User talk:Favre1fan93

A page you started (Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Favre1fan93!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you!

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Forever Evil

Hi.

I noticed you reversed my changes.

Please be aware that Justice League 30, Justice League of America #14 and Suicide Squad #30 all have the Forever Evil banner on them. Regardless of whether they were solicted as part or not they are bannered now and should be included.

Because if we want to split hairs a lot of the Constantine's in the Blight storyline didn't have this banner but are included as internally they say they are part of the storyline.

Cheers

Marvel One-Shots logo

I just stumbled upon this apparent logo for the One-Shots: [1]. It's legitimacy is doubtful, but do you think it is worth using on the page until an official logo is released? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Not if it's "legitimacy is doubtful".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that is very similar to what has been used at the top of the Agent Carter and All Hail posters. Can you please provide the website url, not just the image url? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Here is the website url: [2]. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the actual link Adam. This is really close, but it is not exactly the same, so we should not add the image unless it is the accurate one. Compare your's to the ones used on Agent Carter's poster and AHTK's. I do appreciate you finding this and thinking it would work. This is the closest we've gotten to finding the logo to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can find an extremely high-resolution (natural, not stretched) of the AHTK poster, I can extract the logo. The logo on the Agent Carter poster is too stylized to that particular film to be of any use.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That's been the issue Triiiple. All the ones I've seen on the internet are small in size and resolution. I had tried with the Agent Carter one, but yes, it was too stylized to make it usable. I'll keep my eye out. And with none coming on Cap:TWS, we might not get another poster for a while. I had asked Tenebrae a while back, since they are in the media/journalism, to see if they could get one, but never heard back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic's "normalized" scores

Despite Metacritic's claims, their scores are not "normalized". Please see WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6#Metacritic's so-called "normalized" scores. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

What is this in relation to? I need some context, because I don't know what you are talking about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I think you have added the word "normalized" to one or more film articles in describing Metacritic's scores. If not, my apologies for the intrustion. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Can't say I have done this. I work all over the place, so I may have, but nothing comes to mind, and I generally don't stick to Reception sections on film pages as my edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Avengers

Apologies for not linking with hyperlink back to the original page but I gather you know what this is about. Please could you direct me to te source which explicitly states that the movie will only release in 2D and IMAX as the information suggests. Kind regards and apologies again, Mythical Curse (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC).

Have you even read his revision summaries? See one. Nothing in the lead needs to be cited, as long as it is mentioned in the article itself, in this case, it is in the Avengers: Age of Ultron#Release section. The article has never said it'll be ONLY 2D and IMAX. The film will in IMAX 3D as well, that just isn't in the article. Only 2D and IMAX are cited, though. || Tako (bother me) || 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

A) You have not read my edit summary, or the article apparently for that matter. B) Here is the source used on the page, stating the film will be in IMAX. Thus it is being released in 2D and in IMAX. If your issue is that that information makes it seem like the only formats it is releasing in, that is not the case. Most likely, it is also going to be in 3D and IMAX 3D, but editors can't assume that unless we have a source to state such. So, it can only be the way it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I finally got round to reading your source and it appears we still have an issue. The source only states that the film will be released in IMAX and not that it will release in 2D. Most likely, it is also going to be in 2D but editors can't assume that unless we have a source to state such. So, I have therefore changed it to reflect this. Kind regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

No issue. Source says it will release in IMAX and as it is currently filming, that means it is being filmed for 2D. That's the industry. You film in three ways: conventional film or digital (2D), 3D, or in IMAX. If the source said filmed in IMAX, then we'd have an issue possibly including 2D. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a source stating that the movie is being filmed in 2D then it can be added. If not, we cannot assume that it will be available in this format and as such it should stay IMAX only. Kind regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

If one is not provided that filming is happening in another format, then it is known that it is 2D. Since we have none for 3D filming or IMAX filming, that leaves only one option that is not assuming anything. And as stated, this discussion should be on the article's talk, not mine. And also stated, per WP:STATUSQUO, that stays during a dispute, so do not revert or undo again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no sources to suggest that it will release in 2D, just because it may film in it does not mean it will be released in it. Secondly and more importantly, my issue with this article is that by only stating that the film will release in 2D and IMAX it implies that the film will not release in 3D. This is unlikely to be the case and as such, until someone at MARVEl confirms/denies the use of 3D, its release of 2D only should not be in the article.

