User talk:Doniago/Archive 14
 | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 10 | ← | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | → | Archive 20 |
Doniago. We might need your help on the conflict of issues on 2012 in film.
On that tall page section Worldwide view, discusses the issue regarding the list of number 1 films in countries in that year. They removed the links to the 2012 number one films in the english-speaking countries. Some of us don't agree with it. I don't agree with it because the link Lists of box office number-one films is not as quick as going to List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States and List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom and it's going to frustrate many english readers on the 2012 in film. I rather that the readers go to the links of the number 1 films from US and UK from the 2012 in film quicker without having to go to list of box office number one films without selecting which country from there. So you might want to help solve this issue soon.
I also told Drmargi about it as well, just so you know. BattleshipMan (talk) 02:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)
- I will need your help on the clash of issues over box office number-one films in 2012 in film. Some users, mainly two of them name User:Grapple X and User:Phil Bridger, removed the links of List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United States & List of 2012 box office number-one films in the United Kingdom and replace it with Lists of box office number-one films, which only list number-one films from various countries in different years. They also removed the box office gross on countries like US/Canada, UK and Australia. I do not agree with this because you would have to go down to the bottom of that page to get to the cretain years of that country, which will probably frustrate a lot of readers who want to go to number-one box office films in the countries like United States and United Kingdom, not to mention that there should be specific 2012 films on that link in that article 2012 in film. Grapple X and Phil Bridger are not agreeing with any offer of compromise that I made. So I will need your help on this situation.
- I may have been challedging all this for awhile, which is probably against wikipedia policy, but I know what these did to that box-office article is unnecessary, regardless of worldwide view bias and such. So we need a find a way reach a compromise deal and such.
- Any help from you will be appresicated. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
- From what I can see, and I admittedly haven't spent a great deal of time on this, everything I might say has already been said, and I tend to agree with the others that to list specific countries but not others would likely introduce bias or the appearance of bias, unless you have some third-party means of determining which countries are important enough to merit discrete links. As for the Number-One Films article being unwieldy, I'm afraid I'm not sure I understand your concerns... I went to that article and got a table of contents that clearly delineated each country. Sure United States is at the bottom, but it was easy enough to find; I'd say it took me less than 5 seconds to navigate to the appropriate area.
- If you'd like to elaborate on your concerns I'd be happy to reconsider my perspective, but right now I don't feel I have anything to contribute to the discussion. Sorry if that's not the answer you were hoping for.
- Also, I feel obligated to suggest that you review Wikipedia:Canvassing. While I've contributed in film-related discussion in the past, I don't think I ever went into anything regarding film release years or such, and if you've solicited opinions at WT:FILM then I've likely already seen your request for assistance. Under the circumstances, especially given that you came across as wanting support for your opinion rather than merely asking me to offer mine, I feel that your request wasn't entirely appropriate. Not meaning to scold you or anything, but you acknowledged yourself that you may be skirting the boundaries of policy. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I mean is that 2012 in films should have links to box-office number-one films in 2012, not with the one Lists of box office number-one films since they are in different years in various countries. Highest-grossing films section of that article should only have links to any box-office films that have been released specificly in that year. The link on that box-office section on the 2012 in film article doesn't have any box-office link that leads to any film that has been released in 2012 specificly. Lists of box office number-one films has number-one box office films in various countries in different years That would only frustrate many readers from different countries by going that Lists of box office number-one films to find number-one box-office countries in that year and not a lot of countries have number one 2012 box-office film links. For example, in 2011 in film, at the section2011 in film#Highest-grossing films, it has number-one box-office films from Ecuador, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Venezuela with the year 2011 on them, which means the links have films released in that year. 2012 in film doesn't have anything that's related in flims in 2012 as seen in 2012 in film#Highest-grossing films, other than Lists of box office number-one films which lists various countries in diffrent years.
