This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.I have to go to high school, which occurs from 7AM to 5PM (may vary based on other IRL factors) CT. I try to edit WIkipedia whenever and wherever I can, but of course, my motivation and will to do so will vary depending on the day, so I may get exhausted from editing and take breaks that can last anywhere from days to months. Nevertheless, I will try to be as punctual and active as possible.[a] Thus, if you have any concerns, questions, or comments at all, please do not hesitate to reach out to me and I will help you out as much as I possibly can. Happy editing and I hope to see you around somewhere! :)
TFATWS
For now it might just be best to get the other episodes ready to go, and maybe the main series as well afterwards. Then we can just nominate 2 or 3 at a time.
Either way, looks like the MCU should have many more GAs in the coming months as well as three GTs. Four with TFATWS once we wrap up the GAs. -- ZooBlazer02:01, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I think Ep 1 is completely in the bags for me in terms of looking at it content-wise. I remember done some decent skim-over and content additions to the future eps, but haven't done an in-depth examination. I'll start on Ep 2 rn. I think for the first "batch", we can nominate the first 2 eps and then decide our game plan afterwards. I'm optimistic to see the MCU's GA log expand. Hopefully someone picks up on the Phase 1 GAN soon so that can be a GT. 🤞 Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:18, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good plan. It'll be nice once we finally get these nominated. It's been on the to do list for like 2 years off and on lol.
Yeah, once Phase One is done, I think then Phase Two and Three articles just need reception and probably c/e(?) and then they can be GA nominated eventually. They'll both be ready for a GT nom afterwards as well.
Hopefully this year in terms of MCU GTs we can get:
WandaVision - your vote should count if you want to add support to keep it moving towards a consensus - The nomination is here
The Falcon and the Winter Soldier
Avengers
Phase One
Phase Two
Phase Three
I want to eventually convert Avengers to a FT. Might work on that over the summer. Ideally all articles will eventually be featured, but at the very least the movies and production article. If the current plan goes through there will be 10 articles in the topic to start (obviously more will be added in a couple years). The three accolades articles are FL, so just two articles need to become FAs for the topic to become a FT. If all 4 movies become FAs before Secret Wars, then the topic won't have to move back to a GT. Unless we get a bunch of scene/sequence articles for Avengers 5 and 6 lol. -- ZooBlazer02:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know right! That was what kinda bugged me haha, but I'm glad that we've made some decent progress with other things in the meantime, like Black Widow and Shang-Chi. Let me know once the Phase 1 GAN starts, so that way we can get that knocked out and then proceed onto P2 & 3, I think the more we progress into the MCU chronology, it'll be easier to compile Reception, allowing us to achieve GAN easier.
Pretty good GT plan thus far, I just cast in my vote, thanks for telling me. Good luck with converting Avengers to FT, That's definitely an ambitious undertaking, and I'm not at all familiar with the FAR process, but I know that'll take far long time as of course, there needs to be a Peer Review beforehand I believe before actually proceeding onto the main FAR, iirc. Either way, we'll of course focus on this one part at a time. I'll continue working on Ep 2, and recently just came out of an edit. I'm also bookmarking all the sources I'm getting on FATWS along the way so this can be used in the future. I like the idea of doing it in batches of 2 at a time, it's more easier and palatable that way I think. However, I also think it should be noted that the info availability on the episodes means that we can't expect content on par with New World Order or like the WandaVision articles, but they'll still be GA-worthy nevertheless. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:06, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if a peer review is required, but I did one for Endgame already anyway and also put in a request at the Guild of Copyeditors to take a look at the article. I have no experience with FACs either, so I'm hoping I can find some help on the articles once i start. 7 FAs alone sounds scary lol. Unfortunately a big part is overhauling the reception, which is my weakness already. The movies also need a themes and analysis section using google scholar or articles like that.
However, I also think it should be noted that the info availability on the episodes means that we can't expect content on par with New World Order or like the WandaVision articles, but they'll still be GA-worthy nevertheless.
Oh, for sure. Luckily length of the article is not a requirement for GAs. As long as they're broad in their coverage it should be fine. -- ZooBlazer03:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I'm not sure either, so ofc don't take my word on that. I however did kind of see that as a convention when I look at FA logs, which I think makes perfect sense. I also have no FAC experience, so I guess I'll keep an eye on it and try to assist where I can, and I'd definitely be willing to help however I can. 7 FAs is definitely one quite a big goal haha, but I'm confident that you got it. I wouldn't go so far as to say Reception is my specialty, but I think I tend to be a fairly competent writer and can spruce up Receptions if need be. Themes and Analysis is definitely an entire new beast and something I haven't tackled before to the same extent, but I definitely think it would be in the same vein as reception.
