User talk:Favre1fan93/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Thanks

Thanks for removing this at Black Panther. User:Lg16spears who added that has a tendency to report rumors as if they were true, and also often uses unreliable sources. 73.168.15.161 (talk) 23:55, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

The info was initially sound. However, the reports later retracted their terminology because, upon further review of the Empire interview, realized it did not confirm Coogler, only that it was on board, with talks still ongoing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:08, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

After a page move...

Hi Favre1fan93. Just a friendly reminder: After a page move such as the one you did at Purity Ring, there will often be a lot of broken links (see here) that might need some attention. Best wishes for the New Year, Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:56, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: Is there any bot/quick way to fix the dabs for these? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. In the past I've fixed them manually. I'm not sure if someone has developed something quicker in the meantime. I'm not technical-aware enough to know if things like Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups are helpful. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:18, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It's possible AWB can help with this. I don't have it, so I've reached out to another user who does to see if they can help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Paul Erik: No fear; as above, the issue has been fixed with AWB. The remaining links to these pages belong only in user sub-pages or talk pages now. Alex|The|Whovian 08:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Nicely done! Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ant-Man (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ant-Man (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Awsomegamer75795 -- Awsomegamer75795 (talk) 16:01, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Supergirl

What do you mean by "final numbers"? I thought the common practice is to only include live viewers in the episode table. nyuszika7h (talk) 19:38, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: The content you added were not the final ratings for the night. As I stated in my edit summary, the final numbers for the night are released around 4 or 5 pm EST on TV by the Numbers. You will know if it is final, if "Final" is in the title of the article. From the first reported numbers, to the final, are generally small adjustments. That is what I meant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring on Star wars the force awakens.

Please don't get involved in edit warring. Just because someone else breaks the three revert rule doesn't mean you should as well. Take it to the talk page. (That aside, I do agree with you and have reverted the edit, if he wants to cite the date he also needs to include the citation obviously.)  InsertCleverPhraseHere ^{InsertTalkHere}  05:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Additions removed

You left a message on my talk page and said that some edits were 'disruptive'.... I do not know which ones you are talking about as I edit articles throughout my day when I see something that is inaccurate or excluded. Referring to the article which you are discussing would be helpful. Thanks. Burningblue52 (talk) 07:43, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Shannara Chronicles

Hello, The Shannara Chronicles is a new TV series and its first two episodes have been broadcast last week. However, as a marketing campaign the network decided to release episodes three and four online, with their broadcasting schedule still happening. I wanted to know if we should add "4" to the infobox | num_episodes = template or wait until the episodes are broadcast to add them? Thank you — Artmanha 16:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: There was a recent discussion regarding this situation over at the TV project, which you can find here. If that does not help answer your question (I was not a part of the discussion), feel free to contact one of the contributing editors, or add to the discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

But based on what you said, I would say you should add 4 to the infobox, because they have been produced/released, even though they have not broadcasted yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much for the reply. — Artmanha 17:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Strange (film)

I've started a discussion on the film's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 01:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

"Original air date" template

On The Shannara Chronicles, right after the first two episodes were broadcast, episodes three and four were released online, prior to their broadcast date. The information regarding it is displayed on the Release section in the article. However, there is an editor trying to add it as a note on the episode table as well, claiming that "another editor could not find it [at the Release section]. here it is good". Should we duplicate the information and leave it as a note on the episode table, or not? Thank you and sorry to bother you again. — Artmanha 15:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't absolutely necessary, but it wouldn't hurt to have a ref note next to those dates, informing readers about the release history. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. But if those informations are already on the article, wouldn't it be redundant or even duplicate information? And what's the actual importance of it once it's a broadcast televison show, not a webseries? — Artmanha 19:35, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

If this is going to be a regular thing (ie releasing some eps online before broadcast), the notes would be redundant. However, if it is just these two, despite being slightly redundant, it may be helpful for the readers. Also, these notes can be as simple as "Released online on X date.", with your full blown refs and reasons why in the release section. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! I'll add them there. Is it necessary that there's references on the notes? And for future references, may the series be renewed for multiple seasons, and season articles be created, will the notes be displayed on the episodes list article? And lastly, I am bothering you or is it okay if I keep asking you stuff whenever in doubt? — Artmanha 19:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

You should include the references on the notes. Should you end up splitting to a LoE, you just have to make sure the notes are after the episode list, and then the </onlyinclude> tag is added after the note. The references would have to be included there as well to properly transclude. And not a bother at all! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! — Artmanha 22:24, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Ant-Man (film)/GA1

Favre1fan93, the review was opened by a new editor (132 edits) who clearly has no clue what a GA review should be or how to review to the GA criteria. (The same editor nominated an article and then opened its review two days later; that one's still being untangled.)

I think the chances of finding a replacement reviewer are minimal; you'll almost certainly have better luck back in the pool of nominations with your seniority intact. I know that TriiipleThreat has called for a second opinion/new reviewer, but second opinions get very little attention, and they aren't eligible for WikiCup credit. I would recommend that you let me arrange to return the nomination to pre-review status. Please let me know what you'd like to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

BlueMoonset if you can arrange it to pre-review status, that would be much appreciated. It was unfortunate that editor initiated the review. We very much would like someone with more experience review the article. Thanks for the help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Arrowverse

Back in October we had a discussion at Template talk:Arrow (TV series) and we seemed in agreeance that we should hold off creating {{Arrowverse}}, but I notice that it has been created[1] and content has been moved to it from {{Arrow (TV series)}}. I was wondering what your thoughts on this were. Personally I don't think we need two stubby templates. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

At this point, we should probably only have one at {{Arrowverse}}. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also left the same question on Bignole's talk page. Perhaps we should restart the discussion at the template? --AussieLegend (✉) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

TV Ratings

Hello again, a rating table was created on The Shannara Chronicles page, however I can't find sources citing the numbers for DVR 18-49 and L+7 ratings. It's cable show, so I was wondering if we could display information for Live+3 ratings instead, or isn't it desirable to the improvement of the article?

P.S.: Would you mind checking the commentary I made on the Teen Wolf Season 1 talk page? Thank you — Artmanha 13:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Cable shows generally release less info on ratings than broadcast shows (CBS, ABC, etc.). That said, you should only add info that you can acquire, and it might not be the same as the broadcast ones. Additionally, it might not even be enough to warrant a separate ratings table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The Shannara Chronicles

Hello again, there is this IP adress user trying to make changes on The Shannara Chronicles episode table, changing the broadcast date for two episodes to the date they were released online. These two episodes were earlier released online, so as it is a television series, we put the broadcasting date and a note stating they were released earlier online. But this new user, who has no respect for Wikipedia's policies and guidelines except for the WP:IAR, states we should put the date for the online released in the middle of the broadcasting dates for the other episodes using "arguments" like ::Today's media are mixed content by default, and Wikipedia should reflect that fact. I advised the user to start a discussion on the Template talk:Infobox television to see if he/she can even help improving Wikipedia but the user seems to ignore everything I can possibly say. What should I do? — Artmanha (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, a lot of what Art is saying is not true. Please keep an open mind as you assess the situation. Thanks!-217.248.3.146 (talk) 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Everything I said is documented within the talk page in question, therefore proving my point. — Artmanha (talk) 12:50, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Fuller House

Sorry, I'm new, so learning what needs to be done. I have questions regarding the undoing of Fuller House edits, and would be much appreciative if you could let me know what I need to do to avoid having edits undone in the future.

Episode 2 title and director are from IMDB. I did not cite source because other episodes of other TV shows articles do not seem to cite sources from where they were taken from. Please let me know if this is something that needs to be cited.

Short descriptions of episode 1 and 2 were written by me because I have seen the episodes. Is there something I'm supposed to cite when I've seen the episodes? They haven't been released yet, so do not believe they have been written up by anyone yet. Similarly, the detail about the girls moving into Danny's house comes from the (unaired) episode itself.

