Jump to content

User talk:Woodensuperman/Archive 6

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 184.58.22.86 (talk) at 21:04, 27 February 2013 (→Disney Vault: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Middle-earth in film

I just want to congratulate you on the creation of the article. I leave you to your work now. :) Jhenderson 777 16:44, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, although it was mostly a cut and paste job from other articles! Thanks for your input with the lead - I've tweaked it a little bit, hope you don't mind... --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
No go right on ahead. Do your magic. It does help when it already has information on Wikipedia but I do feel it is better when it said in it's own way ;) Jhenderson 777 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited BFI Flipside, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Now and Then (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

No longer fails NFF

Do you even look at the sources in the article? This source, which is in the article clearly confirms that production has begun, and the actors have clearly begun voicing the movie and that is from 5 months ago. The film is well within a year and a half from the scheduled release while other recent Pixar films,such as Toy Story 3 and Cars 2 clearly had articles well near 3 years from release, which much less citations.--JOJ Hutton 11:58, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Even though production may have started, per WP:NFF this doesn't automatically mean that the production itself is notable. ("films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should generally not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines") With little or no further information added to the article since the last discussion, notability needs establishing through significant and continued coverage. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:04, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
What is not notable about a Pixar movie, may I ask? Not only a Pixar movie, but a prequel to boot.--JOJ Hutton 12:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt that the film will be notable eventually, but that isn't what's being discussed. It's whether, at this stage, the production itself is notable, as per WP:NFF. Previous consensus was that it wasn't. Why not place the split section template at Monsters, Inc.#Prequel to generate a discussion and see what others think, and maybe overturn previous consensus? --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

List of film and television directors

Would you be willing to split this list per your request? If not then I think the tag should be removed as it is unlikely any one else would be able to do so. Op47 (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited The Inheritance (2003 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Danish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverted?

The Little Mermaid is planned for a September 2013 release. I was wondering why the reversion.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/05/us-disney-3d-idUSTRE7936XT20111005

Firstly, the addition didn't include a reference when you edited on the Walt Disney Platinum and Diamond Editions‎ page, and as the page has had a lot of misinformation recently, unreferenced future events should not be added. However, checking the reference you have supplied, I see it makes no mention of a home media release, just a cinema re-release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, you are correct. I read the story and assumed there was going to be the home release. I can't imagine they would screen it in theaters and not capitalize on it by selling the blu-ray. Beauty and the Beast was released in Diamond Edition three months before the movie screening, so I would guess a Blu-ray release would fall July of this year. Perhaps a TBA placeholder would be in order? -Kai445 (talk) 17:06, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that's just speculation. Wait until there are reliable sources to confirm release. --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:19, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Carry On films

Could you please explain why you reverted my recent edits on Carry On (film series)? WP:LIST as far as I know, shows no such rule as to why this list could not be split into two. Incidently, I will be creating a table in my sandbox shortly, which I welcome you to contribute too, as I think this maybe a better alternative. See here for rational as to why it has now been reverted. All the best -- Cassianto (talk) 17:12, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Rob, as promised, I have almost finished a wiki-table consisting of the films, including actors film appearances and stage and theatre shows. I still have a few bits to do which should only take me an afternoon. If you get time, have a look here as I would really appreciate your thought's. I do have a couple of questions though:
  • Do I keep this as a separate article - bearing in mind that other's exist?
  • Shoud we eliminate the "Films" section and everything after it up until "Unmade films", and replace with this ?
All the best! -- Cassianto (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Oh! Good work on the filmography table. It looks good to me, and I think you're probably right to replace what is already on there. It should condense the page, making it more concise. The actor table is probably unnecessary though, as it duplicates information over at List of Carry On films cast members. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! The actor's table I completed having not realised that something similar exists doh! Nevermind, i won't add this. I will post my proposal to replace the existing content on the Carry On talkpage so as to get other's thought before adding. If I don't hear anything within a week I will add (minus the Actor's table). I also want to work on the actors cast list article to replace with something similar to this or am I better to leave? -- Cassianto (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Personally, I think that List of James Bond film cast lists is a bit unnecessary, as all the information is available on each individual film page, and doesn't add anything by being added together. Although List of Carry On films cast members could probably be improved, I don't think this is the right way to go about it. Just my opinion of course. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
Understood. I'll set about making some improvements over the next few days. Thanks for your advice. -- Cassianto (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

List of British Film Institute releases (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to The Pleasure Garden, Black Jack, Encounters, Borderline, Children (film), What Price Glory, Silent Scream and High and Low