Oh, for sure. Luckily length of the article is not a requirement for GAs. As long as they're broad in their coverage it should be fine
Yep, which is good, quality over quantity. Finding good sources for MCU series can be decent, but it's really hard to like legit mine sources for like specific ig, nuggets and shrapnels of info on specific scenes lol, but they usually tend to be easy, you just have to do a bit of digging to get good stuff. I remember how incredibly hard it was to get sources for Moon Knight's third episode, like it was insanely hard as I genuinely could not find a single source, and had to extend the point about puzzle-solving. Anyways lol, I digress, but I'm working on FATWS full-time rn. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still have a bunch of possibly useful refs on my sandbox talk page here if you need them. Also discovered I still have potential reception refs for the other two phases on a different Sandbox talk page so that'll be nice in the future. -- ZooBlazer05:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't go glass half empty on me lol. However, on a serious note, I believe in taking care of it one at a time, and doing it chronologically is nice and we'll be able to do it. I think doing the Phase 4 stuff should be fairly easy, I'm mostly worried about getting info for MK, Hawkeye, and She-Hulk. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even think about those yet. Long time before we get there lol. Plus What If is gonna be tougher than all of those. Maybe even impossible -- ZooBlazer05:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ironically, I actually think What If...? might be one of the easier. The articles already seem pretty fleshed out and complete already, it'll just be tedious getting info bc it's a relatively big series. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I didn't realize you replied even though I replied the other day lol. The hardest part will be the individual season articles. They and the main article are pretty bare compared to what they would be if they weren't split off. Same goes for Loki. -- ZooBlazer00:44, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I'm not sure how editing the master articles (ie the main series article and its seasons) will go but I can see that it'll be harder considering we have to give a macro overview of it all. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just keep imagining this being real (with some kind of image included though) lol.
Excellent. Yea, feel free to go ahead and CE everything I had done thus far. I think I've gotten all the possible info for Ep 2 I could. I looked through the sandbox sources and couldn't find any info applicable to Ep 2. Fortunately, I get a decent forecast and I know for a fact that doing Ep 5 and 6 is gonna be quite easy as there's a lot of VFX and Design info available on those. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:59, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But first, we have to get to that stage of a GAN first. That'll take time, also considering Favre noted the big GA backlog right now. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the February backlog drive gets announced I say we should just nominate. Although I don't think 5 nominations in total makes a huge difference compared to the current 3. -- ZooBlazer23:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, assuming we can get the articles prepped by then, which I think is fair enough to expect. I would like to get a decent consensus before going straight ahead with the nom but I do think that the MCU's GANs isn't that many, relatively speaking, but at the same time, each of those 3 GANs I think will be massive in terms of advancing GTs. We'll ostensibly be able to get 2 GTs if the Avengers articles pass alongside Phase 1. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:19, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think my current plans are to work on these articles while I wait for the GA process on the other articles. Then once these are either ready to go and/or nominated, it'll be time to finish up Phases 2 and 3 reception to get them ready to go as well.
I ended switching up my copyeditors request to Avengers 1 instead of Endgame and just put in a peer review request as well. So I'll begin FAC prep after all those are done. I was gonna go in reverse order, but decided to go release order of the Avengers movies. -- ZooBlazer23:44, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So when it comes to eventually nominating, if it ends up being us, what do you think of the idea of me doing episodes 1, 3, and 5 and you do 2, 4, and 6? I only suggest that because I'm technically one of the top contributors for all odd numbered episodes but not currently all even numbered episodes.
Then obviously we can work together on the actual reviews. Then we keep the same three episodes each for DYK? And like the GAN, it would be a co-nom for each, similar to how I added you as co-contributor for the Avengers DYK so once it makes it to the main page, you'll get a message on your talk page as well (if someone ever reviews it lol) -- ZooBlazer03:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Yea, sounds perfectly good to me. I'll also plan on doing the co-nom thing too, I'm not sure how to do it though. Would you just put the normal GAN code on top of the talk page with the additional note-Co-nom is XYZ or something? And yea, working together to fix up the GARs of course makes sense. I'm also not as familiar with DYKs, so I'll probably ask you for more help on that one. I'm optimistic that it'll get reviewed in a decent timeframe. Nippy got reviewed surprisingly quick lol, and so did my previous BCS GANs, so I would assume that it'll get picked up fairly quickly. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, be sure to get back to me once you've done a good thorough examination of the first two episode articles for FAWS, I think I've given my best shot in terms of adding more content. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would you just put the normal GAN code on top of the talk page with the additional note-Co-nom is XYZ or something?
Yep, that's pretty much all it is. You can also install the GAN helper which saves a little time because it does all the work for you. Then you can go add the note if you're co-nominating something.
