User talk:TriiipleThreat

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


Doctor Strange (film)[edit]

Hi. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion on the film's talk page? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

But, what about the nature of Whitewashing that occurs in yearly Hollywood films. Tilda Swinton's casting is a huge example of this occurring in major movies. This issue needs to be more recognized and to be recognized the Casting controversy should have a section of its own in the article. Barely anyone will read it if it's clustered in with other details. IceBrotherhood (talk) 05:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There is already a discussion on the topic at Talk:Doctor Strange (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:38, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 13[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Civil War II, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Marquez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2016 (UTC)


Wikipedia Autopatrolled.svg

Hi TriiipleThreat, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Beeblebrox (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Beeblebrox: Thanks! This should definitely help out with the workload.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Production of Avengers: Infinity War has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Ratings tables[edit]

Hello, what's the reason for the ratings tables on articles such as Agent Carter (season 1), Agent Carter (season 2), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3) having a set widths of 99% rather than 100%? Thank you — Artmanha 15:05, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Avengers Academy[edit]

Iron max 2 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Why aren't the group enemies being included in the navboxIron max 2 (talk) 22:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC) Iron Max 2

@Iron max 2: because they did not have any sustained enemies besides Jeremy Briggs, just bunch single encounters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Iron max 2 (talk Thanks for clearing that up, i won't any single encounter enemies anymoreIron max 2 (talk) 00:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Re:production section discussion[edit]

The discussion for my brainstorm session on how to improve production section seems to have dried up, realistically I think we're pretty close to deciding on the outcome I'd value if you could provide some feedback, specifically with my proposal on what we should include in it. The discussion can be found here. --Deathawk (talk) 20:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The Joker[edit]

So I nominated the Joker for FA status a few months ago, I don't know if you saw the discussion there but there was a massive opposition from one user because the article focused on the origin, development and impact of the comic character with linked articles for expansion on his interpretations in media and games, and tangents to note how it influenced media or how it was influenced BY media. The user argued that the article should be about the character in general. I struggled then to get my head around that and I still do, since the comic character is the character and anything outside of comics is an adaptation which is covered in the Joker in other media article or full articles dedicated to individual films and games. I am completely incapable of reconciling this with my experience with comic character articles and indeed character articles in general, which I would expect to cover the source character first and foremost. Do you agree with the user and if so can you help me because I want to promote the article, but my interpreation of the user's demand is that I effectively gut 80% of all the sourced material I spent months researching. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 14:41, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I know of that user, he has a very set point of view and is the main reason why the Wolverine article is at its current location. To me, the comics article should be primary focus of the article as it is the basis for all other adaptations and there is no way treat every adaptation equally. I was actually think about this recently in regards to Wolverine but it probably be applied to Joker as well. We could create Joker (character) as a WP:SETINDEX listing the different adaptations then that would free up Joker (comics) to primarily focus on the comics character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Actually since there is already Joker in other media, you could rename that Joker (character) and include a brief overview of the comics character.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The struggle, I guess, is that something like the "Cultural impact" and "Joker in other media" section of the Joker article, it can be argued wouldn't belong if it focuses entirely on the comics character, and I think that is a really strong and well researched part of the article. It's really hard distinction to make, especially for myself as I like all information to be centralised as much as possible into a single article. I found it really frustrating during the FA nom that it was being argued that the character with 75 years of history should make way for external adaptations, and that the user completely ignored the presence of the Joker in other media article. It's a really awkward position to take. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Civil War II[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:02, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

February events and meetups in DC[edit]

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

February is shaping up to be a record-breaking month for us, with nine scheduled edit-a-thons and several other events:

We hope to see you at one—or all—of these events!

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:41, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

DYK for Production of Avengers: Infinity War[edit]

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

Artist page only has four sources[edit]

How is this page still up if it only has four sources? Npamusic (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

If you think there is a notability problem with the article, then either tag it with {{notability}} or nominate it at WP:AfD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding your reverts of[edit]

Hey Triiiple, I was just wondering why you didn't warn User: of their obvious POV[1] edits? Boomer VialHolla 09:31, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I should have.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Thor - God of Thunder screen shot.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Input requested[edit]

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) 19:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

March events and meetups in DC[edit]

Greetings from Wikimedia DC!

Looking for something to do in DC in March? We have a series of great events planned for the month:

Can't make it to an event? Most of our edit-a-thons allow virtual participation; see the guide for more details.

Do you have an idea for a future event? Please write to us at!

Kirill Lokshin (talk) 16:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You're receiving this message because you signed up for updates about DC meetups. To unsubscribe, please remove your name from the list.

Starring field[edit]

Hello, there's currently a discussion here regarding the infobox starring field and I need your opinion on it. Thanks. -- Wrath X (talk) 04:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


Whoops!   : )   By the way, if you want to come by User:BaronBifford/sandbox#Third pass, you could comment on this attempt by myself and BaronBifford to rework the Superman FCB. It's a work in progress, but mostly complete. Needs more real-world quotes.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this to replace the entire content of the FCB including its subsections? Also I'm not keen on idea of trying to tailor the section to fit every adaptation of Superman. Have you read my proposal at Talk:Superman#"In other media" section? That would alleviate this problem.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:52, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects[edit]

Hello, when you have the time...could you possibly help improve Marvel Nemesis: Rise of the Imperfects. Your contributions to improve comic articles are impressive. I have no experience editing comic articles so I assume the criteria is a bit different from what the usual articles I edit. Thnx & Cheers! — JudeccaXIII (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Cap image[edit]

Hi Triiiple. And kind and colelgial of you to ask for outside opinion. The Imgur image is certainly more photorealistic than the Kirby/Shores. My two concerns are that a) it's not a full-body shot and b) that it's a low-angle shot, which is more dramatic than a frontal but doesn't really show the full mask — the "A" is washed-out, for instance. What do you think? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I appreciate your understanding. I'm not sure the image is supposed to capture personality so much as to give a technical visual of the character; the prose handles personality. And since WPC MOS for infobox image prefers full-body shots, I'd have to prefer the extant over the Ross, though certainly if a more photorealistic full-body shot is available, I'd change the existing one myself! :-)   --Tenebrae (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

List of Issues[edit]

Hi Triiiple. I went to a lot of effort to put the list of issues together. It is not premature to list them as numerous web sites are reporting it including Previews. I suggest you look at the references on the page and the following website If you're waiting for an official checklist from Marvel then you will be waiting for some time and that is not in the interests of the wikipedia community. Tangaroa007

