Jump to content

User talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< User talk:Darkwarriorblake

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gerald Waldo Luis (talk | contribs) at 14:22, 24 February 2022 (→‎Signpost query: Replying to Darkwarriorblake (using reply-link)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you so much for bringing Groundhog Day (film) to FA. This will probably seem so random, but this was the first movie I've watched in ages (did it for an English class), and afterward I had this philosophical and strangely euphoric experience. Then I went to Wikipedia to learn a bit more about the film and saw that it was an FA, which just made me so happy. Thanks again; it was a big part of a rare moment of joy in a rather bleak time. Sincerely, Ovinus (talk) 05:03, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ovinus, that makes it all worth it tbh. I was a fan of Groundhog Day beforehand but I didn't realize the scope of its development or later impact until I began working on it. It's always nice to work on articles that have lots of readers and that actually means something to people. Also, watch more movies! Have a great holiday season. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 08:37, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, and you too! Ovinus (talk) 17:59, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Back to the Future § Plot summary revamp

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Back to the Future § Plot summary revamp. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 09:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliens (film) copyedit


Aliens

I appreciate the thanks! I feel like our friend Kimand299 is being disruptive to make some sort of point (although what, I don't know), but I'm at my third revert so I'll need to hold off on repairing their damage for now. Any ideas on how we can get them to actually listen? NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've had to report the user to the admins for edit warring, because they're way over their third edit despite being told to stop and discuss. Unfortunately not much more we can do for now as frustrating as it is. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for doing that - I really have no idea what their horse in this particular race is; you've been very clear about the BFI guidelines, and even their own AFI source clearly says "Made by Twentieth Century Fox Productions Ltd. at Pinewood Studios, London, England, with location sequences filmed at Acton Lane Power Station, London, England." I'm not sure how much more undisputed it could be! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:26, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It will be for jingoistic reasons, I imagine the user is American and takes umbrage at some other country claiming a hand in a film they believe is theirs alone. Hopefully an admin will intervene soon. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Blarf, you're probably right. Thank you again! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:30, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, they've tried to counter-report you. Badly. Breaks your heart to see it! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day (film) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Groundhog Day (film) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 2 February 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 2, 2021. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good timing: thank you today for Groundhog Day (film), "No fancy intro, this is Groundhog Day, even if you've never seen it, you've heard the term. Classed as one of the greatest comedy films ever made ..." - Have a good new year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:34, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for making the April fool repetition ´possible. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Never realized how popular Groundhog Day is until it appeared on the front page in Feb and rocked 140K views! Thanks Gerda Arendt Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wish you more ;) - Bach cantata on 4 April will garner a more modest number. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for Die Hard, "about the 1988 action film Die Hard starring Bruce Willis and the inimitable Alan Rickman"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for South Park: The Stick of Truth, "about the 2014 role playing video game developed by Obsidian Entertainment and based on the long running comedy television show South Park created by Trey Parker and Matt Stone"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Gerda Arendt! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
... and today for Raiders of the Lost Ark, "about the 1981 action-adventure film Raiders of the Lost Ark (a.k.a. Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark). Though not my favourite film in the series it's the most important one, not just for the film series itself but for its influence on films that followed, it's massive success, and somehow George Lucas was making this and The Empire Strikes Back simultaneously. Questionable talent that he may have become, the man was a genius at his peak."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:45, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again Gerda Arendt. Yes it's my 2nd favourite after Last Crusade, the other two I don't talk about. I'm slooooowly working on Empire Strikes Back, and it's all the more impressive because Empire was basically a trainwreck production wise and like 23 million over budget, and even so, he created both films that have a legacy 40 years later. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:57, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for Groundhog Day (film)