I changed the bit about the Olsen twins are the only ones not reprising their roles to not yet reprising because this show is still in production so they may still. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JMSWDLY (talk • contribs) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

All episode info, if it hasn't aired yet, needs a source. IMDb is not a reliable source (see WP:IMDB). Preview summaries are not added to episodes before they have aired or are released to the masses. No one can back up that you've seen anything, so you can't add it before it airs. The show has ended production, and has no indication at this time of returning for more seasons. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agent Carter

Just some confusion regarding the story/teleplay for Episode 9. At List of The Big Bang Theory episodes#ep198, for example, the press release gives "WRITTEN BY: Steve Molaro, Jim Reynolds, Tara Hernandez / TELEPLAY BY: Steve Holland, Eric Kaplan, Jeremy Howe", and this is listed as story and teleplay for the episode table. Would it not be the same for "written by Michele Fazekas and Tara Butters with teleplay by Chris Dingess", from the press release of Agent Carter's 2x09? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Possibly. I believe this will be the case, but, if I'm not mistaken, no Marvel TV episode has had a Story/Teleplay credit yet. I think we should just wait until the episode airs to be 100% sure and see how the opening credits list it. Though, I don't really know how else Fazekas and Butters would be credited, if not a story... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, we can wait. I'd also note that Jessica Jones (TV series) had two story/teleplay credited episodes. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:20, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

True. I only looked at the broadcast shows. So I'm sure you're correct, and I think it will be that too, but since we don't have anything else to go on (TBBT has close to 200 episodes that we know use S/T credits from the script sheets), it won't harm to wait to be totally sure. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts

Just so you know, left some thoughts/questions on the talk page of KH 2.8 Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:56, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Muppets

So how do you link to a specific section of a wiki article? I've seen it done before. Czolgolz (talk) 17:50, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

@Czolgolz: I realized I didn't clarify correctly in my revert: you can't equate the in show criticism to the real-world criticism the show has received. That would be WP:SYNTH (as in, the show has received real world criticism, and so has the fictional show, so they must be the same). Yes, the show is making note of it by doing what they are doing, but it is still improper. And to properly code what you asked, you would just do [[#(Section name within the same article)| ]]. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I should have made it clearer in my edit, but that episode of the Muppets was parodying the Million Moms boycott, so I thought it to be relevant, but such things are subjective.Czolgolz (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ant-Man (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ant-Man (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Template talk:CGuest

Hi there, I recently started a discussion on Template talk:CGuest about some helpful changes to the template that you have recently edited. I would appreciate hearing your opinion there. Thank you, and happy editing! — DLManiac (talk) 05:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Production of Avengers: Infinity War

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ant-Man (film)

The article Ant-Man (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ant-Man (film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Miyagawa -- Miyagawa (talk) 13:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Input requested

There is a dispute at Talk:Spider-Man and the X-Men over whether a redlink editor's edits violate WikiProject Comics guidelines as fancruft and issue-by-issue synopses. A comparison of two versions is here. I am writing to some longtime Project editors individually, since Portal talk:Comics appears to have very little traffic and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Notice board has had no postings in years. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Star Wars: Episode VIII

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Starring field

Hello, there's currently a discussion here regarding the infobox starring field and I need your opinion on it. Thanks. -- Wrath X (talk) 04:49, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Avengers Infinity War

You either didn't read the the things I wrote down, or you don't know anything about the article. You say that everything I said already was in the article, it isn't. Take for an example Clint Barton, alias Hawkeye, he isn't said to play in both Infinity war parts on Wikipedia, but most other media state all original Avengers (Tony, Steve, Bruce, Clint, Natasha and Thor) will be in the movie, the least. So I don't get why you are too ignorant to shove things aside. Better read the article I put as a link, and than falue if it is a good or a bad source. It now looks to me like you where bored, and just deleted my reaction because you had too much time left to fill with your daily doings. Wietse110 (talk) 19:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Actually, you are the one who didn't do the reading. You proposed some poorly written speculation about the films, without even making it clear what you wanted, instead sounding like you were trying to start a conversation. Favre pointed this out to you (WP:NOTFORUM) and explained that all the characters we know will be in the films, that is those who have been reliably sourced as appearing not speculated as like in the ref you provided, are already listed in the table. So if you aren't going to read the thorough, valid explanations of other editors when they revert you, then please refrain from throwing allegations and attacks at them. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It was also not a WP:RS so there was that too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Constantine part of the Arrowverse

I noticed that you undid my revision on the page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_television_series_based_on_DC_Comics that Constantine was part of the arrowverse. You assert that it is not. However, interviews regarding the Arrow crossover state that the character is the same Constantine. Therefore it was retroactively made a part of the arrowverse due to the crossover. I provided a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midshipmanx (talk • contribs) 23:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of Arrowverse actors. The character is part of the universe, the series isn't. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Then why did they say this... "In terms of whether we should assume that this is firmly considered the same version of Constantine from his own series (and thus retroactively linking the Constantine series to the Arrow-verse), Mericle said, “Absolutely. He is coming in fully as who he was on the show. We’re getting wardrobe. We’re very excited to have him. He’s a tremendous actor. It’s so cool to have that cross-pollination. We are very lucky and DC was very generous letting us have him.”" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Midshipmanx (talk • contribs) 05:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)As Favre said, please see Talk:List of Arrowverse actors, as well as Talk:Arrowverse. This issue has already been discussed there. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:12, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Person of Interest Season 5

Hi, I hope you're not taking this personally, because I feel like your reverts are passive aggressive attacks on me. Let's agree to compromise; your sourcing format is much neater; I was surprised when they started doubling them together but went along with it. Let's leave the page the way it is now until I find more confirmation. We both want to help best inform the fans. We could break down Chris's language all day, but its a matter of opinion and I'm accepting where there was doubt, but the rest is fact. Can we compromise with the page the way it is? Bef3481(2) (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

See my response on the article talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I just weighed in on the talk page, and reverted his latest solicited tweets. First names won't do it, and I think these tweets meet the standard for WP:OR. I've tried to explain. We'll see how it flies. --Drmargi (talk) 17:35, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Clemons

It is slightly after 9:30, Brett Mahoney says "Let me tell you what Clemons used to say" - Clemons being the recurring character/detective on Jessica Jones. We already know Brett Mahoney from DD crossed over onto JJ since he works at the same precinct, this episode just made reference to the fact he's no longer alive (since Will Simpson killed him - I originally wrote Kilgrave, but corrected myself when I remembered).

On a similar note, the district attorney (Reyes) who is hassling Foggy is the same district attorney from the Jessica Jones finale, who tried to have Jessica answer for killing Kilgrave. Worth mentioning the actress crossed over? -- S ^talk/_contribs 18:05, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes I went back and listened. The DA is listed in the casting section, but possibly. A bunch of articles will be coming out very soon highlighting all the crossovers, so we can wait to see what we can use. I still have to finish the season, so I'll be off the related articles for a few days until I do finish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:06, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Batman v Superman: lock the page!

Dude,please lock the page! People keep making unsourced additions to the page and I have to come I. And revert those edits. It's getting tiresome. P!ease lock the damn page until the film is officially released. Npamusic (talk) 06:40, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Question

I was wondering, on English Wikipedia you use source for everything exept for film plots or episodes summaries. Can I asked you why is that? We have discussion on Polish Wikipedia, about sourcing plots and summaries. Mike210381 (talk) 20:13, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The episode or film is considered the source, per WP:PRIMARY (I believe), so a third party source is generally not needed. Unless there happens to be a contentious point regarding something that happened in the plot that might need outside oversight. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Episode table

So, way back when, back at the massive colour discussion, when you asked me to make a script to convert from raw episode table headers to {{Episode table}}, and I said I'd get around to it... Done! Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Amazing Alex. Great work! Have we made a tracking category to find all the instances? If not, is there some way to make a tracking cat? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

As in, all the articles that use {{Episode table}}? Could just use Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Episode table. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

No the opposite. All the ones that don't use it yet (to target them and transition them over). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I really don't think so. We can add a category to a template that appears when it's transcluded, but I don't think that we can track raw code. Unless there's a way to track pages that transclude {{Episode list}} but not {{Episode table}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, we can, using AWB's list comparer, and the result is at User:AlexTheWhovian/sandbox/Episodes (these are the pages that transclude {{Episode list}} but not {{Episode table}}). Over 5,000 pages. Fun. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:49, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Nice. Haha. I'll definitely get cracking when I have the time. Maybe we can notify the TV project too, see if anyone else wants to take a crack at some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: also, question about the script. How exactly do I use it? What I've been doing, is clicking it in my "Tools", and then I get the dialogue box. I then click "Edit" and delete the old text but when I paste what's in my clipboard, it isn't there. Am I doing something wrong? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

