Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:20, 21 February 2015

Archives

2012 - 2013 2014 2015

This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present.

Welcome to my Talk Page!If you are leaving a note, please remember to be civil and not to include any personal attacks. Also, please remember to sign your message. Also, I reserve the right to alter or delete any and all submissions. This talk page is automatically archived, so if you don't see your thread anymore, please start a new one. Thanks!

Batman: Arkham Origins

I got your prove that the name on the website you picked is a spelling error. YouTube may not be a reliable source, but look at 16:45 on this video on Robert Costanzo at the credits here. Same result in every game out there. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. The source we have on the page DOES list it as "Costanzo". I don't know why the lead is like that then. You may proceed with the change in the lead. Sorry again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Katana

Hey, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character Katana's Talk page. It concerns Arrow. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guardians of the Galaxy (film) 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

The article Guardians of the Galaxy (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film) 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Guardians of the Galaxy (film) to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Box office

Hi, in the lights of the recent edit I made on the page, you reverted the edit stating: "Reverted good faith edits by Dibyendutwipzbiswas (talk): This is not true (saying NA) as the numbers do not include mexico, just US and Canada. (TW))". Well, that may be OK in the BANANA REPUBLIC, but I guess it's not ok here in Misplaced Pages. Why ?? I explained this below.

I know little geography myself and I know this too that Mexico falls under North America geographically but that doesn't mean when it comes to Box office it have to be the same case. Take a look at here, Mexico falls under other territories. And when Domestic or North America is written, it means only USA and Canada. You can't possibly argue that Mexico falls under North America when it comes to box office; and Canada has its own independent box office figures, I have not seen such a case in my entire web surfing history. And if you argue against my statement, then I have to take it that an entire site is incorrect according to you. Moreover films theatrical release date in USA and Canada coincides. Right ?? I am opened to suggestion, please. DtwipzBTalk 13:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the comments in the Featured List review which has the discussion on why the current wording is used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Long time, no see :) I think that specific info about leaked emails is probably a bit much for the MCU film list, which is more about actual movement and development. Seems like it would be a better fit on a draft for that movie, or whatever section we're housing the "main" section for now. What do you think? -Fandraltastic (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Long time! (Small plug, if you are around, we are trying to nominate the film articles for a Good Topic. I remember you suggesting that way back when. Would love your input in the discussion.) After that side bar, first, I still can't believe this!!! Really happy! On to the content, maybe we trim it a bit for the List of films page, and then yes, move it to our draft (yet to be created, but I will get on that now) and the section (over at Spider-Man in film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha yeah, it's a cool piece of news. And I'll look into the GT stuff when I have a minute. On the subject of that Spider-Man in film page, someone split out the trilogies (even though one is just two films) to their own pages but didn't trim the main page at all. So there are huge sections duplicated, and completely redundant pages. Not sure why the 3- and 2-film series need their own pages, anyway? The whole thing seems like a mess, haha. -Fandraltastic (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. I'm literally going to create the draft now, and will look into what you just said about the pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I definitely think that some form of that Sony hacks stuff should be kept at the list of films article, and agree that a draft should be set up for the actual film article. Also, I have been watching that Spider-Man in film page for a while, but have kinda given up hope for it - it really is a mess. If we are going to make a concerted effort to improve it now that it includes MCU info, then I am happy to help, but it might be a bit of a struggle. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Spidey draft is done. It's crude, but it gets us in business. I'm heading over to the Spider-Man in film page to see about that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Do you think you can get the list of films page protected, I'd do it myself but I editing from my phone right now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do! :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrow pilot

