User talk:Favre1fan93

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

SHIELD Pilot[edit]

I recently made some edits to Pilot (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and was wondering if, when you have time, you could have a look at the page, and maybe give some suggestions on where to go with it next? I am aiming to make individual pages for every episode, but would rather get them as good as possible as they are made, rather than having a lot of low quality articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I'll probably have some time next week to give it a proper look over. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also made some edits to 0-8-4, but there is still work needed there, so if you have the time it would be great if you could have a look over it at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Shoot. I forgot about the Pilot. Yeah. I'll take a look at both today. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Adamstom.97: I just looked over the pilot. Looks really good. I added one citation needed tag regarding Smulders from January 2013 (I quickly looked on other SHILED pages and could not seem to find the source you used.) Also, I would expand/change the reception section to include reviews from EW, Variety, IGN, AV Club and/or Steranko's thoughts. Otherwise, looks really good at the moment. Going to get to 084 now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
For 084, a few citations needed tags, expand the plot some, and then include reviews from the parties mentioned above as well. Otherwise, good job. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for this Favre, its always good to have some other opinions. I am just fixing up those citations now, and then will have a look at the reception stuff. Thanks again for the help. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if we can do any more over at the Afd page, but if you could that would be great - I'd rather all this work not be deleted for no good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, making a page for all the episodes is a big focus for me right now. If you think I'm being too hasty or need to be putting more work into the pages we have, then feel free to tell me, as, like I said before, I would rather not us have a whole lot of low quality articles for the sake of having them. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I think that is great that you are making them! But know too, that if it is a strain to make it a notable page, it doesn't have to be made. All that you have done so far is great. And as you get to later ones, remember the "Art of Level Seven" program, adding info on that. After you make them, I'll do my standard c/e read through. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Cool, and thanks again. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy[edit]

Here's a good source about the visual effects in GotG for use in the post-production section. I know there's a lot there, in the past I just tried tried summarize the role of the companies and a couple of key fx sequences. I do it myself but I don't have the time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I've been waiting for this! I'll give it a read, and see what I can add. Also, short on time, but it will get done! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on my editing error for Guardians -the phrase leapt out at me as grammatically incorrect (it's usually "as accomplished an actor"), and I completely forgot I was reading a quote. Thanks.

Oooops also forgot to sign, that's definitely a lack of sleep for ya. Thanks again.Rickremember (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Happens to the best of us. Cheers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox 4[edit]

I noticed you added SHIELD character content to your 4th sandbox that is very similar to the content in my own sandbox 4. I was wondering what your intentions are for this info, and how big of a priority it is for you, and maybe if I should merge my content with yours and focus my efforts concerning this subject to your version? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I just kind of did it to see what it would look like. I don't really have any plans for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD[edit]

Hi. Thanks for the heads up. However, as I read it, this is speaking of references to the film itself, not to actions taken by folks working on it (e.g. directors, writers, etc.). For example, imho, it means that a sentence should read: "Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film, but it was directed by Orson Welles. In the case of Guardians, the sentence now reads "The film is directed by", which combines the present is with the past tense, directed. Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes. My apologies. I see what you mean (and what the statement means). I generally look to past MCU film articles for general consistency, and we somehow got away from this on some of the more recent film articles. In our case, the first two sentences of the lead should be 'is', and then 'was' for the directed part. I will go ahead and revert my edit (and change on the other pages). Thank you for taking on the task of copy editing this article. As I stated in my request, I do think it is in good shape, Ibut I'm sure you can find stuff that I have missed, or better phrasing, because I've been staring at these words for the past six months or so. I will let you be now! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
No worries. Thanks for discussing. And the article does seem to be in very good shape, as you can tell by how little I did in the lead section. I completely understand about wanting someone else to look at it, I've done that with several articles I've worked on for months... you get blurry looking at the same text over and over again. I'm taking my time with this one, and if I have any questions as I go through it, I hope you don't mind if I run them by you. Onel5969 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question. In the third paragraph in the plot section, it is unclear whether Thanos or Ronan is Gamora's father. Which is it? Onel5969 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanos is Gamora's father. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Another question. In the first paragraph there is a mention of "Phase Three", I think that needs an explanatory clause or sentence.Onel5969 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Third question. In the first paragraph in the release section, it gives a breakdown of the screens that it was released on. There are two issues I have with it, first, the breakdown doesn't add up to the 4,080 stated in the cited reference, and two, I can't find that breakdown in the reference (granted, it's a long reference, and I might have missed it). Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
From the Deadline source at the end of the sentence: "The film bows tonight in 4,080 theaters, making it the widest August release ever. It will be on 350 IMAX screens for the next few weekends; in addition, it debuts on 3,200 3D, 350 large formats and 240 D-Box — yes, D-Box." I added this content and just added what was in the source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Next question: in the quote in the first paragraph in the development section, you changed back my edit to "in the cosmic side of the [Marvel Cinematic U]niverse." The source clearly has "in the cosmic side of the [Marvel] universe." Am I missing something? Onel5969 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes. This has been discussed. Feige means the Marvel Cinematic Universe (as compared to the Marvel Universe from the comics), so the clarification is needed. However, the formatting has come under question, since he said "cosmic side of the universe", and the source changed it to "cosmic side of the [Marvel] universe". I personally thought that was the best, as I changed it back to. Let me know how you feel about it, but it should include the "cinematic" to provide the best clarity. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Okay, I took a stab at it. Tell me what you think.Onel5969 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay, finished it. Hope it helps.Onel5969 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you so much! I really appreciate it!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film)[edit]