@Tangaroa007: Your efforts are not unnoticed however we do not use commercial sites as reliable sources. Furthermore the source that you used in the article does not state which issues will be involved and if you're simply using the solicitations then it is not a list complete. Please wait for the checklist. Remember there is WP:NORUSH. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: Who is this we? I find your reasoning seriously flawed. I added the reference to stop you deleting things unnecessarily. I do not understand why you are removing the list when its quite clear on all comics sites that marvel has released the list of June tie ins. I think the list is valid and I will continue restoring it until you accept that it be left. If you wait for a marvel checklist then you will be waiting until the last weeks of May. Last year the Secret Wars page used commercial sites and no one changed it. I would submit to you that you are being somewhat overzealous and I think you need to remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and no one page belongs to you. I strongly suggest you view the following websites; and The first clearly shows the tie ins except for Captain Marvel (which is listed in Previews.) Also you claim commercial sites cannot be used. Previews is a reputable organisation that publishes information on upcoming material, comic shops use them as a secondary source to Diamond and consumers buy the magazine. It is therefore ridiculous to ignore or discount it outright.
"I will continue restoring it until you accept that it be left." This sounds like a clear intention to engage in WP:EW. I have made you already pointed you to WP:BRD. Do not restore disputed content until a consensus is reached. Edit warring may result in a suspension of editing privileges. If we must wait till May then so be it. This is an encyclopedia, not a site devoted to fan news. Again, there is WP:NORUSH. Also I am unconcerned about other pages. The Secret Wars article is no shinning example. I invite you to please read our policy on identifying reliable sources. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Move a file?[edit]

If you have the chance, can you move File:DCRebirthPromo.jpeg to File:DC Universe Rebirth Special.jpeg for me? Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

B v S[edit]

Calm down, I was in the process of restoring the others as well, Patience, bro.Ghriscore (talk) 20:14, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

RE-read the BBC article.You need to go beyond the headline. It is clearly referring to fans vs. critics as the "mixed".Section here ONLY concerned about critics.Also,it's not authoritative at all,vague->outdated by emerging consensus in press in later days. It is still an old article that was only beginning to cover this story. In the two weeks since, this has been updated and outdated by a press that in lock, stock in agreement about the critics reacted negatively to this.
Here's the deal: find a more recent source that makes your case, more clearly. Something that says, the critics are/were mixed about this film. Or a citation that there is some proof that there is a debate over whether critics are debating over whether they had a mixed to negative consensus. I couldn't find ANY but this and a few obscure sources at the beginning, when the film was first released. The violation you are committing is WP:undue, WP:synthesis and a break from etiquette in WP:FILM and MOS:FILM#Critical response which states, "Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics' consensus (or lack thereof) for a film is encouraged." When I went INTO detail from your BBC piece, it became clear that the article was muddled at best, suggesting that fans vs. critics was creating a "mixed" response. Notice the article's headline says: "Mixed reviews" and doesn't say from whom, exactly. It then leads into fans vs. critics and then tries to stack the deck toward the end with some positive reviews from critics. But the article wisely stops short of saying that "critics" were divided. This article is TOO vague to use. And I can find a dozen sources for every one like this (since there really aren't any) saying quite clearly that critics HAD A NEGATIVE RECEPTION to this. Please be reasonable or do a better job or sourcing this. Also, MOS:FILM#Critical response states, "Don't use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to try to summarize it." so we can't use that to make your case. Thx for your time, mate. Ghriscore (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S.Since you are committed to edit warring, I will propose a compromise of your wording more true to the source, which actual quotes that include "detailed commentary" rather than the weasel words you are using. Look for it before reverting, or discuss here please. Thank you.Ghriscore (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The opening sentence reads "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has received mixed reviews from critics ahead of its release this weekend." The second half of the article goes on to discuss "kinder" reviews. This is not about fan v critic reception but critic v critic. I went and made the appropriate changes.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:26, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Re Revert of my ref to Ant-Man and the Wasp[edit]

  • Why to my Revert: no reason given for your Revert of Ant-Man
  • Why my edit: the IMDb page can be a clearing house for release date, news etc

DadaNeem (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

IMDB is not a reliable source. Besides the information is already cited to a reliable source in the body of article per WP:LEADCITE.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest any discussion of the issue can be made on Talk:Ant-Man_(film)#Re_Revert_of_my_ref_to_Ant-Man_and_the_Wasp DadaNeem (talk) 20:53, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Then why did you bring it up here? This was such a waste of time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll deal with it in a while ;)DadaNeem (talk) 21:04, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

B v S[edit]