Sorry that this is so convoluted and messy, Kind regards Mythical Curse (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

To add to that, a mention that the film has been confirmed to release in 2D and IMAX is fine in the Release section as long as it is worded correctly, so as not to imply no 3D release. Mythical Curse (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

We had edit conflict

Sorry, I was having an edit conflict with you (I was just about to remove and replace my original reference when you did the revert). I have actually been dormant user of Wiki, so not sure about new rules. I have removed the shop link and replaced it with something else. Please feel free to remove it if it's against wiki rules. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

W Tanoto No problem. Since you have added that, I actually found an English source, so I will get to replacing it. Thank you for finding the non-store one initially thought! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again. My wiki editing skills and rules are rusty (but I do remember that refs should be in english whenever possible). So, I actually prefer to stay passive and watch whatever in my watchlist and will do so for most of the time. I do edit when I felt the article needs updating urgently. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Your original edit was in good faith, hence my revert. But then you went out an found a proper source, so I will always welcome that type of editor. Best of luck returning if you are! (And FYI, I'm still taking care of other pages on my watch list. The source I found is here if you want to change it. Also talks about a collector's pack, which will be good to add.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

MCU recurring cast and characters

Do you think having a table like this at the main MCU page will make it easier to get the information across? Instead of people reading through the information to see who has reappeared across different mediums, they can quickly and easily see that information. If they want to know specifically what films, short films or television shows the characters have appeared in, they can follow links at the top of the section to the appropriate pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Prose is good for that section. Not everything has to be made into tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Batman Arkham Knight

Why did you change my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry129 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

The lead edit was wrong. You failed to continue reading the lead to see the info you wanted in the beginning of the following paragraph; the Scarecrow info was unreferenced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

An FAC I have going

Hello there! I don't know if you remember a little while back when I asked if you had time for a GA review of The FP, but I've since gotten it up to GA and I recently nominated it for Featured Article. If you have a spare moment, would you mind leaving some comments or suggestions on it? If you can't, I totally understand. Also, be sure to tell me if you have some stuff you're working on that you might want reviewed or to have a gloss over. I'd be more than happy to help. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Warned the IP adding inapplicable categories on South Park: The Stick of Truth

Warned 2601:D:380:468:ED9E:742E:7567:17BF (talk · contribs) after adding Category:Cancelled PlayStation 4 games and Category:Cancelled Xbox One games four times with no explanation. Maybe they'll stop now. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 2

I've started a new RFC about archive.is because I'm fed up with Werieth breaking articles and having the backing to do it. Letting you know per our previous discussion. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll head over and comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

How the heck did you restore those links? When I tried to do it at The Joker, it rejected it due to archive.is being on the blacklist. Maybe it's been removed? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Batman: Arkham Asylum. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not inserting a spam link. I'm keeping the link to prevent WP:LINKROT. Yes the RFC said to blacklist it, but if you remove it WITHOUT replacing it with a valid archive, that is NOT good. You are the one being disruptive, not me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

He isn't going to be blocked for undoing your vandalism Werieth, you're still a detriment to the project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

• archive.is is a banned website on Wikipedia. You need to find another location for the source. Sorry. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, I am very well aware of the previous RFC decision. However, it is very much counter intuitive to remove those links without replacing them with valid archives. I am not currently arguing that those links should stay. I am arguing that if you are taking away those current archives, you are presenting serious WP:LINKROT issues. A second RFC has just been opened regarding this, so hopefully a better solution can come out of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I noticed. If that second RFC comes to a different conclusion, then by all means we can re-include the links, but at the moment we can't. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

MCU comic book appearances

When undoing mine and TriiipleThreat's edits, you made a valid point, that we should only give information on characters first appearing in that medium, which would rightfully remove any potential duplication of information. However, your other point, that "we don't need to indicate the comic book appearances as that is not a portryal [sic]" is incorrect. The wording in each of the List indicator(s) is "A [ref] indicates the character reappears in [medium]". This statement has nothing to do with portrayal, that is why the notes were moved from the actors' names to the characters' names originally (see Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors#One-Shots and TV series mention). The tie-in comics are just as much a part of the Universe as the other mediums, so why should they get shunted aside? If these notes were about performances, I would agree with your statement, but they are not, so I hope the comic book notes can be re-added to the pages.

