User talk:Darkknight2149

Remember

If I don't respond immediately, I am probably busy. If that is the case, I'll get back to you as soon as I can.

TCM

Main page: User talk:Bignole § Canon

He can say "current canon" all he wants. We write based on historical perspective, which means that there we wouldn't say "current canon" because it plays into recentism and puts undue weight on the most recent films. There is no "official current canon". There is where his film falls in line with the other films. He wants to say that it officially takes place before the original 1974 film, that's perfectly fine. But as far as Wikipedia would reflect it, it's merely that...his film's placement.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:16, 30 May 2017 (UTC) ]

The Conjuring RM

Hey, I started a move discussion at Talk:The Conjuring (film series) (citing your own words) before actually reviewing the discussion and realizing I may have jumped the gun, so you can just blank that section if you’d prefer to keep it to NCF talk for now. I thought a move discussion might get more visibility, but you can just delete it or {{hat}} it or something with my blessing and apologies if you want, since I used your words. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:51, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

An innocent error. I don't think removing it or hatting it would be the best idea for now, since users have already cast their votes. Removing it would probably look suspicious on my part; like I'm trying to dictate the discussion. DarkKnight2149 20:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Just a heads up: I have just edited WP:NCF in a way that I imagine you disagree with as strongly as I do. But guidelines reflect practice, and if consensus insists on misusing the word apparently as a form of WIkipedian jargon, the guideline has to describe that misuse. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

On the Topic of the Leatherface Film...

Hello DK2149. Just wanted to let you know that you are doing a great job with the article for the upcoming Leatherface film, hopefully it will become GA status once the film is released. There are a couple of pieces of information that need to be added to the article. One piece of information which is widely stated in a lot of articles on the film is how the film's release date was not announced for so long and at one point another film with a similar title was mistakenly thought to be the film. Also, information on the film's rating (which should be briefly stated in the release section as well as the marketing of the film's trailer should also be added to the article. This article is looking good and I can't wait to see the end result. Hopefully our collaboration with the article on Begotten will go as well as this one. Take care. ;) --Paleface Jack (talk) 14:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Thanks. I will update the article accordingly, though I have admittedly been unable to find a precise reason for the film's delay and transition to V.O.D. (Bloody Disgusting speculates the studio may have been reacting to the under-performance of Blair Witch). With the film with the similar title, am I correct to presume you refer to this one?

I can take a look at the Begotten draft when I have the chance. I noticed the article at Begotten (film) has a template asking for additional sources. Do you have anything specific in mind for the revision draft, especially in terms of expansion and/or re-writings? DarkKnight2149 05:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

It's all in the talk page of the revision draft. As for the other Leatherface film, yes that is the one.--Paleface Jack (talk) 20:53, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Possible sock

Hi , Darknight. The two redlink editors with "No" in their names, User:No20123 and User:No1092, do seem like sockpuppets. Without delving into all their edits in order to give examples of highly similar edits, no SPI can be started. If you decide to start one, showing similar edits as made by the sock at the SPI Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/97.95.13.3/Archive would help. If you do decide to start an SPI, let me know and I'll try to help investigate. If you need a model to follow, here's a recent SPI I commenced, which might help: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/WIkiWiki1980/Archive. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:04, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Already blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Amygdala Source?

Where is this talk page source source that allowed us to link the Gotham appearance to the page? Thanks, Klayman55 (talk) 22:41, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Klayman55

@Klayman55: I know I linked a citation when the Gotham appearance was added. It must have been removed in my absence from WP:COMICS. I'll fix it. DarkKnight2149 23:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