1) Do you have "User:AlexTheWhovian/script-functions.js" in your common.js page as well as the episode table script? It uses several functions that are shared over my script. 2) Does the copy-to-clipboard work for you in my other scripts (e.g. series overviews/television episode ratings)? Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

1) Yes. 2) Yes, series overview worked, as seen with this edit. Just tried the episode table script again on 100 Days of Summer and it did not work again. If I happen to go into the edit window and then click it, I get the dialogue box, but nothing is copied in to my clipboard. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

So, are you running the script from the actual article or from the edit window? Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:30, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Trying on the actual article, but it isn't doing anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:40, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: For what it's worth, the script seems to be working for me. I just tried it on an article from the list and it did what it was supposed to. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Huh, there you go! Glad it's working. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Bouncing Back

Since you seem keen on reverting, you might want to actually add the reference that has been asked for. I'd suggest you add it, as without it, I will remove it this afternoon. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

It's on the episode page and the list of character page. Look. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Right. Since you took the time to up and revert it, it seemed only economical for you to also add the reference since, you know, it was the only reason why it was removed int he first place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Marvel's Iron Fist

Why did you remove my Addition of Jessica Henwick to the Cast of the Series? It's officially confirmed by Marvel that she is in the Show. If i made a mistake at Citation please help and add it by yourself. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trinity1405 (talk • contribs) 13:47, April 2, 2016

The list of series is not meant to state every single casting news. See all the other sections as examples. The full info is on the draft article for the Iron Fist series, which will be moving to the mainspace in the coming weeks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

Thanks for the barnstar! Likewise your efforts maintaining/improving MCU articles are greatly appreciated. TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cap:Civil

Hi, Favre. Actually, I didn't get an assignment to write about it, so I won't be seeing it until what they call the "all-media" screening a few days before it's released. Unless that changes, I'll have to keep away, too, to avoid spoilers. But I'll be in there afterward!   : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Civil War

Hey, just letting you know that I'm going to try and avoid as much Civil War stuff as I can sort of from now on. It might be futile given how long it is until we get to see the film, but I do want to try. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Same. I'm not seeing until the day it comes out here in America on May 6 (which seems excruciatingly long). I'm going to try keep the article on my watch until Wednesday, when the review embargo is lifted, to try and do that (though an IP said something on the talk about adding the plot after the premiere tomorrow, which has me a bit nervous). If I can make it through that, then I'm going to unwatch the article, main MCU page, list of films and the film actors pages. But the real trick will be avoiding news articles. I'm going to try my best to navigate if I can to stockpile anything useful to add once I'm back but who knows with that. Luckily I'm foreseeing myself being busy in the coming weeks so that should help some. I'm also pinging @Richiekim and TriiipleThreat: so they know of our plans. But thankfully, the article is semi protected so we should be good for the most part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

We usually get them a bit earlier than you, but my local theatre isn't showing it until our May 5, which does seem ridiculously far away. It was that IP that got me scared, plus the huge amount of info we got today, and how they released a clip from the film already which I really don't want to watch yet. And yeah, news sites is going to be a struggle, as I'm not really going to be up to much for a while. Anyway, good luck to you, and enjoy when you do get to see it (the early reactions are getting me way too excited). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll probably be unwatching very soon too since the first public screening is tomorrow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. If something doesn't go up tonight, it definitely will tomorrow with the CinemaCon screening. Also, we'll have a bunch of Doctor Strange stuff happening tonight with the new trailer. Hopefully we'll get a poster and updated billing to work with. Thanks guys! Enjoy Civil War when you both see it too! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Just a curtsey to you all (@Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, and Richiekim:), the Civil War article is still a-okay. I'm going to try to get the reception section started so it isn't horrible. BUT, I'd steer clear of the talk page at this point. Quickly glanced at it, and may be entering spoiler territory. Obviously your call on everything, but I'm going to try and hold out a few days more on the page. (As of this post, list of films and film actors are also okay). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Scratch that bit on the reception section. Wanted to, but started reading THR's and felt it was giving a bit too much info for my taste. I'm going to let that all be for now and cautiously keep an eye on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Am waiting patiently for May 6 to arrive to go see it, but I have been potentially spoiled. Just saw the names on IMDB, so I figured I'd get people to keep an eye out for sources we can use. Rusted AutoParts 01:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Got it. That's why I was asking, because I didn't know if it was a result of seeing the film or being spoiled unwillingly. I'm taking very very cautious steps around the internet the next few weeks myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot script

In regards to your request here of determining the lengths of film summaries, it has been fulfilled. Same script, same link, but it now determines if a film infobox has been used, and if so, checks the length of all text under any area titled "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", "Summary" or "Plot summary", with 700 as the limit. And if a film infobox hasn't been used, it proceeds with the regular checking of episodes. Enjoy. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. I've notified the Film project about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

Hey, I was wondering if I had to do something to have more than one archive page for my talk, or if it happens automatically. It just seems like there is quite a few discussions already archived to the same place, and I don't really understand how it all works. Since I (poorly) copied the code from you, I was hoping you could help. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

You can either lower the |maxarchivesize= or manually update |counter=. The bot keeps adding discussions older than a month from the last sig to the archive until it hits the size limit. I think I made mine really big so it wouldn't automatically make me a new archive, since I like to archive my discussions by year. Hope that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

It does, thanks. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Avengers: Age of Ultron

You might well be correct — and I've certainly left it as you had it — but I've never heard this and I've been reviewing films for 35 years. All the publications I've written for round up to the next minute only if it's 30 seconds or more. Where do we find information that the industry generally considers one second over as the point to round up? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not certain where we can find info for the industry, because I'm sure where ever we look is going to use their own method (be it the 30 second round up/down, or any seconds in the 0:00-1:00 constitutes 1 minute.) I'd say maybe look at BBFC listings of films and/or online retailers (like iTunes) to see if any rounding is done. To me, the 0:00-1:00 method makes more sense, because why would you wait 30 seconds to consider it part of the next minute. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, because it'd be much closer to 141 than to 142. I'll look around, though honestly, if 142 was a belated, contested change to a long-stable status quo, it really wasn't supposed to have been done without talk-page discussion.--Tenebrae (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Jessica Jones

I went ahead and nominated Jessica Jones (season 1) for good article, since all I was waiting for was that referencing issue to be sorted. If there is anything else you want to address first, I'm happy to help with that straight away before anyone picks up the review (hopefully soon). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

I haven't really looked to see if there is anything else to do on the article, but I'll definitely keep an eye on the GA and help where needed. Agent Carter S2 should, and could, probably be next to nominate after a little polish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

All good, and I can definitely have a look at AC soon as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Iron Man & Iron Man 2

I noticed you changed the recent edits to the Iron Man and Iron Man 2 films. However, the previous edit had plenty of resources and descriptions from the actors, as well as the director. What was the reasoning of purpose for you to change what they had done? There's no dispute about it -- Jeff Bridges was Iron Monger in Iron Man, while Johannson, Cheadle, and Rourke are Black Widow, War Machine, and Whiplash respectively. The director did tons of press work discussing each of these characters; not to mention all of the marketing that was put into the films to depict such cases. I don't understand your re-edit to the lesser-specific information....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningblue52 (talk • contribs)

First, always sign your comments with ~~~~ so people know who they are talking with. Second, as has been explained to you MULTIPLE times, we can only list characters as they are named or called in the film. Anything else is incorrect. It's not like we aren't linking to the said characters. They just can't be listed as such because that is incorrect. (Additionally, since these edits are very much in line with your own, I am tempted to open an WP:SPI investigation into you, since this can be seen as trying to further ones editing.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

WHIH Newsfront

I've been working on an article for this in my sandbox. It's is based on articles for real current affairs programmes, but I put plenty of emphasis on the fact that it isn't real, and that it is part of a series of viral marketing campaigns. I see this as a sort of central hub for the different WHIH stuff, so at Ant-Man and at Civil War we mention that they did it, and link to the full article for more info, similar to what we do with the tie-in comics. I also think we should make mention of the campaign at the main MCU article, mostly because it is another way that Marvel is connecting and expanding their universe. I know your stance has sort of been against something like this, so I thought I would bring it up before taking it any further. What do you think? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's well crafted. Present this on the MCU talk, so others can weigh in, but I'm coming around to making this happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War box office