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Sirpa Lane, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Finnish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:42, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Thomas & the U.K. Trip

It is a real Thomas special. It was released in between season 3 or 4 in the 1990's. Just click on this link and i'll prove it.

http://ttte.wikia.com/wiki/Thomas_and_the_U.K._Trip

This is a wikia site, and therefore not a reliable source. By all means add it, if you can find something that isn't wikia or youtube or a blog, but I couldn't find anything when doing a google search. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But I found it on google. I don't know why you can't find it? Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 19:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not a reliable source. See points 11 and 12 on WP:LINKSTOAVOID. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

I'm sorry for fighting with you over the editing on the Thomas & Friends page. I didn't mean it, but when I look at you edit you just did now. You edit on the TV series and Film, specials and miniseries list looks better that way. I like it that way. I won't fight with you again, I still respect all users Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 21:21, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

We're all here to try and make it better :) --Rob Sinden (talk) 21:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Thomas & Friends. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. 79.123.72.81 (talk) 07:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The Thomas Movie

http://ttte.wikia.com/wiki/%22The_WWII_Movie%22 Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 19:25, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, this is a wikia site, and not a reliable source. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Not going to do it anymore

Hi Rob, I accept your edits now. I just didn't understand what was happening, but now I do. I won't change any of your edits anymore I accept them now. I mean it, I'm telling the truth. I'm not going to do it anymore. By the way, can we be friends because I feel sorry for what I've been doing. I like your edits now. Bigshowandkane64 (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Haha! Yeah, of course - I didn't take anything personally! Happy editing! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

3RR breach at Thomas & Friends

As User:Bigshowandkane64 has continued to edit-war at Thomas & Friends, despite being warned,[1] a 3RR report has now been raised. As you have been mentioned in the report, you may wish to comment. The discussion may be found here --AussieLegend (talk) 10:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I think you've covered it adequately, but will keep an eye out in case my input is needed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Doctor Zhivago

Doctor Zhivago becomes a dab page, and novel becomes Doctor Zhivago (novel) by closure. Let's discuss more on WT:NCF then. --George Ho (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox template

I've been following. I've never seen them back down from an argument, even when there are more people disagreeing than agreeing. My experience (and I'm sure that Ring will monitor this communication) has been that Ring views everyone else's arguments as "less valid" than their own, no matter the evidence to the contrary and refuses to accept that their argument is not as strong. You cannot change that level of thinking unfortunately. You have to go with what the consensus of the page says, and if Ring is standing alone in the corning (i haven't read enough to know if Ring has any support whatsoever) then they are alone. I've left my peace on the subject of "Country". I think that Ring is a master at the filibuster and will break people down by simply outlasting them on the page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

An American in Paris and Dune

Both proposals have failed by opposition. WT:NCF can do. --George Ho (talk) 01:29, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Dhoom 3

Please see this notice. Do not redirect pages without consulting the concerned editors. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 11:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Film Infobox discussions

Rob, I read and re-read the discussions and you were the only, sole, individual, solitary editor that was admanant that there was a consensus on the inclusion or exclusion of executive producers in the infobox. Am I wrong? FWiW, this isn't a "stand your ground" position?? (LOL }:p )Bzuk (talk) 13:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC).

Please WP:AGF. I tried to round up the argument, sure, but there was already a clear consensus. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, just saw you "rounding 'em up and heading them out"; didn't see anyone chiming in. Mixing up every metaphor in the dictionary ... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC).
Yeah, there's a massively long discussion above it! I came into the argument quite late (after the RFC), and saw that a consensus had pretty much been reached with only one editor opposing and tried to put the matter to bed (to add yet another metaphor) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:57, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
The point I am making is that there was no consensus in the classic business model of the terminology. Instead, what was being proposed is that, yes, infoboxes did not normally include ancillary positions, such as associate editors, executive producers and the like, but ... and that's where the "butt" {pun intended} comes in, I noted a number, not just one or two editors, who made the case for an exceptional instance, and not just following the "rule". Am I wrong? FWIW Bzuk (talk) 15:32, 14 June 2012 (UTC).
To start with, some editors were advocating allowing exceptional circumstances, but as the discussion went on it became apparent how problematic this was. As it was discussed further, it became clear how difficult it was to define exceptional circumstances, and in the George Lucas example, there was certainly support for him not to be included, and he would be one of the most exceptional cases of them all, hence the decision for the infobox to only include bona fide producer credits. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

