Talk:List of films based on Marvel Comics

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

Frost Fight[edit]

@OscarFercho: do not remove proper reliable sourcing for lesser primary sourcing or no sourcing what so ever like you did here, here and here. I am not sure what this has to do with "But the format of the cell" that is so erroneous as to be removed. Not sure why you wish to suppress information? Spshu (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok. but respect the format of the cell. Those cells isn't for an excess amount of information.OscarFercho (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You say OK then you again revert to primary sourcing! Where is written in MOS that "notes" are "isn't for an excess amount of information." or what I put in that field is excessive? Why do you wish to suppress any additional information about the film (as the article is up for deletion)? Spshu (talk) 15:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The cell of date its only for year, the last cell its only for basic information, not for an excess of detailed info. Pelase respect the format.OscarFercho (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
This film is not notable. Why should information about this TV film be suppress do to your limitation placed on the table? Spshu (talk) 19:59, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
The film is notable, even if the article is deleted, the film still here, but the info to the cells in this list its only basics and essential.OscarFercho (talk) 02:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
No, the article is up for deletion as it is not notable. Who writes and directs it is vary basic. Spshu (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OscarFercho here. The table should list similar information for each film, whether they are notable enough for a separate article or not. The table isn't the place to dump information about non-notable films. It looks very strange for the table to have more-detailed information about less notable entries than those that are most notable. Calathan (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Not really, Calathan, one would see that notable films have their own article, thus it would not look strange to have more detail information in this article about one that is not notable. Spshu (talk) 20:32, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

OscarFercho and Calathan, there is an article for deletion discussion started for this film if you want to take sides in it. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The only example I've seen of adding writers to films is in the List of films based on DC Comics, and that's specifically for the adapted ones in the DCOAM series (I may have got the initials wrong). Instead of it being deleted, effort should be made in building the article. -- Anythingspossibleforapossible (talk) 21:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's true, these lists aren't place for excess of information, no need exactly date of release or detail of credit team behind those projects.OscarFercho (talk) 00:29, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
You are right about one thing Anythingspossibleforapossible, we should find ways to build the article in order to improve it. The article for deletion of this page is here if anyone wants to take sides in either opposing or supporting the deletion. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD results[edit]

The AfD end with the decision to merge information and redirect to this page. Please respected the |AfD decision. Spshu (talk) 14:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@OscarFercho:, You make demands that I go the talk page and you don't show up and continue to revert. Spshu (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
The article its now redirected on this list, I respect that resolution, what's the problem with that?OscarFercho (talk) 15:30, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
This list its only for reference information, not for an excess of detail. Do you want change the format of this list?OscarFercho (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
No you are not, since you removing the information that vote for merger indicated at the AfD should be at the List page. So, no you are not "respecting that resolution". Lists do have details and it has been changed for this one due to the AfD. Spshu (talk) 15:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Secondly, you still have not restored the source that you AGREED to return to the article earlier on. Spshu (talk) 15:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
There's no cells on this list that cites directors, writers, month of release, only year, or characters involved on the film. Do you want change this format?OscarFercho (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
The redirects no means translate basics information of the article redirected on other, only that the article redirects its essentially irrelevant.OscarFercho (talk) 01:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but you are not making any sense. At best, I can respond that those that chose redirect indicated that additional information should be added. They should have technically vote "limited merged and redirect" given their responses. Spshu (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

AfD closer here. I came here per Spshu's notification on my talk page. Editors are free to selectively merge any content from the redirected article to the target article. How much to be merged to the target article should be determined through discussion, not edit warring. I have no opinion on what content should be merged. SSTflyer 10:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Right @SSTflyer:, but that discussion does take place at AfD (since I have seen votes like "merge" there). Oscar had a chance to participate in the AfD, as pointed out that it was up there and Rtkat3 was linking to the discussion. I was asking if you as closer see that the consensus there was to add additional information. I don't see the point of another discussion if the AfD cover that additional information should be merged. I could see a discussion about what is added since there was perhaps no consensus on that part of the issue. Spshu (talk) 13:06, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Do you want discuss this theme or impose your point of view?OscarFercho (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
No consensus at the AfD discussion on how much information to merge. The AfD discussion focuses on whether the topic is notable. Consensus is that it's not, hence my "redirect" closure. SSTflyer 14:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Insigificant change edits[edit]