The Original Barnstar
For Groundhog Day (film), a beautifully written article. I glanced over it briefly and found I couldn't stop reading. I shall resist the temptation to repeat this award every 24 hours.GRuban (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much GRuban, I really appreciate your words and it makes the time invested all the more worth it. For a romantic comedy it really has an interesting behind-the-scenes aspect and a lasting impact afterward that it's a shame its article spent so long in such a bare bones state beforehand. I can come back to read some parts every month just because it is interesting, and I'm a big fan of both Ramis and Murray. Have a great day! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Haven't looked at the article for ages, but thought I'd pop along to it now to improve it .... then noticed it had just been on the main page. Superb effort, well written and thoroughly deserving of the FA star, although I will say the opening exchange at the FAC is why I don't bother with FAs. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tell me about it, I don't mind a Themes section where it is relevant, but it was pretty solid section as is without knowing how a university rando thinks. I'm getting a bit fed up with the FA process tbh, it's so arbitrary, but these good films deserve to be recognised more prominently. Glad you appreciate it, it was one of my biggest efforts. Pretty psyched to see it had 140,000(!!!) viewers on Feb 2nd.

Thanks

Thanks for the work you did to make Groundhog Day (film) an FA. Seeing it on the main page today made me smile. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Floquenbeam, glad it made your day! Hopefully it will make your day tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after, and the day... Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike almost every other film I can think of, Groundhog Day gets better and better every time I watch it. Do you ever log onto Wikipedia, have a look at your watchlist, and think "didn't I see this yesterday, or the day before .... in fact isn't WP doing the same thing every day, over and over again ...." :-/ Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Great job! Liferific (talk) 02:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Liferific! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:11, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RoboCop, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Japanese and Frank Miller.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:07, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of RoboCop

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RoboCop 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite rt

I fixed your deletion nomination for you. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Editor's Barnstar
I wanted to say I'm sorry for being a bit of a pain at the article for The Thing a few years back. I wasn't familiar with Wiki policies and didn't really know what I was doing. Since then I have read a lot of your work, and it's always exceptional. ~ HAL333 22:43, 14 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
HAL333, thank you, I don't honestly remember you being a pain on The Thing so don't worry about it. I can be a bit like the unmovable object sometimes. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:57, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RoboCop

Congrats dude! The article you were working on, RoboCop, has passed the GA-criteria, becoming a good article on February 15, 2021. Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this interesting image of a dog staring straight at you (but in a cute way). Enjoy!
Some Dude From North Carolinawanna talk? 13:33, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Some Dude From North Carolina, that pic made me smile. Thanks for doing a thorough review, I appreciate them more than an easy pass. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of RoboCop

The article RoboCop you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RoboCop for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some wings

Buffalo Wings
From a guy in a suburb in Buffalo, New York and a wing fanatic, here's some wings for ya for your plethora of film articles inspiring me to get my groove on with editing this online encyclopedia even more. Your efforts on RoboCop, Ghostbusters II and Groundhog Day influenced me so much to do the same for other film articles (such as on those terrible RoboCop sequels). Your work is phenomenal. Keep it up! HumanxAnthro (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you HumanxAnthro, I'm glad I helped you, but spend your time on better articles than those terrible RoboCop sequels! XD Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:02, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hehehe. Hey, someone's got do it, and I'll be the guy improving articles on less popular stuff. Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia of every notable topic (event terrible ones). I particularly took influence in your themes section, what sources you cited and how you represented them, plus those upright photo thumbnail formats I'll admit I just had to copy. HumanxAnthro (talk) 23:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copy edit of RoboCop


There are two templates that I left on the page, which need to be resolved. One (clarification needed) concerns submitting the initial script to "business associates" which seemed un-satisfyingly vague. The other (citation needed) concerns my naming Erica Phillips as the Saturn Awards–nominated costume designer who didn't win. She was the only nominee in that paragraph not named, but I couldn't find a reference naming her, just a mention on the relevant Saturn Awards page. Those issues could be resolved by leaving it vague and not naming Phillips, but I think the article would be weaker for that. Dhtwiki (talk) 12:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Dhtwiki, the Saturn Award thing can't be resolved as far as I'm aware, that's why I left her out as much as I do not prefer to. The Saturn awards official site only lists winners, and the award show doesn't seem to be covered consistently and competently, especially from that time period. The former issue, I'm not sure I can make it clearer, I think the sources just say business associates or friends, but I'll have another read. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I plan to start undoing my templates soon, especially the one involving Saturn Awards, unless you find some new sources or get to the undoing before me. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:43, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

