User talk:Barry Wom

RE: Argylle

I am disheartened to see the casting information removed. I can add citations if needed. It seemed self-explanatory that the actors were in both films by means of the link to the original Kingsman film. Starlighsky (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, they're playing different characters in Argylle. In any case, such information does not belong in the Cast section. Barry Wom (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)—

They are actually characters with different names, even though they are the same actors in both films. I can add it to the Talk Section. Starlighsky (talk) 16:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If you're talking about raising the subject at the article's Talk page, please do so. I can't see the purpose of pointing out that two of the actors played different characters in the previous film. Barry Wom (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, it was a clever implication that the villains in the 1st Kingsman were actually the protagonists in "Argylle". In "Argylle", the gait of the "Keeper of Secrets" in the castle-type of building went along with this implication...to explain would take more details from the films to explain. I can bring it up in the Talk page, because a published review may have noticed this. Starlighsky (talk) 17:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Supermansion/Robot Chicken connection

https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=SuperMansion&diff=prev&oldid=1243589563

I'd like you to look at the images from both shows, one at the top, the other in trivia. https://robotchicken.fandom.com/wiki/Holy_O's

Both shows have an identical box of Holy O's. Why do you say they're not related at all? 2600:4808:8852:7300:886E:3D6C:E1E8:8398 (talk) 06:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

The "Related" field in the infobox is solely for remakes, spin-offs, adaptations and such. Barry Wom (talk) 10:46, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Transformers Prime

This show isn't on Discovery Family anymore. Don't revert my edit again. Jonghyunchung (talk) 01:22, 20 September 2024 (UTC)

How many times have I told you: Stop reverting my edit on this page! Jonghyunchung (talk) 02:04, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Plot edit warring

If the edit warring resumes after the blocks expire, please report each IP block involved to WP:ANEW with sufficient examples for someone to make a longer term block. Also, please try to use more detailed edit summaries. Terse explanations like Rv plot creep are more likely to result in a repeated edit. While user talk page explanations definitely help, it's good to use both more detailed edit summaries and user talk page explanations, especially for repeated issues. Finally, please be more cautious about edit warring and WP:3RR. You don't need to be the only person reverting an subpar edit. Thanks. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Die Hard films worth

Re: your revert of the inflated worth. Actually, you can apply currency conversion. I took each film from their years of release, and then took a tally from that. Dollar amounts for Hollywood films (e.g. Gone With the Wind) get the nominal and inflated treatment on their respective pages, Die Hard should be no different. 184.166.97.71 (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

The Gone with the Wind article gives two inflation adjusted figures, both of which are attributed to reliable sources. You'll need to find a similar source for the Die Hard series. Barry Wom (talk) 08:44, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Genre bloat

You reverted some genre bloat(diff) and generously described it as a good faith edit. It wasn't a good faith edit, as the editor in question has been pushing his preferred version since at least 2021, per the talk page.

Thanks though for checking the bloat. -- 109.77.199.28 (talk) 22:24, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Duly noted. Barry Wom (talk) 10:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Wild Speed

I was surprised that you reverted my edit(diff)

• You yourself reverted a very similar change from the article for the first Fast and Furious film (diff) and I was surprised that you had not also reverted those same changes by that same anon IP across the rest of the franchise.
• English language Wikipedia film articles do not normally include foreign versions of the film title (the native name of the film is often included for non English language films but international translations of an American title are almost never included)
• The WP:LEAD section supposed to summarize not supplant what is already in the article body. There was no mention in the article body of the Japanese title and nothing to suggest that it was of any special importance.
• WP:TRIVIA I was unaware that the foreign title of this series was of any significance to English language audiences
• Also tangentially, it's weird that the lead section is using Amazon as a reference WP:RSPAMAZON, why is that even there?