You are quoting the headline and the byline (a picture caption) to make the point that you article doesn't make clearly for you. Every summary, especially the sweeping conclusion you want to make that this film has received "mixed to average" reviews, requires in-depth commentary to make its case. Your article doesn't even have an author's name for verification purposes and the article itself doesn't make the assertion that the headline or byline makes. In other words, it's not useable by wikistandards. Here is the policy, mate-->.MOS:FILM#Critical response says,"Detailed commentary from reliable sources of the critics'consensus(or lack thereof)for a film is encouraged." Reliability questionable(no author given).Quoting Headline,byline not sufficient. If you are so sure about this, find a better quote on this. Shouldn't be hard. That you refuse to discuss it here, on my talk page or the talk page of the article itself is telling of your agenda. Have it your way then and learn the hard way. Cheers.Ghriscore (talk) 23:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I already responded above. Byline or not it is the work of the BBC that goes through an editor like all BBC articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:35, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Correct, for the purposes of the BBC, that may be sufficient. But for the purposes of wikipedia, and the rules by which WE MUST ABIDE, that is not sufficient. So......are you a big boy and can figure this out for yourself? Or should I (A) post the rules here so you can re-read them and see that you are wrong or (B) have an admin explain it to you? If you are so convinced of this, simply find a better source that says this clearly or let the article speak for itself. Wiki is clear on this. It must be "detailed commentary" by the article itself, not a headline or a byline (that is actually not even a byline, it was the picture caption(lol) you were quoting.Ghriscore (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
"Detailed" is open for interpretation, I say it's detailed enough, more so than Newsweek or Variety. Also WP:RS does not require a credited author only that source has a reputation for fact checking.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Since you are dropping WP:V, let's discuss this, shall we? There is NO author to attribute to this. Fails reliability "The creator of the work (for example, the writer)" can't be verified here. Fails neutrality, "If there is disagreement between sources, use in-text attribution" which is what I attempted with this. The byline/picture caption and the headline violate the article proper and requires summarizing on your part, and if you have to summarize your own article because the article fails to do it for you, then the article is problematic. Worst of all, fails "Original research" as "sources must support the material clearly and directly" and this doesn't come close to that. Finally, "Base articles largely on reliable secondary sources" which I challenged you to do. I've done as much and I'm outsourcing you 10-to-1 on this. The press isn't calling this film "mixed reviewed" and this obscure article isn't enough to indict the many sources that disagree with it. Find more sources or accept this is just a lousy source. I did the best I could and on this basis could delete it entirely, but I think it's notable since mentioning fans can't hurt a little here.Ghriscore (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
P.S. What kills me is in with you is this quote from you,"there is no clear critical consensus and we need to reflect that for accuracy sake)...And there is no press consensus, that's the point. It does not operate collectively." Seriously???!(lol) if this is YOUR way of saying there can never be clear critical consensus for any film, period, then wikipedia DISAGREES WITH YOU ON THIS period and we have to abide by THEIR RULES not the rules dictated by ego. Please re-read this carefully Especially this part, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." Wikipedia has NO PROBLEM making "collective" judgements about films, books, etc. Your disagreement is a philosophical one and has no place here. If you don't like, then change the rules. Until that happens, then we can make this call since wikipedia gives us this luxury. And some films, with better RT scores and treatment by the press have been labeled as "negatively received by critics" by wikipedia before. This is a no-brainer given past precedent on wikipedia. And B v S has a current score of 29% RT. Not to mention, I can outsource your ONE outdated BBC source 10-to-1 on this. We have already safely passed the threshold on this already, there isn't some debate playing itself out in the press over this issue. Whether you want to call it a "consensus" or whatever you decide to call it, it is reasonable to infer based upon the facts and articles out there that (other than some outliers here and there,) a significant clear authoritative majority in the press reported that critics had a negative reception to this film. In other words, the critics panned this film - more or less. The minority opinion is in the detailed commentary of the critics themselves in the sections below. And since you made your agenda clear, (ie.that you don't think the press can ever "collectively" pan or praise a film), then you are pushing a POV that wikipedia doesn't allow. If the edit warring continues, I will simply open this up for mediation and let the mods/admins explain it to you.Cheers.Ghriscore (talk) 00:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
First it would help if you wouldn't assume what argument that I am making, because you are only arguing with yourself at this point. To be clear I am not trying make the conclusion that the film has received "mixed to negative" reviews. Nor am I implying that there can never be a clear critical consensus. I am simply stating that there are other thoughts on this matter, which need to be addressed. Furthermore, these sources are not in conflict with each other since it is entirely subjective. They have reached separate conclusions based on their own research, which is why attribution is so necessary. You quote RT but Metacritic also came to a different conclusion based on their own methods. I know you may want to wrap this up in a neat 10 word sentence but sometimes its not so easy, nor should it be. Now about the source itself, no where in WP:V does it state that source must have a credited author. In fact many sources that we use on Wikipedia have no credited author or is credited to source's editorial staff. The only requirement is that source be reliable which means that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". The BBC certainly meets this criteria. Furthermore headlines, bylines, picture captions all fall under the publisher's editorial oversight as they are all subject to defamation liability no matter what the rest of the article says. In other words they count just as much. Lastly, the source was published on the 25th, which is not "midweek" as you put it, but the day of the American release and by that time the majority of reviews have been published. Even if it was earlier, it does not discount what was written. I suggest you take a look at The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey#Critical response, which handles how opinions shifted quite nicely. Also pinging @Betty Logan, Bignole, Erik, and GoneIn60:, who participated in the other discussion, and @Tenebrae: our resident journalist.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Fine then, then let's keep this simple. Yes, yes - I know we can fudge the rest, making this BBC flimsy source barely pass muster for the reasons you suggest, but let's get to the heart of this, starting with the following: Wikipedia clearly states that the sources/quotes that are not directly supported by a source's own summary should be removed, period. Also, WP:SYN states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source ... 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (emphasis mine). Part of the problem is that the BBC article is a bad article to begin with. When I confronted you on this, you had to step in with your own analysis of the article because the article failed to do it for you. The article reads like a shill/spin and even conspicuously leaves out the RT 29% rating, going with the 5/10 rating instead and then stacks the deck by listing an even amount of positive and negative reviews rather than acknowledging the reality that there are far more negative reviews for the film than positive reviews. Nowhere in the summary of the article was there analysis saying, A and B, therefore C. The reader (or you) had to do that for them, and, again, only if the article's summary explicitly concludes the wild statement in the headline/byline then is it of any value here. It is indirect as best.
....But more to the heart, my objection was/is in how you were using the BBC source, to summarize a larger point no one in the press is making at this time. My objection to the way you were using the BBC quote is as follows: The outdated, flimsy BBC film source would violate WP:UNDUE, period, given the way this has played itself out everywhere. WP:UNDUE reads, "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views." My overall concern still stands. You betrayed yourself when you said, and I quote you, "There is no clear critical consensus and we need to reflect that for accuracy sake)...And there is no press consensus, that's the point. It does not operate collectively." You laid out a POV agenda right there. However, many wikipedia articles are fine with labeling a film "panned by critics" or "praised by critics" According to:' our mission is as follows, "To maintain a neutral point of view, it is recommended to quote a reasonable balance of these reviews. This may not always be possible or desirable (e.g. films that have been almost universally acclaimed or panned), and best judgment should again be used." Since that BBC film article was released, two weeks have passed, which is a lifetime for these things. I would stop short of saying the film's negative reception by critics was "universal". It was panned but it wasn't panned, say, the same way that "Battlefield Earth" was. Mostly this was a case where Warner Bros. over promised and under-delivered. And so this tentpole film is experiencing a similar backlash that Amazing Spiderman 2 or Ang Lee's Hulk experienced. I think the problem is that when people say, critics panned a film, they assume that it means that critics HATED a film or thought the film SUCKED. On this, I have no problem expanding this content thoughtfully. B v S certainly did NOT suck. It was good, and not great and Warner Bros. promised a GREAT film.If you promise an epic film along the line of "The Avengers" and give the audience and critics simply a good film, or an average film, then they will be disappointed and pan it for that reason. So, I think the wiggle room for 'other thoughts about it' (to quote you) is there, mate. However, it would be reasonable to infer that press is "almost universal" in reporting that the film received a "mostly" negative or "negative" reception. As to what KIND of negative reception, I'm open to exploring that.
....But back to the heart of the matter: The clear majority/consensus in the press is that B v S has received mostly negative reviews. Warner Bros. seems to have embraced this reality, so have fans (who are currently split over loving and hating this film) and the press continues to report about this negative reception by critics, even as recently as this - - another source nicely showing how everyone from the audience, to Warners Bros, to the press and public acknowledge the critical panning of B v S. In your defense, I am not seeing some debate raging in the press suggesting critics are "split" or "mixed". It is very clear that critics-as-whole panned this film, reacted very negatively to it 'as-a-whole'. I have no problem representing your 'other thoughts' on the matter, to quote you again. I also don't mind removing the RT summary and just leaving the stats. But, again, I object strongly to the way you are using that BBC source, which is clearly guilty of WP:SYNTHESIS, for starters, and WP:UNDUE. By your logic, for example, an article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it. Yes, I could find sources by actual scientists arguing with data and facts that the world is flat but that doesn't mean a consensus can never be reached on such things. Again, the problem with your source, mate, is that it is not explicitly saying in the summary of the article what the headline and byline assert. It also conspicuously leaves out the RT stat while holding on to the rating. It reads like corporate shill and then proceeds to stack the deck by listing some negative reviews and then some positive reviews as if by that very inclusion it means anything - that was your proof that the article was supporting the claim made in the headline when the article itself didn't even do so. At best, it was just vaguely 'implied.' However, for the integrity for wikipedia articles, summaries are appropriate when they are attributed to sources that explicitly support the summaries. Editors shouldn't analyze and synthesize critical reception; any summaries should be attributed to reliable source(s) corroborating them. And, again, the ones that are not directly supported by a source's own summary should be removed. To recap WP:SYN states: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source ... 'A and B, therefore C' is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument in relation to the topic of the article." (emphasis mine).
....P.S.If you want to bring other editors into this, it would best to bring in more than just (mostly) those that you found who agreed with you. Yes, I noticed. Looking forward to this (unnecessary debate) if we must.Ghriscore (talk) 17:53, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
You are missing using guidelines. WP:SYN only applies to our editing, not to the source itself. We cannot combine sources or include original research, but reliable sources can and do just that. That's their job. Besides the source explicitly states, "Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice has received mixed reviews from critics ahead of its release this weekend." This is a definitive statement made by the source, which passes WP:V. I am not combining sources to say that the film received mixed reviews, only directly attributing a claim to a single source. No synthesis needed. Also its not a tiny minority as Metacritic has come to the same conclusion. Yet MC, still stands. Perhaps it should be moved to support the MC claim, but it should not be removed entirely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
....P.S. That was everybody in the previous discussion except for Itsthemileage (whom I mistakenly omitted) and I am not sure what side they will come down on.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Nope, you conveniently ignored the fact that Wikipedia clearly states that the sources/quotes that are not directly supported by a source's own summary should be removed, period. The source was at best, indirect, and I discussed that thoughtfully above. You avoided it. You had to make the analysis for them because the article's summary failed to do so. For all we know, the headline and byline are typos. The article itself certainly doesn't make the claim that you (or the headline) was making and is inferred at best. That is far from "explicit". Explicit refers to the article itself. A byline or headline leads into the article, and is not summary.
....Besides, that's a circumstantial argument, and you are still NOT address the REAL problems with the BBC piece: you also conveniently skirted the WP:UNDUE argument I pointed out, which is authoritative here. It represents a minority position that creates a WP:UNDUE problem if we include it in the way that you suggest. I can outsource you on this 20-to-1 as it stands, maybe more. It is telling that you have also failed to produce more sources. You are placing too much weight on Metacritic, however, if you re-read MOS it makes it clear we NOT to use Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic to try to summarize it. If you are allowed to use Metacritic to say the film received "mixed to average" reviews, then that opens the door to letting editors use Rotten Tomatoes to label this film as "rotten" and I'm uncool with that for obvious reasons. This is the reason why WE are limited to using their stats, according to MOS. Rather, it informs us we should open the section with other sources summarizing the critics' perspective with other sources, then provide statistics from Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic after that.
....With all this said, if you can't thoughtfully respond to my central concerns, then you are encouraging edit warring. Please propose something HERE in the way of a reasonable compromise (if we must). For my part, I already did NOT delete your flimsy BBC source but I made a good-faithed effort to salvage it in a fair and constructive way. But it would create a WP:UNDUE problem to include it in the way you desire. Maybe we can use it with Metacritic, I will PM some admins for guidance as I've been doing so far on this. Let you know what I come up with. Cheers.Ghriscore (talk) 18:56, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
....P.S. expanding discussion below.
Perhaps after all my years of creating and editing good articles, I am as ignorant as you claim but which policy are you referring when you say "sources/quotes that are not directly supported by a source's own summary should be removed"? A search is turning up nothing. As for WP:UNDUE, it would not be too much to state the BBC's findings. And if you're so concerned you can simply add other sources to off balance it, especially if you have 20 sources as you claim. I am not using MC to summarize consensus but offering an additional source to support it, just as Newsweek and Variety do for RT. Your "compromise" (that I had no part of), misses the sources central thesis, that according to them it received mixed reviews.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I was paraphrasing, from a message from an admin I'm working with to avoid edit warring on this issue. If we are going to be sarcastic here, I could do the same and poke fun at your change of heart, since your original objection was based upon your clear POV agenda, where you said "there is no clear critical consensus and we need to reflect that for accuracy sake)...And there is no press consensus, that's the point. It does not operate collectively." You kinda shot yourself in the foot there. And I don't doubt you've made 'good' articles.(lol) But as for your philosophical disagreements here on the issue of the validity of critical consensuses in the press, true or not, wikipedia seems to think we CAN find instances of the press operating collectively to come to these conclusions/judgements. Wikipedia does so quite regularly in their articles. And one of the big stories here is about how B v S has received a negative reception from the press. A negative reception is NOT the same as whether or not the film received mixed reviews. Did this film receive mixed reviews? Of course it did. It also received glowing reviews and positive reviews and hateful reviews. But the article falls short of making any kind of judgement. It certainly didn't say that the film received "a mixed reception" by critics. And, for that reason, I'm not objecting to the use of the BBC article (flimsy article that it is). I was reasonably objecting to the way that you were using it. Saying that this film received mixed reviews is one thing. Using it to water-down a summary statement about the clear "negative reception" by the consensus of critics is quite another. And your suggestion about offsetting positive quotes with negative quotes is exactly what WP:DUE is against in spirit. It's a moot point anyways, the same admin/experience editor I've been working with gave me a beautiful compromise that acknowledges the BBC quote, the mixed reviews for the film, and still allows for proper reporting about the near universal negative reaction by the consensus of critics to this film.[will include it below]. Not sure what else we can say about this. CheersGhriscore (talk) 19:40, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Metacritic on B v S[edit]

"Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average to mainstream critic reviews, gave the film an average score of 44 out of 100, based on 51 critics." Just checking in here. This is perfect as it reads, actually. See...this is what I'm talking about. Some might object to the use of the word "average" in this, but this fits in just fine. Why? Because for all we know the reason WHY critics panned this film was because they found this film to be "average" but were promised a "great" film. If you read the reviews, that's a big complaint here: that for a tentpole film it failed to live up to expectations,etc. The same thing happened with "Hannibal", the sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal was good, just not great...and because of that, and because Jodie Foster did not return, the film was panned. But it was panned as a disappointment. It's negative reaction came from the film being a letdown, not because the film itself sucked. Just because the film received mostly negative reviews, doesn't say anything about WHY the film didn't gel for critics. Maybe B v S received a "negative reception" from critics because they had "mixed reactions" to it and found it "average." Unfortunately, we need someone in the press to clearer and explicitly say this. If you read the critics quoted in the section below, this is actually represented quite well by the positive reviews included. For my part, I've also removed a lot of weasel words AND negative summaries that give undue weight to the critics here. Not sure if you've seen the summary as it stands, but with those negative summaries out, the metacritic contrib now reads better (as it stands) and the overall the summary doesn't judge the movie in a way that pushes a POV. I would even go as far as taking out the RT summary but I haven't yet since almost every wikipedia article will include that. But for the sake of compromise, I am fine with removing that and simply leaving the stats. Hmm...maybe I will try that and see how that works for that piece. But for now, MC seems to say what you want to say here without giving UNDUE weight to the reality of the situation. If you have a better wording, please offer it here and let's try to work out a compromise. Cheers.Ghriscore (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

B v S suggestion[edit]

It was suggested to me to use this edit/compromise:

It allows for the words "mixed reviews". It gives a nice byline attention to your contributions. It acknowledges the authoritative nature of the above summary while not violating WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:UNDUE. Beyond this, not sure what else I can offer. This is the best I can do in good conscience. Anything less than this, in spirit, would be shilling for this film or DC fanboys and that's not how this is supposed to work. I like this film too. But I like good film journalism more. Cheers.