I've been working on a pilot page for Arrow (see here). Can you think or any other sources to expand on some of these sections?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and if you don't mind, I'll give it some c/e / formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. I've largely just been dumping information in, so it definitely needs some smoothing out before it goes into the main space. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed the "Pilot" identifier back, because those episodes are not actually titled "Pilot". They are a pilot. Plus, it seems weird to say "Pilot" is a pilot, it makes it seem like "Pilot" is really referring to Pilot when you're reading. It's the same way we did it at Pilot (Smallville).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell me what you think, and I'm still hopeful you can help expand. I've at least set the basic structure and gotten the reviews it. I plan to utilize this image for the infobox, since it was the official poster provided for the pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on the VFX stuff I said, and the casting a bit possibly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: So there actually isn't as much on the VFX as I thought. I have the company names though: Go Blue FX and Zoic. I added the little piece I felt was good to have about Sara. But other than that, I think you are at least in a good place to move it to the main space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it over. We can continue to try and find some more information to expand it, but I agree that it was good enough to move over.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: Great. Also, what are your thoughts on an Arrow nav box? I whipped something up quickly in my sandbox here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be nice. I usually don't put the links to the episode and character pages on the headers so that people don't think that it's going to a generic page definite episodes and characters. It also helps to make the nav box look fuller. Just my thoughts though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I understand how you'd want it to look. Can you edit what I have so I can see what you mean? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. It's how we treated the Smallville navbox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. My only thought is that if we move forward with it, someone will change it to the version I originally had, and they really don't have any reason not to. Just my thoughts. Do you feel we should add any other links to the "Related" section? IE the links to the remaining main actor articles?

I've seen people change it, but the reality is that we're talking about easter egging, and that would be the reason not to do it the other way. "Characters" and "Episodes" are universal terms that could go to the universal page, so theoretically the argument would be that hiding a specific page in those terms would be in violation of WP:EGG. At least, that's my understanding, though I know that people do it the other way (though, from what I can tell, they only do that because it's what they see and not because there is a logical reason behind it). I don't think anything else should be in "Related Links", though I would caution against including Amell. If you include Amell, then you're going to see a rush to add all of the actors in the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it just be a similar situation like in the Green Arrow template when we use the '**' to go in the ( and we just say "Episodes" and "Characters" there and we link to the LoE and LoC? I feel they are the same thing and not really a violation of EGG because a reader is expecting to go to episodes about the show or characters about the show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not a straight violation, but to me it makes it cleaner and there isn't any confusion when they are out in the open. Not to mention, it doesn't look like the nav box is being used for 3 articles. I think it's easier to get away with that when you have a large nav box and you want to save space. I've just never bought into the idea of hiding the pages within the headers. I didn't understand the purpose when they can be out with the rest of the articles. It doesn't have to say the full name either, it can just be "Characters" and "Episodes". I just think it's best when they aren't hidden in the section headers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's not beneficial about it. Per WP:SEEALSO, and Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#See also lists, the Smallville pilot is precisely what the see also is meant for. It's meant to include related topics that a reader would likely want to read. It's another pilot, based on a DC comics superhero, on the CW (formerly the WB), filmed in the same location with the same set pieces, and with the same director. We can add a Flash pilot if/when that page is created, but I would say that the Smallville pilot page is an appropriate see also link. Why do you think it's not beneficial?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel it would imply too much that the two are related (ie universe-wise) and while it has similarities that you mentioned, if you look at it from its most generic point (a DC Comics pilot) why wouldn't we then include the Aquaman one or the many Wonder Woman ones? Maybe though, if we add Smallville, you should do this: "Pilot (Smallville) – Filmed in the same location, w/ same director, etc." That I think would help solidify why you are including it (beyond the generic reason that I automatically associated it with). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going to add the description originally, I just never actually did after I put the link in. If that would help, then I say let's do that. I wouldn't want to exclude it because people might miss-associate it with being in the same universe. See also sections don't have to be direct connections, only ancillary ones.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think that would help. At least for me (if I didn't see your edit summary I would not have known why you chose to add it, going first to it a) not being in the same universe and b) why not the other DC pilots?) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought about including the Aquaman pilot, but I didn't because I wasn't sure it would be relevant given that it was never actually picked up, like the other half dozen ones that were created over the years. Do you think we should include them?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would feel maybe only the Aquaman one as well, if any additional. You could link over to List of television series based on DC Comics. I'm currently (as in as we are talking here) working on cleaning it up some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add the clarification for them, and link to the list of TV series you have there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. T.A.H.I.T.I.