- What I'm trying to say is that we need to keep whatever year in film with links with number-one box officer films released specificly in that year and make it bias-free as possible. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- I hate to say it, but this is really outside my realm of expertise. I don't think I can help you. I'd suggest asking for assistance at WT:FILM, where hopefully editors who are in a better position to assist you will be able to do so. Sorry I don't have better advice. Doniago (talk) 21:36, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm trying to say is that we need to keep whatever year in film with links with number-one box officer films released specificly in that year and make it bias-free as possible. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:29, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
Kong
Why the urge to remove perfectly good and to an extent informative info from the plot summary? Irondome (talk) 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- The cast names are superfluous as there's a Cast section. WP:FILMPLOT specifies that summaries should generally be between 400-700 words, which the existing summary exceeded. The information removed was not essential to understanding the film. If you'd care to specify cuts that you feel should be undone I'd be happy to go further into my rationale, or you're welcome to bring it up at the article's Talk page. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 19:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Cast members appear to be the majority of the edit which I accept. I suggest however references to skull Island inhabitants and Denhams elevation to hero status is left in. It took me a while to restructure aspects of the summary, and previous edits showed an alarming ignorance of the plot by some casual editors. The points that I suggest retaining are to aid plot clarity. Irondome (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- If you can add them back in while keeping the summary under 700 words, I have no objection to that (I only went into it to begin with because the 700 is kind of a bright line for plot summaries). If not, it's likely other aspects of the summary can be refactored to keep the count low...I'm not sure it's important to a reader to know the specific types of creatures that kill off various folks, for instance...and depending on how you look at it that could be original research as it's certainly never brought up in the film. If you don't think it's realistic to keep the count under 700, we could discuss allowing for a longer summary at the film's Talk page, but that discussion really needs to occur there so that other editors can weigh in. Let me know if you'd like any additional input! Doniago (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Cool. My main input was creating historical chronology (it actually starts in autumn 32, lots of contributors seemed to think it was 33) I got that from the accompanying historical DVD that is in my version of KK (2005). I tried to make the internal plot chronolgy a bit tighter too. I am not responsible for adding the monsters! :) I did think the adding of the type of fighter that murdered Kong adds some further historical interest. I would just favour returning 2 short sentences. The "remnants of a degenerated civilisation.." sentence because it gives them depth, and "A newly feted Carl Denham.." because it is apparent from the film. In an amusing scene, he meets again in the theatre foyer on the first night the director that persued him into the taxi before the voyage. What do you think? Irondome (talk) 20:19, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- Hm. If the year isn't explicitly brought up in the film, that might fall afoul of the same issue I have with naming the dinosaurs and such...i.e. the summary should only discuss what's explicitly brought up in the film. That said I don't think I'd nitpick it, but I wouldn't oppose another editor removing it either. I think the important part is that it's during the Great Depression, not the specific year.
- The type of plane that ultimately kills Kong is kind of a nifty point...if I removed that, I think I at least dickered over whether to remove it. I'm pretty sure the type of plane is mentioned on the commentary track for the film as well, so if that was ever disputed then a citation could be provided.
- As far as the "degenerated civilization" goes...again, I worry that we're bordering on OR there...and in that case while I know that Jackson mentions it in commentary, it may have been a matter of what he intended for them to be... tricky. I also don't think it's really important to the plot, personally. They're hostile natives, 'nuff said, says the word-count conscious editor...
- My only issue with "newly feted" is that "feted" isn't really common English...it's not unacceptable, but I'd prefer a more "down-to-earth" phrase. It's very wordy and not what I think should be used, but off the top of my head I'm coming up with, "Having regained the respect of his peers...". Yuck. Doniago (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Yeah I agree with that. Will just have a tinker, maybe add a dozen words or so, but it wont be anything major.
