User talk:Doniago/Archive 95
 | 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 90 | ← | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 | Archive 96 | Archive 97 | → | Archive 100 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Theremin addition
The entry for the Theremin already linked to the page that was the reference. It was literally listed in the article, which gets its source from the album itself. If you are going to have to remove my entry then the Led Zepplin entry would have to go as well by your criteria since it is missing the same reference. Ehrichweiss (talk) 14:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Ehrichweiss, please note that new Talk page threads should usually be placed at the bottom of the page.
- I agree that the Led Zeppelin entry should be sourced and have tagged it accordingly.
- Per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia articles shouldn't be used as references; rather, what you can do is copy a proper source from the article you're linking to. My apologies if I've misunderstood your concern.
- Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 15:53, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Stanley Kubrick on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
But i written my idea for Historical inaccurate in film for Category i was doing what i was doing was normal i just can't have it delted i'm trying to do work serious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gng1999 (talk • contribs) 06:32, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
But i written my idea for Historical inaccurate in film for Category i was doing what i was doing was normal i just can't have it delted i'm trying to do work serious work.
But i written my idea for Historical inaccurate in film for Category i was doing what i was doing was normal i just can't have it delted i'm trying to do work serious work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gng1999 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
- You need to raise your concerns at the CfD discussion. It's out of my hands now. In the future, I'd recommend that you try to get consensus to add new categories from a relevant project page rather than creating them unilaterally. DonIago (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
What We Left Behind
I wrote a long discursive message but then I decided to throw that out and get directly to my question: do you think a standalone article for the DS9 documentary "What We Left Behind" would be a good idea?
There is a section in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine that can be split out, and there is already redirect at What We Left Behind that I can replace. Expanding it with some film reviews would be the major change, other more minor changes would be an Infobox etc. Alternatively I could take the much slower approach and try doing most of this as a DRAFT, and eventually ask you or someone else to move it to mainspace. (If you have any technical knowledge about how to preserve page history when doing a split that could be very helpful.) If you don't think it is a terrible idea, this is something I might do later today, or perhaps next weekend. Thanks. (You can reply here, I'll check back.) -- 109.76.206.80 (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Have you found independent sources that discuss the documentary in ways other than merely reviewing it? If the most we can hope for is to break it out with a few sources that are just reviews then I don't think it's worth it. If there are sources that discuss the film more broadly? Possibly. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Not exactly encouraging but I suppose it is helpful to be be reminded (or cautioned) that the rabid deletionists will immediately point to WP:GNG. My personal preference for films, episodes, people, articles to be separated into single logical units (like a good encyclopedia might do) is no match for their destructive powers.
- The idea came to me after I spent a substantial chunk of time trying to improve the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article and added a chunk more sources.[1] I also noticed it was was previously a {{Good Article}} and although there are still places in the article where the sources need to be significantly improved maybe I can gradually get back to GA or A status. I'll probably be nudging at DS9 articles for a while in any case. -- 109.76.206.80 (talk) 14:14, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good luck! I'm just not sure WWLB is really notable as a film on its own merits, and I have no idea whether it got attention from any sources that wouldn't already be biased toward reporting on Star Trek news. Maybe Memory Alpha has a few sources that could be useful? Sorry, it's still early morning here so I'm not really in research mode. :) DonIago (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- A few ideas that are WP:OR I know but if you can find outside sources they might help. The writers have a round table where they create a new episode to start an eighth season (ah - I see that is mentioned in the section of the main DS9 article.) It was (thankfully) recorded before the passing of Rene and Aron. The opening statements about how ST fans didn't like it to begin with and how that changed is fairly important to the ethos of the entire franchise. BTW I was not one of those - I can still remember sitting in front of the TV that first night and less than two minutes in going "THIS IS AWESOME" :-) The inclusion of the best scene in the history of the show at the end of the credits cracks me up every time :-D. If as you feel Doniago there isn't enough for a stand alone article at least it has nice coverage in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article. I hope you both have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 14:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- I know it is "other stuff exists" all over again but when we have neglected articles for the Trekkies 2 documentary, having a standalone article for a Star Trek documentary like "What We Left Behind" that actually got a limited theatrical release, seems highly notable by comparison. But a higher standard is expected.
- MarnetteD good suggestion, I was thinking about that too. In a separate article the writers round table could be described as part of the Plot/Premise/Synopsis it wouldn't be WP:OR. I'd read previously that in the Development of the documentary this was added after Avery Brooks advised Ira Behr to take a different approach than the previous "Captains" documentary. (In general it is a nice example of basically how the writer's room worked on the show, it's very similar to some of the things on the DVD extras.)