I would also like to point out that several characters listed throughout the MCU pages as having been introduced in films, were in fact introduced in comics. The comic Captain America: First Vengeance was released before Captain America: The First Avenger, so many of the characters from that film were not actually introduced in it, but in the comic. That is just one instance of this, so I was wondering, as part of the ongoing expansion of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics, we should look further into this, and rectify the errors, as stating that, for example, Steve Rogers/Captain America was introduced in Captain America: The First Avenger, is flat out not true, so it is something that, in my opinion, should not be stated as fact on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstom.97 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with Favre's rationale. The table is a list of a portrayals and the indicators all point to other portrayals.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

But they do not have to just point to other portrayals. If the indicators were by the actors' names, then they would have to point to other portrayals, but we decided on the talk page that this is not what we intended, and that the indicators in fact point to other appearances by the characters. The indicators are placed beside the characters' names, and the label clearly states, as i said above, that "A [ref] indicates the character reappears in [medium]", not that the actor reprises his/her role in a different medium. By adding the comic book indicators, we will not be changing any of the other indicators that are already there, we will only be expanding upon them, being consistent, and giving information that people could be interested in. If someone can easily find out if a character from the films has appeared in canonical tv shows or short films, with helpful links leading to more information, why can't they find out the same info for characters reappearing in canonical comic books? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The table is in use in articles or sections about casts. Also over populating the table with indicators is more distracting than helpful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Marvel One-Shots#Cast and characters; List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Recurring cast and characters; User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/6#Cast and characters. If these are all just about casts, then there is some pretty obvious problems with the naming of these sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously if we are going to list the cast it would make sense to list the roles that they are portraying.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

"The table is a list of a portrayals" - yes. "The table is in use in articles or sections about casts...it would make sense to list the roles that they are portraying." - yes. But the indicators that are already on the pages, that you and everyone else seem to be fine with, are indicators of where the characters reappear. If a character was to go from film to TV, but the role was recast, there would still be a TV indicator placed after the character name on the film page. the actor has not made the transition, so the indicator has nothing to do with the portrayal of the character, just the character itself. This is the same case - a character has moved from film to comic book, but the actor has not made the move, for obvious reasons. The character is still reappearing in another medium, and someone could very well be interested in seeing who from the other mediums have made the transition to the canonical comic books, so there is no reason why not to have the indicators there. If there were so many indicators in the character column that the names were becoming unreadable then i would agree that "over populating the table with indicators is more distracting than helpful." But we are certainly not at that point, and if we are to get to that point, it will more likely happen because there are individual indicators for every film phase, which, for any character that makes even a minor appearance in several phases over the coming years, could cause a ridiculous clutter of indicators. if this is an issue that you wish to address, then maybe we should consider revising how we indicate to readers that characters reappear in other mediums, otherwise, we should stick with the current system, which seems to me to be working fine, and use it consistently, which means adding indicators for comic book reappearances. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