I just wanted to stop by and thank you both for your efforts to get more of our articles to GA status and hopefully GTs as well! I wish I had more time so I could pitch in, but alas, my time is limited due to real-world commitments. Anyway, keep up the good work, and good luck! InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Congrats on the GT nom. Ping me if you need help with anything. I'm gonna go back for Round 2 of editing, I think I'm content with how Ep 1 has turned out, I'll do another edit soon for Ep 2 as there's more info I want to integrate into it.
@InfiniteNexus Welcome! I'm glad you decided to stop by and we appreciate it too. Of course, my time is also limited due to the real-world, but your assistance will nevertheless be appreciated. Either way, I hope to see ya around editing! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't actually nominate it lol. All the articles have to be GA and/or FA for GTs/FTs. It's just ready to go when the time comes.
@ZooBlazer Oh, I thought you did. 😭 I can't access the WV GT thing rn, but that could be a phone issue. Either way, aren't all the WV articles at GA or above? I remember even Agatha All Along was a GA too.
Thanks haha! I'm happy too. I'm not sure how to do a GT, but ofc that's not my biggest priority rn as I really wanna get the FATWS thing going. I think I'm content with the Ep 2, a good job has been done with expanding VFX and Writing, and everything else was taken care of prior. I'll prolly request you to do another quick run through of both articles, do some CEing and all that, cleanups, before hopefully either Adam, Trailblazer, Favre and/or maybe...Infinite also does another runthrough. We're still planning on doing the first 2 EPS for the GAs as of now, right? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I thought you did. 😭 I can't access the WV GT thing rn, but that could be a phone issue. Either way, aren't all the WV articles at GA or above? I remember even Agatha All Along was a GA too.
Wait, WandaVision? Favre nominated that GT. All I was saying is I prepped the TFATWS one for later and used the style of WandaVision's nom. -- ZooBlazer06:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer I see. That's good that the GTN for FATWS is pre-prepped. With that being said, I have some decent updates as I've noticed that Favre has taken a scan of the first two articles and I think taken a look at it by now. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely think the first 2 episodes are ready or right on the cusp of being ready to be nominated. Just a matter of waiting for Adam to have a chance to look at them. We're so close to finally getting the noms started after 2 years lol -- ZooBlazer00:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IKR!!! And it should be safe cruising from here I think as there's already a ton of info ab the last 2 episodes so they'll be quite good and we also have more info regarding like Walker's freakout but also the presence of Zemo and the Power Broker. I know Adam doesn't have too much time due to IRL commitments, but I hope we get the approval to go ahead from him or another editor, such as Favre. In the meantime, I'll go ahead and begin working on Power Broker. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright @ZooBlazer I think as you've seen, I already did quick scans of Ep 3 and Ep 4, as I'm getting to work on those. I'm content with what I have for Ep 3 as I felt I added all the info I could get and think it should be good enough, considering we have Design info and more VFX info. Take a look at those while I work on Ep 4 in the meantime. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Yea no worries, feel free to make the adjustments you think are necessary, I trust your judgement. Thanks, yea, I've already felt it was pretty well fleshed out beforehand, so with that being said, I think I'll move onto Ep 4 as I'll consider Ep 3 done for now. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:22, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I think I remember, 5 and 6 are also relatively fleshed out and episode 4 probably needs the most help at the moment.
Let me know if there's anything specific you'd like me to add. I've mostly taken a backseat the last couple days so that I didn't mess with what you planned to add. -- ZooBlazer00:42, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Makes sense. It's actually a funny coincidence that you say that, because I literally just finished editing Episode 4 stuff haha. I added VFX info, so I would say take a look at that and feel free to give it a good look over. I also found some more nuggets of info to add back in previous episode, so I'll also do that too. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just leaving this here since I'm gonna eventually need to clear the refs from my sandbox for a different project. It's a potential good ref for the finale/maybe the main article. -- ZooBlazer04:51, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer No worries, I also went ahead and saved all the refs from that Sandbox onto mine, so you should be good to go. Good luck on your future Wiki project! I'll update you when I finish up going through all the episodes this time so that you can check it at your time. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 19:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Yea, I think I saw some of the edits as I've edited haha. But yea, I wanted to offer some positive updates. I've done pretty exhaustive and thorough deep dives for all the info I could hunt down get for the first 5 eps, and I am very confident that I have not left any stones left unturned. I'm now about to wrap up Ep 6, I've got the sources lined up everything. I also do just want to warn you in advance, that ik I previously said like I finalized the other episodes before, but as I was doing my deep dives, I also went back and added more nuggets of info I could that corresponds to the episodes all across, so I'd say another solid look is necessary. I'll give you another message once I definitely declare that I've finished my editing, expect a conclusion either by tomorrow or Saturday, at the latest. This project is definitely nearing its end in terms of inserting content, etc. The final stretch is now just refining the articles and getting them prepped for GAN. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been keeping an eye on the edits for the most part. I'll do another quick look through the edits, but I think the pages will definitely benefit if Adam and/or Trail find the time to look through them. -- ZooBlazer06:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer That's good. I would say do a bit of a thorough look and definitely do some CE. The pages will definitely benefit from everyone and anyone's input as I wasn't too focused on polishing the grammar but inserting the content. With Adam's recent messages, I think it's safe to say this is definitely gaining some progress. I've also notified everyone that I am definitely finished in terms of adding and expanding the information in the article, so believe we definitely have all the content ready for GAs, finally! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:47, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and feel free to nom the first episode if we are just doing one at a time for now if you want to be the one who does it. -- ZooBlazer04:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Nice, hopefully Adam will start going through it soon. I'll ofc hold off on GANing until we get the green-light but I will definitely initiate the GAN process for Ep 1, thank you very much for the offer. We can alternate, so that you take every other episode. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alternating may not completely work since I'm not a main contributor of episodes 2 or 4.