Newsweek and Variety reported that Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice received a negative reception from critics.[215][216] Review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes reported a 29% approval rating based on 217 unfavorable reviews versus 89 favorable reviews out of the 295 reviews counted, with an average rating of 5/10.[217] Metacritic, which assigns a weighted average to mainstream critic reviews, gave the film an average score of 44 out of 100, based on 51 critics.[218]
BBC News commented on the mixed reviews for the film, saying that, "the film had been widely praised by fans after its first screening in New York last week. But critics have not been so positive about the long-awaited movie." A. O. Scott of The New York Times wrote "The point of Batman v Superman isn’t fun, and it isn’t thinking, either. It’s obedience. The theology is invoked ... to buttress a spectacle of power. And in that way the film serves as a metaphor for its own aspirations. The corporations that produce movies like this one, and the ambitious hacks who sign up to make them, have no evident motive beyond their own aggrandizement."[220] Writing in The Telegraph, Robbie Collin called the film "humorless" and "the most incoherent blockbuster in years".[221] Cynthia Fuchs of PopMatters said, "As you’re watching this movie, you might also contemplate your own part, in being swayed into consuming so much of what you’ve consumed before." Adding, "Wonder Woman’s remains Batman v Superman‘s most compelling story, precisely because it’s untold."[222] Matt Patches of Thrillist wrote "what Batman v Superman can do, it does, at the cost of coherency and thrills. The movie is bat-shit crazy. A dour, disdainful demeanor, plus a gluttony of complex plot twists, dissipates most of the contact high."[223] Michael Philips of Chicago Tribune wrote, "A near-total drag, Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice plays like a loose, unofficial quarter-billion-dollar remake of The Odd Couple, in which Oscar and Felix are literally trying to kill each other."[224] On his podcast Hollywood Babble-On, film director Kevin Smith, a long-time friend and collaborator of Affleck, praised Affleck's performance but panned the film, commenting that it "didn’t really have a heart" and was "humorless", arguing that "there seems to be a fundamental lack of understanding of what those characters are about. It’s almost like Zack Snyder didn’t read a bunch of comics, he read one comic once, and it was Dark Knight Returns, and his favourite part was the last part where Batman and Superman fight."[225]
I won't object to this, but I think it would be placed more appropriately at the end of the first paragraph, since its about response to the film and not the film itself. It does not have to be combined with the opening sentence just in the same paragraph. Either way, I done with this now. Thanks for taking time to discuss, I'm off to other fires.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Thx for the feedback. Will play around with it, take your suggestions to heart. Glad we could work something out. Cheers, mate.Ghriscore (talk) 20:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Team Barnstar Hires.png The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for your work today corralling the flurry of news across the MCU films and television series, and for your continued work for these article as we hit a critical mass soon of things entering and exiting production and/or releasing left and right. Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: No problem. That was certainly an unexpected day full of Marvel news.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:44, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
What I've come to realize the past few months, is there is some Marvel related almost every day. Whether it be official announcements, new episodes of a TV show, or general news, they've got it down to give us something pretty much every day! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Strange Hong Kong filming[edit]

I totally agree with your removal of the cat until further sourcing can be provided to indeed confirming film there, but FWIW, I believe the scene in the trailer where we first see Mordo and his back to us walking away, is in Hong Kong. Just wanted to point it out. I did a quick search and couldn't find anything of use. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Strange logo.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Recreated category[edit]

Were you aware of Category:Characters that appear within the Marvel Cinematic Universe? (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

No, I wasn't. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
The user appears to be sockpuppet. I have opened an investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TreCoolGuy.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So we're playing this game again?[edit]

Hi. I don't understand you you feel the need to constantly keep changing my edits to the tie in titles for Civil War II. I add references. Previews shows all the titles in July. But for some reason you keep changing what I do. Why? This page doesn't belong to you and frankly it upsets me that you are making incorrect changes. Invincible Iron Man 7-11 is the Road to Civil War II, it's bannered on 9-11 and the story is announced on the cover of issue 7. Also Patsy Walker is a tie in. Also there are further issues of previously issued titles, hence the hyphons. I suggest you look at the July releases on Previews (I know you don't like it but the information is out on the web. If it's on the web and in Previews then it's valid. You really need to stop undoing things just because you haven't added it. I would add the reference from Previews but for some reason you won't accept that as evidence. So you tell me what I should do?

(edit conflict)I suggest you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, particularly WP:V, WP:RS, WP:OR, and WP:SYN. WP:V states "Verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." The source you added does not specifically state which issues are involved and therefore qualifies as original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
If Previews is unreliable then wait for a better one to come along. Again, there is no rush. Also why do you keep re-adding the full citation for multiple uses of the same reference?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Octopus[edit]

Hi, would you mind taking a look at the plot in the section Doctor Octopus#Television, particularly for Ultimate Spider-Man, which seems to go on and on? (talk) 21:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Iron Man character names[edit]

I recently edited Obadiah Stane to include his Iron Monger name, seeing as the actor, the director, and even call the film character as such. This is a topic which has been undone numerous times. With those who created the film calling him as such -- this needs to be changed. Go read the references I included. Simply reverting the edit is unnecessary as there is no discussion about the character names, save that which I have brought up. Burningblue52 (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Like I said, current consensus is against inclusion of names not used in dialogue. If you disagree try to build a new consensus on the article's talk page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:21, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Civil War[edit]

Hey! Just wanted to say enjoy the film if you're going to see it at a late night screening tonight or tomorrow. I'm going tomorrow afternoon. I'm a bit scared at the state of the page when I go on tomorrow, as it always seems to be the case. We all get it in a good spot and then it goes to hell in a matter of few weeks when we leave to avoid spoilers. Hopefully it isn't as bad as I'm thinking. Anyways, I also have a few articles in my pocket to add to the page if others haven't, but really just wanted to say enjoy! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I going to see it tomorrow as well. I've been editing the reception section, but haven't been watching anything else so I can't speak to condition of the page. So far I have managed to any spoilers, knock on wood.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, hope you enjoy the film! I may not be able to see it for a wee while yet, so good luck with the article when you get to it. I'll be trying to avoid S.H.I.E.L.D. and stuff as well until I see the film, so I'm not sure how much I'll be on, but I'm sure you'll have everything straightened out by the time I've seen everything and joined back in. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:30, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Good to know Triiiple. I have a feeling the box office section will be pretty bad, given what we've dealt with previously. Adamstom.97, I'll drop you a line on Tuesday after AoS airs to let you know if its safe or not. Obviously it's subjective, but I have a feeling it won't be as connected as the episode were with Winter Soldier. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Sounds good. And yeah, I don't have much hope for the state of the box office section either. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