- Jackson does make some very interesting points in the DVD. He says something like that he wanted to show the passing of time and the coming of the Roosevelt era through prohibition and its ending. Denham has his whisky disguised - as - lemonade loaded for the trip, but when they return (I think) Schltz beer is being advertised on Broadway. I think Jackson was trying to show hopeless depression period becoming the Roosevelt era. Maybe I am a sucker for dates :) Cheers! Irondome (talk) 21:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
- (nods) Jackson does give good commentary, though I'm not recalling anything about the Roosevelt era...but it sounds like you may have tapped more of the features than I have so far...also, I'm not really a historian (says the guy who just saw "Lincoln"). Honestly I think half the arguments that ensue about plot summaries ensue because editors have particular things they really want to see included because they're fans of those things...it can be difficult to discuss how a point can be "interesting" but not "essential"...and for the purpose of a plot summary, "essential" is ultimately what it comes down to. That said, there may be things that aren't appropriate for the plot summary but, if reliable sourcing is available, could be cool to put into the Production section or such. Anyhow, I wanted to say thanks for keeping the conversation civil and constructive! Doniago (talk) 21:17, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
A pleasure. See you around! Irondome (talk) 21:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low 
to High 
.
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Gargoyles
I'm sorry, I'm a novice and have o idea where to post this. I recently edited Steven Dorff's wiki page. You asked for a citation. Here it is. http://www.blucigs.com/StephenDorff/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.106.228 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Hi! I really don't know why my contribution to this article won't be tollerated. Goliath is the protagonist of these series. I'm going to revert your revert. Thanks for listening! Dol Grenn (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
- It is original research to state that Goliath is the protagonist of Gargoyles unless you have a reliable source to back it up. See also WP:PROTAGONIST. Lastly, when there's a disagreement it is appropriate to discuss the matter before simply reverting someone else's reversion. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:02, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
Fred Haise
Hey, I wasn't finished with the revision to Fred Haise's page before you deleted it. All of the biographical information I added was on Fred Haise's official NASA biography. I was adding the link to the reference, but now you have deleted it, and I will be forced to rewrite the entire thing.
Dennis B. 71.102.209.6 (talk) 18:02, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
- Why not just undo my edit and add the reference? In any event, over an hour elapsed between your final edit and my reversion and there was no clear indication that you were still working on the page. At that point I think it's reasonable for an editor to assume you're not planning any immediate changes. Doniago (talk) 18:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Synchronous motor. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:52, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- May I ask why I get an edit-warring advisory but the person who reverted my edits does not? Also, as I noted at the time, the article from which I removed unsourced material had been tagged for needing sources for well over 6 months...at what time am I allowed to bring the article into compliance with WP policy, then? It seems uncharitable to label my edits "unconstructive" at that point. Thank you for clarifying for me. Doniago (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
- A discussion related to your situation at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive deletion of content. It may be worth getting them to look into your case. Betty Logan (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:14, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Merry Xmas!
Snoozlepet (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. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Snoozlepet (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Happy Happy
|
Season's Greetings, Doniago! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC) |
|
- Also best wishes for your 2013 and happy editing whenever possible :-) MarnetteD | Talk 16:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
December 2012 (Consuela)
I don't think that it can be defined as an original research, since I've linked the article Consuelo, which states the exact same thing I wrote in the "List of Family Guy characters" list. If you think it is necessary, I can insert the same source that was used to write the article titled "Consuelo", but I don't think it is needed, Consuela is a misspelling, and I'm sure of it, since I can speak Spanish (even if I'm not a native speaker) and I've seen that the name is always spelled as "Consuelo" by Spanish native speakers. The name "Consuela" is a misspelling made by English speakers, probably because it ends with an "a", a thing which can lead to think «It's spelled with an "o", it is a male name; female names need an "a"». Additionally, I know something about that kind of process (my name is Andrea, which is a male name here in Italy, but is considered and used as female in the English-speaking world). Happy holidays, by the way. :-) --Triple 8 (talk) 20:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- You actually should include the same source. WP:CIRCULAR discusses this a bit, but the gist is that linked articles can always change (or even be deleted), so it's always best to include the source directly within the article itself. Hm...I checked the link that I see at Consuelo and it seems that Consuela may be a legitimate variant; see here. Anyway, more research may or may not be needed, but yeah, I think there should be a reference provided in any case. Anyhow, thanks for coming to me with your concerns and I hope I've been at least vaguely helpful, and a very happy holidays to you as well!! Doniago (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm sure of is that the original version of the name is Consuelo, it is impossible to find "Consuela" in the Spanish-speaking world, that spelling is a mistake. The link from "Behindthename" specifies that the name "Consuela" is only used in the US, but certifies that someone actually uses it. Now, my doubt here is: do second-generation Hispanic immigrants misspell the name, or is it a mistake made by English speakers who want to give Spanish names to their children? I don't know if there's an answer, so what I would do is leave the name "Consuela" with no further explanation. I mean, it is possible that the character was named with an intentional misspelling, so let's leave it as it is. "Consuela" is a mistake and should not be used by anyone, but it's like the spelling "Jhon" used in Colombia: of course it is a mistake, but if people use it, we have to leave it and transcribe it as it is written. --Triple 8 (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- I agree. Without a RS providing more information regarding the misspelling issue, we're at an impasse. Even then, to really pick nits, there's Consuela itself being a misspelling, and then there's the FG powers-that-be being aware that it's a misspelling. Ah well. Hope you're having a happy holidays! Doniago (talk) 13:38, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- What I'm sure of is that the original version of the name is Consuelo, it is impossible to find "Consuela" in the Spanish-speaking world, that spelling is a mistake. The link from "Behindthename" specifies that the name "Consuela" is only used in the US, but certifies that someone actually uses it. Now, my doubt here is: do second-generation Hispanic immigrants misspell the name, or is it a mistake made by English speakers who want to give Spanish names to their children? I don't know if there's an answer, so what I would do is leave the name "Consuela" with no further explanation. I mean, it is possible that the character was named with an intentional misspelling, so let's leave it as it is. "Consuela" is a mistake and should not be used by anyone, but it's like the spelling "Jhon" used in Colombia: of course it is a mistake, but if people use it, we have to leave it and transcribe it as it is written. --Triple 8 (talk) 09:52, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Folks, non habla Espanol and all that, but I went to ngram and got a lot of hits for "consuela", going back to the nineteenth century. Now, ngram is riddled with scannos, so I then went to the originals, and the books might be full of errors, but the word certainly is not just a scanno creation. Of course, not being any Hispanophone, I might be suffering from an inverted version of "English as she is Spoke", but I checked versions from both early- and mid-19thC. FWIW, a dictionary with rather dodgy English, and a lexicographer called Baretti, insisted on the likes of "Consoler, Consolador, el que oonsuela." My guess is that that is a verb, but that does not stop it from being a name, right? I don't know how much energy you would like to expend, but one possible start might be: http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Consuela&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=
FWIW of course! JonRichfield (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, "consuela" is the third person singular of the verb "consolar", which means "to comfort", so all results in Spanish should be related to the verb. Now, the funny thing is that people in the US seem to be convinced, from early XX century, that "Consuela" is an accepted version, because I keep on finding that spelling in US publications (i.e. mostly magazines, but also books). That's the key to interpret these results: US (and English in general) spelling of Spanish names is quite incorrect, or at least inaccurate (it's normal, I guess, every country has that kind of problem: in Italy, unfortunately, we have thousands of misspelled variations of English names). Anyway, you can be sure that "Consuela" is not a correct spelling in Spanish, but as I said in my previous comment, people misspell names all the time (sometimes Spanish-speaking persons call me "Andrés", which is the Spanish version of my actual – male – name, "Andrea"), and this seems a perfect example. The article should stay as it currently is. --Triple 8 (talk) 19:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for the speedy and thorough answer on Wikipedia:Help desk for my "Common Knowledge" Citation question! Henrib736 (talk) 02:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 15:29, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
Your reversion
Hi Doniago, could you explain what this reversion was about? At the very least, a meaningful edit summary would have been helpful; better yet, a note to the new contributor suggesting a way to incorporate this kind of information in a way that matches content guidelines would probably be well received. -Pete (talk) 20:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