What about:
Option 1. You: episodes 1, 2, 4, the main article. Me: episodes 3, 5, 6, and the GT process
Option 2. You: 1, 2, 4, 6, and the main article (and GT if you want it). Me: just episodes 3 and 5 (and the GT if you don't want to)
I think Option 1 is the best one. Let's proceed with that one. I'll also credit you, Adamstom, and Favre as co-noms for the GANs ofc. I'm curious if there's a way to like actually make joint GANs, or if one person gets credit for it at the end of the day always? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 06:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I've not really worked on this but option one couldnt work as you are under the ten percent requirement for episode six you have 4.8 percent. Dcdiehardfan does surpass the requirement with 13.6 percent. I'll check the authorship of the other pages and see which of you is eligable for what Questions?fourOlifanofmrtennant (she/her)06:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1x1: Dcdiehardfan can ZooBlazer cant
1x2: Dcdiehardfan can ZooBlazer cant
1x3: Dcdiehardfan can ZooBlazer cant
1x4: Dcdiehardfan can ZooBlazer cant
1x5: Dcdiehardfan can ZooBlazer cant
1x6: Dcdiehardfan can ZooBlazer cant
So um a bit bad ZooBlazer isnt actually eligable to nominate any articles.
Adam just today said No issue with you two nominating the articles, it's not too important who does the actual nominating.
The MCU articles tend to be a group project in terms of everyone helping out to fix whatever issues come up during the GAN anyway, regarsless of who nominates, especially with the movies and series/episodes. -- ZooBlazer06:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer I was wondering if we should prepare a contingency plan in case Adamstom doesn't go forth with his planned CE and since March is imminent. I requested that Adamstom should deliver an update by the 26th just to see how they're going to be able to manage it, but in case any update isn't provided, do you have any idea what we should do? I suggest we be WP:BOLD and perhaps go for it, and of course allow any other editors who would want to provide their input on it beforehand to do so, and just undergo the GAR process since we shouldn't be too far away. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:23, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe if there is no c/e after the first week of March, just be bold with the first nom. Or at the very least, bring it up one last time before you go through with the nom. Pretty sure Adam said either on the main article's talk page or the episode one talk page that they can be nominated even if he doesn't do a c/e first. -- ZooBlazer01:36, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer I think waiting until the 1st week of March is a bit too long, I'll probably bring it up maybe for one last time on Feb 29, and if there's no response by Mar 2, I'll go through with it. I'm not sure if Adam said that, but if so, that's good news. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm imagining that part of what he said because I can't find it.
Anyeay... the thing is, the backlog drive is focused on the older nominations, so there's a good chance the article won't be reviewed in March anyway because people get more points in the drive for older noms. So if it does get reviewed, it's probably gonna be by someone who either doesn't care about the points or someone who isn't even part of the drive.
Adam said in his last message on the talk page that he planned to do the edits before it began, but also said he'd leave a message if he didn't think he'd have time, so we'll have to see. -- ZooBlazer01:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Just done! My only concern is regarding the recent edits of Gonnym, I genuinely hope it doesn't escalate into an edit conflict bc that would basically deck GAC#5 but I trust it should be neatly resolved soon. I'll try to mediate the situation and hopefully it all goes well from there. -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 23:40, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The backlog drive begins in just a few hours. Fingers crossed my two noms (so I can finally start the GT processes) plus the two episode noms get picked up during it. -- ZooBlazer20:49, 29 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Indeed, it has started just a while ago, and yea, I'm also hopeful that all of our noms get picked up actually haha. My previous 2 ones (ZSJL and Dune) have been sitting in the can for a while. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ok, I gotcha haha. Good luck with the Prod article btw, I'm sure it should be smooth sailing as it already has been very thoroughly analyzed. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you want to help me yet again with reducing quotes a bit? Two Earwig results show 40% or more due to a lot of quoting I think. One shows twice because of the archive also popping up for some reason. -- ZooBlazer16:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate it. I reduced one last quote, so hopefully earwig is good now, but I can't check because it's giving me issues at the moment. -- ZooBlazer03:15, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer I'm glad to hear that! Congrats on your Ws, I just saw the pass for the Production one. I'll go ahead and cast my vote, I'm happy it's moving along this well thus far. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Phase Two is probably my next GA project since it's close to ready. Phase Three is close as well, but unfortunately for me, both need reception lol.