May 2016 Civil War[edit]

Understood. It seems very convenient that one can just revert edits with no reasonable basis and just cite "talk page discussions" and "violation" to get away with it. If you honestly think the edits were not constructive to the plot summary, then I really have better things to do. I'm more than happy to leave the satisfaction with dissatisfying entries to the experts. You are welcome to do as you prefer. Regards. Jamf21 17:40, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Civil War II-related[edit]

Hi, I understand that you dislike a plot bloat in Civil War II like how I had to mention the somehow-revived Doc Samson visiting Captain Marvel at the Triskelion. I also sorted the plots as a way to separate the Prelude from the "Free Comic Book Day Avengers" issue, the main plot, and any "Road to Civil II" issues. I'm just letting you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

We're not turning this into another Secret Wars (2015 comic book). Also the FCBD issue is just an excerpt of an upcoming issue. I was actually thinking about removing it entirely.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
The Civil War II storyline also mentioned something about a fight between the Mutants and the Inhumans that I think should be mentioned in the subplot sections when that time comes. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Input request[edit]

Would you mind to weigh in on this discussion: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#First Appearance vs Cameo? Please and thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

X-Men (film series)[edit]

Hi. What's wrong with using this picture on this article? Why its rationale is insufficient?Elasticluv (talk) 14:22, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

The rationale fails to explain how it meets WP:NFCC#8.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
I understand what you mean but I say the purpose of using this picture is to show an image of Wolverine as the face of X-Men and a main character who has appeared in every single X-Men movies Elasticluv (talk) 15:15, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

MTV Movie Awards and Thor Dark World[edit]

I was looking at the page for the 2014 MTV Movie Awards and I didn't see Tom Hiddleston listed as a nominee.[2] That was the reason why I deleted it. And1987 (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right. Should we change it to Loki then?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Black Widow[edit]

I put both there because they were both listed on the Captain America page under abilities individually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amanmohd2105 (talkcontribs)

I responded at User talk:3primetime3#Black Widow, also WP:OTHERSTUFF existing is not an appropriate argument.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:52, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Neutral notice[edit]

This is a neutral notice of a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Comics#Request for Comment: Quotes and italics. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 6 June[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

My edits[edit]

OK, must you undo every edit I do? Like are my edits truly that useless? -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 18:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Your edit needlessly increased the word count and was inaccurate. They didn't go looking for the Avengers, the Avengers came to Seoul. Also we do not use informal nicknames like "Rhodey".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Hulk in film.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Hulk in film.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

MallBrats Draft; Deletion? Pls help[edit]

Hey man, so Kevin Smith recently revealed that Mallrats is being developed into a TV series by Universal with Smith's involvement. Should I unpackage and re-align everything from the Draft to the "sequel" section of the Mallrats article and add a "TV Series" section under that, noting that the film will not come to pass because Universal owns the rights to the title? Jus need a little nudge with this. Here is the source. Thoughts? Npamusic (talk) 05:16, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Also, should I retitle the draft to Draft:MallBrats (TV series) instead? Conflicted. Npamusic (talk) 15:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I was just rename the draft as appropriate.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:34, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay I'll get on it right now. thanks! Npamusic (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Civil War II plot summary[edit]

"They agree to confront Iron Man together to avoid further incident at the secret location, where he has been running tests on Ulysses."

It's not clear from this sentence what secret location is being referred to, Attilan, Stark Tower, or the place where Iron Man is testing Ulysses. I'd fix this myself, but I'm not following the series. Argento Surfer (talk) 16:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Its the unidentified place where Iron Man is testing Ulysses.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters[edit]

Category:Marvel Cinematic Universe characters is back in yet another form. (talk) 13:24, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

ROM in other Media[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? It was backed with source/reference I did everything right so why did you revert it?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 22:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fluffyroll11: No, you cited an unreliable source. Please read WP:RS/CBM.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

The concept art was release by the guy who made it for the show. I think he originally did it through twitter, do you want me to use his twitter account as the source? It is also on plenty of other sites. So I am pretty sure this is real and can be believed in this instance.

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 22:49, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Only if the account is verified, otherwise find a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:45, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

OK but, this is everywhere this source was the best in having all of the images on it and such. So what exactly do you want me to do? Also I would like to ask for you help in advice on something else. Where do I request for comic book characters pages to be made?

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Fluffyroll11: It doesn't matter, Wikipedia policy dictates that all the information must come from a reliable source. At to answer your question, WP:AFC can help you with article creation and WP:COMICS can give you some guidance. Good luck!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you tell me under what category it makes the most sense to request certain comic book character pages to be created? Like for example a page for each of the Enchanters three.

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 04:52, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carol Danvers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Marquez (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:36, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thor template[edit]

Hi, I tried to make the template like the punisher or Daredevil ones were the creators are above the other stuff. It didn't seem to work properly with the Thor template. Do you know how to fix that?*Treker (talk) 03:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. Face-smile.svg *Treker (talk) 14:09, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World[edit]

I think my contribution to Thor: The Dark World is not bad and your decision is wrong. Tobythetobleronerules (talk) 03:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ant-Man revert[edit]

Just a friendly FYI: in the MCU and its various Wikia & discussions, both "Cross Particles" and the "Pym Particles" predecessors have been stylized with capital letters. Other authors' & citations' stylizing and your "proper noun" argument are two different things. And the use of the possessive Cross' (wherever it came from originally) is just bad form, not seen elsewhere in referencing this plot detail.

Best regards, — DennisDallas (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

While it might be true that these particles are referred to as "Cross Particles", it is not necessarily best to use such in-universe terminology in an encyclopedic article. Fans may recognize them as Cross Particles but we should use more explanatory language for our readers. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

'Geeking Out' TV Series Wikipedia page[edit]

Hey Triiip, I created a page for the late night talk show and it says it needs a professional's eye. Care to take a look at it and fix some mistakes I may have made on the page and what have you? Thanks! link. Npamusic (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Npamusic: Some quick thoughts, I assume that you found all the reliable sources on the topic that you can and there just isn't much readily available at this time. That isn't a problem for an article at this stage, just stay vigilante. As for what's there, try to avoid WP:PROSELINE. Exact dates are rarely important and when you do use time references try to put them context of when the event actually occurred not when we learned of it. Example, in stead of:

On February 11, 2016, it was revealed that Kevin Smith and Greg Gruberg will team with AMC and The Weinstein Company to co-host a late night talk show titled Geeking Out which is expected to premiere in July 2016, covering San Diego Comic-Con with 8 subsequent episodes running weekly.


In February 2016, Kevin Smith and Greg Gruberg teamed with AMC and The Weinstein Company to co-host a late night talk show titled Geeking Out which is expected to premiere in July 2016, covering San Diego Comic-Con with 8 subsequent episodes running weekly.