The Godfather

Hi! Think you have brought clarity to the issue. Hopefully we can all move on, thanks to you. Cheers! -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi. When you recently edited Epic film, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages How the West was Won and East of Eden (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:30, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Straw poll

You previously contributed to this discussion and now there is a straw poll being conducted. Please make your vote clearly so numbers do not need to be interpreted. Thank you Kurt Parker (talk) 14:44, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Into

FYI, you can find other film articles with "into" in the title using these results. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:30, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Worked on "from" titles. Phew, just suffered semantic satiation. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Erik, I worked on a few. PS. Good to have you back - hope all is well. --Rob Sinden (talk) 20:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the welcome! Everything is well indeed. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 23:19, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Your mission to undo my work

I see you are following me around and undoing my work. Would you care to discuss your reasoning.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi - yes, sure. Well done on your hard work creating some of these navboxes. I'm tidying up a lot of unnecessary disambiguation, and removing content which does not link to an article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I could surely use a second set of eyes on the vast number of templates I have created. However, we seem to disagree on some issues.
  1. First, I see you are removing {{collapsible option}} in some cases such as Template:Journey to the Center of the Earth. Is this on purpose?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:49, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  2. You are removing dates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  3. You are removing foreign language information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  4. You are removing silent film information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:51, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  5. You are removing character information.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Also, I am unsure whether you are working from my edit history or User:TonyTheTiger/creations (see multimedia works towards the bottom of my templates section). Please explain.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:52, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
N.B.: page not current for creations this week.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
1) This was a mistake on my part. Unintentional, sorry.
Will you go back and find these mistakes and correct them?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think (hope?) that's the only one. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
2) Dates are only necessary if you are disambiguating. When you have a unique title, then there's no need for them.
3) Likewise, there's no need for language information. These are navigation boxes, not info boxes. Film nationality should only be used for disambiguation.
4) As 3
5) Again, these are navigation boxes, not info boxes. You should only include links to articles that exist in these, so character lists that are unlinked shouldn't be included.
Hope this explains everything! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:00, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Lets talk about 2-4 before either of use goes any further.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:03, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Sure. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Dates are a common feature of navboxes. Often times a reader is looking for content in a navbox by date. It is not an attempt to disambiguate. Prior to this 2 month endeavor, I did a lot of templates for films, TV and theatre as well as for sports. Thus template such as {{Golden Globe Award for Best Foreign Language Film 1990–2009}} and {{Tour de France Yellow Jersey}} included dates. For movies and TV shows. Suppose I want to look up the 1955 version of Cinderella at {{Cinderella}}. The fact that it is named differently does not necessarily help. Having dates in these templates is important.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I think there are two schools of thought regarding dates. For example, some film director templates include them, others do not (see Template:Bergman vs Template:Steven Spielberg for example). I think there is a slight consensus among the film project community not to include them, but I am willing to leave them in while seeking further opinions / consensus on this. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Although we name articles assuming people know what they are looking for, there is a lot of precedent for including navbox info with additional information. Dates are commonly provided to help the reader. Do you want to discuss this at a few agreed upon projects like, WP:FILM, WP:NOVELS, WP:TV and WP:THEATER with centralized discussion at one of the locations? Feel free to mention other projects.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Similarly, suppose I am looking for a Russian language version of Cinderella or better yet look at a template like {{Devdas}}. Languages are helpful to the reader. There is no requirement that it be included for the purpose of disambiguation. Basically, if it is a foreign language on WP, it will shorten the list of links for many readers if we state the foreign language.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Now, here we do disagree. Remember, these are navboxes, and not infoboxes. Why not put "American" or "British" against each film? Why not show the director? These shouldn't be an entire filmography - otherwise you'll end up with navboxes as big as articles, which is a problem the Cinderella template has. It really should be broken down into more manageable navboxes. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:41, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