- In this context, WP:ELNO is a meaningful edit summary, and I didleave a note to the contributor. External links should not be added to the body of an article. I suppose I could have been more thorough in terms of what information I provided, but there's nothing stopping them from asking for more information, either. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 20:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I didn't edit anything Hunter Dickerson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hunter.dickerson (talk • contribs) 19:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
- Looks to me like you did. Maybe you left yourself logged in somewhere by accident? Doniago (talk) 19:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:06, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Bare URL citation
Dear Don
Thank you for your help in fighting bloats and OR on Jaws article. You also helped a new user add reference, but I also notice that you use Wikipedia:Bare URLs as reference on Jurassic Park article, but I'm afraid bare URLs are prone to link rot, and the article has its consistent use of cite web and cite news template. It also attracts the ugly "This article use bare URLs for citation" tag on top of the article, so... may I suggest you use {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}? If you're already familiar with those, I'm sorry about that. This is just a friendly reminder. Anthonydraco (talk) 05:31, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I'm afraid that referencing is one of my greatest shortfalls with regards to WP, in part because the place where I tend to do most of my editing also has severely restricted web access. I'm familiar with the templates, but far from proficient with them. I know there are some tools designed to help out with such things, but I've had far from a 100% success rate with those as well. I'd welcome any advice you might have! Doniago (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Top bar -> Preference -> Gadget -> Then pick your tools. (Do your homework first before messing with things you don't know, LOL.)
- I use Citation expander. It adds a "Citation" button at the bottom of your editor window. When pressed, it automatically correct your mistake. ProveIt is also useful, but its interface is not encompassing and sometimes does not include all essential parameters for references.
- Another easiest tool to use is the button "Cite" on top of the editor menu. (It's not ref button. And not the "Citation" button at the bottom.) It's a wonder I didn't noticed this much sooner. I don't know if this comes with Citation expander, but if you don't have it, maybe you should enable the Citation expander and see if there's a cite button in the editor menu. When click, it gives you options to insert templates automatically where your cursor is. There's even an error check function.
- The rest of the work is filling in the blank. See what the template suggests you put in. Go to the site and find out what the information you require from there, author's name, the article's name, etc. Title is the title of that page, obviously enough. Note that Publisher is NOT the name of the magazine or the site itself, but the company producing the media. Work/Newspaper/Journal, on the other hand, are the magazine/book/site you're taking it from. Mind the date format as well. See what date format is most used in the article and use that one. All this requires you to check out the page, of course. So I dunno how to help you, but maybe you can do the additional homework from other terminals?
- I assume you know how to create multiple citations using the same sources? Anthonydraco (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, for better or worse, I deal with references so infrequently that whether or not I'm able to check the page isn't likely to be a factor in most cases (i.e. something is better than nothing). I tend to deal more with situations where sourcing isn't present at all and probably should be. Anyhow, thanks for the info! I do know how to handle multiple citations, yes. :) Doniago (talk) 13:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I assume you know how to create multiple citations using the same sources? Anthonydraco (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I came to you talk page about the opinion expressed on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability, and saw this thread. You ought to check out User:Dispenser/Reflinks not only will it format any url's you have added to an article, but it will do the same for any others already in the article. I as a demonstration ran it over Jurassic Park (film) (diff). Anyway enough said about this and the other. -- PBS (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Dr Parnassus
Hi,
I made the edit (' -a magical re-telling of the Faust story-') for two reasons:
1. Most importantly, I was looking for information that I (eventually) found on two other wikipedia pages; but it should (also) have been on the page about the film itself.
2. Two pages (perhaps more) already have this same information:
a. the page about the actor Heath Ledger (from where I literally copied the text)
b. the page 'Works_based_on_Faust' where this film is already listed.
So imho I did not add anything new, I just made sure the information is available in the right place.
As the the exact wording, that indeed is a matter of opinion; as I said, I copied it but I have no issue with it being rephrased, as the word 'magical' is of course a specific opinion.
Perhaps the phrase ' - a story that bears similarity with Faust -' is a better way of saying it.