DÅRTHBØTTØ (T•C) 09:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day (film) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that, by popular request, the Groundhog Day (film) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 1, 2021. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2021.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:13, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited RoboCop, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nancy Allen.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Die Hard/archive2

Comments from yours truly have been provided. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 03:22, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

1996 FA Film

Hey there, DarkWarriorBlake, and great work with the Die Hard FA. I notice your current project has one year in the 1990s not determined, 1996. I have a great idea for it, given that a remake of it is upcoming: Space Jam. Seriously, go for it! I'd be happy to help! 👨x🐱 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe. I was hoping to work on the Matrix first, but Space Jam might be a smaller project. I need to finish The Empire Strikes Back first. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:53, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Die Hard

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Die Hard, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:07, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Die Hard scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 13, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or for Featured Articles promoted recently from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slimer

I added two images on the article and can't decide which one is better on the infobox. i will let you do it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The one you've picked is fine NeoBatfreak Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think two pictures too much?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 22:53, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
They're showing different things, so as long as the commentary supports them it's fine since I assume they're Non-Free. Anything is better than that terrible Ghostbusters 2016 image that was there before. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:57, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
well, my first was Johnson's initial concept before the costume stage. Plus, I really prefer things to be faithful to the first film, ans yes, avoiding the terrible 2016 screenshot.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Again, thabk you for helping--NeoBatfreak (talk) 01:03, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:09, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Blaze Infernus (talk) 17:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Darkwarriorblake! I've sent you an email seeking clarification about the edit I had recently made that you reverted. :) Thanks!

Marvel Cinematic Universe Good Article Reassessment

Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ghostbusters characters

I made some additions. Feel free to take a look--NeoBatfreak (talk) 17:41, 16 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine, I don't really follow the character lists, the only thing I'd change is the links to the main character articles from a bold link at the start of a paragraph to the "main article" template we use. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:00, 17 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Peer review/The 40-Year-Old Virgin/archive1

Hello there! Since you seem to have a good idea of how to craft movie articles, I thought you could provide some helpful insight for the aforementioned peer review whenever you get a chance. Perhaps it could be a good way to pass the time while waiting for HumanxAnthro to finish reviewing the Raiders of the Lost Ark FAC. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 23:54, 29 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Raiders of the Lost Ark

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Raiders of the Lost Ark, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hooray for the nomination passing! SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SNUGGUMS, another film that was long overdue for an upgrade. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure thing, and I agree with you. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I really enjoyed reading this article (like many, I'm a fan of the movie). Thanks! Moisejp (talk) 03:31, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Moisejp Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Raiders of the Lost Ark scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 2 August, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page if one has been posted. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, now switched to 29 August. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

South Park: The Stick of Truth scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 August, 2021. Please check that the article needs no amendments. A coordinator will draft a blurb - based on your draft if the TFA came via TFA requests, or from an existing blurb on the FAC talk page if one has been posted. Feel free to comment on this. We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters

Hey, do me a favour: if you're going to keep undoing my edits, at least explain why. I've given cogent reason for my changes. Do me the courtesy of the same. FishAndCrisps (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did explain. I disagreed with your edit. The content passed FA as it is and I believe the content is fair. You don't. That's not a reason. I invoked WP:BRD which means go talk on the talk page, where we can disagree to your heart's content without you fucking with the content of a Featured Article. EDIT: Especially on Ghostbusters II, the content you are removing is sourced in the article and the lead is a summary of the article, so you are removing sourced content because you disagree with it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There's no disagreement. It's still the same content, just written to be more objective. FishAndCrisps (talk) 16:38, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the same content when you're removing context and a bunch of text. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Darkwarriorblake. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

BOTTO (T•C) 20:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about touching your user page - I wasn't looking carefully enough! BOTTO (T•C) 20:24, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diligence

The Barnstar of Diligence
You have done remarkable work on the page Jonathan Schwartz (producer) and correlating topics - without seeking reward. You brought the topic of an amazing producer to an amazing state and I am forever grateful. For your efforts, I present you with this long-overdue barnstar. BOTTO (T•C) 00:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem Botto, glad to help, and yes nice meeting you on Reddit :) Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:49, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Bbb23 (talk) 11:55, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And personal attacks such as this are inappropriate. Miniapolis 22:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters (2016 film)