The Japanese titles were added without any explanation but Special:Contributions/206.123.191.8 one anon IP and apparently without any discussion. Again the fact that the article body and Infobox do not even mention the Japanese title strongly suggests to me that it doesn't belong in the lead section. It seems strange to exclude the foreign title from the first film in the series but include it in any of the others, and to be consist with your change I do not think the foreign titles belong in any of them (not Chinese co-produced ones, or the Spanish co-produced films either).

Whatever needs to be done I think it should be consistent. -- 109.79.165.199 (talk) 16:05, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Also it seems someone else asked the same question almost a month ago Talk:Fast_&_Furious#These_films'_names_in_Japan -- 109.79.165.199 (talk) 16:07, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Per the edit summary, the film was a Japanese co-production, so it seems reasonable to include the Japanese title. Barry Wom (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

That one film happens to be a Japanese co-production but the others are not (eg Fast 7). Even if Fast 4 is exceptional, the inconsistency would remain a problem.

Reading the documentation, Template:Infobox_name_module (and ultimately WP:COMMONNAME) tell us again that the foreign titles should not be included: Infobox name module is used to add a film's original native title (along with the romanized equivalent if necessary) to the infobox on film articles in cases where the WP:COMMONNAME title of the film is different. It is NOT for adding general purpose translations to the infobox, even in cases where the film was a co-production between several different countries. Any title besides the original native copyrighted title should be removed.

WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE The Infobox itself is merely summarizing "the key facts that appear in an article."

I understand this was all added in good faith but I think the common practice of not including foreign titles has not been clearly enough explained in the documentation to avoid such problems happening.

TL:DR I think including the Japanese translated title fails WP:COMMONNAME. -- 109.79.165.199 (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Batman returns

Hi I wanted to ask if you would take a look at the Batman returns modern reception part of its article. It seems to be written in wikipuffery in this section and multiple user have brought up it looks like it was written by a fan and that a lot of the sources might not be usable or reliable for such claims but one user monitors and controls the page

In the years since its release, Batman Returns has been positively reappraised.[154][186] It is now regarded as among the best superhero films ever made,[ai] the best sequels,[aj] and the best Batman films made.[ak][209] Screen Rant called it the best Batman film of the 20th century[155] and, in 2018, GamesRadar+ named it the best Batman film.[210] Batman Returns was number 401 on Empire's 2008 list of the 500 greatest movies of all time.[211] Some publications have identified Batman Returns as part of Burton's unofficial Christmas trilogy, bookended by Edward Scissorhands and The Nightmare Before Christmas, and it has become an alternative-holiday film along with films such as Die Hard (1988).[al] Some publications have also listed it as one of the best Christmas films.[am]

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hi-ci335 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Hi again Jaszen. Bit of a risky manoeuvre launching your latest sock with a post to my talk page, no? It appears you're getting a tad desperate... Barry Wom (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Big reverts for small problems

Hi! I was just doing some editing over at Sweetpea (TV series) and noticed there were a couple of times where you reverted edits with completely valid justifications pertaining to a specific part of the edit, but reverted the entire edit, causing the loss of otherwise productive changes. I totally understand that this kind of thing can be done on accident, and it seems that in this case the parts you reverted that were fine have later been fixed by other editors, but it may be worthwhile to double check how much you're reverting before you do so, and maybe make manual reverts for specific parts instead of wholesale rollbacks where appropriate. Cheers and thank you for all the cleanup you do! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could supply diffs for the edits to which you're referring. Barry Wom (talk) 12:34, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

For example, in this diff you reverted because release dates were incorrectly changed, but also in that edit were episode summaries that user had written which were lost in the process. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 14:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like a bit of collateral damage there. Barry Wom (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Just something to look out for. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

question about link specificity and reversion

Hello, I just noticed that you reverted a link for New York City. Should I have linked Manhattan instead, where the actors lived and worked? Thank you for your time and have a nice day. Lime green k (talk) 10:44, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

The reference states "New York" which I presume is equivalent to "New York City". No need for a piped link. Barry Wom (talk) 13:14, 15 November 2024 (UTC)