The tables as now, have been designed to indicate characters appearing across the visual mediums. Remember, the MCU started as a film series first. It then expanded elsewhere. So when it moved to other visual mediums, per normal Film and Television project conventions, cast lists are created in some form. So we looked to the created film cast table, and saw that that would benefit for the One-Shots. I am also looking to that as a basis for the one that will be eventually on the television series page. As for the comics, unless in extremely unique cases, we are not going to be listing every single character that is appearing. We are not Comic Vine. However, the only instance that I see some notation about comics appearances necessary, is if a character has a very, very notable introduction in an MCU comic, before appearing in a visual medium. And at the moment, I do not think that is the case, especially on the notability end. Since all of those comics are either prequels, interludes, or postludes to the films, it is not really a separate appearance by the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Not to mention, that we strive to focus on the WP:Real world aspects of the universe; which is why we put emphasis on the cast, not the characters. And to your original hypothesis: the tie-in comics do not carry the same WP:WEIGHT as the films or even the television shows or one-shots.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Yup, those are even better claims than what I was trying to get at. I was circling that guideline and policy without mentioning them. Thanks Triiiple. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If you consider the comics as just prequels, interludes, or postludes to the film, and therefore not really separate appearances, then character appearances in the One-Shots are not separate appearances either, as the One-Shots are all preludes, interludes, or postludes to the films as well (TC is not only a tie between TIH, IM2, and TA, it is also just an extended version of a TIH scene; WHOTWTTH is just a tie between IM2 and T, literally showing how Coulson got from one movie to the other; AC and AHTK are pretty much glorified post-credit scenes, showing the actions of characters from the films immediately following them. They are not new, independent stories as the films are; I47 is the most standalone of them all, but it is still just a brief postlude to TA, briefly expanding upon events from that film). Remember, WP:Consistency.

However, I understand that you guys control everything that happens on these pages (you have put a lot of work into them) and that you will not change your mind about what you think is right or wrong, even if you can't give logically-sound reasons for keeping things your way, so I will let this go now. But for the record, I have not been convinced that making my edits was the wrong thing to do, and until such a time as I am, I believe that we are missing an opportunity to improve the quality of several Wikipedia pages, which is our job as committed editors.

Also, I would like to point out to Favre1fan93 that WP:REVEXP clearly states that when reverting you must provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Therefore, you are being disruptive with your reverts of my edits to the One-Shots cast table, and the TV cast table. I don't want to start an edit war, so I will refrain from re-editing those pages, but in future, please remember that statements like "Should be as previously" are not acceptable explanations. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I know you are acting in good faith but it just seems you are going out of your way to try and fix what ain't broken. WP:Consistency is inactive. Its not a policy or guideline or even an essay. The fact is that articles can do there own things. There is a general manuel of style and more specific ones tailored to individual WikiProjects, but not all articles have to resemble each other exactly. This is done out of necessity as articles are developed based on subject matter, available reliably sourced content and the consensus of the contributing editors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

MCU Television

I was wondering what your current stance on this page is? A while ago you mentioned that there was still plenty of work needing to be done, and that we were in no rush. I agree that we are still in no rush, especially because it will be a while before the next MCU show airs, but i think the influx of information concerning these shows, and Daredevil in particular indicates that the page would not be idle if we were to create it now. Also, by moving the page to the mainspace we would be able to clean up the main MCU page, which is currently suffering some WP:WEIGHT issues with the much larger amount of information dedicated to the TV section compared to the other sections. If you still want to hold off, and continue improving the article in your sandbox, then i will understand, but i do think it is time to at least reconsider the move. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, would you consider adding a Development section to this page? Both the One-Shots and Comic book pages have this, and it would make sense to collate all of that information in one place, and leave the ABC and Netflix sections to list the individual shows (i assume the page will eventually be moved to "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series"). This would help with WP:Consistency across the MCU pages and within the page itself, and would help with page navigation, as people looking for the development of the series would expect a Development section, while people looking for the specific list of shows will just click on those sections, and most likely expect to find a similar sort of list as is found on the list of films page, list of comics page, and One-Shots page. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I do think we are almost ready to go, and my thought right now is to wait until we get closer to AoS season 2 airing. That way, we will know for certain who principal cast members are, as well as any additional changes. So I'm shooting for a move to mainspace most likely in August. As for adding a development section, in this case it I don't see how a meaningful section can be created. General development was mainly just for AoS, where it is stated now, and if we look at the content in say the One-Shot section, I don't see like equivalents to create a separate section. Also, since we are getting two distinct series on ABC and Netflix, the info that is currently under Netflix series, before Marvel's Daredevil, is more appropriate there because that info applies to all of those series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, you keep stating WP:Consistency, but that is no longer an active consensus point on Wikipedia, so it should not be used to back up your claims or opinions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have realised that. Although I agree with most of the points the page makes, I do see how it could limit some articles becoming the best they could possibly be. Thanks for pointing that out to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

We do try to make each of the pages have a similar look to them, but we are not beholden to that, as somethings may work for one page, and not for another. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TV