If we don't know exactly when Smith and Gruberg teamed with AMC and TWC, you can say "By February 2016" cause we know it at least happened by then. I don't think you should start listing every guest in the production section. This is a talk show after all and that would become pretty exhaustive after awhile. That information would be better presented in the episode summary. That's about all I got, good luck.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: Fixed. Also added the official logo. Gonna add the website now. Npamusic (talk) 20:57, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

File move[edit]

Hey Triiiple. If you get a chance, could you move File:Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., season 4, teaser art.jpg to File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 4 poster.jpg, for consistency purposes across our other images for AoS seasons? Thanks much in advance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:33, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the revert of my edit[edit]

I understand the purpose of WP:PLOTBLOAT, but the current synopsis is not well written and not clear as to why T'Challa is there at the time of the arrest. If I restore the edits without adding any additional words, is that acceptable? MasonBanks (talk) 14:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Further, I would like to point out that the synopsis after my edit was still beneath the 700 word maximum as stated by PLOTBLOAT and did not add additional information. I merely reworded currently inadequate sentences, the result of which was a minor increase in words. That being said, I won't argue mine were perfect and I'll see if excess fat can be cut. Is that an option? MasonBanks (talk) 14:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The essence of WP:PLOTBLOAT is the spirit of law, not the letter. To use as few words as nessecary to convey the plot, and not belabor every point. Why say German Special Forces instead of authorities, or unnesscary discriptors like legendary. But I do see your point and reworded it with only two additional words. Keep in mind the current summary is the result of months of collaborative editing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:37, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Mallbrats Draft page overview[edit]

Hey Triiip, would you mind skimming over the page for me to see if anything needs to be fixed or altered. I'm trying to keep it as up-to-date as possible. Jus want a little overview on the page itself. Here's the link. Thank a lot man. Really apperciate it! Npamusic (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thumbs up Looks good.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Page needs to be looked over[edit]

Here's the link Npamusic (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Referencing, but I think you know that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:12, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

MCU SDCC images[edit]

Thanks for adding all the images from Gage to the relevant articles. I saw his huge Flickr album, but couldn't take the time to look through it all, so was wondering if you knew if he had any Luke Cage panel images? That article could use some, plus any of Mike Colter would be great, because the ones we have and for his personal article could be updated, as they are really the grainy ones I took when I was at NYCC last fall. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't appear so but you can ask him yourself, he is a user. There are however some free images of Colter from the Con, but they all have stupid instagram emojis all over them. Theres also some snapchat videos that someone released to flickr for free, perhaps a image can be extracted from them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll ask him thanks. I did see those photos you were talking about. Colter "took over" the Netflix Snapchat before their panel, so those photos must be screen shots from that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Falcon edit reverted[edit]

Why did you revert my edit? Also where is the right place to request pages for comic book characters be made? I want to request one for redwing since for some reason he doesn't have one yet.

Fluffyroll11 (talk) 20:29, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Because Redwing links to an actual species of bird, not the comicbook character. You can try creating one yourself at WP:AfC.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:30, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

FYI on sources[edit]

Not sure if you knew this, but I just found out that El Mayimbe is now working as a reporter for TheWrap (see here), apparently as recently as the beginning of the month. I know we've always considered him unreliable, but I'm wondering how to know moving forward, since TheWrap is reliable. I'm guessing if it is a report on TheWrap it might be okay, and we should still consider his Twitter and HeroicHollywood and Latino-review as unreliable? Any thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

His work on The Wrap is reliable because of that publication's editorial oversight, however his work elsewhere may not have the same standards. Reliablilty usually pertains to the publication, not the individual.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

The Great Wall Whitewashing[edit]

In the interest of not turning this into an edit war, I have to contest your rebuttal that The Great Wall is an example of whitewashing. As I previously stated, Matt Damon is playing a character written by director Zhang Yimou as European/White, NOT Chinese. The article about whitewashing in film opens with the definition:

"Whitewashing is the casting practice in the film industry in the United States in which white actors are cast in historically nonwhite character roles. The film industry has a history of frequently casting white actors for roles involving persons of color; the practice is as old as the film industry."

Matt Damon's character is written specifically as white and is not him playing someone meant to be Chinese, thus it isn't whitewashing. Zhang Yimou has explained this already and has previously cast foreigners in lead roles in his films before such as Christian Bale in The Flowers of War, which isn't even in the list. As another example, The Last Samurai isn't in the list either, and that movie has been criticized in the past for its main lead being white. Perhaps there's an argument to be made for The Great Wall, The Last Samurai, etc being in the article White savior narrative in film, but that is clearly different from whitewashing, which is the casting of white actors in non-white roles.

The sources you listed are merely news articles stating the opinion of two or three mid-tier actors, which is hardly a general conscious. Discounting the fact that I am a Chinese who does not consider The Great Wall to be whitewashing, there are many other Chinese users who have shared my view online.

All this being said, I hope you will take my points into account and concede with The Great Wall being removed from the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOXHOUNDER1014 (talkcontribs) 23:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

No. The sources are reliable and their removal amounts to WP:POV if not WP:OR based on your own opinion/research. Besides the disclaimer states it's a list of films that have been subject to criticism based on accusations of whitewashing not a list of films that have been whitewashed. Remember WP:Verifiability, not truth.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Would you care to explain how those sources count as reliable? And what about the other films I mentioned which are essentially in the same circumstances as The Great Wall? Why aren't they included? Why is there no mention of the Yimou's response to the allegations of whitewashing? Surely he is at least a reliable source considering it's his film. All I'm saying is that if you include The Great Wall on the list, you have to be consistent with the other films I brought up. Otherwise I think the article leans subjectively towards one side and is inconsistent with comparable examples.

Secondly, I take issue with the premise of the list. Shouldn't the list be actual examples of whitewashing, rather than just allegations? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOXHOUNDER1014 (talkcontribs) 00:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Seriously, what makes The Guardian and BBC reliable? If you have sources that the other films have been whitewashed please add them. Same goes for any reliable counter-arguments.
The nature of the entire list is subjective, one cannot definitively state that it has been whitewashed. No different than lists like List of films considered the best, one cannot state which is the best film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 00:26, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

The Guardian article is misleading with its title, because it implies that the majority of Asian-Americans "decried" the film, while the BBC article states "Chinese fans, though, did not seem that fussed about Damon's role, instead praising the director Zhang Yimou for bringing "Chinese elements to a Western film." That's a contradiction between both sources, and the Guardian one is only "notable" because a few moderately famous celebrities criticized the casting choice.

In the end, if the entry must remain on the list, I will at least add Zhang Yimou's response to the controversy because other films on the list have also included responses from the directors of their respective works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FOXHOUNDER1014 (talkcontribs) 00:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Source archiving help at Steve Jobs (film)[edit]

Hi. I'm currently working to address issues a reviewer made for the GA status of Steve Jobs. One of them is source archiving, which I'm not too familiar or skilled with. I was wondering if ou or someone you may know could help me in that department? Rusted AutoParts 17:23, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Its pretty simple: just go to click the "Archive" tab, enter the URL of the webpage and your email address and click "submit". Don't worry about rest of the metadata information unless you want to.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:02, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Adding the Collector to the Marvel Cinematic Universe Films Character List[edit]

Why do you revert that? He appears in Thor 2 and Guardians of the Galaxy, so why don't add him? At the moment he is the only connection of Guardians of the Galaxy to the other films, next to Thanos and is important. Thor 3 doesn't matter. Could you do that please?