But please consider leaving it in - I really was looking for exactly that info and was almost giving up when I happened upon the page about the actor. Mljmeerman (talk) 18:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
- I think the best approach would be to see if there's a reliable source that says the filmmakers had Faust in mind when they made the film (perhaps one can be located at one of the articles you mention). If so we can include the source in the article and make this a moot issue. Otherwise, we can certainly say that reviewers considered it a Faustian story, but we don't have evidence that the similarities are intentional..and unless there's a large number of reviewers who make the comparison, it would be better placed in Reception than in the lead of the article. I would recommend reviewing the sources used to provide information at those other articles, since WP articles are not themselves reliable sources and we shouldn't shape the film article based solely on what other WP articles say, but rather on what their sources say.
- I'm a little surprised that you brought this up at my page rather than the film's Talk page, but not a big deal for me. Other editors might have other ideas though. Doniago (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Spit (Card Game)
Hi Doniago, I received a message from you about my changes to Spit (Card Game).
Quote: " Hello, I'm Doniago. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Spit (card game), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. -- Doniago (talk) 18:02, 28 January 2013 (UTC)" End Quote.
The information that I added is actually on the existing reference: http://www.52pickup.net/card-games/spit/
User0fDoom (talk) 01:16, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Cooll. Just add a citation so that it's clear where the info is coming from. I'm ultimately more concerned that the article is reading like a WP:HOWTO, but...that's something else to deal with. Cheers. Doniago (talk) 03:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot’s recommendations. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information in the consent information sheet.
We have added information about the quality of the suggested articles using a Low/Medium/High scale which goes from Low to High .
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:15, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
/* Plot */ Die hard with a Vengence / Liquid explosive
Hi
I made a couple of edits to the plot of this movie that you have removed for some reason. I only elaborated on the liquid explosive featured in the plot because in the current version it is referred to as a bio-chemical explosive. There is no reference whatsoever to a biological component in the film, it is referred to as a binary liquid, which has a article of its own in wiki (as an actual industrial chemist, i hate seeing lazy use of words like 'biological' and 'mutated').
I also included a short sentence about the manic race to make it to the subway train because i feel this was an example of the more comedic tone of this movie compared to the fist two movies.
Thanks for your time Mark C Baxter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Morden76 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Hi there. Film plot summaries should generally be short (400-700 words top) and should avoid going into too much detail, per WP:FILMPLOT. The goal is to give it enough information that a reader can understand the plot. Honestly, IMO what kind of explosive is used doesn't matter to the plot...the point is they're explosives, though if there's an article about binary explosives then that might be something we could link to. The race is similarly non-essential to understanding the plot. If you want to talk about the change in tone, the appropriate place to do so would be in the Production or Reception sections, with information from reliable sources backing it up.
- You're welcome to discuss this at the article's Talk page as well. Other editors may have other opinions. Doniago (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Fair enough with the chase sequence. Can't agree with you about the explosive though, like i say, the film makes no reference at all to the material being 'bio chemical', just a binary liquid and I did provide a link to a (admittedly very short) Wiki article that had its own external links. I just thought it was a fairly minor edit/correction that only added about 10 words, and didn't really see why it needed to be removed. The same could be said for my edit of the bit where Mclane realises whats actual happening from the comments made by the youth. He didn't 'overhear' a conversation (as was stated in the pre edited article), he directly engaged with the youth after catching him stealing.
I realise it's only a movie plot, but i would have thought getting the facts of the story right would be more of a priority for an encyclopedia then meeting some arbitrary word count.
Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Morden76 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Well, as I said, I don't see how the type of explosive is especially pertinent to the plot. Bio chemical, binary, whatever, it doesn't impact the plot and I think it should be taken out entirely unless there's evidence that it's significant. As for the other part, I didn't see how including a direct quotation was necessary. But again, you're welcome to discuss this at the film's Talk page if you'd like the opinions of other editors.
- Also, please note that you should generally sign comments, which you can do by adding four tiles (~) to the end of your comment. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)