Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:13, 16 April 2022

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

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.I am attempting to keep up with my watchlist and new developments related to areas of interest, such as the MCU, as much as possible, but unfortunately am unable to be on Misplaced Pages as much as I would like at the moment. I will try respond to any messages here in a reasonable time.

Archives

2011–2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

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

Question

In a recent edit summary you wrote: "In writing credits, "and" and "&" mean two different things and should not be arbitrarily changed." What is the difference and where is this explained in Misplaced Pages guidelines? Debresser (talk) 02:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

In the WGA screenwriting credit system "&" is used to indicate a writing team, so if an episode's screenplay is credit to "Jim & Bob and Steve" it means that Jim and Bob worked together as a team to write the screenplay, and Steve also contributed to it but separately from Jim and Bob. It is standard procedure for film and TV articles to follow the official credits, especially when we are talking about the infobox or episode tables which are often being attributed to the film/episode itself by default rather than an inline citation. Following the official credits also helps avoid any arguments over the correct ordering/formatting of the names. If you are concerned you could start a discussion at Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Film and/or Misplaced Pages:Manual of Style/Television about adding a note to those MOSs about this. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I was not aware of that distinction. Following the official credits makes sense and indeed is standard. It indeed would be a good idea to explain this in some guideline. Debresser (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Wording on Star Trek: Picard

Howdy. I see that you made this revert. I don't think that's correct. There is no such verb "executive produces". It is not even grammatical. It should be "executively produces", as it needs to be an adverb characterizing a verb, and not an adjective. But nobody talks that way.

Here's what a Google search for 'executive produce' returns.

You can respond here, I will watch this page. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I think "executively produces" changes the meaning, he is an "executive producer" not a producer who acts "executively". A Google search for "executive produces" shows that industry sources do use this wording. I can see why you find it strange but it has definitely not been an issue at any film or TV article I've worked on over the last 10 years or so. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I've found some instances of "executive produce" as a verb too, afterwards. Looks like slang and ungrammatical, and the Meriam Webster dictionary does not have this combination, so I would prefer "executive producer" which would be grammatically correct and in widespread use. Misplaced Pages should also aim for good and proper style. But given that this "executive produce" is not an obvious typo, I won't press the matter. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Deadpool television series title

The name field is a deprecated field in Template:Infobox television in that the name field used is handled by the name of the article. So currently it is sitting in a maintenance category, Category:Pages using infobox television with non-matching title, in which it states "The value includes an alternative title. Move the alternative title to |alt_name=." which is want I was doing and it kept Deadpool: The Animated Series in the infobox below the title while having the title match the name of the article.

If the name of the series was going to be Deadpool: The Animated Series and not an alternative title as your first reversion summary stated, then if sources show this, then you should start a WP:RM to try and get it moved since it might prove controversial. Or if Deadpool is the common name from the sources as your second reversion summary stated, then the article should not be moved and the alt_name field should be used for Deadpool: The Animated Series as my edit suggested. Aspects (talk) 04:09, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is not a deprecated field, it is just not necessary now because of the auto-population. Though there is some support at Template talk:Infobox television for not changing existing articles that use this parameter, lets assume that it is fine to follow the instructions at the category page. That page does not state that this is an alternative title, it says that it could be an alternative title or it could also be incorrect, a native language name, or something that shouldn't be changed ("If the title is still different, leave it for now."). I believe the latter is the case for this article. The infobox should have the actual name for the series, which is "Deadpool: The Animated Series", and the article should be at the WP:COMMONTITLE which is "Deadpool". If you feel so strongly about changing this then the correct next step would be to suggest a page move that ignores WP:COMMONTITLE and moves the article to "Deadpool: The Animated Series". - adamstom97 (talk) 04:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

You are expressing two contradicting views here. Either the infobox should have the actual name of the show, Deadpool: The Animated Series, and you should start a WP:RM to get it moved or the article should be kept at the the common title, Deadpool, and the infobox should match this title with Deadpool: The Animated Series in the alt_field since it is an alternative name compared to the common title. Either way the infobox should match the article title. Aspects (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

It is my experience that the infobox should have the actual name of the series and putting "Deadpool" with "Deadpool: The Animated Series" as an alternative title would suggest that both are official names for the show. But regardless, it sounds like the best option will be to move the page to "Deadpool: The Animated Series". - adamstom97 (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Stop your edit-warring

You keep reverting any changes I make it to The Suicide Squad article and seem to act as if you have ownership. Next revert will be a complain to the admins, discuss your issues first. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 03:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting a bad edit with clear reasoning is not edit warring, and it isn't my fault that you keep making edits that I have issues with. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:48, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Reverting anything is edit-warring and nothing is going tp justify it (except vandalism or any other exemptions per WP:3RR). AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 04:55, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no justification for reverting? Where is the policy that states that? I understand being frustrated but nonsense like that isn't going to help resolve the situation. It is unfortunate that you keep making edits that I disagree with but that is not an excuse to throw common sense out the window. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)