This is an archive of past discussions with User:Doniago. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thank you for your feedback, I made the changes based on the fact that the films are not reboots in the strictest sense of the term. 'New Continuity' is accurate because, 1: they are effectively a new series and 2: they are in a new timeline (branching off of the original). Alternatively we could use '2009 Continuity'. (Cryomantic (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC))
I appreciate where you're coming from on this, and may even agree, but this could very well be controversial as well, and I think it would be best to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page (there may even be a pre-existing related discussion) and get a consensus. Also, per WP:BRD, when an edit you make is reverted it is generally considered best practice to initiate a discussion rather than simply reinsert your change.
In any case, again, I'm not saying I disagree with your edit on principle, but I think we need to hear what other editors think about this. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
WP:FILM
Naw, it's cool. You might be right. I honestly have been trying to ignore some of the things those presumably two editors have been saying, and it gets hard when they challenge you by name. I'm going to try to feel that I've said my piece and just wait for the RfC to end. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for getting back to me! I think your solution is probably the best option. One of the benefits of the situation being an RfC is that when enough editors have weighed in from the outset, if any ensuing conversations aren't likely to change anyone's opinions (and I think that's become the case with the editors still engaging in discussion, for the most part), there isn't really much point to continuing them. I've forgotten that point myself on occasion. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 12:28, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
And I've managed to stay for about three days now. Again, much appreciate the head's-up. Sometimes we lost sight of the forest for the trees! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:25, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
You're quite welcome! Glad I was able to help. If anything comes up in the future that you feel might benefit from another set of eyes, feel free to get in touch! DonIago (talk) 02:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Shining (film)
Could you be more specific on why you reverted the page? I couldn't find a reliable source at the time, but this reinterpolation is a well known fact and I think it adds an encyclopedic value and should be mentioned. --Kiwi (talk) 16:35, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
It may or may not be well-known, but it's not something that I'm familiar with and I'd like to see from where you're getting the information. If it is well-known then it shouldn't be too difficult to find a reliable source that has discussed the matter. If an RS can't be located then I'd suggest that either it's not actually well-known, or it isn't significant enough for inclusion in any case. You're welcome to bring this matter to the article's Talk page if you would like the opinions of other editors. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 17:00, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi DonIago I could use your help with a question. Just as a made up example, suppose I would like to reference something in an article. The only way I currently know how to do it is this:
My problem is I would like to have the reference appear as a clickable link without the actual URL appearing, like this:
[7] Lincoln Assassination
with "Lincoln Assassination" being the clickable link still going to http://www.abrahamlincolninformation.com.
I know this can be done but I don't know how to do it. And believe me, I've looked all around and studied examples, but I just can't figure it out. Could you please show me the simplest, easiest, least complicated way of doing it?
Please note that in this message I've deliberately used "<r e f>" and "</ r e f>" (with the spaces between letters) in order to avoid having them interpreted and processed as actual reference tags. But in actual use I correctly omit the spaces. Also "http://www.abrahamlincolninformation.com" is a fictitious URL I made up for this question. Thank you so much for your help! Richard27182 (talk) 00:16, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
If I'm reading you correctly, then all you need to do is include the name you want to appear within the single brackets immediately following the name of the link. For instance, [http://www.abrahamlincolninformation.com Lincoln Assassination] becomes Lincoln Assassination.
BTW, when you want to display wiki code without having it run as code, you can just wrap <nowiki>code</nowiki> tags around it.
Hi Doniago Thank you for your reply. I tried your suggestion and it gave me just what I wanted. Thanks also for the <nowiki> tip; it even works with the "<nowiki>" tag itself! Richard27182 (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
We can resolve the Judge Dredd soundtrack question amicably, surely.