Me if I did say I own the page. The truth is everyone knows I don't. So there's no point or arguing there like child. Second, why can't you just let me handle the box office section like I've done with every major movie box office section from Jurassic World to Star Wars: The Force Awakens to Furious 7 to Minions? No one has a problem with any of my 100+ articles edit in the box office section. So why you? I haven't violated any wikipedia rules and regulations. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE is clearly being violated by the "cast" section where each characters are getting a MAJOR HISTORY work. I'm not laying emphasis on every 60+ individual markets in the box office section? Am I? I'm just mentioning the top openings and details of a few notable markets, big one like South Korea, Japan, UK, China etc. that won't even be 10. If I was to violate that rule, I would have to write the detail box offove performance of EVERY SINGLE MARKETS but I won't cause I know that's not legal on wikipedia. Please. Lemme do this. I have been doing this from 2014 and I'm good at it. I don't want someone to come over and tell me what is right of wrong because I'm approaching this at a neutral and rational point of view keeping in mind that it's not a blog but wikipedia. NO ONE in the history of my edit over 100+ box office articles have disagreed with me except for one or two in Age of Ultron page last year which I suspect it's you and your minions. I don't have a problem if u add additional informations but please u don't need to re-write everything. That is so unnecessary. Do you do it just so it can fit your POV? I don't understand. And especially with the North American section, if I have been keeping a track projections are going down. You won't even know that had I not written it. So in other words, I DO ALL THE HARKWORL RESEARCH and YOU DO ALL THE EASY WORK OF EDITING TO FIT YOUR POV. Please do a research of your own and not rely on someone's hardwork and ruin them. My informations are accurate taken from reliable source. And you deleted the Chinese section of the box office which I spent TWO NIGHTS doing research about. That's vandalism. I hope when I write informations down again u don't re-write it again unless they incorrect informations. I hope when I edit future box office sections I don't encounter you again. I pray to God. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I'm off to doing more research...

User:Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War box office

See how no one cares to edit the box office section? Unless and until I add anything, that section won't expand.

Josephlalrinhlua787 (talk) 8:10 am (UTC)

Josephlalrinhlua786 I invited you to discuss on the Civil War talk page, which you chose not to and said you would not contribute on the page. I have no issue with you adding new information as it comes out. I took issue to you reverting back to the original wording and formatting that was on the page before I made my edits. Please feel free to continue to add new info if you wish. I'll continue to see it and add/remove/format it if I or someone else sees fit, because again, no one person owns any one article or section. But if you want to restore any info I removed, please join the discussion on the article talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Nuh-uh! I get reported to administrators for contributing. That hurts you know. In the history of my edit, I've never been reported to an admin for dedicating so much. That kills my incentive to contribute. I could've defended myself but chose not to as it will only cause more agitation and conflict. I will keep my words and stay away from that page as far as possible because I guarantee you at some point were gonna collide again so it's better for all parties I leave once and for all.

Transition from New 52 to Rebirth

I see that you moved some of the titles that ended this month expecting their Rebirth counterparts next month were moved to the "Former" area of the template. Why don't we let them all in the current section, and then rename the section to "Completed" instead of moving one by one to the "Former" section? All the current titles, but Earth 2 and Gotham Academy, will be completed. The are not "Former" New 52 titles, since there will be no New 52 after Rebirth. Instead, if need be, those titles that are cancelled (without a Rebirth counterpart) could be moved to Former or, even better, to cancelled.--Coquidragon (talk) 23:29, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Titles should be moved as such as they happen, because, while a majority of the titles with or without Rebirth titles are ending this month, a good number are continuing on for a few more months. Eventually, all titles will be in the "Discontinued" table under "Continuing titles" will just be one large table under "Continuing". And then for the New titles, it will be the two tables: "Discontinued" and "Current/Upcoming", with the Gotham Academy and Earth 2 title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:22, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I didn't understand at first that you meant the template. But still, titles should be moved once they are no longer published, because, while a majority of the titles with or without Rebirth titles are ending this month, a good number are continuing on for a few more months. Former is still an appropriate term, even if some move on to Rebirth. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision

Hi -- You undid my revision on the Agents of SHIELD episode "Failed Experiments" where I stated that the storyline did not tie into Civil War the way the other season's episodes tied into Marvel movies. I haven't seen Civil War yet, but I believe this statement to be truthful. Season 1 had SHIELD falling, an action that was concurrent with Winter Solider, and Season 2 had an episode with Coulson saying, "Time to call in the Avengers," which directly led into Age of Ultron. I saw nothing like that in "Failed Experiments."

(And that's fine, by the way. That's not a judgment on the series. In fact, it makes sense for the show's storylines to be less dependent on the movies. But at any rate, I was simply explaining what was going on.)

If I'm mistaken, that's fine, but I would like some clarification here. What I wrote wasn't vandalism; it wasn't stating an opinion or giving a review. So I really don't understand why this was reverted. Please clarify (in a spoiler-free way, if possible). Thanks. -- Tom H12 (talk) 03:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

What you added was unsourced. Anything added to Wikipedia must be reliably sourced, otherwise it is WP:OR. The burden is on the user who adds the content to provide the ref. Additionally, as written, the amount that was there was inappropriate for the lead and was poorly written in a very informal, unencyclopedic tone. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Movie ticket sales

I noticed you reverted three of my edits which added an estimation of the ticket sales that certain Marvel movies had. Your rationale was that the ticket sales were "Not in source provided. additionally, a non BOM source should be used to source this info if accurate." Actually, the approximation of the ticket sales was in the source; I specifically made the sources link to the page of the films that showed an approximation of their ticket sales. I don't understand why you claimed that the estimations weren't in the source. Also, if you use BOM for box office figures, then why should you use a different, non-BOM source for ticket sales if BOM approximates ticket sales themselves? Please advise. JaciFan (talk) 05:25, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Regardless if it is in the source or not (I do see the numbers now), it really isn't notable info to include. Iron Man 3 sold 48 million tickets. So? What importance does that hold. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. That is why I said another third-party source should be used, in order to provide context and reasoning behind these numbers (ie, these were the most tickets sales ever, the most for a superhero film, etc.). Without that, it is just unsubstantiated data. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:44, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

30 for 30 Shorts revert

I noticed you reverted my additions to the 30 for 30 Shorts page, and was curious about why. I don't contribute much here but I have been following the 30 for 30 page closely for some time and was trying to help out others like myself that try to watch all of them. It was bugging me that a couple of them were skipped, so I took a shot.

Actually, I can understand why you may not want to get rid of the one (The Other Side) that was teased at one point but then never released. I can certainly agree to disagree that that one belongs there. It seems to me that most likely it won't ever show up, and it would be trivial to add back if it did. But sure, it isn't the end of the world if it stays.

But I really don't get why you would claim that the two I added weren't actually 30 for 30 Shorts. Both were posted on the ESPN 30 for 30 Twitter account when they came out as 30 for 30 Shorts. Both can be found with a simple Google search. Both exist on the ESPN website right now clearly labeled as such.

Here is the first one, Chattanooga Strong: http://espn.go.com/video/clip?id=14321326 I can agree that it is strange that it doesn't show up on their main 30 for 30 shorts page, but if you watch the video, it is clearly branded as a 30 for 30 short both in the video title and in the content. If it doesn't belong in the 30 for 30 shorts section, maybe it belongs elsewhere in the 30 for 30 page?

Here is the second one: http://espn.go.com/30for30/film?page=gonzothederby This one I have no clue what makes it any different than any of the other shorts listed on there, unless there is some other definition I'm not aware of. This one even appears on their main page here: http://espn.go.com/30for30/shorts

If this is a matter of providing proper references, I actually considered that and would happily provide them, but I didn't see references for any of the shows in that list, so I chose instead to just follow the existing pattern.

I would appreciate any pointers on how I should have approached this differently for next time. Thanks for your consideration.

Ubragg (talk) 10:27, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

As I haven't heard anything on this topic and I believe my sources are legitimate, I've taken another shot at updating the page with the two new ones. I'm fine leaving the one that has not aired after 4 years. I would much appreciate it if you were to please respond here if you disagree before reverting again.

