User talk:Facu-el Millo

Archives

Happy New Year, Facu-el Millo!

Happy New Year!

Facu-el Millo,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 15:18, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year 2024!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Facu-el Millo: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Harry Potter (TV series)

Please see what you can add from here. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:16, 2 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings

On 4 February 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a bus-chase sequence in Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings took more than a year to plan and was revised more than twenty times? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 12:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 7,660 views (638.4 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of February 2024 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 5 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool 2's wikipedia page says its aprt of the xmen series and since Deadpool and wolverine is a sequel to deadpo 3 that must mean that is apart of the xmen series. Fox is behind the new deadpool film

d Robinhoodph (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Robinhoodph: 20th Century Fox does not exist anymore. The X-Men (film series) refers to those films produced by Fox. Deadpool & Wolverine is part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and, while it continues the narrative and characters, from a real-world perspective it is something different, the same way Spider-Man: No Way Home is not part of the Raimi Spider-Man film series. —El Millo (talk) 21:55, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fox does exist just with a new name and under disney. No Way home was a direct sequel to far from home not any other spider-man film whereas Deadpool and Wolverine is a direct sequel to deadpool 2 which is part of the x men series continuity wise and production wise. No Way home is not a sequel to a series other than far from home and the mcu. Also mabe No Way home is a sequel to the other spiderman films, why are you so sure they are not. Robinhoodph (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Crossover elements do not automatically mean this is a X-Men film series installment. This is clearly bringing the Deadpool character into the MCU and it was mainly developed as part of the MCU by Marvel Studios. No Way Home is not a direct sequel to the prior Spidey films, it is a crossover. There is a difference. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked the question on the Deadpool & Wolverine talk page of whether this is also a sequel to the Wolverine films. He is (now) a title character, after all. BD2412 T 23:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what this was about but I did respond there too. Trailblazer101 (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but Deadpool 2 is a xmen film so why wouldn't Deadpool 3 be? Its not dependant on whos behind the film. Directors change, companies change etc Robinhoodph (talk) 02:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's an MCU film. It changed franchises because of the transfer to Marvel Studios, which said it is in the MCU and developed it as an MCU film. It is not in the X-Men franchise. That ended with The New Mutants. Trailblazer101 (talk) 02:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The film starts in the xmen Universe as seen in the trailer he is then transported into the mcu Robinhoodph (talk) 20:32, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is not about the story, it's about the real world. That franchise was produced under a company which no longer exists. Deadpool & Wolverine warrants a mention in the X-Men (film series) article, a big one, but it's not part of that franchise as it was. I suggest, though, that this continues in the article's talk page, not here. Perhaps a new consensus forms that agrees with you there. —El Millo (talk) 20:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Comics logo

Greetings El Millo! I was wondering if you could help me out with your expertise in getting the new Marvel Comics logo on a transparent background and switching the "Comics" text to black as you did for Marvel Animation. I no longer have my Photoshop access to do this adequately. Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trailblazer101: you can find the PNG logo here. —El Millo (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Thank you! Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:El Eternauta cover.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:El Eternauta cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter characters

Hello! Just wanted to ask you a quick question about the HP Characters page. Do you really think the bold text doesn't look good? I thought it looked amazing, making it way easier to read and navigate the page. Wafflewombat (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat: Yeah, I think it looked excessive because it's present in every single line, so it ends up looking bloated and not highlighting anything. See MOS:BOLD, which explains why using bold text should be limited to a few cases. —El Millo (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks for replying. And thanks for adding citations! It's going to be a big job to cite the entire page, but it should get done eventually. Every little bit counts. Wafflewombat (talk) 02:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've got another question for you. How would you feel about merging Dumbledore's Army with List of Harry Potter characters? I'm not going to make a formal proposal yet until I hear some thoughts from other editors. I did an overhaul of the DA page, which mostly involved trimming a lot of unnecessary and non-notable content. As it stands, there is almost no real-world context for the DA, so I don't think it meets WP's notability guideline. The page is basically just a list of characters, plus the Synopsis, which, in my view, could be trimmed. The only DA character that has a longer description than most entries on the Characters page is Cho Chang, but I don't think that would be a big deal. Please let me know your thoughts! Wafflewombat (talk) 18:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way it looks now, it should be merged, but the links that redirect to each character should be checked first. Whatever real context there is to be added for these characters should likely be included in the appropriate book and/or film article anyway. —El Millo (talk) 22:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the links that go to the DA page, or the links on the DA page that go to other pages? Wafflewombat (talk) 00:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the links that go to the DA page. —El Millo (talk) 01:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying we need to find every link for every DA character on Wikipedia, and change it? Is there a quick way of doing that? Wafflewombat (talk) 02:04, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Facu-el Millo: What do you think about using this page's formatting for the HP characters list? This trucking page is listed here as an example of glossary formatting, which qualifies as an acceptable use of boldface text. I'm asking because I got some feedback that the page is "very messy due to how names are ordered and how they're all bunched together." To remedy this issue, we could also put all the names in a table, but I don't like tables, because I find them to be ugly and bulky. Please let me know your thoughts. Wafflewombat (talk) 19:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Wafflewombat: I still think that, as far as formatting goes, the current version is the least messy one. I'd rather have the names be in bold than that option because that's essentially a waste of space, since the names would be alone in one line, with the rather small descriptions needlessly in a different line. The thing is, given how small these descriptions are, for me it doesn't justify any type of emphasis on the names apart from the bulletpoint itself. If the descriptions were generally larger, it might be justified. Nevertheless, that editor's feedback is proposing an entire revamp of the article, and whether the names are in bold or not seems to be one of the least relevant points they are making. While I generally agree with the editor's proposal, it seems to be a rather demanding task, so it is up to you if you're willing to do it, I'll surely participate in some reduced capacity as I don't have much time as of late. Perhaps bringing back the most important and/or referenced bits of the characters that used to have whole sections and articles dedicated to them would be a good start. —El Millo (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that that article used to function almost as an index of characters, most of which would link to a different article where they were far more developed (albeit full of plot summaries and unreferenced info). As things stand now, this article could benefit from including more info. —El Millo (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for both of these replies. When you have time, perhaps you could give a couple examples of characters that could use more info? After merging Dumbledore's Army and Hogwarts Staff into the list, I condensed the length of the character entries to what I felt was appropriate for the importance of the character. I'm absolutely open to the possibility that I condensed too much, but I would need you to point out the content that needs to be restored. Wafflewombat (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All those characters that wouldn't have more information about them listed elsewhere should probably get more information in this article. Those that were only here from the beginning and those that used to be somewhere else and now are only here. I'm thinking mostly about sourced, relevant real-world info, along with the succint plot-related summary that's already there. We will see then if there's enough of that to make sections about some of these characters instead of only bulletpoints, or if at least the bulletpoints get long enought to justify putting the names in bold. I only slightly agree with removing some of the least noteworthy characters, but I think most of them should stay. —El Millo (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which characters that I removed do you think should be restored? Wafflewombat (talk) 04:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposal

Hey, I just wanted to let you know that I posted another merge proposal here. I would be grateful if you could offer your thoughts. Wafflewombat (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]