Trinity1405 (talk) 22:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Its not enough that he appears in the film, he needs to be listed in at least two billing blocks per the indicator above the table.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:00, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Please see the FAQ on the matter, which gives more info and examples. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:32, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


Why did you get rid of the Redwing page? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

It isn't notable per WP:GNG.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:19, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
@TriiipleThreat: Redwing is notable just like Lockjaw and Zabu are and is definitely more notable than Lucky the Piazza dog. Are you telling me that you deleted it because I hadn't added the publication history yet? Fluffyroll11 (talk) 13:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
I redirected it because there doesn't appear to be "significant coverage" of the topic in third party reliable sources. Also other stuff existing is not a valid reason to keep or delete articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

You recent reversions in "Captain America: Civil War"[edit]

Hi, please don't take offense but I think that your reversion to the pic alignment in Captain America: Civil War is unjustified. Please have a look at the pic placement guidelines if my rationale is not clear. Too minor a change to waste more of our time in disagreement. Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 12:40, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of the guideline and there are no hard and fast rules in regards to placement. It's just bad form to stack one side of the page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:12, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel in other media[edit]

I see you reverse my edit. I think it's obvious that the guy is talking about film and television shows when he discusses that the comic book reading sales influence what projects are turned into live action adaptations within Marvel. He then goes on to talk about Ms. Marvel. I can see your point, but at the same time, isn't it obvious what he's talking about?

Burningblue52 (talk) 16:54, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps but it fails WP:V, your interpretation no matter how obvious it seem to you is still WP:OR. It could be project outside the MCU, he doesn't even say if it will be a standalone project. Just wait till we have more information, there's WP:NORUSH.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense. I think with the several shows they've been discussing official announcements won't be too far down the road. Burningblue52 (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Toonopedia archiving[edit]

A friend of mine not much older than me is going in for open-heart surgery in a few days. This and other concerns make me want to update you and a couple of other good Wikipedia editor-friends about where to find my ongoing project to protect Toonopedia, which can't be automatically archived at There is a danger that this unique source of comics / cartoon information may go dark permanently: Don Markstein died a few years ago, and while Toonopedia has mostly been up during that time, there have been outages lasting from a day or two to weeks.

In case no one sees me editing for a couple, three months, it might mean something's happened to me. If that's the case, I'd like you to know why where Webcitation archive links are:

My organization of them is a bit haphazard — I inadvertently started two alphabetical lists, and other editors' archiving of C and D are listed separately. But it's mostly understandable: The list at User:Tenebrae/Toonopedia backup#Entries added to articles shows my progress thus far in incorporating archived links into Wikipedia. It's only the archived links above that section that still need to be placed.

No action is being asked for. I just wanted to feel reassured that if anything premature ever happens to me that the archived links not yet placed in Wikipedia articles — and the Toonopedia information, which in some cases doesn't appear in many or even any other source — don't become lost to history. With great regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2016 (UTC)


Ok. So besides the other ones which can be up for debate, but how exactly is Thor (comics) any less related to Thor (Marvel Comics) than the regular Thor article?*Treker (talk) 17:20, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too sure that should be there either. However, the Marvel version is related to the Norse version, but it is not necessarily related to other comics depictions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
But the Thor (comics) article covers the Marvel Comics version as well. I feel it is at least worth keeping that one even if the other ones don't belong.*Treker (talk) 17:32, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
I suppose so.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Is it ok if I add it back? I've added the Thor category to the template to, I think that's supposed to be there. I'm not trying to be annoying I'm just kind of aggressive with editing sometimes. Sorry.*Treker (talk) 17:44, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd say its a weak keep. Also, there's nothing wrong with being WP:BOLD.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:48, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks.*Treker (talk) 17:52, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The Defenders in the MCU[edit]

It was recently (as of today) announced via an interview with Head/Producer of Marvel, Kevin Feige that The Defenders will play some role within one of the two upcoming Avengers movies; and I went through and added this piece of information within each page of the MCU's Defenders' pages. I am curios as to why you have reverted the edits at this time? --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 19:55, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

When asked if the Defenders will appear in any of his films, Fiege simply responded "Spoilers!". This is neither a confirmation or a denial. Please wait until we have hard facts. WP:RUMOR states, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:57, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I understand that. I just figured because he didn't say 'no' and because he said that they'll all be there trying to stop Thanos, that it was discernible. Thanks for the help! --DisneyMetalhead (talk) 20:52, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I need your help adding images from the Doctor Strange comic book to the Doctor Strange page.[edit]

I'd like to add an image to but I can't because the action is limited to users in certain groups. I was wondering if you could help me.

I'd like to add examples of the work of the artists next to the section describing the artists and how their styles differ. I can't add the images myself because the action is limited to users in one of the following groups: Autoconfirmed users, Administrators, Confirmed users. The images would definitely qualify as fair use, and I can detail my argument in full if you're willing to help me.

Here are links to the images I'm talking about:

If a lower resolution is required I can make it happen. I can provide issue number and page number for both. ~~origonalname112~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Origonalname112 (talkcontribs) 02:28, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Latin American 10,000 Challenge invite[edit]

Hi. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Latin America/The 10,000 Challenge ‎ has recently started, based on the UK/Ireland Wikipedia:The 10,000 Challenge and Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The 10,000 Challenge. The idea is not to record every minor edit, but to create a momentum to motivate editors to produce good content improvements and creations and inspire people to work on more countries than they might otherwise work on. There's also the possibility of establishing smaller country or regional challenges for places like Brazil, Mexico, Peru and Argentina etc, much like Wikipedia:The 1000 Challenge (Nordic). For this to really work we need diversity and exciting content and editors from a broad range of countries regularly contributing. At some stage we hope to run some contests to benefit Latin American content, a destubathon perhaps, aimed at reducing the stub count would be a good place to start, based on the current Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa/The Africa Destubathon. If you would like to see this happening for Latin America, and see potential in this attracting more interest and editors for the country/countries you work on please sign up and being contributing to the challenge! This is a way we can target every country of Latin America, and steadily vastly improve the encyclopedia. We need numbers to make this work so consider signing up as a participant!♦ --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 00:56, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Captain America: Civil War[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg 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)

Your opinion is requested[edit]

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 02:10, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Mike Colter as Luke Cage.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mike Colter as Luke Cage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:30, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Chris Evans as Captain America.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chris Evans as Captain America.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, TriiipleThreat. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

File:Mike Colter as Luke Cage.jpg listed for discussion[edit]


A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Mike Colter as Luke Cage.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination.

ATTENTION: This is an automated, bot-generated message. This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 23:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)