(formerly: Reception info)

OscarFercho, Do not make an update on reception for CA:Civil War for a single additional review, WP is not a newspaper nor a database. Especially since the % did not change one iota. Spshu (talk) 14:11, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What? Why?OscarFercho (talk) 15:28, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
What. Why: not a newspaper nor a database. You just had the WP software remember an edit for increment of 1 additional review that did not effect the TOMATOMETER % not one percentage point. WP doesn't need to be absolutely up to date for non-effective change in information. You might as well as making edit warring edits to waste the Wikimedia Foundation resources more. But of course you are doing so over the above issue (details about Frost Fight). Spshu (talk) 16:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
And exactly what's the problem with that?OscarFercho (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Are you questioning the good faith edits?OscarFercho (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
You like using resources for little benefit of no incremental change in information? Of course, some one can question good faith edits. Just because they are good faith edits does not make them the correct edits. Good faith edits is not a defense against being reversed. Spshu (talk) 20:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)
Your interpretation ot the guidelines is wrong, please cheak before start a talk for this theme.OscarFercho (talk) 02:55, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

←Just stating that my interpretation of the guideline is wrong is not proof that I am wrong. Making insignificant edits like you did is wrong that is just basic common sense. Spshu (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That update seemed completely fine to me. While there isn't any need to check often to see if the number of reviews has changed, if someone notices that the numbers have changed it is good to update them. Our article should reflect the current sources to the best of our knowledge. Nothing in WP:NOTNEWSPAPER has anything to do with this situation. That is about us not covering insignificant events (like individual regular season sports matches), and not writing in a newspaper-like tone. It certainly isn't saying we should leave our articles out of date if we notice that the sources have changed. Spshu, your concern about the Wikimedia Foundation's servers is just completely unfounded. They have plenty of capacity to handle tons of small improvements to articles, and improvements, even as small as this one, are encouraged. Calathan (talk) 19:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Then why enforce 3RR, Calathan? Just let them role. The article was effective NOT out of date the % DID NOT CHANGE just the number of user reviews. IT WAS NOT ONE IOTA of improvement. OK, NOTNEWSPAPER may not address the issue directly. But a newspaper is suppose to be up on change in news subjects. Pulling up WP:STATS brings ("For the policy regarding use of statistics in articles, see WP:NOTSTATSBOOK"), which is still WP:NOT. With the nutshell stating: "The amount of information on Wikipedia is practically unlimited, but Wikipedia is a digital encyclopedia and therefore does not aim to contain all data or expression found elsewhere." NOTSTATSBOOK states: "As explained in § Encyclopedic content above, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Spshu (talk) 20:30, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
Spshu, you aren't making any sense at all. Whether it is appropriate to make a very minor improvement to the article has nothing to do with WP:3RR. The edit warring policy is about getting people to work together constructively. It isn't at all about trying to reduce the amount of data the Wikimedia Foundation servers have to store. About WP:NOTSTATBOOK, that is about whether we should include information or not include information. It isn't saying that we shouldn't keep the information we do choose to include up do date. Calathan (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks @Calathan:.OscarFercho (talk) 00:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Please @Spshu:, see the WP:EQ, your attitude is hostile, the update of current box office and critical reception are sense addings, not irrelevant. Please, I invite you to review all the guidelines before you do a discussion or you will be denounced.OscarFercho (talk) 00:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
Calathan, what was the change in reception (the percentage) in his edit? Did it change? Spshu (talk) 15:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
What is the big reveal or significant in that a movie made just a few more hundreds of dollars? Spshu (talk) 15:23, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Hi. Sorry, can you bring your thought of this issue?. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 15:55, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with everything Calathan said here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
"WP:NOTNEWSPAPER has anything to do with this situation. That is about us not covering insignificant events (like individual regular season sports matches)," Basically, Calathan, in adding a single review you are covering that insignificant event which did not change the percentage. Since, there was no percentage change, which other than being a statistical sound number (barring discussion about randomness) of reviews (30-33), there is no improvement of the information thus nothing to update. A single review is less than an individual regular season sport match. Spshu (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi, @Osubuckeyeguy:. Can you bring your thought on this issue. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 01:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
What is the relevant change between 70% and 70% Rotten Tomato score (which is the reception that we are tracking)? Newspapers and TV news only report in the millions for box office results. Spshu (talk) 22:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Proper cataloguing of films[edit]

