User talk:Spidey104/2012 Archive

Removing links response

I don't know about the Prowler and Sinister Six links of which you speak of unless the ones I removed turned out to be redirects. But for Avenging Spider-Man, Moloids redirect to Subterranea. At least I was able to add a section for the Molans on Subterranea's page. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:21, January 24, 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Moloids redirects to Subterranea, but it also pipes directly to the section about the Moloids within that article. Since there is no other link to Subterranea it should not have been removed. You could have changed the link so it directly piped to that section without a redirect, but you should not have removed the link.

As for the other pages you removed piping of links or full links with no explanation. Typing something into the edit summary would help avoid confusion in the future if you have a reason for your change. Spidey 104 15:29, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ai Apaec (comics)

Hi Spidey! I see you've been adding {{orphan}} on Ai Apaec (comics), which has five incoming links. WP:ORPHAN#Criteria states "An article is orphaned if no other articles link to it. It is recommended to only place the {{orphan}} tag if the article has ZERO incoming links from other articles. Although a single, relevant incoming link is sufficient to remove the tag, three or more is ideal and will help ensure the article is reachable to readers." Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 05:30, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

My mistake. I thought the orphan tag was for articles with very few links and not strictly limited to zero links. I thought it would be good if more articles linked to it, which is why I kept adding it back in. Thanks for the information on the proper protocol. Spidey104 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Anya Corazon edit war

Hey, we've worked together in the past and I noticed you have made significant contributions to the Anya Corazon article. I have started a discussion about the edit war currently going on in that article. I thought I'd let you know in case you want to make a comment. Kurt Parker (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, but it looks like everything is already taken care of.

On a sidenote, it's good to see you back. Hopefully you'll stick around and not disappear again. Spidey104 15:08, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm back. I might not be around consistently (so don't expect replies to come quickly, unlike this one did), but I will be around. I'm still new-ish to Wikipedia, so let me know if I make any bad mistakes. Kurt Parker (talk) 18:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of List of films considered the best for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of films considered the best is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of films considered the best until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ends of the Earth (Marvel Comics)

The article Ends of the Earth (Marvel Comics) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Completely unreferenced with very little info. Not sure if this subject is notable enough to have an article page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Aunty-S (talk) 18:11, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Iguana

Personally I don't think that's a reason for the inclusion myself. The character hasn't proven notability as a Spider-Man enemy except as another Lizard ripoff and his biography is related to the Lizards...but I am free to talk about it if you disagree. And if he deserves to stay because of that reason Shriek and Calypso probably deserve to stay as well even though they are basically just supporting villains of the more major villain. :) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:21, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Also I don't want it to sound like I am being harsh. I am sorry if I do sound that way.Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:36, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Just curious do you still feel strongly about him being added because if so I am more than willing to listen or do a consensus if you do. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 16:43, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

You have many good points; I agree with you now.

No, you did not come across as being harsh.

I didn't reply sooner because I haven't been back on Wikipedia since a few minutes after I made that edit to the template. You were very quick to change it and post here, but not quick enough to catch me before I was gone. Spidey104 21:17, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Glad to hear that. By the way what do you think of the Big Wheel being on there. I am not sure about him either. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:56, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't belong either. Honestly, I hadn't taken a good look at the list in a while; I'd only been monitoring additions/subtractions to the template with it on my watchlist to make sure nothing inappropriate happened. Spidey104 15:09, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man FA

What do you think of a teamwork on making Spider-Man a FA article. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 17:08, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I would definitely be up for that! That article definitely deserves to become one. I haven't done a lot with nominating articles for good or featured status, so I don't know what exactly to do. Could you nominate it so we could get a list of what needs to be improved to become a featured article? Once we have a "To Do" list it will be a lot easier to check things off the list and get things done, because right now I'm not sure what should be improved. Spidey104 18:50, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The most important thing is that every section should have citation...especially that commercial success section (the other sections I may can handle) that's probably the most hardest task. Are you up for that one. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

...and by the way yes I know how to nominate it I just know it can't be ready for review until every paragraph is cited. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:24, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