Ubragg (talk) 06:36, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Film categories

Following the discussion at WT:FILM, please find the discussion here about umpmerging the year/genre film categories. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 09:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Rogue One

You reverted my edit, citing WP:RUMOR. However, it seems that you haven't read this policy. In particular, I refer to the section about what is appropriate to include. "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Cheers, --198.98.255.234 (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Still, I think information on rumours can be added if they have significance (such as those in Fantastic Four and the potential survival of Anastasia). Kailash29792 (talk) 12:49, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice of a discussion at Talk:Godzilla-Kong cinematic universe#Requested move 3 June 2016.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Jessica Jones (season 1)

On 15 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jessica Jones (season 1), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the first season of the Netflix television series Marvel's Jessica Jones was awarded a Peabody Award in the category of "Entertainment and Children's programs"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jessica Jones (season 1). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Jessica Jones (season 1)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Spider-Man in film

RE: "Notability doesn't have anything to do with it"

Than what does?

Usually billing order, or alphabetical to remain WP:NEUTRAL. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:16, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

MallBrats Sandbox

here is my sandbox of the new MallBrats draft I'm working on for the series. Wanted to see if you could review it and maybe do some cleaning up on the article itself. Hoping I've done everything that needs to be done to take out the text from the draft article for MallBrats and replace it with this. I'm trying to make it look more like a TV series draft instead of a film draft. Also wanted to know: Smith called the series "Mallrats: The Series". Do you think it's just a place holder or do you think the series will still be called MallBrats, based on the title he announced in May 2015. He keeps referring to it as "Mallrats" and "Mallrats 2" and hasn't called it MallBrats, at all. Hope the sandbox is up to snuff. One more thing, I know the "Episodes" section is bare and "not right" but I wanted to add that section so I have something to work off of once everything starts picking up steam on the series itself. Thanks for looking at the sandbox and reviewing the page for me. Really means a lot! Npamusic (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daredevil (season 2)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daredevil (season 2) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jujutsuan -- Jujutsuan (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daredevil (season 2)

The article Daredevil (season 2) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Daredevil (season 2) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jujutsuan -- Jujutsuan (talk) 23:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daredevil (season 2)

The article Daredevil (season 2) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Daredevil (season 2) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jujutsuan -- Jujutsuan (talk) 00:01, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Captain America Civil War Soundtrack additional songs not on soundtrack

Hey I'm curious as to why you reverted my addition of the music from Peggy Carter's funeral. I'm a Music major and I've played the piece I added so I'm qualified to make that addition since I recognized the piece of music. I'd appreciate it if you please responded to me and explained *why* you reverted it. Thanks. Brassytrumpet01 (talk) 04:42, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a Music major and I've played the piece I added so I'm qualified to make that addition since I recognized the piece of music is exactly why it was reverted. You need a reliable, third party source. I could be actually be Henry Jackman on here but that doesn't mean I can just add this info with out sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

WebCite issues

What has happened to the archiving website? Of late I've not been able to archive anything properly, and even existing archives aren't loading, with the most frequent message being "Failed to write session data (files)". Kailash29792 (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It generally undergoes maintenance every so often, and usually resolves itself after a couple of days. In the meantime, WayBack Machine can be used, or you can just wait on adding archives until it is back up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Films shot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios has been nominated for discussion

Category:Films shot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Daredevil (season 2)

On 8 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daredevil (season 2), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the second season of Daredevil was referred to internally as "Daredevil vs. the Punisher"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daredevil (season 2). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Daredevil (season 2)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Walt Disney Studios

Can I have your input at this discussion? Thanks. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 22:08, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Television season ratings/row

All fixed at {{Television season ratings/row}}, per Supergirl (TV series)#Ratings. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:49, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks AlexTheWhovian. What's the reasoning for the hidden comments? I've notice you adjusting them for a few of the templates, since we've been encountering issues. Is it so the code does not read everything as "one-line" per se? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. I've noticed that for a line to work, when the line is completely an if/ifeq/etc. statement, it needs a comment around the new line and then the new cell initiated with {{!}}{{!}}, as || won't work in an if statement. Much like how awards tables are coded as "Year || Award || Awardee", for example. It's basically coding the entire table on the one line. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:08, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. So it isn't doing |- {break} | content {break} | content, etc.? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:11, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Green Bay Packers

Hi Favre1fan93! I noticed your username and wanted to let you know that I recently restarted the Green Bay Packers WikiProject! If you are interested in joining, please feel free to add your username to our active member list. Let me know if you have any questions! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Avengers ticket sales

I substantiated the ticket sales of the film, yet you still find nothing notable about this data's inclusion. Is it not notable that this film has sold the most tickets out of any comic book film (before and after it)? Another way of saying this is that, adjusted for inflation, The Avengers has grossed more than any superhero movie ever at the domestic box office. This film achieved a lot of box office records; is this not yet another notable achievement this film has going for itself? This data is not making the article worse; on the contrary, it is adding more to this article in terms of all the achievements the film accomplished during its run. I really don't see why you object to the inclusion of this data in the article. JaciFan (talk) 05:46, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ticket sales are an insignificant data point and goes against WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The film's gross is a better representation of how many people went to see the film and thus any type of ticket sales. It can reasonably be assumed that if a film is the highest ranking of something (currently or at the time of release) then it must have had the most ticket sales. So again, this information is nothing notable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror

Can I have some assistance? I'd like a third-party user involved to mediate this revert issue I'm having with this user who's claiming that my edits at The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror are acts of vandalism. Apparently, adding reliable sources that provide proof of something, is a form of vandalism in this user's eyes. Thanks. ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

John Barrowman in Legends of Tomorrow

We already know that his recent deal gives him an option to be a series regular across the Arrowverse. Besides, he has already been confirmed to appear on Legends of Tomorrow as part of the Legion of Doom alongside Matt Letscher (a series regular for this season), Neal McDonough (recurring character) and Wentworth Miller, who signed a similar deal earlier. Forbes states, "Miller and Barrowman play out their newly inked overall deals with the studio." So why isn't he mentioned in List of Legends of Tomorrow characters at all, even in the "recurring" and "guest" tables? Kailash29792 (talk) 12:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Barrowman can be included on Legends at this time. When I was going through yesterday, I completely disregarded the fact that Barrowman was announced as appearing. I was only thinking about Letscher and McDonough. That was my bad. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Although this is somewhat unrelated, I say this here as I do not intend to create a new section: I think the Arrowverse is now known by more than one name as the term "Arrowverse" hasn't reached as widely as "Marvel Cinematic Universe". Is it worth mentioning "Berlantiverse" (or "Berlanti-verse") and "DC TV-verse"? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Possibly. It could go in the development section, along the lines of "Though officially known as the Arrowverse, the universe as also been referred to as X, Y, Z." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Jeph Loeb on potential Netflix/movie crossovers in the MCU

In this recent interview, he states that crossovers with movies seem unlikely due to scheduling conflicts for the TV actors. I can't find where to place it though. Do you find the source useful? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I've added some of that stuff at Marvel Cinematic Universe. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:30, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Agent Carter characters

I've been working on this, getting it ready for a featured list nomination. I think we should start with this one since the series is done, and it will give us a good template to move forward from. Before I do, I want to discuss "introduced in films" headers for the recurring characters again.

I really do think we should be doing this, to be consistent within the articles and avoid confusion, as readers could think that there are no recurring characters from films, and then get really confused when they come across one in the prose later on; and to clearly indicate when significant characters were introduced outside of the series, which I think is even more notable than guests being introduced outside of the series, and something really interesting for readers that you can only get with a shared universe like this. I understand your feeling that the overview table is almost a TOC, so we should have the articles follow it as is, but I don't feel that is as big of an issue. We do have an actual TOC, and the overview is just a bit extra that nicely gives the readers a good idea of character importance with links to their position on the page.

I think we should organise all the guests per the first medium they were introduced and let the TOC navigate that way, so readers interested in that can go that route; then, we use the overview table to give the in-series perspective (and I think the overview table is much more prominent than the TOC anyway), with readers able to navigate that way. The two don't really clash, because the recurring characters aren't listed in the TOC. This gives us two handy means of navigation in the list (one of the FL criteria, I believe) and means that readers can actually find these special characters without having to go searching for them through the prose (which would be particularly difficult for readers who don't know that there are recurring guests from the films, and assume that all of the crossover guests are indicated in the guest section via the TOC).

