page before making the change, but I do expect some opposition since I will be removing a whole lot of in-universe information that I think is common at articles like this.
Sorry for the info dump, just trying to cover everything that is going on at the moment 
- adamstom97 (talk) 20:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
- Sure, let's see what comes of the remerged info if it's worth pursuing.
- Thanks. So are you thinking of two new lists, one for Marvel TV series and one for Marvel Studios ones, eventually?
- We've always seemed to work that the sublists were just that, the lists of each thing, with development at the main page. But I could see moving some development info to each list. Don't know if it is quite necessary yet.
- Thanks. I remembered we had wanted to reformat that article so I felt I'd getting something started. I was considering pulling some of the info from the One-Shots potential projects, but I felt it didn't fit well. And while I haven't explored much of the other films, most of the development is for the first film, so I was thinking of having one production section, and for each plot, making it one section with three paragraphs (and the table). It's definitely still a work in progress to hit when I have some time. Feel free to work in there too.
- Yes I saw the peer review request. I think it's fine all as one article, and am fine with you going ahead with the GA nomination. Though I think peer reviews usually have to be up for a month? Not sure.
- Definitely. If a full week since they started the review has gone by and they don't respond or show indication of editing elsewhere, we should go to the GA nom talk page.
- Same. We're going to start getting a back log of nominations I feel. Also very surprised no one bit at Infinity War yet, given Black Panther was taken almost immediately.
- Kind of? I saw you started something but didn't get a chance to really look over what you were doing.
- No problem on the info dump! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- My thinking on the division of content among the main MCU page and the sublists is that if we decide at some point that we think there is too much development and reception stuff at the main page and maybe want to split up some of the more specific stuff to the sublists, then we might also want to think about the TV sublist having its own sublists. So I was just thinking something like MCU (franchise-wide stuff) > Films (all phases for now), TV (general overview plus specifics on ABC, Freeform, Hulu, etc.) > Netflix shows (specifics on the development of and reception to the Netflix shows for their own list, with recurring characters table), Disney streaming shows (eventually; development of and reception to these). This is all just ideas for the future though. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:25, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Once again bringing up new stuff under this wider MCU umbrella: I have put together a new section at User:Adamstom.97/sandbox/5 which covers the timeline of the films, like how we discussed back when the "8 years later" thing was being brought up for Homecoming. At the moment I have just focused on the films so it could fit at the films list, but I think it would be better to put it somewhere in the main page and then we can add bits for the TV shows as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- Great! I saw that article and knew we should probably act on that Homecoming discussion. Though I have seen people question some of the Screen Rant info because there is no corresponding direct quote or image showing the timeline as established. (For example, I think TIH was not originally in the Screen Rant article, but has since been included as occurring in 2011). I'm hoping to get this book that has the timeline for Christmas, so I think it will be good for someone to have an actual copy to get info from. From my quick glance, I think you've done a great job for what we need to discuss on the film article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think the SR source will work fine for now, and we can update where we need to once we have the book or someone provides a better source. Part of me hopes that there has been a mistake, and the book actually doesn't try to put Black Panther and Infinity War in the wrong places, but we'll see. Do you have any preference for where we might put this section? I could make a proposal at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe to see what others think as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
- As you have it developed, I'd put it on the list of films article, before or after the recurring characters section. It definitely should be after the level two headings of the phases, but before release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, I've added it in after the phases. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
- As you have it developed, I'd put it on the list of films article, before or after the recurring characters section. It definitely should be after the level two headings of the phases, but before release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
- I think the SR source will work fine for now, and we can update where we need to once we have the book or someone provides a better source. Part of me hopes that there has been a mistake, and the book actually doesn't try to put Black Panther and Infinity War in the wrong places, but we'll see. Do you have any preference for where we might put this section? I could make a proposal at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe to see what others think as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Deadpool (film)
Hello:
The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy editors of the article Deadpool (film) has been completed.
Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.
I notice you intend to do more work on the article. If I could make a suggestion it would be that you drastically reduce the Box Office section. I know the article did not have a full FA review, but I suspect if it had reviewers would suggest the section be shortened to contain only the most important facts. As it stands now every contributor who has found a box office stat has added it no matter how inconsequential. e.g. Do we really need an IMAX gross or the fact it was number 2 in Poland and Malaysia?
The Critical response section contains a wide variety of reactions to the movie and is an interesting read. Some reviewers are picky about the "Reviewer X from Publication Y said Z" format. You might want to spend some time looking at whether/how this can be tightened up.