This is English language WP. If it is British or American it is in English. No need for alarm. For an english reader movies about foreign language versions are somewhat less useful. I barely speak Spanish (not well enough to watch a movie in Spanish) and no other foreign languages. I would like to be able to look at a navbox and not waste my time looking at foreign language versions. Again, the languages provide info (not disambiguation). Note that for the operas and ballets, the primary point of disambiguation is the author and that is shown rather than the date.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:55, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
And with film, the primary point of disambiguation is the year, therefore if we have this, we don't need the language or whether it is silent or not, unless we have two years. It's the same principle as article titling really. We don't need more disambiguation info in a navbox than we do an article title. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Silent language: I don't have a real strong position on including a silent designation, but I think it helps the reader.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:27, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Oh that really was a mess! It included lists of dinosaurs!!! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Why should they include them? A navbox about Bleak House for example does not need to note the year of Bleak House in the title line. It's completely unnecessary (again, unless you're disambiguating). The Journey to the West one just noted "16th century" - what's the point of that? These navboxes are here to aid navigation, not to include all possible information. That is best left for infoboxes and articles, lists and categories. Take a look at WP:NAVBOX. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
  • Here is where I stand. I would like the following added back to all of these templates:
    1. Inline dates.
    2. Inline foreign languages.
    3. title dates.
  • If you object to any of the above we need further input. I don't think we are going to convince each other one on one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I'll give you the inline dates, but absolutely not on the languages and title dates, unless you can find consensus to support. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
Titles and inline?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
No, just inline - I realised I wasn't clear, so we must have had an edit conflict when I corrected. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
If i missed removing them, I'm sorry - just an oversight. --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:44, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I have created about 200 multimedia templates in the last two months, which are listed at User:TonyTheTiger/creations (see multimedia works towards the bottom of my templates section). I am not sure if you are working from that page or my edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:47, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I haven't gone through EVERY template you created! --Rob Sinden (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I was trying to discuss the 200 or so multimedia templates as a group. Were you going through my edits or were you going through the my created templates list?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:58, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
If disambiguation is necessary, I think we should follow the disambiguation conventions of the topic/project in the navbox. But only if it is necessary. --Rob Sinden (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what you are saying. I think you are saying operas and ballets in templates such as {{Swan Lake navbox}} and {{Cinderella}} should only be disambiguated as necessary and then only according a project. Are you suggesting we follow WP:WFs, WP:NAVBOX or WP:OPERA, WP:FILM, WP:NOVELS, WP:TV and WP:THEATER?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:21, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
What do you make of the discussion. I think they support a lot of your decisions.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:23, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
I guess the discussion is in its early stages just now, but it would seem the contributing editors are more or less on the same page as me. Sorry if we got off on the wrong foot by the way... --Rob Sinden (talk) 01:24, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I have a quick trigger on these types of discussions. Once 24 hours goes by without any further commentary, I am ready to close discussion. Basically, I really would welcome your eyes reviewing the multimedia templates I have created. It seems the silent and foreign language will be removed. A lot of people also only view dates as for disamb purposes. I hope my request for a discussion has not squelched the momentum that you had going.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 04:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Regardless of the format that is agreed to, there remain two other issues that I will need a lot of help on. I have not carefully selected the categories. In some instances, I may have copied the formatting of a template from a drama to a comedy or one with a novel that was the source to one derived from a play. I need help going through these. I also had problems deciding whether a lot of categories should be added. If it has a variety of adaptations do we need categories for films, tv shows, operas, ballets, video games, plays, musicals, animated cartoons, sequels, etc. Similarly, most of the talk pages remain uncreated. Should we include template tags for projects such as FILM, COMEDY, NOVELS, LITERATURE, SCREENWRITING, OPERA, BALLET, THEATRE, MUSICAL THEATRE, VIDEO GAMES, ETC. I think they all should be tagged with WP:WFs tag plus a few of these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:48, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
I definitely now think that the discussion has run its course. Are you interested in resuming your involvement in these templates?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
Hi again - not had the time recently, but could take a look if I gat a chance. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:58, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
Well there is not much chance anyone else will take the time to review slews of templates like you were doing. I hope you can get back to these.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:55, 21 November 2012 (UTC)
No longer watching here or the discussion, but hope you come by to help out.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:12, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey

Hello Rob. This article is now back with content from the incubator. Last night, 2nyte copy-pasted a version from the incubator to the page in the article space, and the discussion at Talk:The Hobbit (film series) is also leaning towards having a full article. Personally I think we can now histmerge the incubator page to the live article, but since I have been involved in editing both versions I thought I should better ask you to assess this. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I'm fine with it as long as there is consensus. My concern with it last time was that it had been restored without discussion, knowing that there was ongoing dialogue on it. So histmerge away! Thanks for letting me know though! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Thank you too. De728631 (talk) 14:40, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

re: White Ribbon

Hi Rob. I've made the changes per your suggestion, but there still seems to be one user who disagrees. I'd be grateful for any further input. Thanks again. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:43, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

List of film series with two entries/List of film series with three entries

Excuse me, but why the hell did you revert my edits? Those took a hell of a long time.Happy Evil Dude (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

You were moving things that only had two produced films from two to three prematurely. --Rob Sinden (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
No I wasn't. Hatchet III completed principal photography in June and is now in post-production while Casse-tête Chinois (aka L'Auberge Espagnole 3) started filming in September. Additionally, you removed my adding of The Hunger Games in the "Two Entries List" and undid my painstakingly long re-alphabetizing of the "H" section. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 12:56, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Okay - maybe I was a bit hasty (I reverted my edits last night) - sorry. The fact that they did not have their own entries, and that the fact that Casse Tete Chinois redirects to Cédric Klapisch, where there is no mention of the film, confused me. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:00, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
No worries, glad we were able to sort this out like rational people. Sorry if I came on a little hostile, I'm more used to dealing with pig-headed editors. :) Happy Evil Dude (talk) 22:33, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
Likewise, I often see people move stuff before the films have been made, and I assumed the worst in this case. I was too hasty, and this is completely my fault! Happy editing! --Rob Sinden (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Hiya

Just wanted to let you know that I moved This Comment out of the sub-section on pro Into and up to the discussion section and replied. Only because otherwise its going to get messy again and we will all go around in circles again and nothing will be solved. Also we want to be able to see the points for and against clearly rather than having to read the whole page which is now getting pretty long and confusing. I haven't intentionally changed the comment in any way. MisterShiney ✉ 20:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest

Since you called my From Dusk till Dawn move request a (potential) POINT violation, should One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest and its associated titles be moved to lowercase "over"? If so, would you start the request or permit me to start it?

I'm not trying to be facetious. My motivation is sincere, and I'm at least as much of a policy-wonk as yourself. We merely disagree on an aspect of the Manual, and as far as disagreements on Wikipedia go, this has so far been one of the more pleasent experiences. For me, at least, and please let me apologize if I'm sometimes curt and less than perfectly amicable.

So anyway, I'm not trying to pull your leg here or anything. Yes, my idea is to get more of these (legitimate) requests started, to hopefully prompt a long-overdue discussion about a sensible amendment to NCCAPS/MOS:CT. I regard that as a completely legitimate avenue to bring about incremental updates to policy and guidelines. Also, it's pretty much the only way. Discussions on e.g. VPP almost never result in good and stable consensus. You need to have the regulars on board, and in this case the best way to get them engaged is via move requests.

Does the current wording of MOS:CT mean we should move the One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest titles to One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest? If you think it would for some reason appear "disruptive" if I started the request, then I won't do it. --87.78.47.225 (talk) 08:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Ways to improve Venus in Furs (1967 film)

Hi, I'm Modern.Jewelry.Historian. Robsinden, thanks for creating Venus in Furs (1967 film)!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. There are lots more references for this infamous film...

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Masters of Cinema releases, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Tabu (film) and Les Cousins (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:15, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Languages of Middle-earth

Congrats to this excellent idea. This navbox was long overdue. De728631 (talk) 17:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change for Monsters, Inc. 3D theatrical release date

Hi, I saw that the listed the release date for Monsters, Inc. 3D is 2012. Disney is a client of my employer, so while I don't edit Disney-related Wikipedia articles, I would like to propose a change to specify the 3D theatrical release date as December 19, 2012. Here are a few sources supporting the December 19, 2012 theatrical release date: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/disney-monsters-inc-release-date-353540 http://www.movieinsider.com/m7913/monsters-inc/ http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/monsters-inc-release-date-move-disney-december-19-2012/

Thanks very much for your help. Please let me know if these sources are insufficient and I will be happy to grab a few others for you.

Jbettigo (talk) 18:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!

To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Batman in film‎‎

A few things:

  1. That section has been see-sawing for months, without an apparent consensus for wither nomenclature.
  2. The closest there was is an inconclusive thread on its talk page - Batman in film‎‎#Renaming "Dark Knight" or "Nolan" trilogy section. If there is a consensus, please point to it.
  3. Yes, there is a current attempt to nail it down - Batman in film‎‎#Section header. Contributing there would have been better that taking it in your own hands to change the section title.
  4. Bluntly: At this point I don't have a favored, I just want it settled without the section title being ping-ponged while that is discussed. Ignoring that ongoing discussion does not help end the problem.