Hi- About that page. I AM new at this and I understand I should have started in the sandbox, but the page did have a lot of information about the IMDB page for the episode, and TV.com. The episode summary was too long, and I was cutting it when you deleted it a second time. There are lots worse pages out there. I thought the procedure was too flag a page with too much unnecessary detail and ask users to improve it. And I was doing that. I had already done two edits on it with that express purpose. What do I have to do to gett he page back. I'm not trying to start an edit war but I think you are deleting the page without looking at it. Thanks, Eva Karriaagzh (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karriaagzh (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

First, IMDb and TV.com are source we should NOT be using. Second, I did look at the article and it was just a large plot summary. If it is just going to be that, it should not be an article. The editors who work on the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. articles put a lot of effort into making them the best pages they can be on the onset. Thus, as I said, I suggest you continue crafting a page in your sandbox, and if you feel you have an article ready to go, you can contact me or Adamstom.97. But until then, the article should not be created in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you went ahead, again with creating the page. I have tagged as necessary to indicate it needs to be cleaned up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how you say there is no relevance in the difference between - and :

Every single movie of Star Wars is sold in the Star Wars: Episode X - Subtitle format. You're telling me that noting that format is another way of writing it is harming the article? I don't understand your decision to revert. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 06:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) And you're also saying that news sources writing it with the "-" instead of the ":" doesn't mean there is a difference? The statement was it is written two ways and you're removing the sourced statement as if it was false/harming the article/not relevant. It isn't false, it isn't harming the article, and it the statement (addressing the name) is relevant when placed there. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 07:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The use of '-' versus ':' in publications is just based on that publications manual of style. It does not indicate any difference in the title of the film. It is a stylistic choice of the publisher, not from Lucasfilms or Disney. It a similar situation if one outlet wrote Avengers Age of Ultron over Avengers: Age of Ultron. It doesn't mean anything different. Thus, stating that at the Star Wars film is unnecessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The official way they are sold are with the "-", does this not get any recognition? Or should we wait until the Force Awakens has been released to judge? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is just a style choice, not a fundamentally different title. It is still a non-issue and one that, again, doesn't need to be noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, maybe some would disagree with you. I see your point and I do agree it is a non-issue but maybe using the official style wouldn't harm anything. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

...but the official styling is with the ':'. See here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess so. I just know the official styling of the other films is Star Wars: Episode X - Subtitle. Where Star Wars: is the title and Episode X - Subtitle is the subtitle. I guess this film doesn't officially follow the others unless Abrams decides to officially throw in the episode number. Oh well, cheers. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And the official styling is with ':', yes. Same as the others. Star Wars: Episode X - Subtitle not Star Wars Episode :. But maybe it is too soon to apply it for the 7th episode. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Just a comment: The films (at least since the prequels started) have always been written as Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle. See the respective pages here on Misplaced Pages for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize this, but that's just how we have been listing them on Misplaced Pages. It isn't like it is concrete and must not be moved. Haha. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDB and Release Dates

Whether you like it or not, it's a simple fact; Season 3 was released on February 11, 2015. I watched the first episode of the season, and whether or. It it was a mistake doesn't change the fact that it was released. That is undisputed. Since the year is 2015, and it was released, it is perfectly okay to add the (2015) next to Season 3. As for the IMDb edits, I already said that the titles were NOT user generated and both policies you quoted were irrelevant. I'm the one that put the edit in originally and then YOU started reverting them. So by saying that I'm the one edit warring and you're not is a load of crap. There is both common sense AND A CITED SOURCE to go along with the episode title. There are people who cite TWEETS FROM TWITTER for episode titles, and they don't nearly get as much backlash as I'm getting. Just because we have two different OPINIONS on what IS and IS NOT a reliable source, doesn't give you the right to continue to revert my edits, and have the nerve to report me, when you were doing the EXACT SAME THING. Rswallis10 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)