@Klayman55: Ah, now I remember. It was sourced by multiple sources, but Jack Sebastian removed it and insisted that there was a problem with WP:SYN. He can be quite overbearing when it comes to linking characters to their comic counterparts when they appear in other media, so you will have to completely take that up with him. DarkKnight2149 23:18, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Overbearing here. I actually tend to insist that connections between comic book characters and their tv/film/some/etc. counterparts are linked via RS, and not our personal Sherlocking. If that is overbearing, so be it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, of the "multiple sources presented", the first one is looking for someone to cast as Amygdala, the second is referring to Helzinger (and not Amygdala), the third refers to Minority Report (a series canceled after a single season), and the fourth is a Youtube video (which we almost never utilize as a source, due to the flighty nature of Youtube). And amazingly enough, none of these sources are sufficient connection to list Gotham as an appearance by Amygdala. Lets nip this in the bud, and not run into the crap that preceded the dumpster fire of every contributor who swore that Jerome was the Joker. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Good day, Jack. This is Klayman55's inquiry, so I won't be going in dept (you'll want to discuss this in further detail with them). But, to clarify the sources, let's for the moment completely disregard that Aaron Helzinger and Amygdala are the same character (even in the comics themselves). Is the first source is looking for someone to play Amygdala? Okay. The second is the synopsis for the episode, listing actor Stink Fisher as Aaron Helzinger. The third (where did you get Minority Report?) is the exact same synopsis, listing the exact same cast in the exact same order, with the only difference being that the exact same actor Stink Fisher (who only plays one character in the entire episode, BTW) is now listed as "Amygdala" in place of "Aaron Helzinger" (because Aaron Helzinger and Amygdala were already the same character long before Gotham even existed). As for the final source, YouTube (per WP:VIDEOREF) can be used as a source in this instance, as it is posted by the verified official Gotham channel. And, even there was genuine "sherlocking" involved, this source alone is enough reason to list Stink Fisher as playing Amygdala on Gotham at Amygdala (comics) (even if we are going to unnecessarily sidestep everything having to do with "Aaron Helzinger" on the series, who was already the same character as Amygdala in the first place). DarkKnight2149 01:25, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, DK, I know that Amygdala is Helzinger, but my knowledge isn't any more citable than yours. As for the Minority Report mix-up, cite better next time. And with regards to the Youtube source, you might want to read up on using YT as a source. We try to avoid it if at all possible. So, just, dn't use it. Find other sources. You seem to think they are everywhere. Use one of those. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

(moved back over here from my talk page, since it is part of this conversation)

I'm not going to bother arguing with you that stating "Aaron Helzinger" and "Amygdala" are the same character is "sherlocking", but the one thing you can't deny is the fact that the official site at least says that Stink Fisher plays Amygdala. So even if we're going to completely ignore every single thing that "Aaron Helzinger" did on Gotham as if he's a separate character, this is more than enough to simply state "Stink Fisher portrays Amygdala on Gotham", full stop. DarkKnight2149 02:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

That wasn't the argument you were making with a third person unaware of the original discussion from almost 2 years ago, DK. If that one source was the reference you were going to hang your hat on, you shouldn't have been fluffing your numbers - you needed to just list one. And every single time you take an ill-considered cheap shot at me, I am going to make sure you get called on it. I think we're done here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 02:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I did present this exact source multiple times in that original discussion and here. And I'm not fluffing my numbers. I'm just done with this discussion, and really had no interest in dragging it back up to begin with (this was originally Klayman's inquiry). And, as can be seen here, even you admit that the Fox source is enough to at the very least suggest that Amygdala was in the show, which does raise the question of why you didn't just remove everything pertaining to Aaron Helzinger in that dispute instead of just removing everything in general. Though, you should keep an eye on that page, because other users that don't know that this is disputed have been restoring the Aaron Helzinger information. Honestly, I haven't been editing WP:COMICS much lately, as I've been busy with other stuff. DarkKnight2149 03:13, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Dude, it was almost two years ago. Why are you still bitching about this? Put the woman down already. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Begotten and Leatherface

Hello DK2149. Just wanted to thank you on your edits to the Leatherface film article. There are a couple of things that still need to be worked on such as fixing some broken citations and expanding the release section (I will be working on expanding that section myself when I have the time so don't you worry about that). I was also wanting to ask you if you are still interested in expanding the article on the film Begotten with me? I am currently having issues with trying to merge it with the short sequel Din of Celestial Birds since there was no feedback on whether or not the merge should happen and, according to this site we can merge it. Any help with this would be appreciated (other tasks for this article are on the talk page of the userspace). I have a separate space that I created for edits and expansions as I do with all articles I do this for. Please let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:50, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Yes, I am very sorry about the wait. I am still planning to assist with the Begotten article. The reason for my absence can be chalked up to sheer busy-ness both on-and-off Wiki (even now, I have to open an SPI on a troll sock puppeteer that keeps creating accounts mimicking my username specifically to spam my notifications and vandalise articles). I can push back some of what I am doing to go ahead and help with the merger. By the way, let me know if you have anything specific in mind for improving Chatterer. I know that is another one you mentioned. As far as the draft Leatherface article goes, I expanded the "Characterisation". I think we just need to add Texas Chainsaw 3D and the two Platinum Dunes remake films to that section (also more character information pertaining to Leatherface 2017, when that film is released). DarkKnight2149 00:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Jack, can you please link me to the merger discussion? DarkKnight2149 00:56, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, here it is Talk:Din of Celestial Birds. As far as the Leatherface userspace, I have been putting that off for a while now since it took so much out of me the last time I worked on it. I will try to get back to that when I can since I have a ton of information that I still need to add to the article. As far as that is concerned, I also think we need to add a little background on each actor who portrayed the character, although that's not major. Thanks for the help man! ;)--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:03, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Finally fixed a major issue in my revision draft for Begotten. Still trying to get enough information to expand the Themes and Legacy sections. It's starting to look pretty good although it still needs some major additions. As for you being busy, I get it, I was very busy most this summer so take your time.--Paleface Jack (talk) 16:24, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I'm reading over the Begotten draft and its Talk Page as we speak, to see what all needs to be done. I've also started scouting for sources to finish the Characterisation section at the Leatherface draft. Regarding Begotten, have their been any other home media releases besides what's listed? I saw the "Expand" template and, after researching it, I could only find information pertaining to the DVD, VHS, and upcoming Blu-Ray (which are already listed). I may be missing something. DarkKnight2149 18:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