As long as there are things to do I am fine waiting to nominate; I'm glad you know what needs to be done. I can't promise to be fast about adding those citations, but I will try to make steady progress on accomplishing that. Spidey104 21:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 6

Hi. When you recently edited Eric Battle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page The Walking Dead (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) 10:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

American Son (comics)

I searched for a suitable merge before proding American Son (comics), but found nothing. Before I nominate it at AFD, do you have any suggestions? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

The Dark Reign section could be merged to Dark Reign (comics)#Amazing Spider-Man and the Heroic Age section could be merged to Gabriel and Sarah Stacy. Then I would probably make the article a disambiguation page since it could reasonably redirect to Gabriel, Harry, or List of The Amazing Spider-Man issues.

I would still go ahead with the AfD discussion, because other people may disagree with me on where to merge the information. I have seen many AfDs end with the conclusion to merge, so I don't think that will be a problem. Spidey104 15:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Ampersands

Thanks! Although I'll probably just incorporate the link into the text with a piped link (where space allows it), since I often like to include explanations (here and here, for example) to newbies who either don't know to or don't wish to click on the wikilinks.

Peter Parker redirects to Spider-Man

No kidding. But using the redirect seems natural when "Peter Parker" is used as a linkable point in the text. "[[Spider-Man|Peter Parker]] is a bit overkill unless the intent is to orphan the redirect from all article use.

- J Greb (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Clark Kent does not redirect to Superman, so it is not a given that Peter Parker would redirect to Spider-Man. Besides, most of the changes I did were where Peter Parker and Spider-Man were linked in the same paragraph and that is redundant. I did change a few links to [[Spider-Man|Peter Parker]], but I generally felt it was better that way for reasons specific to each change. I purposefully left some of the Peter Parker redirects alone, but obviously that does not show up in "My (lack of) contribution" history. This would not be my first time making a mistake, especially when going through a redundant task. I'll admit that my changes to Batman Begins and Superman were probably a mistake, but would you disagree with the other changes I made? Spidey104 14:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Clark Kent is almost a unique situation. When the same was attempted with Bruce Wayne it eventually was reverted to a redirect. It is highly unlikely that a similar thing would even be contemplated with Peter Parker/Spider-Man.

That said...

I agree that eliminating overlinking is a good idea. But "Unlinked due to WP:OVERLINK", "Already linked earlier in the article", or similar would be preferable as a summary. It's a little clearer why and what change was made.

This I can also agree with - Link at the first occurrence and use the more appropriate name.

The problem I was seeing were, unfortunately, two of the cases where swapping to "Spider-Man" in the text wouldn't work and they were the first/only occurrence. Using the redirect makes sense in those cases, and likely the ones that didn't pop-up as there were no edits.

- J Greb (talk) 21:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Your suggested edit summary would have been better than what I used, but I'm already done. Unless someone added a link to Peter Parker in the past day, I have looked at all of the articles that link to it and left them as is. I changed all of the ones that I felt should be changed. Spidey104 21:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Recent Spider-Man issues and more

Hey Spidey104, I was wondering what you think about the recent issues of Spider-Man which revolved around the Ends of the Earth. Even though Doctor Octopus has turned the government against Spider-Man, he is planning to take the world down with him when his illness reaches it's limit. Also, thanks for helping me improve the Savage Six. That page had to be created since there were two sections for it listed on the Sinister Six's page. When the Savage Six's next appearance comes out, we'll have some more info to put for the group. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:19, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Rtkat3, I was actually going to post on your talk page in a minute thanking you for splitting the Savage Six article from the Sinister Six article. I completely agree with your reasons for doing it, which is why I helped fix it up a little bit. And why I also added it to a couple templates that it should belong on.

I have really liked the "Ends of the Earth" storyline so far. Now that Doctor Octopus has shown he is still a villain I think we will see the governments of the world jumping to back Spider-Man in the next issue, but we will see. I haven't had a chance to read the one-shot that ties into that storyline yet or the most recent issue of Venom despite them being released yesterday. I hope to have time to read them this weekend and I'll be editing again on Monday. Spidey104 21:24, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps someone might add any info on the tie-in that we might modify at some point. I was wondering if you have checked out the Avengers vs. X-Men storyline. Futhermore, I had to start a section for Spider-Girl's enemies. Rtkat3 (talk) 5:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

I only have a few random issues of Spider-Girl so I have basically no knowledge of that version of the Savage Six, so hopefully someone else will add in that information.