- J Greb (talk) 01:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

I have contributed to the discussion, but as per WP:BRD, the header should be left as it is (and has been for some months) while consensus is reached, rather than changed first and then discussed. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:58, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
In particular for the ongoing discussion on Star Trek into Darkness regarding a pesky little I. At the end of the day, it may not have been resolved but we all did work together to try and get it sorted, even if we did feel at times we were banging our heads on our desks and calling our computer screens idiots. MisterShiney ✉ 14:33, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I must admit, it's been harrowing! --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Blandings

Hi, I have put an In Use tag on the article while I am working on it, and despite this I have just lost a load of work due to an edit conflict. If you could hold on until I have finished and change the tag I would be grateful. Jack1956 (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Non notable tour articles

Hi. You've recently put a bunch of unreferenced or poorly referenced tour articles up for CSD A7. Might it be worth taking the content and putting it in another article? Eg: Forevermore World Tour -> Forevermore (album). The band's official sites should be able to cite the dates, and the album articles seem to be inherently notable because of their chart positions. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I don't think so. The tours themselves aren't notable per WP:NCONCERT, and we shouldn't be adding indiscriminate lists of tour dates to album articles. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
That guideline is for individual articles on the tours, though. I don't think there's anything wrong with adding a list of tour dates to an associated tour of an existing album article if they're reliably sourced. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:02, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think there's anything to be gained by adding lists and lists of indiscriminate tourdates on album articles. Maybe a sentence saying there was a tour, and briefly listing the countries visited could be appropriate as per the guideline at WP:NCONCERT, but the whole tour schedule is just WP:FANCRUFT without the third party coverage to meet notability guidelines. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Talk:1906 (novel)#Merger proposal.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry

I'm sorry Rob, I didn't mean to be so mad. I just wanted to add those two things to the article.

Main article: Railway engines (Thomas and Friends) Main article: Narrow gauge engines (Thomas and Friends)

Because it's a thomas and friends article and these should be listed. I'm sorry for being mad, and I removed my rude comment from the talk page. Do you accept my apology? Supermariokart64 (talk) 12:01, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Star Trek edit

Not clear why you removed the section on the controversy in the film title, highlighting that the controversy has now been noticed outside of wikipedia. There is nothing factually incorrect, there is a reference and I was careful to avoid spelling out the title to avoid further controversy on the issue of capitalisation. Can you explain?

Would you mind if I inserted a section on coverage in popular culture instead? There are plenty of wikipedia pages with those...

BenThuriaux (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is no controversy over the title, only here on Wikipedia. It becomes meta, as the actual reference is regarding the talk page of the article. --Rob Sinden (talk) 12:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Enforcing a Break

Hi, I've created a nice quiet page about the possibility of enforcing a break from debating Star Trek into Darkness. Would you mind taking a look, and giving your opinions? You can find it here, and please feel free to invite anyone you feel would add to the conversation. drewmunn talk 12:48, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well that's that then.

"Star Trek into Darkness" is no more. An administrator saw fit to move it without consensus or comment from the regular editors, and then move-protect it. My post-move arguments have fallen on deaf ears. Nobody seems to care about MOS:CT and the utter mess that has been left behind. -- Scjessey (talk) 03:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Appalling abuse of priveleges by the admin there. Have you taken it further? --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I don't really want to get involved in a fight with an administrator; however, I made sure they were fully aware of my opinion of their actions before walking away. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:26, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I know what you mean. The boasts on his talk page of "I've been on the arbitration committee twice" seem to smack of "I'm right, you're wrong, so there" to me. Probably isn't worth it. --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
For all your effort in trying to maintain some form of order in the aftermath of xkcd-gate. Nobody killed anybody, which I see as something to be proud of. drewmunn talk 10:24, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Not exactly sure I deserve it! And it's early days yet! --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:28, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
We've got through the worst of it, hopefully! drewmunn talk 10:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Personally I think you should arbcom his ass. Regardless of where the page was or where it should be it was a clear abuse of admin privileges if nothing else. Given the "no consensus" close and the move protection, two admins had in effect said the page shouldn't be moved at this stage, and his action existed outside of every procedure we have to resolve these sorts of disputes. Betty Logan (talk) 11:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Considering it. Going to see if Scjessey has taken any further steps. --Rob Sinden (talk) 11:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I completely agree that he was out of order; even if there was no history on the matter, he gave nowhere near enough time for consensus. I said somewhere else that I left the page for 8 hours of sleep, and return to find it moved. However, I'm currently taking a back seat, as are quite a few of the original editors, because our knowledge of the subject history is falling on deaf ears, and xkcd-gate editors are causing all kinds of problems for us. We were happy as it was for the time being, and don't want to get into unnecessary arguments. All that said, I'll happily chip in if you decide to take action against him; you can't even use WP:BRD on someone who's protected their change against revert. If it hasn't already, it may be worth taking it to another Admin. drewmunn talk 11:19, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I've placed my concerns on his talk page. Let's see if he responds and take it from there. --Rob Sinden (talk)

If you do take things through regular WP:DR, there's a small concern. You see, the WP:DR processes examine conduct by *all* of the parties involved, not just the party against whom the complaint was lodged.