What do you think of my recent contributions to Ghostbusters (2016 film)?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine? I don't watch that article because the film is bad. I will say that "The story focuses on four eccentric, intelligent women (and their incompetent assistant) who fancy themselves as parapsychologists and start a ghost-catching business in New York City" is not written particularly well. Is the black woman intelligent? My understanding is she's a tram ticket lady. street smart maybe. And does the incompetent assistant fancy himself as a parapsychologist or start the ghost-catching business? I'd drop the intelligence assessments altogether and stick with eccentric women who found a ghost catching business. Also the plot is too long for something I believe is huge swathes of just riffing dialogue against each other.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters 2 (music)

So I don't understand why you removed info I added regarding the Edelman score being recently released by Sony Classical. I also provided a link for reference. This seems odd you would remove this. Can you give a good explanation as to why you did? Also, shouldn't soundtrack info be in the music section, not "home media"??? That makes zero sense. So instead of removing what I added, shouldn't we remove the redundant and less detailed soundtrack info that's in the "home media" area and only have it in the "music" section? You know, where it actually belongs? And only crediting the song 'Flesh 'N Blood' to Elfman alone, when it is actually an Oingo Boingo song, is incorrect info.

I can provide reference links for the other songs that are still missing from being listed on this article. It seems odd to only have certain songs listed for the soundtrack.

Why would you talk about billboard listings and home media releases in a section talking about the production of music for the film? You wouldn't. You'd talk about it in the home media section that discusses separate releases for home consumption. I didn't notice the bit you added about the Edelman score because I was busy trying to pull apart the unsourced info you'd thrown in everywhere else, but just listing every song in the film isn't appropriate or necessary. You'd be better off creating Music of Ghostbusters II or something like Back to the Future soundtracks. I'll re-add the Edelman info. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:44, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
You like Indiana Jones! KrystopherNystrom (talk) 00:05, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good Job! --Panini!🥪 02:44, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Surreal Barnstar
To call your work on The Empire Strikes Back unbelievable is an understatement. Your rewrite is absolutely astonishing. Keep it up!! JOEBRO64 16:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks buddy, it's been a long one. I had to read a 360 page book for most of that info. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:15, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have the book you're talking about and yeah I can't even begin to fathom how difficult it was. JOEBRO64 17:23, 2 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Copying within Wikipedia

You may wish to read WP:COPYWITHIN as you appear to have copied massive chunks of the Empire Strikes Back article for the special effects article without correct attribution. Canterbury Tail talk 11:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You'll have to clarify what you mean Canterbury Tail, I wrote both articles and there's only about 3 modified paragraphs from the main article that I've expanded on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Um you did not write the entirety of the Empire Strikes Back article, you’ve made edits to it yes, but for example the opening paragraph which has been copied verbatim to the special effects article is largely unchanged for a long time and you were not the sole contributor. All you need to do is log and acknowledge the paragraphs that have been copied in the history so it’s properly attributed. Ask it stands it implies you wrote that opening paragraph with no other input for example. You just need to put in a blank edit or such stating what was copied from where and the attribution will be handled. I’d recommend doing it before the article gets edited and altered more, as that opening paragraph mostly will be changed anyway as it’s not really relevant to the article you’re making.
Note, good work on all this anyway by the way. I know Rinzler isn’t the most riveting read. Canterbury Tail talk 11:54, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Err, every word after the plot is undoubtedly mine, not just minor edits thanks. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah hundreds of editors have made edits to the ESB article after the plot in the last couple of years, so no every word cannot be yours, but that’s not the discussion here. The opening paragraph has been pretty stable for many many years, I’m even one of the editors on that, which is something that was copied wholesale from ESB to the special effects article and needs the attribution applied. All that is needed here is an attribution line in the history saying x paragraph was copied from Y article and see that pages history for attribution. Canterbury Tail talk 12:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Writing thematic analysis