I have been reading the Avengers vs. X-Men story, but not all of the tie-ins. Uncanny X-Men is the only ongoing series that is a tie-in that I was already getting on a regular basis before Avengers vs. X-Men started. I kept getting that one and have not started getting issues from the other ongoing series that are tie-ins. I got Avengers: X-Sanction, I'm obviously getting the main Avengers vs. X-Men issues, and I'm also getting AVX: Vs which I really like. I have already made a few edits to the article, but I'm letting others handle that article since plenty of editors seem to be reading multiple of the tie-in issues. Spidey104 19:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Marvel Cinematic Universe

Why did you suddenly change your opinion in the discussion? I know you can't be TriiipleThreat, but the change is very surprising and confusing. Kurt Parker (talk) 14:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

The way the argument was going it looked like TriiipleThreat was going to win his argument and restrict the list to a few characters and I was arguing for the villains and the Chitauri because I thought the list should be a mostly full list. I thought the option of none instead of some was better since we obviously weren't going to get full. Also, this new argument is fairly persuasive and probably would have changed my mind if it hadn't been changed already. Spidey104 19:10, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Spider-Man revenge squad

In List of Spider-Man enemies, Spider-Man revenge squad is removed constantly as if it's not a group enemy. What is your thoughts about it? I also think I probably have had enough with reverting because the IP editor might have been the same editor for a while. Which means I could have gone reverting more than I should. If so would you mind taking over patrolling if you feel that it should stay. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 20:11, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand (but do not agree with) the reasoning of the people removing it because it was intended as a joke. However, there have been multiple references to that group since then that give it notability. I added the List of Spider-Man enemies article to my watchlist to help keep an eye on it as I agree with you that it should be included. Spidey104 13:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Re: Thor 2

Because we do not know what will come to pass, we do however know the intent of the filmmakers. And excuse me if my edit summary came off as harsh, I do recognize your good faith.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:06, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you and the same thing goes for you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Paulharv2

While I appreciate the intent, Paulharv2 only edited the Spider-Man template to add the Daredevil article today [1].

- J Greb (talk) 23:37, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Today, yes. Last time he edited, no. And he had done it before, so I thought the additional warning was worthwhile. Spidey104 03:13, 23 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)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Falcon avengers 64.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Falcon avengers 64.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Your spam whitelist request

Thank you for making a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. I am sorry that it has taken this amount of time to attend to your request. Please be advised that we have been unable to close your request based on the information supplied. Please visit the whitelist request page and search for your name or the site you requested where you will see details of what additional information is required. Please note that replies here or on my talk page will not be taken into account. Please also note that if no information is received within two weeks from now, your request may be treated as withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikilinking

I do hope you're not encouraging that people relink terms every section, because that is just what you endorsed. I'm also pretty sure that cannot be the policy because that would result in massive overlink.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:48, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

There is a big difference between what I changed and what you're saying I support. I had to do a text search to find the closest link to Toxin; that should not be necessary if you unlink a word claiming there is a nearby link. Spidey104 01:50, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

You said that a term can be linked once per section. By that methodology I can re-link Spider-Man in every section. Carnage, Scream, etc. It's not a reasonable expectation when the link isn't far away and articles are meant to be built with a person reading them from start to finish in mind. That's why there is a template for improving an article lede, even though someone can just skip further into the article. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is true, but I don't advocate that for every words, just for small or uncommon words that the average reader wouldn't be able to find easily elsewhere in the article. I didn't make the guidelines/rules; I was just quoting them. Spidey104 18:00, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

Sha Shan

I think we need to merge Sha-Shan into a list article just like Anna Watson. I definitely don't see her belonging on the navbox either. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:33, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh and the same with Max Modell. These characters haven't proven any notability whatsoever. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:35, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree. I just wasn't on Wikipedia to see your note. After Horizon Labs was deleted I was actually planning to propose deleting Max. Spidey104 01:18, 4 January 2013 (UTC)