Hi,
My problem with the persistent removal of the tracklist for the expanded Judge Dredd OST is that the one for the original 1995 Epic album is allowed to remain. If the listings for both albums were taken off the page (as with The Last Starfighter and others) that would be one thing, but to have one on and the other kept off - especially since the music on the new album is a more honest reflection of what's in the movie (most of the songs on the original album aren't in the movie except for the ones by The Cure and The The over the closing credits) - isn't remotely fair. I don't see why they can't both be listed on the page; otherwise we might as well remove soundtrack listings from all the film and TV pages on Wikipedia. Cindylover1969 (talk) 01:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)talk
The difference is that the original soundtrack included songs by actual artists, while the new one is literally just music from the film that's not independently notable. I might suggest that the original track listing should be a prose discussion of the actual songs rather than a track listing, if that would help. Otherwise, you should really raise this discussion at the article's Talk page so that other editors can offer their input as well. Folks may agree with you, but we should get a consensus at this point. DonIago (talk) 05:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
"Just" music from the film? So music that was actually specifically written for and used in the film is less of note than a bunch of songs which no one particularly cared about even at the time, and which aren't in the movie anyway? (And you'll never convince me that Oscar nominee and Emmy winner Alan Silvestri isn't an "actual artist.") However, moving the discussion to the Talk page is a good suggestion.Cindylover1969 (talk) 02:09, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
If you read the MOS, you'll see that, yes, individual songs that are part of a film's score generally are, for our purposes, considered less notable than songs by independent artists. And of course Silvestri is an actual artist, but that doesn't mean every single one of his songs is notable on its own merits. DonIago (talk) 12:32, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
The songs on the soundtrack certainly aren't notable, or interesting, or adding anything at all to the movie other than driving album sales (see also roughly 99.9% of the soundtraxk songs you consider so important). Also, I can't find the MOS or even know what it is, but in any case I so strongly disagree with Wikipedia's purposes on this count that I don't think I'm missing anything.Cindylover1969 (talk) 20:38, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Um. MOS:FILM. In any case, I linked to the specific section at the Talk page discussion, so there it is. You're of course welcome to start a discussion about revising the MOS itself at the appropriate Talk page if you feel so strongly. DonIago (talk) 20:41, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
On reflection, the MOS's obvious bias against instrumental scoring suggests any discussion of changing it would fall on deaf ears, so why bother?Cindylover1969 (talk) 20:56, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
Thought I'd seek your counsel on my approach-- I'm not sure if the way I'm positioning my questions for One of Many seems too stilted in the IP's favor or not, or if I should be going about this differently in general. My aim is to get everyone to think critically, or at least more in depth, about their reasons for disagreeing with one another as they present their reasoning in the case, and to be as specific as they possibly can about explaining themselves. If you don't think it was appropriate for me to ask in that way, I'll retract it and go about it a different way. BlusterBlasterkablooie!23:05, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
I think it's going okay so far, and thanks for taking the case! I should note that I'm going to be unavailable from Friday through sometime Monday, so while I'm happy to help out upon my return, if you want an opinion sooner than that, I'd recommend asking at the DRN Talk page. Good luck! DonIago (talk) 01:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Doniago. I have a problem I hope you can help me with. I was playing around in my user sandbox (just lots of miscellaneous testing of wiki code stuff, including some snippets I copied and pasted from a real article). Anyway when I have the stuff in my user sandbox user page everything is OK. But when put the same stuff into my user sandbox talk page, I immediately get the following warning: This sandbox is in the User talk namespace. Either move this page into your userspace, or remove the {{User sandbox}} template. I don't understand; I thought I could use both sections of my personal sandbox (User Page, and Talk) for more or less whatever I wanted (as long as it's not malicious or illegal). Why am I being told to move it somewhere? I don't even understand what they're telling me to do, let alone why they're telling me to do it. I really appreciate any help you can provide. Thanks. Richard27182 (talk) 06:29, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Richard,
I don't have a lot of experience with sandboxes, but it appears to me that Template:User sandbox is explicitly used to notify readers/editors that they are viewing the sandbox for a given user rather than an actual article. On the other hand, Talk pages are used for discussion of the related article (in this case, the Talk page would be for discussion of the contents of your sandbox). It wouldn't be appropriate to put this template on the sandbox Talk page as that's not a page that should be used for experimentation, but rather discussion.
Hi, Doniago
I have read your message and I´ll take it into consideration. Still one thing has to be added in that plot summary: The cover-up of the statutory rape case, which decisively contributes to the disaster. If you object, then leave a message in my page.Arderich— Preceding unsigned comment added by Arderich (talk)
I appreciate your checking of my edits; however, I'd prefer it if you waited till I finished before making any changes, just to avoid edit conflicts and so forth. Everybody makes mistakes, and I am happy for you to check my work. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 02:45, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
In retrospect, perhaps that would have been a good idea. I'm just used to copy-editing less viewed articles. In any case, I am more or less done now, so if you wish to check it over, I will not interfere. I believe I've fixed a lot of poor wording, so I would prefer it if you fixed individual errors rather than reverting, but that is up to you. Regards, Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:42, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up. I may take a look, but it may not be for a few days. Thanks for your efforts in any case! I probably would have left well enough alone if I hadn't seen "payed". As an English snob that one had me reaching right for the trigger...my bad that I didn't notice you'd made numerous other edits first, but at least I caught myself! :p DonIago (talk) 03:47, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
XD No worries I can be a grammar Nazi myself at times, just prolonged switching between American and British leaves me a little careless. Thanks for catching yourself. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