Hopefully your Dune nom makes it to the end successfully. Saw there were a few potential issues popping up over the last few days. -- ZooBlazer22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know! I just saw the news. I forgot about doing a DYK nom, I'll go ahead and begin that. Which reminds me, I need to go and vote in the Avengers GTC nom. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 20:28, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which reminds me, I need to go and vote in the Avengers GTC nom
Hello Dcdiehardfan! Firstly, I want to say I greatly appreciate all of your work and commend you for your c/e-ing of the various Marvel and DC articles. I know it can be somewhat of a daunting endeavor. I was wondering if you could perform a copyedit of the Aquaman and the Lost Kingdom article, especially for its Reception section which is not really my specialty and I think it could use some work, among any other things you think could use some improvement. I've worked on much of the article myself and think another set of eyes could be useful, even though it already has been labeled as a B-class, just to get ahead of any potential future noms down the road. Thanks in advance! Trailblazer101 (talk) 07:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @Trailblazer101! Thank you, I also appreciate your contributions across various Marvel and DC articles too and wanted to laud you for your efforts in trying to improve the AM2 article. As I have just finished up the FATWS project, I will definitely put this on my radar and I should be able to get to it by either today or at the latest by Tuesday, I'm a bit busy with school and all so yea. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why thank you! Not to worry, I'm in no rush to seeing this done, and I also have studies ongoing, so I feel you there. Take your time and best of luck on the FATWS process (which I hope to get to sometime soon but make no guarantees). I've recently been trying to focus a bit more on some of the DC media to improve them, and Lost Kingdom just got a lot of dedication on my end. lol Trailblazer101 (talk) 06:12, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely! And of course yea, I may not be able to get it delivered in a timely manner, but I promise it will get done eventually haha, and thank you for the well-wishes. I'm looking forward to hopefully receiving your feedback considering I recently just finished my work with it and will step back to let other editors take a look at it. I totally comprehend haha, I'm also working on some other DC articles too, like ZSJL. I plan on getting The Batman to GAN at some point, but that's an ambitious undertaking imo, so perhaps we could work on that in the future maybe or in tandem. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting The Batman to GAN has been something I've been wanting to work on for a while now, and I would love to be a dynamic duo with you in making that endeavor a reality whenever it best suits in scheduling and external commitments! I also plan on working towards a GAN for TSS eventually, as well, and a few more c/e-ing for some of the other recent DC film articles I haven't gotten to yet. Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be willing to help in any way I can with the Batman article if/when you guys decide to commit to the GAN process if im not in the middle of a separate project at the time. Just did my first FAC co-nom, so for the moment I have no major project plans as I wait for GAN, FLC, and now FAC reviews to either begin or conclude. -- ZooBlazer18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101 and @ZooBlazer I would absolutely love to have both of you folks onboard for The Batman GAN. It's been a big goal of mine for a while considering I absolutely loved the film so yea. I don't really have any big projects right now outside of I guess waiting for ZSJL to undergo its GAN and try to get Dune to GAN at some point so yea, I hope that it turns out well. Also good luck on your FAC Zoo. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you need a easy project, now is a good time to do the BCS season 6 good topic if you plan on doing one. The GT backlog was recently cleared so the voting process will probably go faster. -- ZooBlazer04:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely something I'd love to tackle together with you both! I love The Batman so much, it would be quite a tedious, but fun endeavor! I'm hoping my schedule may get less busy toward the middle of May (I hope). Trailblazer101 (talk) 04:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I still love TDK most, but it's closer than I thought it would be. I do love the world of The Batman a lot, so I'm hyped for the rest of the trilogy, plus The Penguin. Michael Giacchino crushed the music and it's probably one of my favorite scores in all superhero movies. -- ZooBlazer05:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love and respect the Nolan movies, but think that TB absolutely delivers on being the definitive Batman film thus far considering well, the atmosphere is just very authentic to what I'd imagine Gotham to be and it's so much more focused on Batman's actual psychology and executes in a way that's convincing, whereas TDK ig showed how everything else impacted Bruce and all. And yes, the music is great, the overall production values are fantastic, it's the cinematography that strikes the most to me. Anyways, hopefully we all can do TB GAN soon. We should check up on that once FATWS gets done or something. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101 It has been quite a while, but I believe I have finished up CEing and revamping the Critical Response section and think it should better. If there's any other things you'd like help with, don't hesitate to reach out. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much! That works splendidly and really helps the article out a lot! I'll be sure to keep you in mind for anything else should it come along, as I still want to c/e other more recent DC film articles outside of this, The Batman, and TSS. The game is on! Trailblazer101 (talk) 03:31, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trailblazer101 Of course, I'm glad to help out. I'd also like to help assist you in editing the other DC film articles, especially ahead of the beginning of the DCU, so that's an interesting prospect. I've gotten ZSJL to the GAN, and plan on tackling that whenever it begins to get reviewed haha, and would love to help you out on those other ones, so feel free to ring me up whenever you begin working on those projects. Also, btw, how far are you in terms of tackling Aquaman 2? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's great to hear! I'm still doing some research for sources on VFX and its specific production aspects, though I haven't had the most time to put them together in writing yet. I have a whole roster of sources I'm rummaging through for those and marketing. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I get the pain of rummaging through VFX sources and stuff, it's definitely arduous since a lot of info tends to overlap so it's as exhausting trying to find which ones to use since you just want to include them all ig. If you'd like, feel free to share some sources and I can also help you in integrating them into the article. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:48, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar Hey there! I'm also thankful to be able to contribute to the GAR! I actually am not familiar with the work nor Paul Goodman but simply decided to help out after seeing it on the GAR page. Either way, I would still love to provide my input on the FAC, thank you for kindly inviting me. Congrats on having a near imminent GA btw! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Were you still interested in providing input on the FAC? It's a niche topic and hasn't attracted as many reviewers as other books might, so is at risk of being closed early. czar13:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Czar I'll see if I can provide as much input when I can as I am busy with IRL things throughout this week. I'll do my best but won't be able to provide in-depth criticism however as I have no prior experiences with FACs. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Charlemagne
Thanks for the help over at Charlemagne. FYI I've asked for some clarification on the reviewer's suggestions which you implemented, so I may or may not make changes to these.
I was surprised to see you jump in on this, only because of serendipity - I was looking for a review to do while waiting for someone to pick up Charlemagne, and saw Zack Snyder's JL, and was set to start reviewing this interesting article. But suddenly my review opened and I knew it would eat up my wikitime this week. So, If no one starts that one, I'll hopefully be able to do so once I get through Charlemagne. Cheers, Seltaeb Eht (talk) 04:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Seltaeb Eht It was a pleasure to help out. I definitely think Charlemagne is a topic befitting of the GA status, even though I'm not much of a historian myself. And that sounds good, I accepted the GAR kind of on good faith, and understand if some parts, especially the removal of the content, is bold, so feel free to adjust as needed.
And I'm glad you're interested in ZSJL. It's definitely something I've been intending to get on GA for quite a while so yea. And of course, take your time, and I don't think it'll get picked up for GAR for a while, so feel free to do that one if you'd like. Good luck on getting Charlemagne to GAN, and if you would like for help, let me know! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 00:02, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FAC help
Hey, if you have some free time between now and the weekend, would you want to briefly help me with some scare quote issues for my FAC? My co-nominator is busy so I'm currently doing all of the revisions myself, but stuff like that isn't my strongest skill. -- ZooBlazer03:14, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer It's been a while since we've last talked! I'd love to help out if I can, albeit this is an interesting and unconventional issue. Which FAC is this for, Avengers, Pokemon, or something? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:55, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's for The Dark Pictures Anthology: House of Ashes. I'm working on the edits in my sandbox currently and the review I'm addressing is on the talk page of the sandbox. The scare quote issue is in the development part of the review. Feel free to address anything else from the review, but only if you're 100% sure the change is accurate lol. I'm hoping my co-nominator finds some wiki time soon because I'm hoping they can deal with the plot and reception issues. Everything else I think I can fix. -- ZooBlazer04:06, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Gotcha, since my workload is basically empty right now, I'll also see if I can address the other issues from the review, like Reception and Plot, although I will admit, the Reception is definitely big haha. Feel free to take a look at the main article, I've just went ahead and finished an edit on that part and just kinda rewrote the prose to reduce the quotes altogether, and I think it should be good. If there's anything else you think needs attention, I'll take a look at it. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it looks good, thanks! I've addressed a lot of the review so far. I think the main things left are the plot and reception (the hard parts), plus a little bit of stuff with the lead. Then I'll see if things have been addressed enough to strike the oppose on the review. I just need to get things done this weekend at the latest because with FAC, if reviews aren't addressed in a timely manner, the FAC is subject to fail. -- ZooBlazer04:09, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I also just finished trimming the plot, do you think more is needed? I'll be able get to Reception at some point, and can definitely get work done on it starting tmrw. Would you like a Reception trim, reorganization, or? There's going to be a lot of sources to go through on that one. Make sure to note finished items, I'll let you be the judge on that part. Regardless, good luck on the FAC, you indeed have made great progress so far. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The reception needs tightened so whatever is necessary to do that, whether it's trimming, expanding, etc.