Hopefully that reasoning all makes sense. Also, if you have any other thoughts about the list before I move ahead, we can discuss those as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:22, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I guess that's fine. I moreso have an issue now with the fact that you got rid of the level 3 headings under the recurring section. I don't think that should have changed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

I was just trying it to see how it looked. I figured that we should try and differentiate the recurring guests from the main cast more, especially for all the characters with only a line or two, but I don't have any strong feelings either way. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, it's a lot harder to pick out the information, since it is all prose and formatted the way it is. We should stick to the headings for the recurring section, especially since all except for 2 have a good amount of info, that should be subsectioned. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

All good. Any other thoughts on FL? - adamstom97 (talk) 05:21, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Not to start out with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Further Proof - Venom - TASM2

Spider-Man 3

No actor here, but the character's still in the film.

...So? It's still just an easter egg and trivia. And there was no actor attached to them, so it should not be used in the table at Spider-Man in film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed

Why did you revert it? The Spiritual sequels deserve to be mentioned, within the article, many like me believe 1666:Amsterdam was shelved because it would have destroyed Assassin's Creed by being better than what Ubisoft was doing.

Also every other article about videogame series were the mai, both know that a web browser game like Project Legacy doesn't deserve to be in the same category as a real handheld game, because the browser games is too unimportant, that's why we needed the subdivision. So people can read the main, games skip reading about the Web browsers and iOS games.

Hope we agree on something!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rosvel92 (talk • contribs) 22:47, 24 August 2016 (UTC) Rosvel92 (talk) 22:55, 24 August 2016 (UTC)Rosvel92

Got one for you...

It turns out that these exist: Death of a Salesman (1966 CBS TV film) and Death of a Salesman (1966 BBC drama). Now, I'd argue that those two don't need to be disambiguated by TV network. But at least I've come across one example of this!... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:30, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Awesome!! Thanks for the find IJBall! That's probably the closest. But, yeah as you said, both should probably be different disambiguators - (1966 film) for the CBS one and the BBC one something else. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:53, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the BBC one is also a (TV) film – so it'd probably be best with: Death of a Salesman (1966 U.S. film) and Death of a Salesman (1966 UK film). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:13, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I couldn't really tell with that one. I'm going to boldly make those moves. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Found another one: check out The Edge (Fox TV series), and the two related series in the hatnote... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks once again! It seems that all those should be using the YEAR dab, yes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Though in this case it's a little easier to see why someone tried to disambiguate using TV networks, as all three were American TV shows. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Those all technically makes sense, given how the wording is done at WP:NCTV, since they all aired around the same time frame on different networks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Would you object to a formal Requested move for these? I'm thinking it might be worth it to get a wider community approval in the case of these three. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:10, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

No I wouldn't. However, should we update the text at WP:NCTV first before we do, so we aren't pointing to the MOS updates discussion as reasoning? I think it would be safe to makes those updates per what we discussed over there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Good point! – I'll wait a few days until that happens... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I'll let that straw poll run at least through the beginning of next week, and then put that text on the MOS and we should probably do a quick update to WP:NCTV itself. And then I think we can open the RMs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

Archiving videos and pictures

I know that videos, pictures and even PDFs cannot easily and always be archived by WebCite and the Internet Archive. That is why I did something else: create an account at the latter website and upload the videos/pictures via that account. It also helps me access videos and picture sources (which may be mostly offline sources) in places where social networking sites are disabled. Do you have interest in doing the same? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD (season 4) colour theme

Would you mind weighing in here. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 22:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The Blacklist

Hello, I saw your revert on The Blacklist (TV series) Unfortunately while it hasn't started as of yet I did change it back to 4 on number of seasons for these reasons,The 4th season has already been added to the episode section of the article showing when it starts, a number of the 4th season upcoming episodes have been added here already, and the 4th season starts 9/22/16 which is less than 2 days away. Really see no harm in showing its 4 seasons since the 4th season has clearly been filmed and will start airing in less than 48 hrs. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 05:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @WarMachineWildThing: Per the documentation of the {{Infobox television}} template and the MOS for TV articles, this only gets changed one the season has premiered. As in, it gets updated once it has actually premiered on TV. Not before that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:47, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have read that, my confusion on the MOS would be this section from it pertaining to number of seasons "The parameter should only be incremented once the first episode of that season or series has aired, or if a reliable source confirms production has commenced." Clearly it has commenced per NBCs site if it is to air in 2 days? Or am I reading wrong? Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 06:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

The number should only be updated once it airs. If for some reason that start date is not met, then you can proceed with the second option, given it is known that production has started. Since there is a 99.9% chance it will be airing tomorrow night, we can wait until that point. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:03, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

So 99.9% but not early per the MOS 2nd option because 99.9% it will air tomorrow........done 2nd option before no issue but clearly since I haven't been here that long that doesn't apply here got it, removed from my watchlist. Chris "WarMachineWildThing" ^{Talk to me} 16:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Luke Cage

I assume you have a cast list for this, but mine is here anyway, in case we have any differences. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: I just updated the section on the article, so you can double check what I did. I'll look at my list too to double check your sandbox. I'm starting to look at easter egg articles to get some of that stuff down, and then I'll hunt for specific cast members. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, would like your thoughts on how to handle the music performances when it occurred in the eps. I tried something, but I'm not married to that formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm quite busy at the moment, so I don't want to get too caught up just yet, but I was thinking of doing what you did with musicians as well. We could probably mention what songs they are singing there as well. Also, do you want to split off a LoC page soonish? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah no worries. I'll look over list with mine and see if anything looks off to me (mine was very crude, so it's not a matter of right or wrong, just double checking). And we should wait on an LoC until we get a second season announcement. Because if that doesn't come, the LoC isn't really useful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, so your list looks fine. The only thing at the moment is the number of guests you've included versus what I did (see here). That's a minor thing. And like I said, if we don't have an LoC just yet, the MCU returners are in the guest section in their proper order at the moment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:26, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

My only thing with a split is that LoC sections can get quite big, especially in a series article with everything else, but we can talk more about that once we start sorting everything out a bit more. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah understandable. Sounds good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits

Thanks for the archive fix on the AoS page; for some reason, web.archive wouldn't let me use generate an archive link. Also, for {{StoryTeleplay}}, is this more what you were wanting? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

No problem. WebCite is the archiver I generally use, and works for the most part. And yeah, that's exactly what I was looking for with StoryTeleplay. I was just looking at it, and thought the 'y' of by could use some personal space, if you know what I mean, from the the colon and I've only ever used the nonbreak space. Didn't know hair space existed, but exactly what that needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Links

Why are you removing all the links I have made? I'm planning on making those articles soon.*Treker (talk) 16:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Add the links once you've created them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Eh, excuse me? Since when does wikipedia have a time limit before you do things? Redlinks are good for encouraging the making of new article. Those links were not on a template, there is no need to remove them at all execpt that you don't seem like them there.*Treker (talk) 16:05, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well first, there was no indication that you had an intent to make any of the the articles you linked. I didn't know until you left this message. And second, novels on comic book characters are not generally an article that someone is going to make that would pass WP:GNG. Thus, if you do create those articles, add the links once you've done so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see why I shouldn't add them in preparation. There aren't any rules as far as I know about when to add links to articles or redirects you are planning to make or why it would be bad to have them around even if they don't get made in 15 years. Redlinks are not something negative in general.

I'm going to leave it be right now but I don't agree that the links should be removed.

Maybe I'm diferent than other people on wikipedia but when I make a link to something that doesn't exist already it's always to either make an article or a redirect, why else would anyone make a link?*Treker (talk) 16:29, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with you working on the articles and creating them. You will be surprised how many editors (IPs really) that add links, not really in the attempt to make the article (which it seems you were doing). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That's dumb. :-/ Why do people do that?