Based on your experience, can you help write a thematic analysis for a potential film-related featured article. Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It would depend on the article, if I'm not interested in the film it's really hard to be motivated. I can help source information and do some writing for you if you're willing to copy edit and write up the rest. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:50, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, Frozen II, Thanks. Wingwatchers (talk) 14:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm...I can take a look, I;m sure there's plenty of analysis about it. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:55, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there's numerous sources on its talk page. Wingwatchers (talk) 15:10, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Writer's Barnstar
I never thought anyone would be capable of doing this, I initially thought you would ignore the message, but unexpectedly you were working all this time. My biggest Thank You to you. Wingwatchers (talk) 20:13, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, bit hard to find too many sources but it's a relatively new film. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:23, 11 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Empire Strikes Back

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Empire Strikes Back 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 SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Citation bot

Why did you revert[1] Citation bot's edit[2] to Groundhog Day (film)?

The bot spent a long time processing that page after @Abductive suggested it, and its changes look good to me. You did not explain your revert. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:52, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It changes "cite web" to magazine, despite hte contents being websites, not magazines. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As explained at User_talk:Citation_bot#Untitled_new_bug, https://www.rollingstone.com is the website of a magazine called Rolling Stone. In your malformed and mistaken bug report[3] you described it as "Rolling Stones", which is a band. You misread the whole thing, and are now lashing out. Please start being civil. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You think I'm lashing out over the fucking Rolling Stones? I've explained it to you multiple times we're not citing magazines. It's affecting other sites like GameInformer and labeling news websites as NEWS when cite web does the exact same thing and news is specifically for when referencing pages and sections. I know this from 5 minutes reading in the last 40 minutes so why don't you? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:11, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If there's one thing I can't stand it's explaining something multiple times. It's worse when I explain it and the other person is adamant they are right despite all evidence to the contrary. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you start listening to others, and stop behaving so aggressively and insultingly, this will have to be escalated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've raised a bunch of articles to featured status, you don't do that unless you're willing to listen to all the critical views at review. I've presented you with evidence and reasoning and you've ignored it, which one of us isn't listening?Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you know what, I apologize for everything, I am wrong, you were right, this has taken up too much time. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:48, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Months of African Cinema Global Contest!

Greetings!

The AfroCine Project core team is happy to inform you that the Months of African Cinema Contest is happening again this year in October and November. We invite Wikipedians all over the world to join in improving content related to African cinema on Wikipedia!

Please list your username under the participants’ section of the contest page to indicate your interest in participating in this contest. The term "African" in the context of this contest, includes people of African descent from all over the world, which includes the diaspora and the Caribbean.

The following prizes would be recognized at the end of the contest:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap fillers - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Also look out for local prizes from affiliates in your countries or communities! For further information about the contest, the prizes and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. We look forward to your participation.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:20, 30th September 2021 (UTC)

Ýou can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

Unsolicited advice

With respect to the current ANI thread in which you are embroiled, and in particular your comment the situation was aggravated by the other editor not myself, I think the discussion will wrap up much more quickly if you were to acknowledge the (obvious and not particularly damning) fact that the situation was aggravated by both of you. You might even suggest that, in the future, you will try to find less combative ways to communicate. Given the obvious provocation to which you were subjected (and in particular given that you were substantively correct), it is unlikely that anyone will be interested in pursuing the matter of your behavior further if you can make a basic recognition that it was suboptimal. Just my two cents. --JBL (talk) 11:35, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GOCE copyedit request

I've begun my first pass at copyediting the article Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back. Please expect a ping on the article's talk page as I will most likely have questions. My process can be found here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 22:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tenryuu Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:42, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Empire Strikes Back

The article The Empire Strikes Back you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:The Empire Strikes Back for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of The Empire Strikes Back

The article The Empire Strikes Back you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Empire Strikes Back for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 17:21, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire Strikes Back

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article The Empire Strikes Back has been completed.

There are several things I'll draw to your attention.

I found the punctuation to indicate possession was inconsistent. I standardized it as "s' " throughout the article.