Hello Favre1fan93! Please take a look at the source I've given in the filming section of Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film). If the filming has begun really, then move it back to mainspace please. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It is an acceptable source, though I don't think it tells us either way if filming has started. These could be test screenings and such. So I don't think it can be moved back yet, at least per that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 18:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

South Park[edit]

I wouldn't say pointless, I feel it's a good idea to simply mention further seasons. If it's unlinked with a reference would you be happy? Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Convention across the WP:TV project is to not include next seasons until a page is created (when there is reliable information that the season is actually happening). So no, even with a reference saying it was renewed for S18 will not work. The season starts in a few weeks. We are in no rush, and the sources will come. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
My whole point was the infobox didn't feel complete and that just the mere mention that future seasons are happening would harm anything. I've done this with other shows and it didn't cause any problems. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Well that is incorrect. Future seasons are only supposed to be added to previous season infoboxes when articles are created. Season renewals don't mean anything until episodes have actually aired, or it is reliably known that episodes for the season have enter production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory Season 8[edit]

Hey, I recently added information about episode 5 (I was not logged in, so there's an IP instead of my username) and you rejected it, saying "That can not be used as a source".
But why not? Who can provide more precise information than the one who witnessed the show taping themselves and even have a photo for proof?
Here's the diff of the rejected change.
--Peepay (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A viewer on Reddit is not a reliable source. What are their credentials? Do they have established credibility? How do we know they have not fabricated anything? That is why it can't be used. The mere fact that it is Reddit to start automatically disqualifies it to be used as a source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I was under the impression that Wikipedia was created "by the people, for the people", as a place to gather the universal knowledge, put together piece by piece, as compared to other encyclopedias which are written by credible authors. I am not fond of intentional crippling of the content only because the one who brought the piece of information in is not an established editor, or a well-known entity. It's not like that person said some unbelieavable stupid things. I would bet their report was accurate, albeit not verifiable. Who is to define where to draw the line between what is credible and what is not? You said "How do we know they have not fabricated anything?" Sure, but how do we know that any other sources have not fabricated things? When you start questioning like this, you could go on forever. Additionally, what would be the benefit of fabricating such report? Do you honestly believe somebody would go to such great lenghts to make up the whole episode story, fake staff and actor listing and put it all up online just to mess with people? I mean - is it possible? Yes (as with any other source). But is it probable? No. --Peepay (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Please read WP:SPS on this matter. Wikipedia has thought of all of that, and created this policy. As reddit is a self published source, it can not be used, in the context in which you added it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, I accept that, but still I find it sad that we have that information and yet we deliberately choose not to share it with the world, just because of some rigorous rules. Would the credibility be different if the same user posted the very same content on a different website? (E.g. their personal blog.) Or if they sent it to a website publishing articles about TV shows and they would publish it? Because that happens quite often. (For example here.) I am trying to get a sense of it, because now it seems to me that it was not the content itself that was problematic, it was where the person chose to post the content. --Peepay (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
A personal blog would not be okay, SpoilerTV is also not okay. If a reputable source (ie TV Guide) posted an article saying "Reddit user X went to TBBT taping", that also could not be used, because the root source of the info is still unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Meh... --Peepay (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"I don't remember them every making appearances"[edit]