No, not yet anyway. The reason for the update tag on that particular section is in regards to Merhige's announcement of its Blue-Ray release. For that we will need to keep a close eye out for more information on that. In regards to Leatherface, I've been meaning to get back to working on that since I've amassed a good amount of information saved into multiple documents that I haven't gotten around to adding yet since I was taking a break from working on that article. My mistake was to take on that article by myself with little in regards to help (although I thank Bignole for some major additions), and the fact that I've never really worked on a character article before. I will probably start working on that again as soon as I feel up for it so thanks for the help.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:42, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I'm doing some more work on the Leatherface draft right now. This might prove useful later (designs from Mortal Kombat X, including an unused Texas Chainsaw 3D skin). DarkKnight2149 22:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Nice! I also had a couple of ideas for the Texas Chainsaw 3d one since they released some unused concept art of the character as well.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:29, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

I am working on an edit of the Userspace Leatherface article at the moment. Will post the edit soon.

Battlefield: A Vandalism Editing War

Hello DarkK. Just thought I'd let you know that I am currently in an editing war right now on the article for the upcoming film Happy Hunting. Some user keeps adding unnecessary and excessive listing of film festivals the film appears in. I don't know if that would be considered vandalism bit it IS unnecessary. I'm gonna give him a warning to stop then I will see what to do next if it continues.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:48, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Some of this information can be added via rewriting it so that it's a paragraph rather than a box list. I already told the user the first time however they're not responding.--Paleface Jack (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Since the user is clearly outnumbered in regards to the inclusion of their edit (per: [1], [2], [3]), I left them a message asking them to cease what they are doing and join the discussion. If they continue to avoid discussion and edit war, you may have to report them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. DarkKnight2149 01:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Alright. Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Do you have multiple-personality disorder?

I was just wondering if you have multiple-personality disorder, seeing as how you seem to have trouble getting along with yourself. You even made the accusation that the image you removed from Chucky (Child's Play) was a copyright violation, and that image was uploaded by none other than you! So I don't know if you're serious, but I'm inclined to replace the image on that page, seeing as how if it is a copyright violation, the file itself should be removed - copyright law doesn't care about a reference (and that is what is on the page), it's the copyrighted content itself being hosted on Wikimedia servers that is the offense.

Gluten-Free Marijuana (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gluten-Free Marijuana: Take a good hard look at WP:NFCC. We do not freely distribute non-free images throughout Wikipedia. Non-free images are typically uploaded for a specific purpose in a specific article, not twenty different articles. DarkKnight2149 01:42, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I know... but now you replaced it with another non-free image from a movie.... how is that any better? Gluten-Free Marijuana (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Gluten-Free Marijuana: Because the previous non-free image was uploaded specifically for Cult of Chucky and therefore cannot be distributed to other articles. Our image policies explain it all. DarkKnight2149 01:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sorry to jump in (and under a rather offensive heading), but if there’s any restriction on how many times we can use any particular instance of non-free content, I must be missing it. I do see restrictions on the number of items that may be used (WP:NFC#3), and a requirement to use it in at least one article (WP:NFC#7), but where can I find something supporting a limitation on the number of uses of an item? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 01:45, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#Enforcement, "A file with a valid non-free-use rationale for some (but not all) articles it is used in will not be deleted. Instead, the file should be removed from the articles for which it lacks a non-free-use rationale, or a suitable rationale added." DarkKnight2149 04:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. Thanks! Of course, editing the file’s rationale is always an option. But in this case, I agree that the present image is a better fit than a movie poster/boxart. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 18:30, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:NCF RFC for “film franchise” disambiguator