- If this idea is still rattling around in my head next week I will probably start Draft:What We Left Behind. -- 109.76.206.80 (talk) 16:04, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- A few ideas that are WP:OR I know but if you can find outside sources they might help. The writers have a round table where they create a new episode to start an eighth season (ah - I see that is mentioned in the section of the main DS9 article.) It was (thankfully) recorded before the passing of Rene and Aron. The opening statements about how ST fans didn't like it to begin with and how that changed is fairly important to the ethos of the entire franchise. BTW I was not one of those - I can still remember sitting in front of the TV that first night and less than two minutes in going "THIS IS AWESOME" :-) The inclusion of the best scene in the history of the show at the end of the credits cracks me up every time :-D. If as you feel Doniago there isn't enough for a stand alone article at least it has nice coverage in the Star Trek: Deep Space Nine article. I hope you both have a pleasant week. MarnetteD|Talk 14:44, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
- Good luck! I'm just not sure WWLB is really notable as a film on its own merits, and I have no idea whether it got attention from any sources that wouldn't already be biased toward reporting on Star Trek news. Maybe Memory Alpha has a few sources that could be useful? Sorry, it's still early morning here so I'm not really in research mode. :) DonIago (talk) 14:20, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Sliding doors edit
Thanks for explaining your rationale for reverting my edits to the above page. I'd just like to note that I don't edit IMDB so your assertion that I made the changes to the IMDB page is false, but I accept that IMDB isn't a reliable source on consideration. I actually compiled the list by watching the movie and noting the names at the end of the movie, but I've never seen that media sourced as a ref, but noted that the list on imdb concurred with what I'd noted. I'm not currently in the mood to look further for the same information and to reedit that page again, but it's not a significant change; I just wondered by Bennie and the Jets wasn't listed in the soundtrack. But as I say, cheers for the explanation. 92.12.200.195 (talk) 04:53, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Personal threats
Hi, please either block me from "disruptive editing" forever, or stop making personal threats sounding as bold statements. I have been a decent contributor to WP and you are in no position to judge me. --Whydoesitfeelsogood (talk) 02:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
- Please quote the 'personal threat' that you're accusing me of having made. Considering you were blocked in August in part for adding original research and unsourced edits, I feel it was entirely appropriate when I warned you for making further unsourced edits. I fail to see how it was in any way a personal threat to note that if you continued to make the same kind of edits for which you were blocked earlier this year, you would likely be blocked again. DonIago (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
addams family 4k
Hi this is Noah. I couldn't find a website that said it was delayed but heres my source Noah--Weloveyou19 (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[1]
- Unfortunately Amazon frequently gets its release info wrong, and generally shouldn't be used as a reference. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.amazon.com/ADDAMS-FAMILY-MORE-MAMUSHKA-Blu-ray/dp/B097BYXJTX/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1DOSFPE91TI5E&keywords=addams+family+4k&qid=1636746443&qsid=134-2996759-6138109&sprefix=addams%2Caps%2C694&sr=8-1&sres=B097BYXJTX%2CB09K42JP5T%2CB08B48MHVG%2CB09K43P4N8%2CB07TKNGMJW%2CB07YMF29J6%2CB09GDTSGXJ%2CB072131FZD%2CB09GXLYJ9J%2CB00AMDA2O4%2CB07YX5FW54%2CB000V3JGIS%2CB008RKL1P8%2CB07TPYXBQQ%2CB0035LJY6C%2CB000FIHN52
Bottle Rocket
If a source really necessary for this being Wes Anderson's only film without Bill Murray when you can easily discern this information by cross-referencing both of their pages?71.38.255.34 (talk) 18:48, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
- My first question is how that's significant versus being WP:TRIVIA. A source would demonstrate that. Secondly, per WP:CIRCULAR, Wikipedia articles aren't sources for each other, because the information contained at either can change at any time. So, I think a source is necessary to establish that someone's taken note of this if nothing else. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 19:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Revert at Suicide
Hi Doniago. Just curious, why did you revert my edit to Suicide here? You also used WP:ROLLBACK to do it. If it was a mis-click, it's totally fine, no worries. If not, since the ROLLBACK revert didn't leave an edit summary and I don't believe my edit to the article falls under the criteria for WP:ROLLBACKUSE, could you explain your reasons for reverting? Thanks! Some1 (talk) 00:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- Because to the best of my knowledge there's no project-wide consensus that "committed suicide" should be deprecated, and consequently we shouldn't be changing the language just for the sake of change. However, I did leave an edit summary when I reverted your edit advising you to discuss at the article's Talk page if you had concerns. As a starting point, see here. If there is a consensus, please link me to it. DonIago (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you that there's no consensus to deprecate "committed"; however, my edit has nothing to do with the word "committed"; I changed the wording of "complete" to a different alternative [2] since the majority of reliable sources don't use that awkward "complete suicide" phrasing. Since I don't think "complete" should stay and if you don't like the alternative "die by", you could change it to "commit"; that would be alright with me. Some1 (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (films) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Chris Evans
Hello Doniago,