well during the scene where Cap is punching the bag in Avengers, remember we see flashbacks of the first Captain America, well in the flashback where we see Cap running thru the woods we see Dum Dum Dugan besides him, and in the flashback of him crashing to ice, we can hear Atwell voice. in Cap 2 when Widow and Cap meets with Zola we see some footage of Red Skull from the first film.

You have to give me more context on where I said this... Also, please sign you comments, so I know who I am talking to with ~~~~. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

MCU specials section[edit]

Thanks for putting that together Favre, and I just want to apologise again for everything that was going on there, I understand it was just making everyone frustrated, and if I'd only waited a wee bit then this would of happened and it would have all been sorted out! - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The Flash[edit]

Hey, you reverted my edit over at The Flash (2014 TV series), thank you. I must have been out of it. Read the sourced article wrong (thought it reported Harkness for the 8th ep. of Flash). It's probably all futile given that Captain Boomerang is the Flash's rogue, but hey; verifiable info is everything. Thanks again, LLArrow (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No worries. I thought you were in the right first, and was going to move the info to the Arrow section on The Flash, but then I read it correctly and saw it was just Arrow and he would be in the Flash cross over on Arrow. Most likely he'll get to the Flash to be a Rogue though! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Films vs. Feature films @ MCU[edit]

My thoughts behind that was that a short film is also a film, so saying feature films and short films clearly defined the two as being separate. Also, the template uses Feature films rather than just films, and per the MOS we should try our best to remain consistent so as to avoid redundancy. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Music sections[edit]

Hey Favre, I just noticed that MOS:FILM#Soundtrack states that the music information in film pages should be in a subsection of the production section, which makes perfect sense since the music is a part of the film, and is produced with the rest of the film. Is there a particular reason why we should keep the music sections in the MCU pages separate from the production? If not I think it would be logical to move them in. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It says "can" be not "should" be, which is a big distinction. The reason why it is not is because the production section is divided into the stages of filmmaking. The musical score is composed outside of these stages, and can be done at any point during the process.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I think there is no way around the fact that it is a part of the film's production. If it was outside of the development, pre, pro, post structure, then we would be acknowledging the sort of fluid timeline of when it might have been produced, while still stating it as a par t of the film and its production, which it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Triiiple is correct, and the location within each article is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
I would like a reason as for why. I don't mind having it there if there is a good reason for it, but just saying it is correct is not a good enough justification. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Triiiple laid out a very solid, correct, reason as to why it is separate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs FAC[edit]

Hey, are you available to provide some feedback at the Sleeping Dogs FAC? Your help is very much appreciated! URDNEXT (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

South Park Season 18[edit]

Hey there! I noticed that you keep changing the Season 18 page for South Park to be a redirection. However, the page is currently being made ready for when the episode airs this Wednesday. If you could please stop changing this, that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.32.153 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Provide valid sources for the episode, any text on the page and the infobox necessary, and then the page can stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Shadows episode summary[edit]

I've added in the episode summary for Shadows on the season 2 page, but I've didn't pay attention to some names, like the Absorbing Man's and Lance's boss. Also I think I included everything but I'm not sure? Do you want to check?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 21:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Boldface[edit]

Hey F1F93, hope you're having a nice Saturday. Re this edit, does this conflict with character lists such as at Hey Arnold!#Characters? I don't personally care for the bold, but I floated this question past the WikiProject and there wasn't a conclusive take on it--some conflicting info... Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not bad. Hope your's is good. I knew some one started a bold discussion some where. I'll go comment over there, but yes, I would say that the Hey Arnold! section is in violation of MOS:BOLD. As I said in my edit summary, that line I added was copied from WP:FILMCAST, which I feel is a good emulator to use, considering the quasi-similar nature between the sections of the two projects. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Warn[edit]

Hey, you've been so helpful in the past I thought I'd ask if you would mind contending the nomination for deletion for the director Jesse Warn, if of course you agree with me. Thanks a lot, LLArrow (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)