I recently did an edit that simplified the way movies are listed in each section. Previously, movies based on TV series, whether they were backdoor pilots, movies repackaged as films for home video releases or abroad, and sequel films to TV series were in different sections. I believe it is best that all of these are grouped together, in order to avoid confusion. I created a new section called Films based on TV series and put all of the titles that fit the description above in this section. I also re-named the Television films section to "Non theatrical releases" and moved The Punisher (1989), Captain America (1990) and Fantastic Four (1994) in there. These movies were either unreleased or direct-to-video releaes and were located in the section that is de-facto for theatrical releases. @OscarFercho basically undid my revision but doing a revision of his own and manually undo-ing my edits. His reason was "Not, previously defined format". I am not quite sure what this means. From my understanding, we are supposed to be improving the pages. I don't see how we are not able to add new sections or make changes to what is included in these sections because another user claims we need to stick to the current format.12:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Goldeneyed (talk)

Your edits were filled with American bias. A film released theatrically in any country other than the United States is still a theatrical release.*Treker (talk) 13:00, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Treker.OscarFercho (talk) 13:12, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I apologise if it seems like it has an American bias, but that wasn't my intention. My edit was comprised of two parts, one was grouping together all films based on TV Series in one section, then the other was to move certain films from the theatrical section. Here are the issues with the way the movies are sorted:
If I am to understand how everything is set up, the first non titled section is for Theatrical releases (whether in the USA or internationally). Why is Man-Thing (2005), not included in this list? It had an international theatrical release. If the answer is because it aired on TV, then there should be a separate section for Punisher (1989) and Captain America (1990), which are both direct-to-video movies and possible Fantastic Four (1994), none of which were theatrical releases.
Another problem is that even though the first section is for theatrical releases, there are other movies listed under both the Television Movies and Episodes as Films sections, that have had international theatrical releases. So we have three sections where we place theatrical releases. That is a problem in my opinion.
What is the issue with taking all backdoor pilots, episodes repackaged as films and sequel movies (the three Hulk movies), and putting them all in one section? I haven't received an answer regarding that.21:07, 30 September 2016 (UTC)Goldeneyed (talk)
Need more consensous for your proposal, now we are two disagree.OscarFercho (talk) 00:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
Honestly I think you have some points but I believe it's the easiest if all the live action films are just listed together. It would probably be good if we brought this up on the comics project talk page.*Treker (talk) 01:12, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems the better way, the comics project talk page.OscarFercho (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Inhumans[edit]

According to the report of Marvel.com, about The Inhumans new television series, it will debut, exclusively, in IMAX theatres, what will meaning its first release, its debut, [1]. This like-a-movie premiere must be include on this list as upcoming feature film? Thoughts, please.OscarFercho (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Playing in a theatre does not make something a feature film. The advertisements before a movie are not all feature films because they are playing in a theatre. This is two episodes of a television series, not a film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

How we know the title?[edit]

What's the source of the title Spider-Man: Homecoming 2? How we know that title?OscarFercho (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

The source on the page. "... the Culver City studio has announced that its sequel Spider-Man: Homecoming 2 will open on Friday, July 5, 2019." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
It is almost certainly a temporary title, but that is what it is and can be referred to now until it is given a new title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:31, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes. I think that's not completely adequate title to reference the project.OscarFercho (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2016 (UTC)