About Chris Evans, although Imdb isn't a reliable source to use on Wikipedia (indeed it functions very similarly to that), it does mention more details about Chris Evans' ancestry that I think some users may be curious to know about. I can try to find other sources that talk about his ancestry, so even though this wasn't successful, hopefully it was a good start. If you have any other insight about this, let me know. Thanks
Wiscipidier (talk)Wiscipidier — Preceding undated comment added 22:58, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hi, I've seen ancestry.com used as a source, though I'm not entirely sure myself whether it technically meets the definition of an RS. Otherwise, I can try to do some research if you'd like, though not right now. DonIago (talk) 23:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
L.A. Confidential
Hi, I was recently looking at the categories for films set in various decades and noticed that some film articles include categories for the exact year and others for the decade. Is it general practice to exclude films from the decade category if it's possible to place them in the exact year's category? It seems counterintuitive to exclude a 50's period film from the "List of films set in the 1950's category" because the exact year is known. If, for example, a reader is looking for films set in the decade but isn't concerned with the exact year, then iconic films would be excluded from the category. Chinatown would be left out of the 1930's category and Back to the Future is out of the 1950's category. Also - I'm not sure if it was intentional but you also undid my grammatical improvements to the plot in the process of reverting my category addition. Let me know your thoughts here. Cheers. Incerto501 (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Typically articles shouldn't be included in both subcategories and their parent categories, though there are exceptions such as Category:American films. Unfortunately, well-meaning but inexperienced editors often aren't aware of this. If a film is categorized by the exact year in which it's set, then the subcategory (i.e. the specific year) is already listed under the parent category of films set in the decade in which the film is set (though you'd have to review the appropriate subcategory). I'm not aware of any guidance that film articles should include both year and decade-based "films set in..." categories.
- I reviewed the other changes you made, and found that they changed the intent of the sentences, which is problematic. For instance, Dudley sets up White to go after Exley, but to the best of my recollection he doesn't explicitly send White after Exley; White does that on his own.
- Hope this is helpful! You're welcome to raise any concerns at the article's Talk page as well, where other editors can more easily offer their input as well. Thanks for reaching out! DonIago (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Doniago, thanks for the reply. Regarding the grammar issue, I used it in the action-consequence sense, as in: "Jim's boss demeaned his appearance, sending Jim into a fit of rage." or "He heard a bomb go off, sending him to investigate." No biggie, I just wasn't sure if that edit was collateral in the category revert. It's a habit of mine to try to use fewer words whenever possible but your explanation makes sense too. For the category thing, are you looking at the "Films set in the 19xxs" page? I don't see Chinatown at Category:Films set in the 1930s and L.A. Confidential isn't listed at Category:Films set in the 1950s, although both articles have specific year categories attached. Again, it's possible we aren't talking about the same pages since it looks like there's some redundancy here ("List of films set in...", "Fiction set in..."). I'll look for some kind of MOS or standardization that goes over this. Thanks! Incerto501 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
- For the category thing, you need to look under the specific subcategory that the film is listed under...so if you went to "Films set in the 1950s" you'd then need to click on "Films set in 195x", as that's the subcat, to see the film listed. I used Avengers: Endgame as a reference since that article's pretty heavily patrolled (one would think).
- I will say I'm not sure what the rationale is for this system, nor can I say that I would necessarily agree with it. But that would be a discussion to start at WP:FILM or possibly MOS:FILM. Sorry, there probably is an existing discussion that established the current system, but I'm not at my best for research right now; let me know if you'd like me to try digging into it a bit later. DonIago (talk) 00:36, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
- Hey Doniago, thanks for the reply. Regarding the grammar issue, I used it in the action-consequence sense, as in: "Jim's boss demeaned his appearance, sending Jim into a fit of rage." or "He heard a bomb go off, sending him to investigate." No biggie, I just wasn't sure if that edit was collateral in the category revert. It's a habit of mine to try to use fewer words whenever possible but your explanation makes sense too. For the category thing, are you looking at the "Films set in the 19xxs" page? I don't see Chinatown at Category:Films set in the 1930s and L.A. Confidential isn't listed at Category:Films set in the 1950s, although both articles have specific year categories attached. Again, it's possible we aren't talking about the same pages since it looks like there's some redundancy here ("List of films set in...", "Fiction set in..."). I'll look for some kind of MOS or standardization that goes over this. Thanks! Incerto501 (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Spider-Man: No Way Home on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message
 | Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
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. -- SuggestBot (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Medical disclaimer on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Event Horizon - I reverted your revert
See also my talk page. If you want do discuss the current wording, please use Talk:Event Horizon (film) instead of reverting it. I am open for any compromise. --Mark McWire (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2021 (UTC)