Hey, could I ask for your input on this RFC draft before I post it to WT:NCF? Just want to make sure it reads clearly and I’m not misstating anything, and there may be better example films to use. Feel free to make any edits directly if you wish. Thanks in advance. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 04:21, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

RFC: “film franchise” disambiguator

Should a “film franchise” disambiguator be added to WP:NCF#Disambiguation? Also, should “media franchise” be used where appropriate, rather than simply “franchise”? See rationale below [to keep the RFC listing neutral]. —~~~~

Rationale

Currently, this guideline says to use “film series” to disambiguate any collection of movies, even if they’re not directly related (e.g., the Harry Potter films and Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them), and even if they take place in distinct fictional universes (e.g., Batman Returns and Batman Begins). There has been some disagreement over whether “series” should be used this broadly. We could instead use “film series” to refer only to films that are closely associated with one another, and use “film franchise” otherwise. For instance, the Schumacher/Burton Batman movies from the 1990s make up one film series, and the Dark Knight Trilogy is another, but they’re all part of the Batman film franchise. And with the comics, TV shows, toys, etc., they comprise a media franchise.

Primarily, the rationale against this disambiguator has been disagreement over the meanings of “film series” and “film franchise,” including the claim that there is no difference between the two terms. Another point of opposition was that we shouldn’t “fix” something just because it could be improved. And there’s been some confusion and disagreement over whether it would be an all-or-nothing change.

Then again, many articles about more than one tight series don’t follow these naming conventions at all (we’ve come up with better titles, such as Batman in film and James Bond in film, or Marvel Cinematic Universe; or we keep the series separate, like The Lord of the Rings (film series) and The Hobbit (film series)), so it may be worth just rewriting these portions to better match the practice of seeking alternatives. —~~~~

Alright. I appreciate the notification. DarkKnight2149 21:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Replied. Again, thank you. My attention had been drawn elsewhere by the time this came up. DarkKnight2149 22:04, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

No, I mean, this is to be the text of the RFC. What do you think? Should any changes be made before posting it? Edit: Posted this before reading the NCF responses. Maybe no RFC. Or at least, not until we find a new angle on the issue. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

List of horror films of 2017

Hi Darkknight2149, I've updated the List of horror films of 2017 article. I noticed you added a banner that it requires an update. Would you say its ok to remove now? or are there further issues to resolve? Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:05, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: It still appears somewhat short for a definitive list of all the 2017 horror films, but I'm sure people will add to it as time passes. I have no objections to just removing the template. DarkKnight2149 22:31, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Jigsaw credits

"Note that people have also been trying to remove this long before the film was even released"

Yeah, emphasis on BEFORE the film was released. It's out. Tobin Bell is credited as part of the main cast and in the full end credit roll. Go see it if you don't believe me. This is what happens when you fetishise "reliable sources" at the expense of common sense. Please stop changing it back, it's wrong. TR-BT (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Please take a look at WP:NOTTRUTH. We have a quote from the director stating that he's not in the credits, listed in by a reliable third party (Entertainment Weekly). If you can find a more recent reliable source that directly states that he is listed in the credits, then use it. Remember, Wikipedia is built on verifiability. The problem with this information is that it is coming directly from you, having seen in the movie, and not such a source. With some information, such as the plot, the film's release would normally be enough. But in this particular situation, it's not sufficient. DarkKnight2149 01:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Have you seen the film? If not, are you still not going to edit the page once you have and see that the current revision is wrong? TR-BT (talk) 01:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC) P.S. Just saw your latest edit summary. "This is absurd" indeed. And FWIW, I've posted on the talk page.

"And FWIW, I've posted on the talk page." - Then there's nothing left to say here. DarkKnight2149 02:54, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Images of the other killers

Since there is one image of Stu Macher and Billy Loomis the original Ghostface killers, could you add in three more images of the other Ghostface killers please?

1. [Loomis] and [Altieri], the second Ghostface killers.

2. [Bridger], the third and final Ghostface killer.

3. [Roberts] and [Walker], the fourth and new Ghostface killers. 31.48.57.250 (talk) 21:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)