This is the quote from the review:
This all feels like it could be tightened up further and better organized. I appreciate that it puts in effort to summarize a bunch of critic reviews, but I don't feel like I get a very good indication of what critics actually felt versus the general consensus because the reception meanders from considering individual points in isolation rather than talking about them more broadly. I don't know if the story was covered so much it deserves the subsection all about that aspect, or it's just less well-collated. Why does a single critic's opinion on the Iraq War aspect of the story get the better part of 200 words uninterrupted and essentially the last word on the game? -- ZooBlazer04:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this. Because I was busy all day yesterday, I'm hoping to get the rest of the things addressed today, maybe tomorrow if necessary, but that is worst case. Seems like most of the last things are just rewording/rearranging things, so hopefully not too bad. -- ZooBlazer17:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I've addressed everything except the reception, some tone issues in development, and this in gameplay:
The details here feel like they drift from gameplay into development, such as the feedback leading to the camera system or "Because many scenes involve "spookier" and more spacious areas, Supermassive found it appropriate to give players total control over the camera, which would aid in exploration and allow players to appreciate the cavernous locations."
@ZooBlazer Congrats on your accomplishments thus far! At this point, I don't have the stamina nor experience to even attempt something as arduous as a FAC haha, but good work thus far. I'll go ahead and take a look at it now, but will probably start actually editing tomorrow as I'll call it a day for today. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:35, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're just able to help me out with reception in anyway, that's all I should need for now and it would be greatly appreciated. -- ZooBlazer05:12, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've mostly been looking at the reception section of BioShock 2 for an example of what needs to be done as it's a sort of recent FA and it was done by the editor who brought up the reception issues on my FAC. Pretty much what has to be done is to just highlight what some of the reviewers say specifically when there are groups of refs talking about a specific thing. I've done some work on it today, but it's tough. Might be best to clear out the notes used to reduce overcites. Maybe keep 2 or 3 of the refs where they are for the main point and then use the rest to show what those reviewers are actually saying. -- ZooBlazer20:58, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Apologies for the late response here, but the BS2 article is definitely a good reference. There is certainly a lot of content on the Reception...I'm looking at it right now haha. I'm pretty good when it comes to individual analysis, but yea, it definitely is an arduous task. The one thing that sucks the most is when they are LDR, like they're great and all, but it's just inconvenient when you do Reception edits. And I agree with that structure, I'm thinking something like: Many critics agree THOA is XYZ. Reviewer A ... Reviewer B .... I can definitely vary up the diction and syntax so that way we don't fall into the Reception pitfall of "A said X". I think the First para is solid, pretty nice O/V, but it should be organized by theme. Perhaps like this
First para is general O/V, SQUO I think is good
Second Cluster will cover everything gameplay
Kotaku & Shacknews + Rock Paper Shotgun -> Narrative Choices
PC Gamer + Empire + IGN -> Story stuff and best ways to play
VG247 + Gamespot -> Neg combo for balance
Game Informer -> Good Camera
Uncanny valley and bad mocap budget comments tacked on
Third Cluster is tone stuff
WaPo -> Scary
Keep the B-movie and camp horror macro sentences
Polygon -> Good pacing
Retain the Character and Iraq War stuff, I think that's good as is, just needs to be spruced up, which I will do.