Now let it be known that prior to Mackensen's actions, the page had evidently been (mis)managed to such a degree that international media were reporting on it.

I would be very curious to see the outcome of those DR procedures, should someone try to start them. O:-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

That's a disgraceful comment to make, and makes no attempt to assume good faith. Perhaps you are concerned at what people might think of how you edited MOS and then immediately tried to impose the new guidelines? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I haven't accused anyone of anything yet. O:-) And I have not attempted to impose any MOS guidelines at any point in recent history, as evidence will show.
In the mean time, thank you for your comment. :-) Is there anything you would like to add? --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
You said the page had been "mismanaged", which implies a coordinated effort to disrupt. That's not assuming good faith, is it? -- Scjessey (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
mismanagement: "management that is careless or inefficient". I'm not quite sure how you can both carelessly mismanage and yet efficiently coordinate something at the same time.
We do both agree that the end result was quite disruptive ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. A great shame, since the editors were moving toward a reasonable consensus just fine before all the heavyhandedness by administrators wrecked it. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Even if that is exactly true, we still ultimately ran out of time. :-(
And there is certainly ample reason to at least suspect it is not exactly true, correct?
--Kim Bruning (talk) 20:07, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Ran out of time? What time limit are you referring to? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The invisible one where we ended up in the news. Just to be sure, you didn't somehow miss that, did you? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
As I said repeatedly yesterday, consensus was overridden because of a webcomic. WP:CONSENSUS is supposed to trump WP:COMMONNAME (which barely applies anyway). But xkcd put a few noses out of joint so it became necessary for someone to abuse their sysop position. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
So is your position that User:Xkcd misread the situation entirely, and all this is a misunderstanding, then? --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2013 (UTC) Stranger things have happened, though not very often.
My position is that xkcd is a webcomic designed to get a few laughs with the liberal application of satire. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia's core policy of consensus. Why are you deliberately asking me stupid questions that seem determined to aggravate the issue still further? -- Scjessey (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
XKCD is a very influential web-comic, mostly because the writer is intelligent and typically right. Several sites including Reddit picked up the story from XKCD, so now we're on the internet news aggregaters. You see how that goes.
The situation can't be much worse than it already was.
Right now I'm just asking questions and seeing where they lead. Hopefully to some insight on how to improve the situation or prevent similar situations in future, but at least answers provide me with evidence for any RFC or RFAr, should anyone wish to open one. --Kim Bruning (talk) 20:43, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
I see. So it is your opinion that extra-wiki comics and Reddit carry more influence than Wikipedia editors? And you further saying that you are deliberately antagonizing me in the hope that I will say something you can use to defend yourself at some future RFC/U or whatever? Wow. You have a really weird approach to Wikipedia. I'm going to stop talking to you now because it is clear you are just trolling. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:50, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

This doesn't have to get so personal, especially not on someone else's talk page! My personal opinion is that xkcd satirised the discussion, and most probably didn't do so with the purpose of causing such a debacle. I doubt that we'd reached our compromise when he began writing his comic, and I'm not even sure how much of the actual backstory he read; none of this is of consequence, as it was the action of the readers that caused the resulting friction. Rather than it being anything to do with xkcd's opinion, it's about the contributors and IP editors who arrived here, did or did not read the historical conversations, and added their opinions. Their lack of intimate knowledge of our prior activity, along with their preconceptions gained from the xkcd comic, means they inflamed the situation. drewmunn talk 21:06, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

  • Sorry Rob — it seems my policy ignorance has set off a debate even more tedious than the one that led to it. I feel awful about it. You must be losing the will to live, but if you top yourself be warned it will probably end up in the Star Trek article! Betty Logan (talk) 15:37, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
I think this may be the first time we've disagreed ;) I'm wondering where we should make reference to the article they write about the debate we are having about where to put reference to the article they wrote about the debate we were having! --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:40, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, having read the guideline I can follow the rationale. I saw it had received some impressive secondary coverage, I just didn't give much thought to which article it should go in. Betty Logan (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Xkcdreader

You remember GoldenEye? I wish I could do this to him. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