I added a "clarification" tag after this sentence from the Casting section - Prowse hesitated to return as Darth Vader but was told that he should agree or he would be replaced. because it is unclear to me. It seems obvious Lucas would replace him if he didn't return and Prowse would know that. Was there a reason he was hesitant?

Most of the WP geographic links were removed. They are largely unnecessary.

This sentence from the Filming at Elstree section is unclear. Lucas worried he would have to sell Empire to Fox to sustain the project, and Fox was rumored to be planning a hostile takeover. There are two different subjects being discussed here. Lucas is worried about finances and Fox is launching a takeover. Is there a connection? What was Fox's target?

In the Other Media section this sentence was not clear to me A Star Wars comic book series launched in 1977 by Marvel Comics, adapting the original trilogy films beginning Empire's run in 1980, written by Archie Goodwin and Carmine Infantino.

In the Modern reception sections there are two "factoids" that I masked that have nothing to do with the subject.

I added text from the lede missing in the Cultural impact section. It needs to be cited. (Tag added.)

On my second pass I found this:

In the Development section this appears but also many people who wanted Lucas' financial backing or just to threaten him. I get the financial backing. What are the threats?

I think that's it. Please do let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Twofingered Typist, can you take a look at this edit here and tell me if that rectifies your issues? The threats are not detailed, my understanding is that it's just like modern threats to celebrities, just not on Twitter, by people who just fixate on or don't like celebrities or success. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkwarriorblake: These changes look good. Best of luck moving forward with the article. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:27, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Ghostbusters

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, Ghostbusters, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Gog the Mild (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Months of African Cinema Contest Continues in November!

Greetings,

It is already past the middle of the contest and we are really excited about the Months of African Contest 2021 achievements so far! We want to extend our sincere gratitude for the time and energy you have invested. If you have not yet participated in the contest, it is not too late to do it. Please list your username as a participant on the contest’s main page.

Please remember to list the articles you have improved or created on the article achievements' section of the contest page so they can be tracked. In order to win prizes, be sure to also list your article in the users by articles. Please note that your articles must be present in both the article achievement section on the main contest page, as well as on the Users By Articles page for you to qualify for a prize.

We would be awarding prizes to different categories of winners:

  • Overall winner
    • 1st - $500
    • 2nd - $200
    • 3rd - $100
  • Diversity winner - $100
  • Gender-gap filler - $100
  • Language Winners - up to $100*

Thank you once again for your valued participation! --Jamie Tubers (talk) 18:50, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You can opt-out of this annual reminder from The Afrocine Project by removing your username from this list

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Ghostbusters article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 16, 2022. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 16, 2022, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Good Humor
Just having a little laugh at your signature, thanks for helping Wikipedia! SoyokoAnis - talk 14:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Songs of the season

Holiday cheer
Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 D. MarnetteD|Talk 15:10, 19 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Thanks MarnetteD! Have a Happy Holiday! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:13, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back 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 Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back

The article Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 20:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edit of Total Recall (1990 film)


Your GA nomination of Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back

The article Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Special effects of The Empire Strikes Back for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cerebellum -- Cerebellum (talk) 13:21, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ghostbusters: Afterlife

can you copy edit the article?--NeoBatfreak (talk) 02:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ghostbusters

hello, Darkwarriorblake! i had a few questions regarding this article and the associated blurb.

  • regarding the statement that the film had the second-highest gross amongst 1984 films, is the ranking based on gross in the u.s., in the u.s. and canada, worldwide, or some combination of the above? as the blurb and article lead both mention the worldwide gross immediately before the ranking, they both appear to suggest that the ranking is based on the worldwide gross. however, sources appear to state that it was second to beverly hills cop domestically, but ranked third worldwide, as indiana jones and the temple of doom outperformed them both internationally. if the ranking is not based on the worldwide gross, would it be more appropriate to replace that value with the one that the ranking is based on?
  • the worldwide gross seems to be partially based on an estimate of 53 million usd for the gross outside of the domestic market. however, the value of 282.2 million, obtained by adding the earlier inexact number to the more accurate domestic gross of 229.2 million, appears to misleadingly suggest an accuracy that was not present in its calculation, contrary to mos:uncertainty. would it be more appropriate to drop the ".2" to avoid implying this level of accuracy?