Either way. I'm working on a some Captain America articles and a big article about Spider-Man in literature, which doesn't really seem to be covered anywhere in depth on wikipedia so I'm goign to make a lot of articles and redirects conected to that within the next few months. Cheers.*Treker (talk) 18:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No idea. I just call 'em as I see 'em. And fine by me. Knowing you're working on it, I'll let any reds be. And if I do remove them, it will most likely be because I forgot (but it will be helpful for me and others if you make a red link, you say its because you are crafting the article). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. I might bring it up on the wikipedia talk page to let people know why I'm making so many links right now.*Treker (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Great contributions, specially on DC and Marvel based TV series. Keep it up! Wario-Man (talk) 18:25, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Supergirl not part of the Arrowverse

Wouldn't it suck if that news was true? Because it is. Andrew Kreisberg has recently stated, "Not for her entire world, but Kara will be traveling from her dimension to our dimension, “our” being the world that The Flash, Arrow, and Legends lives in", when asked if he planned on bringing Supergirl into Earth One (known by us as "Arrowverse"). Kailash29792 (talk) 13:16, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A bit yeah. At least, until things air, we have something definitive to base formatting on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

MOSTV question

Favre:

I see that you are one of the lead editors on the MOS for TV. I'm a relatively new and inexperienced editor. After looking at several dozen pages regarding TV shows, I've come to the conclusion that some changes should be made to the MOS:Cast and characters information. Obviously, as a newbie I don't want to edit such a high-level page without first posting to a discussion forum. The problem is, the main MOS:TV talk page only has 4 threads, none of which has anything to do with my issue. It's pretty clear that the main place for talk on this MOS is elsewhere. The talk page for the WikiTVProject has LOTS of individual threads, but I haven't found anything that really fits.

Can you advise where I should go to post my suggested change?

Thanks,

Adam Apruzan (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Apruzan: You should create a new section on the MOS:TV talk page. We are currently working to update info in the MOS, and have yet to get to the cast and characters section. So you can start the conversation at that talk, or wait until we are discussing that section in the update thread, and post there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I posted my thoughts to the MOS:TV talk page. I would welcome your feedback. Apruzan (talk) 22:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

MCU cast and characters

Hi. I've noticed that you undid my edits in the "Cast and characters" sections of some MCU articles. Is there any advantage in keeping that note formatting? Facu-el Millo (talk) 00:11, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Each instance of it does not need to be "clickable" or to return to the position in the indicator box. That was the reason for restoring. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

But some of them do, given that some of the tables are pretty long, and I think is much more comfortable and looks better that way. I'd like to reformulate my question: Is there any disadvantage in keeping that new note formatting I proposed? Facu-el Millo (talk) 03:51, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Cobie Smulers spills the beans

Do you really think that crazy interview of Smulders with Jimmy Kimmel Live! is serious confirmation that she will appear in Infinity War? In fact, she did not say she was going to appear the film or discuss any plot/production details, just Jimmy Kimmel Live! said, "Cobie Smulders spills the beans on Avengers: Infinity War and it was everything!". As for archiving videos, I know a way: I download videos and upload them to my archive.org account. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The description of the video says its her next film, but as a whole, no, the video does not confirm her. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Working titles

I know its nice to have keep these pages as uniform as possible but it shouldn't be a determent to the natural progression of things. The reason why we originally placed the working title right after the opening sentence in the filming section was because there was no better alternative. But that doesn't mean they all have to be shoehorned there especially in the case of T:TDW where it comes to light as part of the natural development. Same goes for the names of cinemaphotographers but that aleast they usually get moved once the section starts to fill out.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:46, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

True, but it is also filming info, so it is relevant to have in the section as well. T:TDW is a particular case since the info revealing it comes right before the filming section, and is relevant to include to know what those sources were talking about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It comes across as redundant, IMHO.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm viewing it as if someone jumps right to the filming section, they won't see the working title info and they should per what I stated above. Maybe there's a better way we can integrate the two uses of it, at the end of pre, and in the filming section? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Captain America: Civil War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Captain America: Civil War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 22:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: edit-warring complaint

If you will self-revert your removal and commit to using discussion, I will withdraw the 3RR complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to self-revert (per WP:STATUSQUO regarding adding "loosely", and the fact that my edit did other meaningful changes to the other added content), but I will still discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Would you consent to revising your edit to reinstate the sourced word 'loosely'? you are of course, allowed to disagree with the use of that term, despite it being sourced. The point is - I don't want to report you; the dramah of doing so is boring and unpleasant. I want you to listen to me when i pointedly ask you to not revert, and then you go ahead and do it anyway. By ignoring my polite request you forced my hand, making the report a necessity when you edited elsewhere, ignoring my request to self-revert. If you can see your way to reinstating the term until we find a solution at Talk, I will withdraw the complaint. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Again, I don't know what timeline you are looking at, because I still have not edited the article since my one and only revert and you presented your ultimatum after that. That doesn't make any sense. I didn't force your hand in anything, given the discussion was and still is active. And per WP:STATUSQUO, the status quo stays when there is contentious material that was added and being discussed. The word in the lead is contentious, thus its noninclusion stays during that discussion. Not your way of leaving it in while discussing - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Stranger Things cast

I'll take your word for it when it comes to whether we should add the new main cast members, but my thought process was that since the show has not aired its second season, we can't update the number of seasons to 2, or the number of episodes to 17, even though it's been reported and cited that there will be at least 2 seasons and 17 episodes total, so why then can we update the cast list? Like I said, I defer to your judgment (you've been doing this longer than me). But it seems like an inconsistency to me. -RM (talk) 00:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Captain America: Civil War

The article Captain America: Civil War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Captain America: Civil War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Freikorp -- Freikorp (talk) 22:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Captain America: Civil War to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Renner in both Avengers 3 and 4.

Do you think we can use this source? It says that The Content Factory interviewed both him and Michael Douglas. And Renner started with words. "I am excited to be doing Avengers 3 and 4 next year and I know it is going to be a giant cast…" CAJH (talk) 07:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

GA nomination of Doctor Strange (film)

Favre1fan93, just so you know for future reference, the next time someone makes an inappropriate GA nomination—people who have not worked on an article are not supposed to nominate it unless they have consulted with the significant/major editors first—simply revert the nomination step on the talk page. Do not open a review page, even if it is clearly ineligible: first, if you are an involved editor, then you're not eligible to do any review, and second, it significantly complicates the process. Right now, I've put a Speedy deletion template on the review page, because that's the best way to delete the page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask; for now, once the GA1 page is deleted, everything will have been cleaned up. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

The review page has been deleted. We're all set now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Great thanks BlueMoonset. I was not super clear on the process, given we had this happen previously on a related article, and I sort of followed the process that happened for that. Thanks for taking care of it, and sorry for any technical trouble caused. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Captain America: Civil War

On 3 November 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Captain America: Civil War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Captain America: Civil War was originally going to feature the Madbomb storyline from the comics, where Captain America would fight other heroes who had been zombified? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Captain America: Civil War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Captain America: Civil War), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Star Wars VIII

Hi!

I've seen you comment on the talk page of the Star Wars: Episode VIII article. I would appreciate your input on a matter I just posted here.

Thanks in advance.

N. GASIETA|talk 13:30, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

SPI

Thanks for pursuing the Josephlalrinhlua786 SPI. Unfortunate that we're going to have to deal with yet another self-entitled, disruptive something-or-other. For the record, you are not required to leave an SPI notice on a suspect's talk page. In the years I've been doing this, I have yet to see the benefit of doing so. If anything, it only tips them off that they need to create another sock account. If there's any way to give them even a half-second of inconvenience, I'm all for that. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

No problem. It's the persistence I guess I can never grasp. That blocked editors would rather press their luck operating another account, doing the exact same things that got them blocked, then try to adjust how they edit to use their original account. I unfortunately highly doubt this is the last we've seen of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Kaecilius

Please do not edit war with me over Kaecilius. I started a discussion for the merge, following up on something it looks like you started to do but changed your mind. It would be a show of good faith on your part to let the article stand, at least a few days or a week while it is discussed, and if consensus leans toward merging I will accept that. BOZ (talk) 18:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. BOZ (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Your opinion is requested

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The Inhumans

Hi, Favre1fan93. Before, excuse my bad English.