Hey, good work on the MOS:TV stuff! Way to grab that brass ring! Quickie: I'm not being a wisenheimer, (buuuuuuut,) is WP:SEASON the wikilink you were going for? I thought you might have meant WP:TVSEASON but I'm still unsure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

No WP:SEASON is what I wanted. That states you should not be using Fall or Spring due to differences in hemispheres, as well as users reading in countries (like Aussie) who don't have a "Fall". So the use in the guideline is to discourage sentences being written such as: "The show will return in Fall 2014." That means something totally different to people or doesn't mean anything to some. It is meant to encourage the "will return in 2014 of the 2014–15 season" writing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Okeedokey, Smokey. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Music of the MCU

There isn't much more we can do for this page, considering its current scope, besides completing the reception table. However, if we bring some more information and references over from the individual soundtrack pages, we could centralise that information, and negate the need for individual soundtrack/score pages for each film. It wouldn't take much work, though this page is currently low priority and likely a long-term job, and it would mean removing several pages that are already barely notable enough to exist themselves, being not much bigger or more detailed than the music sections on the individual film pages. Do you have any thoughts on this? I realise the page could potentially get quite big, but that seems to me to be a problem for down the line, while the brevity and relative unnecessariness of the soundtrack pages is something we can fix now by removing them completely. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I have not really made this a priority to work on for the time being. You are more than welcome to make your edits still in my sandbox. If you want to do that, and approach me when you think you have a mainspace-ready article, I'll take a look at it and make comments on it. I trust you can make some decisions you feel will be good for the page that will be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD template

I don't know if you have Template talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on your watchlist, so I thought I would leave the message here that I also left there:

"Is there really any need for this template? By just adding the MCU template to the AoS pages, you get links to the season 1 and characters page, and all of the other links can easily be found in logical places within the individual links provided (e.g. the character links are all on the character page). I know many tv series have their own templates, but the only reason I could see AoS needing a separate template from the MCU is if all of its episodes had individual articles, in which case an AoS episodes template could be created, like Template:Game of Thrones episodes. Several other series just use overall franchise templates, including Game of Thrones (Template:ASOIAF), DreamWorks Dragons (Template:How to Train Your Dragon), and The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (Template:Indiana Jones), so AoS won't be alone if it doesn't have its own template. Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this?"

- adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

New 52

Why do you keep removing the collapsible class from this page? I even left a comment within the page explaining why I was making this change. This page was collapsible several months ago and it made navigation so much easier. This page is very long and is supposed to be a quick reference. It takes forever to scroll to the bottom. I've edited this page several times but only this one feature keeps getting removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.225.6 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

In the article's featured list nomination, it was determined that using unnecessary collapsible lists for the content posed WP:ACCESS issues. Please do not change this again. If you feel so strongly on this, start a talk page discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I guess that settles that. I didn't even know these talk pages existed. I forgot my login so I thought people were just looking at this like "this idiot thinks he can edit these pages. Ha. I'll get rid of his changes." I felt it was easier to navigate the page when it was collapsible but I guess I'm the minority. ...and I believe in a voting system so I accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.225.6 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not use voting, it uses consensus. And that was determined in the FL nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) 12.234.225.6 The vast majority of editors here don't blindly revert IP edits, they only revert with good reason. It was clear you were acting in good faith, but you just happened to be unwittingly acting against consensus. Hard to fault you for trying to help. Corvoe (speak to me) 20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Infobox on GOTG

Thank you for that change. I was torn on where to put it, since the lead paragraph doesn't say anything about the soundtrack itself. Corvoe (speak to me) 19:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I understand your placement, but it is fine to be along side the lead paragraph, since the section is about the music in the film. We can tweak it should any other info comes out, or they release an orchestra score as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection

Hi, Favre1fan93.

I requested yesterday the semi-protection of the List of films based on Marvel Comics, and today it's semi-protected for a period of three months. Tks for your help.OscarFercho (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Triple Crown

It is my pleasure to award Favre1fan93 with this Imperial Triple Crown Jewels for all his work on content here on the English Wikipedia. Congratulations! → Call me Hahc21 20:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)