apologies for all the questions! i hope they're not too much trouble to address. dying (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why the figure is inaccurate. The same site gives the two figures. I've added the Us and Canada qualifier to the ranking, the Temple of Doom article is too incomplete and poorly sourced for me to ascertain if it was actually the highest grossing film worldwide of that year.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:59, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
apologies if i am not being clear. i am not questioning the accuracy of either of the two values found in the cited source, but rather the accuracy implied by presenting a total that is simply the sum of the two values together.
consider this extreme example: if the richest person in the world had a net worth of about 300 billion usd, while i had a net worth of −31967.79 usd, it would be misleading to state that we had a combined net worth of 299999968032.21 usd. the first number suggests that the estimate should not be much more than 50 billion usd away from the actual value, while the second suggests that it is accurate to the cent. as the third is simply the sum of these two values, it suggests that it is also accurate to the cent, even though only one of the source figures had that level of accuracy. instead of using so many significant figures, it would be more appropriate to state that our combined net worth was about 300 billion usd.
similarly, the value of 53 million is an estimate likely only accurate to within 500 thousand or so, while the value of 229.2 million is likely accurate to within 50 thousand. simply summing up these two numbers gives the value 282.2 million, which, to a reader unfamiliar with how the number was calculated, appears to be accurate to within 50 thousand, even though that may not be the case. to more clearly convey that the calculated total is likely only accurate to within about 500 thousand, we can drop the last significant digit, so that the value of 282 million does not imply any accuracy that we did not have when calculating it.
this kind of mishandling of significant figures is not uncommon. a page i linked to above provides an instance where the bbc appears to have either summed the values 14.0 and 0.58 to obtain 14.58, or subtracted 14.0 from 14.58 to obtain 0.58.
is there a reason why the ".2" should be kept? i had been wondering if the "$282.2 million" value was actually taken directly from a cited source, but you appear to be confirming that the value was synthesized. dying (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think I get your point but I don't think it's particularly misleading. All these figures are rough estimates based on tickets sold. If it was combining $1.65 billion and $534.5 million into $1.7 billion I'd agree, but I think the figures here are fair enough. Plus if you remove the .2, you will have to repeatedly remove it in the future as editors re-add it over time Dying Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "This article is about Ghostbusters. It's a great film. Watch it. Wait. Not the 2016 film, also known as Ghostbusters. The good one. The 84 one. Watch that one." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt, took like 2 or 3 years but we got there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to get rid of citation bot

I agree that this bot can sometimes make unwanted changes. You can prevent it from editing any article by copying and pasting {{bots|deny=Citation bot}} anywhere in the article. Hope this helps! (t · c) buidhe 17:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Empire Strikes Back

Another FA for you! The force is quite strong with that one, and kudos. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:22, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SNUGGUMS, taking longer and longer to get these things promoted though! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:36, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My pleasure, and I hope you feel this was worth the time. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:08, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah SNUGGUMS it was an interesting experience, I grew up on Star Wars but was never a huge fan outside of like the first two films, even as a kid I knew those Ewoks were bullshit. I enjoy working on the films with a trouble production as they are significantly more interesting in how they came about. Ghostbusters II is more interesting than Ghostbusters I for instance which was pretty straightforward apart from the truncated production and the Slimer designer doing a bunch of cocaine. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of The Empire Strikes Back

Congratulations, Darkwarriorblake! The article you nominated, The Empire Strikes Back, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Precious anniversary

Precious
Seven years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smile :)

Hello Darkwarriorblake, Pamzeis has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Pamzeis (talk) 04:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you Pamzeis, thanks for your indepth reviews on two of my articles. Getting interaction at FA can be like pulling teeth so your help is very appreciated. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:17, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Groundhog Day