Are you sure that The Inhumans premiere it can not be included on the List of Marvel Comics films? This will have a limited theatricall run and, I'm sure, that wil be a gross on Box Office Mojo. If I included on the List of films and you removed, It's ok, but I think that someone else will include eventually. I undestand this is to submit on the talk page of the List of Marvel films, not for Me but I'm sure that someone wil do, but before I want to know your thought. Thanks, greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes. It is not a film. What is being screened in IMAX is the first two episodes of the series. It would be as if we wanted to include say Captain America: Civil War on the TV series list once it makes its TV debut. Same concept with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow that's some extreme point of view, but I understand. I'll waiting, I'm sure that someone else added The Inhumans on the List of films.OscarFercho (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It's no where near extreme; it's the facts of what it is. It is two television episodes screening in IMAX. How is that a film? Your insistence to wanting to add it is misinterpretation of the material as it was released. And if someone else adds it, then it can just be removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

OscarFercho, I think the term you're searching for is "serial film". But this isn't entirely one, as the remainder of episodes will be screened on TV. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, no, no, no. That's a mistake, I won't insist on that, I agree with your thoughts; only I think that someone else, on a moment, do it again.OscarFercho (talk) 05:00, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry. It seemed as though you were trying to argue for keeping its inclusion on the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:06, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

No. As I said, I alright with your argument, and, even, eventually I'll supporting, cause I'm sure that someone else will try to add this premiere eposodes to the List: I only proposed in search of thoughts, and now I have it. Thanks.OscarFercho (talk) 05:17, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm really not sure, Favre1fan93, the report of Marvel.com talks about a premiere on theatres, [2], that's will the first release of this Inhumans project, its debut, in other words, as a movie. I'll submit on the talk page of the List of Marvel films, to know more thoughts.OscarFercho (talk) 03:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Right. It is premiering in IMAX theaters. That still doesn't make it a film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Savitar's own article

Some IP has made Savitar know have his own article. Do you think it should be so, or wait till another time? If it is the latter, how about draftify? Kailash29792 (talk) 10:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems okay to me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Flash revert

Re: your revert here: Thanks for reminding me why I don't generally edit movie and TV articles - too many confusing and/or counterintuitive rules and guidelines created with little input from outside the project, and rigidly enforced even when IAR makes more sense in a particular case. It takes all the joy out of editing. - BilCat (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Actually, IAR would make no further sense here. Was the actor credited as main cast even once? Yes? Listed. Rather simply. Removing content shouldn't dictate how fun editing is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you, nor will I. - BilCat (talk) 01:22, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Nor do you get to dictate who joins a discussion on a talk page that is not yours. Accept that things are done differently. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:08, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trinity War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Trinity War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 19:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trinity War

The article Trinity War you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Trinity War for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 19:41, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Favre1fan93. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — xaosflux ^Talk 04:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Tip

Hey F, I was looking at your common.js file. You might consider activating User:NuclearWarfare/Mark-blocked script.js. This will help you spot blocked accounts more easily in article contribution histories. For instance with it off you won't know who here has been blocked, but once you turn it on you'll see the page light up with slashes. Just an unsolicited tip. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:52, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: Thanks! I've added it in! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks to correct all my grammatical errors. Regards.OscarFercho (talk)

Marvel Cinematic Universe-related

I am backing you up on discussion for the Kaecilius article because you might be right about your claim. On another part, Voicebox64 had done the article redirects for some of it's characters like if Miranda May, Leo Fitz, and Jemma Simmons had their articles, he added "(comics)" after them where he created a secondary redirect to the different List of Marvel Comics characters pages. I made some exceptions since in the comics, Agent 33, Isabelle, and Karla Faye Gideon had minor roles not notable enough for their own pages yet. Outside of that, were you able to see last night's episode? The winter finale is next week. --Rtkat3 (talk) 17:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Redirects can still be made for these characters, in the event an article is ever possible to be made. There is no harm in them, as their creation does not mean a full on article will be made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:41, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Possible Josephlarinhula stuff

Hey man, if you're around, could you please do a quick once-over at DancingMarvel and White? I don't have time to get to it at present, but they're on my radar. "Marvel" reminds me of FernandoDC, what with DC and Marvel. Could be a coincidence. LD White is odd because they removed templates at an article that were put there because of Larinhula's shitty copyright violations. If you don't get around to this, I'll try to remember to look at it later, but I'm going offline for while. Thanks, and no pressure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Hope I can catch you Cyphoidbomb. For DancingMarvel,  Looks like a duck to me. No doubt about it, it's them. From the mobile edits and the edit description of the second edit on Fantastic Beasts. Per those reasons, L.D. White does not look like Joseph, in my opinion. Plus they only work one account, not multiple. Once one gets blocked, they start a new one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I'm going to hold off on this for a bit. Whether they're violating from this account or the next one, it can wait a few hours. I appreciate your input, though! I'll deal with it later unless you care to go your own way. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Cyphoidbomb I can add DancingMarvel to the SPI unless you'll just handle investigating and blocking on your own before you go offline. Definitely would want this addressed, either by you or adding to the SPI, before you go offline for a bit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI with CU. I'm holding off on blocking, and I'm thinking about semi-protecting Moana and Fantastic Beasts. I might leave one of them open though, just to make it easier to spot socks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Great. I just commented at the SPI. Based on what is still in theaters this weekend, Fantastic Beasts and Moana should be the two "main" articles to be concerned about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:03, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Trinity War

	Congratulations, it's a...
	...GOOD ARTICLE!! Shearonink (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Trinity War

The article Trinity War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Trinity War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Shearonink -- Shearonink (talk) 23:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Templates and categories

Hi, I looked at the link but I still don't really understand why the use of more a specific category isn't considered good. Could you explain?★Trekker (talk) 16:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:CAT#T says that templates should be categorized by the type of template they are, not what the content of the template is. So for Template:Agent Carter episodes, Category:Comic book navigational boxes and Category:Marvel Comics templates are fine to include, because it describes what type of template it is. But Category:Agent Carter episodes is improper to include, because that is a category for the contents of the template. Hope that helps, along with the examples at WP:CAT#T. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.★Trekker (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Spider-Man: Homecoming 2

Because Deadline.com was formally using the title in their report, not informally, is it fine for the draft to have that title? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

For the time being, yes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War

Just a note that I'm discussing the edit-warring anon IP on the talk page, and that I've just had to put a 3RR warning on his own talk page. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:21, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

DCEU page, Batman title

Hey, not sure if you've been reading through the discussion on Talk:DC Extended Universe, but there are conflicting opinions regarding the title of the upcoming Batman movie, could you take a look and give an additional opinion. I'm of the mindset that what information we have isn't enough to title the film, but another editor says we do have enough. Thanks in advance! -RM (talk) 01:59, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

@Rmaynardjr: I looked it over but am kind of confused on what is trying to be determined. Does Forty want The Batman to be used on the DCEU article, or do they want it to be indicated as "Untitled Batman film" or the like? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Forty says that until a film is released we only use "working titles," and since Affleck has stated (even though he has also retracted the same statement) that the film is called the Batman, it can be classified as a working title and we should call the film "The Batman" accordingly. I don't think we have enough information though. Affleck said "we don't have a name for it yet," so putting a name on the film is contradictory to THE primary source for that project. What are your thoughts? -RM (talk) 02:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

It should probably, in tables and headings, be "Untitled Batman film" for the time being, and in the prose indicate what Affleck said about it being The Batman and then retracting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Favre1fan93. Your opinion on the talk page of reference it would be very appreciated.OscarFercho (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Well. On your absence, it seems that the discussion was solved. Please, verified my last contribution on the List of DC Comics film, I won't opposite to your correction if you have. Greetings.OscarFercho (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Favre1fan93, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Argento Surfer (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello Favre1fan93, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017. Happy editing, adamstom97 (talk) 22:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Season's Greetings, Favre1fan93! At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season!  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry, merry!

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Hello Favre1fan93: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Tenebrae (talk) 09:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Stranger Things

I added the US distinction in the first place, no problem there, just felt it made it too wordy. But even though it mentions "according to", it still reads a bit too affirmative to me. As an example, the same company said Amazon's Good Girls Revolt was a successful show, but Amazon said their ratings were wrong after they cancelled it. Is there a way to word it makes it clear that the ratings aren't completely reliable, regardless of the media's use of them? :/ Only Netflix/Amazon really know how well their shows do.--occono (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)