He really isn't listening. Just keeps repeating his arguments in the mistaken belief that if he shouts loud enough he'll get what he wants. And the way he keeps summarising everyone's arguments is misrepresentation. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:43, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
OMFG this guy. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:03, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I've decided to throw WP:CIVIL out of the window. (I think you already had though!) --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just suggested he moves onto another article. He's been a member of Wikipedia for a matter of days, and he's racked up around half as many edits as I have since joining in 2007. 300 and something of them are on a talk page, and looking through his edit count, there's only Star Trek I(i)nto Darkness Talk, his own page about the matter, and a wider discussion on it! drewmunn talk 14:09, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Now he's closing discussions, no doubt because he doesn't like the content. drewmunn talk 14:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

I wanted to step in and apologize for my outburst on my talk page today. I hope it is apparent how after things like "Jesus f*cking christ. We've just gone over this a million times. ...... Worst. Editor. Ever." it was easy to perceive your "olive branch" as disingenuous. Hopefully we all learned something today about getting along and talking things through, instead of shouting. Xkcdreader (talk) 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Trek

Fist off, I apologise for losing my rag in the last couple of days.

To my mind, since there is no consensus either way, and since the addition is something that clearly doesnt damage the article, and is clearly of interest to some people (if people aren't interested, they won't read it), the default position of an encyclopedia should be to include rather than exclude. Simply having the paragraph in the article will naturally draw more attention to it if and when this is discussed again, and should then make it easier to reach consensus either way. douts (talk) 14:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

We all have days when things get a bit much :) The problem is that, per various guidelines, there were a number of objections to the proposed additions. They were not considered encyclopedic by a number of editors (some more vocal than others, admittedly), and any unencyclopedic material is damaging to Wikipedia. Therefore the default position for controversial, or potentially controversial additions would be to not include until there is consensus to do so. --Rob Sinden (talk) 14:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
There's no "Not particularly civil, but nonetheless non-murdering Barnstar", but if there was, I think we'd all deserve one. drewmunn talk 16:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I know I need a drink! --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Make sure it's violently alcoholic, or a really good cup of tea. The former is better. the latter is improved by the addition of spirits. drewmunn talk 17:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Django Unchained

You claimed my additions were "unreferenced" yet both contained direct Wikipedia links to the wikipedia articles proving my point. Are we now saying wikipedia cannot be the reference??Stephencdickson (talk) 13:10, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia cannot be used as a reference. See WP:CIRCULAR. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:13, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

That is bizarre...must one then use the references within said articles as THE REFERENCE??Stephencdickson (talk) 13:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC) Gives a sort of pointless "daisychain effect". Stealing the reference from article A to use in article B?

You should really find a third party reference that specifically discusses the historical inaccuracy in relation to the film itself, otherwise there could be claims of WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS. --Rob Sinden (talk) 13:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Surely the purpose of Wikipedia is to expand knowledge. Pendantic requirement for references in relation to facts could be expanded to "grass is green" show me your reference... Is something is TRUE surely the only requirement is to prove that it is true but should Common Sense not play a greater role? I enjoy working on Wikipedia and particularly adding in links and cross references... that is what pulls Wikipedia above other sources... True, inaccuracies are what drags it down, but are we not all on the same side here? How about some Constructive Advice? Do you really think my additions were inappropriate or was your only gripe that I cross referenced to Wikipedia rather than an outer source. And, if so, could you not Constructively suggest the correct reference rather than Derstructively just wipe it off???Stephencdickson (talk) 15:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of websites dedicated to factual errors in films, this one for example, and inclusion on Wikipedia of a lot of this material is borderline WP:TRIVIA. However, if you use a respected journalistic source that discusses specifically these historical inaccuracies, you may get round the WP:TRIVIA, WP:OR or WP:SYNTHESIS claims. --Rob Sinden (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS discussion

I think we've both said our piece; what say we give it a rest for a while? The point is to get other opinions, and too great a wall of text may deter other editors from weighing in. Deor (talk) 17:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know, I think we might be getting somewhere. --Rob Sinden (talk) 19:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Woodensuperman. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style.
Message added 00:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Frungi (talk) 00:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Disney Vault

Reverted your edit due to you did not look at the sources or titles, or check the talk page. One source title: "Disney Opens the Vault to Roll Out 30 New Blu-ray Releases", Pocahontas second source states "Disney's award-winning classic returns' in a spectacular 2-disc anniversary edition!" clearly point that it was vaulted. Mulans current advertisement on the Peter Pan Diamond Edition shows the Disney Vault at the beginning clearly showing that Mulan was vaulted. 184.58.22.86 (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Woodensuperman/Archive_6&oldid=541043615"