I did check both sources. Neither is mentioned. Perhaps I missed it? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You did. Hint: It's in the BFI one. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:31, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're absolutely correct. I clicked on the wrong source, so I didn't see it. However, your approach to all of this wasn't the best. No initial edit summary on why you undid my edit. No talk page message. Just an undo. Your follow up edit summary was just a tad bite-y. I was wrong. I admit that, but you could have showed me that a bit better, IMO. Have a good one. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:40, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You know what? You're right, I'm sorry, I didn't know you were a long term user, when someone removes sourced content from an article I worked hard on it irks me and when they revert the revert I lost my patience. My bad. Carry on. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is requested

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost query

Hey there. I'm currently in the process of writing a Signpost article on the artistry of Wikipedia articles and Wikipedia editing, and at one point I discuss prose and the diversity of prose styles. One of the articles I cited is The Empire Strikes Back which you expanded. I observe that in that article-- as well as several of your film articles-- you have a specific preference of separating filming and SFX/design, as well as putting "Thematic analysis" between "Post-release" and "Legacy"; in contrast most articles put that section after "Plot", "Production", or "Critical response".

I wrote my own analysis into this ordering, but I thought it'd be interesting to hear from you. Why should it be a whole new section-- what about the different levels of subsection, isn't SFX/design a part of production too? Why is the post-release separated from release-- isn't home media part of the film's release too? And why isn't "Thematic analysis" after "Plot" or "Production"? [dont take this as a comment btw, just a question and i have no problem of those stuff myself]

Looking forward for a response :) GeraldWL 07:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I treat the articles chronologically, and I don't like to include things that happened post-release alongside things that happened at the time, especially with older films where a lot will have changed since, such as The Empire Strikes Back and the substantial changes made to the original Star Wars films. So regarding things like Home Media, I don't want it to go before Critical Reception because that section is related to the original film only, normally a theatrical release for those older films and it feels weird to talk about it there, especially because you will be discussing home media and potential changes that occurred up to 40 years after the reception we are referring to. Similarly, when people put Merchandise or Other media sections in the Release section it accomplishes the same thing, talking about modern things before the reception/accolades/initial responses to the film nearly 40 years ago.
So I like to put these things in Post release because I treat it like a Post theatrical release section and believe it's a perfect place to talk about these supplemental materials. Essentially for me the theatrical release is my bible and everything else is secondary to that.
As for special effects, as you'll see on most articles I work on the special effects section is not small. You will get small sections but not generally if they're done well on older films. Modern films might be different because the answer is "and then we used CGI", seriously watch a behind the scenes on Terminator Dark Fate, it's all CGI, even pointless stuff you wouldn't expect, which is a far cry from something like Terminator 2 which does employ CGI but overall only for 3 minutes, the rest are these ridiculous, huge stunts. Anyway, so a huge SFX section would have subheadings of it's own as well and so I separate it out for two reasons: Because having a big section in the middle of Production will kill the flow and make that section huge, and I don't like using headers below tier 3 because it doesn't look nice aesthetically. It also ultimately works because for films like Total Recall (1990 film) and The Empire Strikes Back, the section is so huge that it needs splitting out to another article. If the content IS split to another article, I guess technically you could add Special Effects as a small subsection within Production/Development, but I like to remain consistent in my layouts. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thematic analysis can change. If you check out The Shawshank Redemption, the analysis section is earlier because at the time I did it, that's how FA articles looked and it's a film that is so heavily interpreted that it seems to make sense for it to be there. As I've developed as an artice author and the demands at the FA level have changed, making those sections bigger, it feels awkward to put them immediately after the plot when I feel the Development/Production sections is both more important and relevant, and ultimately I don't feel the Themes/Analysis sections are particularly notable for every film. Total Recall for example lends it self to analysis more than Ghostbusters, IMO anyway. I put it nearer the end because much of that is also stuff that happened Post release and also i think by that point in the article you have a full context of anything I then refer to in the Themes section.
So yeah I structure the articles with the aim of making it mostly chronological, almost like writing one of these "ultimate making of" books as if I'm telling its history from start to finish. Hope that helps Gerald Waldo Luis. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 12:57, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oh wow, this does more than helping, thanks for the insight! I certainly won't be able to quote your whole response, but I have stated the cruxes and I'll be sure to cite this so that people can read this. GeraldWL 14:22, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkwarriorblake/Archive_15&oldid=1073773518"