Regards,
Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the help, it looks like you have done a great job cleaning stuff up. I'll take those things into consideration as I continue work on the article. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Secondary sources on episode lists
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Teahouse#Secondary sources on episode lists. — Lbtocthtalk 06:16, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 30
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nike (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Definition of edit-warring
Re this. The idea that "a single revert" can still constitute edit-warring if it is (a) based on WP:OWN, (b) a second revert following another by a WP:TAGTEAM partner or (c) reverting a carefully explained, policy-based edit with a rationale that consists solely of "take it to the talk page" is not a "funny" take on the edit-warring policy: it is universally accepted among Wikipedians. Be assured I'll be notifying User:Swarm that you are violating his warning. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:34, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- I reverted your edit because I believe that it should have been reverted, and I gave my justification as to why in the edit summary. You are the one who made a WP:BOLD change that two different editors (who in no way communicated about the issue beforehand, and have not done since either) objected to, and so it is up to you to take your concerns to the talk page. Accusing me of edit warring and threatening to have me blocked every time we disagree about something is simply WP:UNCIVIL. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- If your reading of the source differs as radically from my own as you claim, then it should be brought to RSN or the like. (I'm not actually questioning the reliability of the source itself, just your reading of it as supporting the content you untagged; I'm pretty sure RSN can be used for such problems.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) You have no basis for the accusation of WP:OWN, other than your dislike for "the sectarian cabal of editors who rule over the Marvel Cinematic Universe articles". Nor is the accusation of WP:TAGTEAM valid, given the lack of coordination between the two editors. Nor do I see any policies quoted by you in your initial edits, and if Adam and Favre1fan93 are edit-warring, that must mean that you are too, if you've had to reinstate your edits - even once. Adam stated that
you are free to voice that opinion and start a discussion
; that is far from uncollaborative behavior. - You need to understand that your since your edit has been reverted, per WP:BRD, after an edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- AlexTW 07:44, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Alex, please drop the goddamn stick already. You promised like a year ago (I think?) to stop throwing that "sectarian cabal" quote in my face. I think it was in the fallout from this thread if not the thread itself. Am I wrong? Do you also need a final warning about these constant personal attacks and CIVIL-violations? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Don't act upon it and I won't quote it anymore. Interesting how you were not able to focus on anything I said concerning the Iron Fist content issue. -- AlexTW 08:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
- Alex, please drop the goddamn stick already. You promised like a year ago (I think?) to stop throwing that "sectarian cabal" quote in my face. I think it was in the fallout from this thread if not the thread itself. Am I wrong? Do you also need a final warning about these constant personal attacks and CIVIL-violations? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:00, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Ant-Man and the Wasp
The article Ant-Man and the Wasp you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ant-Man and the Wasp for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
Los Angeles Online Film Critics Society Awards
Hello, I thought awards with non-existent articles aren't allowed on award pages. Because I was about to add them earlier. MsScorpioMoon (talk) 01:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think I've heard that before, and if it is true then I think it is a silly rule. I'm not going to fight anyone who chooses to remove it from the articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:59, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. There's more, but I'll probably add them later. Any chance with this getting a featured lists similar to The Avengers? MsScorpioMoon (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- We usually get to that once the page is stable, so not till after all the big awards shows next year. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- I agree. There's more, but I'll probably add them later. Any chance with this getting a featured lists similar to The Avengers? MsScorpioMoon (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Alright. Cool. MsScorpioMoon (talk) 04:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Avengers 4 trailer
Hey, just wanted to let you know I'm planning to be online here during all of Good Morning America on Wednesday in case the rumors are true and the trailer drops, to handle the two article moves we need to do (I can perform these both should we indeed get the trailers) and to start adjusting the name and links across the site. Pinging @TriiipleThreat and Richiekim: so they're aware too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:04, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- Okay, all good. Though I won't believe that we are actually getting one then until Marvel tells us or it is released. Especially since there are now rumours that there will be a Spider-Man trailer this week as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
- All the rumors! Things have apparently shifted to Friday (which could have always been the date), but Wednesday is a day of mourning here in the US for the death of George HW Bush. So I'll shift this plan until then. Also, Spidey trailer apparently on Saturday! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- It's honestly ridiculous, but I'm sure we'll be on top of it all. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
- All the rumors! Things have apparently shifted to Friday (which could have always been the date), but Wednesday is a day of mourning here in the US for the death of George HW Bush. So I'll shift this plan until then. Also, Spidey trailer apparently on Saturday! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
To @Favre1fan93 and AlexTheWhovian and others watching who helped out, good job with all of that! The trailer dropped around 3 in the morning for me so I wasn't around to help out, but it looks like everything has been sorted out (extra props to Favre for fixing links in my sandbox for me!). - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
- No probs. It was about 11pm here and I was still up, and I knew that the pages would become loaded with new editors and the inevitable anon IPs coming in to add their bit to any of the related pages. I barely edit in the Film project, but glad I could help. -- AlexTW 01:29, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
- It was much appreciated AlexTheWhovian! Luckily, the main article for the film was extended confirmed protected, so it wouldn't have been too bad, but still! We got all the pages moved, major links changed, and images uploaded/updated. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters-related
Hi. I saw that you undid my edit to the List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters page due to the cast images not being lower. If that is the case, why are the pictures of the later additions at the top of their sections? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
- They should be in the same position if possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Official name for the snap
Don't know if you saw this, but I felt we should mention this somewhere, I just wasn't sure where. Maybe in the writing section of the production article, but we don't talk about the snap or the dead characters there at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think that would be best, in some form. My interpretation was that this is the in-universe term, so it may end up in the plot summary of Endgame. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello Adamstom.97,
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
- Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
- Less good news, and an appeal for some help
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
- Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
- Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Inhumans
Why had you remove Inhumans from ABC series Recurring cast and characters? Lado85 (talk) 10:25, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
- (talk page watcher) Lado85, see the criteria for inclusion in the table:
This table includes recurring, main characters, who have appeared in at least two seasons and as a member of the principal ("main") cast for at least one of those.
None of the cast of Inhumans appeared across two separate seasons. -- AlexTW 12:53, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of The Defenders (miniseries)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Defenders (miniseries) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Seasons Greetings
|
Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2019! |
|
Hello Adamstom.97, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages. |
TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
Argento Surfer (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
DYK for Ant-Man and the Wasp
On 24 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Ant-Man and the Wasp, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Ant-Man and the Wasp was the first Marvel Cinematic Universe film to feature a female character in its title? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Ant-Man and the Wasp. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Ant-Man and the Wasp), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Avengers: Infinity War
On 28 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Avengers: Infinity War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the ending of Avengers: Infinity War inspired the largest user ban in Reddit's history? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Avengers: Infinity War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Avengers: Infinity War), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Casliber 00:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)