I won't begin, but see if you think if we go with the above sort of structure, if that'll suffice, bc I think we should have enough content to cover it all, but these are the reviews that I see we can focus the para around. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll definitely take a look at it tomorrow as like yesterday, I'm calling it a day since it's 11PM local time. Could you perhaps put the actual links with the refs so that way it'll be easier to access it when editing? I'll be a bit busier than usual by tmrw, but should still be able to get some work done. Definitely can make good progress by Thursday. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The refs should all be there if you're talking about my sandbox. No rush. I'll probably just look through your most recent edit and then update the FAC reviewer. -- ZooBlazer05:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I ended up just making an attempt at reorganizing things, but feel free to further adjust. Also if you have time, could you do a full c/e of the reception? -- ZooBlazer08:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer I will. Apologies but I believe I won't be able to do much on Friday nor Saturday, but should be able to get work done tmrw. I'll first edit on the sandbox and then ping you back so that it's to your satisfaction before moving it. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. Should be getting a review from another editor on the FAC in the next day or two, so the timing works well. The editor who did the big review so far hasn't edited in a couple days, so not sure if anything big needs done with the reception or not still. -- ZooBlazer05:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the edit. I applied it to the main article. I'm gonna clear my sandbox, so if you make any more edits, feel free to just edit the article. -- ZooBlazer07:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Of course, and apologies for not being able to do some more detailed parsing in terms of restructuring, but hopefully, I feel the prose is much more tighter and efficient in terms of conveying the reception. I'll continue trying to trim down the prose however I can though. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably hold off on trims for now as new comments are starting to be posted on the review. Just so things aren't changing too much while they go through the article. -- ZooBlazer04:06, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
^If your message seemingly disappeared, check the Archives. If you'd like to revive it, please let me know and I apologize if I prematurely ended a discussion
@Aza24 Hello, it's been a while, but I just wanted to ask if you were going to manually promote the topic since I assume the bot hasn't been working in the meantime or? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 02:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas Yea, I just saw it. The timing is a bit unfortunate, but I'm under the impression that the user probably wasn't aware that the article was in GAR and was acting in good-faith; it's not like there's big edit conflicts over it. Either way, I think the article should be in stable shape as I assume there won't be any more mass edits like that. I was also wondering how you consider the stability criteria to work and if it would exclude substantial edits such as adding in sections? Regardless, I'll comply with how the review proceeds and appreciate your consideration in holding it off. Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It’s just weird to me that they showed up out of nowhere to make substantial edits to an article undergoing a review after a two year absence. I will continue the review process, but according to the criteria, the article should be stable and not change drastically from day to day. Viriditas (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just to keep you in the loop, I've shared additional concerns here. I just want to make it clear, this doesn't have anything to do with you. One thing to keep in mind, historically, it is very difficult for highly trafficked articles to reach good article status. You may not have been aware of this when you nominated the article. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I also understand, it is a bit unfortunate haha. Either way, I noticed that the GAR has been placed on hold. I assume that there are probably a lot more additional things to review, so I was wondering if you could provide a status update. Should I be expecting a new wave of recs soon by, let's say, Friday or so or? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Update: you could start by addressing the issues raised by other editors regarding the analysis section. It also needs to be rewritten. If you don’t have access to the sources, I may be able to help. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, as I know you put a lot of time into this. However, after this drive-by,[2] again by another editor who rarely edits, I didn't have much choice. Viriditas (talk) 22:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas Yea, I just saw the news. It's alright, I'm also a bit heartbroken but I understand the rationale. It sucks that it occurred now as I had sworn it was pretty stable before that, oh well haha. Btw, just out of curiosity, how far away was the article in terms of meeting the other criteria, like prose and MoS, if you're willing to share? Dcdiehardfan (talk) 22:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I was trying very much to ascertain the answer to that question when the editor popped up out of the blue, removed the "do not change without consensus" tag from the plot section, and completely rewrote it. Aside from the stability failure, my number one concern was completing spot-checks on the text-source integrity, which given the 262 citations, is quite the endeavor. I was willing to do it, but I need a stable version to work from. The rule of thumb (for many years now) is to never nominate a highly trafficked article that changes day to day. Viriditas (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Zack Snyder's Justice League in which you've been a major contributor, and has been 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.
On 7 May 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Star-Spangled Man, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Star-Spangled Man. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Star-Spangled Man), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey, I hope all is well with you. I'm just returning from a wiki break over the last month or so and going over my to do list that I had. If you have some time, would you want to attempt some reception for the Phase Two article? You did great with Phase One. I still have some possible refs in my sandbox. Trying to finally commit to getting Phases 2 and 3 to GTs. -- ZooBlazer17:23, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer I hope all is well with you too. It's good to hear from you and yea, I would love to help you out on MCU Phase 2 whenever I can. However, school will be beginning in a bit and I have a few summer assignments to take care of, so I won't be able to commit a ton of effort but this is definitely next on my project list. Speaking of which, I was also wondering what to do about the FATWS? Should we go ahead and nominate Ep 3 as it'll take some time before Ep 1 gets accepted? -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with nominating it, but I'd check with Adam first to see if he still wants to do any c/e still or if he is just letting the GA process do that. Crazy that episode 1 is still waiting to be reviewed -- ZooBlazer16:11, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ZooBlazer Sounds good, I'm probably ask about that after I finish the Phase 2 thing. I just made my first preliminary edit today and will be chipping away at this across the week, and will let you know when I'm done! -Dcdiehardfan (talk) 03:49, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
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.
