This is an archive of past discussions with User:TriiipleThreat. 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.
Thank you so much for the accolade! Heaven knows you deserve one for your work on the various Marvel movies.
Yeah, sure, Siege. Good idea. Now that it's over, people will be a little less rabid to include every newsy update. Plus, we'll have perspective. Gimme a day or two, though! :-) -Tenebrae (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Siege still needs some cleanup, but the heavy lifting, I think, is done.
When you get a chance, let's get together and talk about footnote style. I'm not sure about using two different styles of footnotes in the same article, as there seem to be at Chaos War.
Ah. Differentiating between primary sources and other sources. Hmmm ... I think you may be onto something there. Let's expand on that at Chaos War since it's started there, and then show our results to other editors to see what they think.
Sandbox. Right. Geez. I forgot all about it. I guess in this case it was tagged and talked about and so egregious that no harm was done. Sandbox would have been the more reasoned way to go in most instances, like JHenderson and I did with Spider-Man's fictional history. Ah, well ... no harm, no foul, as they say.
BARNSTAR AWARD:I award you this token of esteem and respect for your tireless and careful work and your high standards of accuracy in Marvel movie articles especially. You represent the best of what Wikipedia is about. - Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Giants in Thor template.
Ok whatever works for you. The main reason why I left them in enemies is definitely they are a part of his rogues gallery. Anyways happy editing. Jhenderson77717:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I didnt mean to step on your edit. While Thor has fought the Giants as a group on many occasions, they are all not his enemies including his brother Vidar and his step-grandmother Bestla. They have also allied themselves with Asgard a few times.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
True that. I don't feel you stepped in my edit. What you have explained is one of the few reasons why I thought you did that and it's understandable. Jhenderson77719:44, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Rollback
Hello, per your request, I've granted you Rollback rights! Just remember:
Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
Most editors also include a gap between the largely postive and largely negative critics. Very good or featured articles go further and look at the film based on how critics response to the writing, the cinematography, the effects and many other quite different details so it may be approrpriate to have more paragraph breaks. If you disagree with this feel free to discuss it at WT:MOSFILM. -- Horkana (talk) 17:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
Films based on comics task force
Hello, hope you are doing well! I am noticing that the articles about films based on comics are in good shape. I am wondering if you think that it would be worthwhile to launch a task force, a collaboration between WikiProject Film and WikiProject Comics. The benefit of the task force would be to consolidate discussions about films based on comics, to share references or to call attention to discussion at a specific article. We could also have sub-guidelines, such as perhaps standardizing the "<comic book character> in film" trend and determining what's worth covering in such articles. I have not really done a head count of people who are actively working with such articles, but I know that you are one of the key contributors. Do you know how many others work especially on these articles and if a task force would be useful to everybody? Let me know your thoughts! Erik (talk | contribs) 14:31, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Hey, me neither! It is worth trying out. Another idea for the task force is that we can list all the incubated articles in one place so we can know what is actively being addressed. We will be getting films based on comics for the next few years, so I think it would be useful to track it all. I'll identify the primary and active contributors of such articles, and we can start a discussion at WT:FILM, which I'll link you to. Anything to add before I do that? Erik (talk | contribs) 14:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Well one issue I think we need to resolve is notability, it seems since The Avengers film project was accepted I've seen a lot of film articles pop up effectively rendering WP:NFF null and void. Some of have just gotten by the issue of an abundance of reliable sources by labeling them a stub article. I think we need to determine approximately how many RSs on a topic it takes to merit inclusion in article space. This actually might effect the entire project but comic films tend to get a lot preporduction coverage in the media.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I was thinking about this as well, especially with the latest news about The Dark Knight Rises. It's the kind of film that warrants an article because every action related to the project will be followed pretty closely. What articles have been created despite filming not having begun? It's that kind of question that can be discussed by the task force, especially when we can track the general trend of such films. Such a film by Nolan is more certain to get made than First Class (which still weirds me out about the 1960s setting), which has stumbled a couple of times. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:06, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the names! I think I will put together a sub-page which can serve as the first draft of the task force page, so we can provide our ideas in a structured way. I'll start a discussion at WT:FILM linking to it and inviting the editors you named. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
We could launch it now, actually. I was hoping that a couple more editors from the batch you mentioned would join up first. So we can continue building up the page and adding content for all in the meantime. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:45, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
I can't promise anything with -5-, contributing is more of what he does. Convincing him to join something, I don't know yet. As for Tenebrae, I am not sure of yet. I did invite him to my Spider-Man work group, no success on that. Even though he still has his moments contributing with Spidey related articles. J Greb doesn't always respond to stuff like that as well. Fandraltastic, I don't know much about him but I trust that he's a good editor since TriiipleThreat mentioned it. But I do recommend more time ;) Jhenderson77716:49, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Secret avengers.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles13:44, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
The article The Dark Knight Rises was created due to a discussion with Erik. But I know due to his discussion that Erik also wanted opinions from the rest of the task force. So I am asking you to weigh in on the discussion page of the article about how you feel about it and suggestions on how it should be written. Jhenderson77721:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
Hawkeye
I share you concern. While The Wrap is a reliable source, this is an anonymously sourced claim, and the most we could say is "the trade-news site The Wrap said an anonymous source claimed to have seen an early cut of the film, which included Jeremy Renner as Hawkeye." When we express it like that, we can see how tenuous a claim that is. Even if it's true and not studio misinformation, anything can happen between a January cut and a May cut after test screenings, trims for lengths, etc. Finally, I think the fact that Renner has forcefully denied it injects enough doubt that an encyclopedia cannot report his appearance as solid fact, which is all an encyclopedia should contain. He may well be in the film, but at this stage it's just an anonymously sourced claim whose reliability is unknown. We don't have to report breaking rumors; we should only report solid fact. I'll go ahead and remove it, and leave these concerns on the talk page, and maybe you could keep watch. Good eye, dude. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
"Deadline has learned that the role is Maria Hill, who in the comics was the ruthless interim executive director of SHIELD, who was not above blackmailing and bullying superheros to get her way."
Brian Michael Bendis (the creator of the character) confirms it.
Between those sources I think it's safe to add the news that's been circulating the internet for the past 24 hours.
The Deadline source does not explictly state that Cobie Smulders is Maria Hill only "I'm hearing that... Cobie Smulders is Maria Hill". The Bendis tweet makes no reference to Cobie Smulders or The Avengers. If you wish to discuss this further please go to the discussion at Talk:The Avengers (film project)#Maria Hill.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:05, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
DYKR
Just to let you know that I just finished the DYK hook for The Dark Knight Rises. So if it belongs on the stats I hope you can help me out on putting it there. ;) Jhenderson77702:12, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
Hawkeye article
Thanks for taking a look at this one. Caged halo has rewritten this one entirely after Asgardian's version, but I think this is still a new-ish user. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I am fairly new at this but as you've seen I always try my best. I'll learn from my mistakes and try not to step on anyone's toes. Caged halo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:04, 24 February 2011 (UTC).
Erik Selvig
From that interview, the writer very clearly states the Andrews names are inaccurate and the character's name is Erik Selvig:
So it can be difficult when you see rumors about the set that you know for a fact are just vicious, gossipy lies. Of course, sometimes it’s just the little inaccuracies being reported out there that bug you, for some reason. For example, Stellan Skarsgard’s character has been mistakenly identified as both “Professor Andrews” and “Professor Andrew Ford.” I have no idea where those names came from. No character with either of those names has ever been in any draft of the script. The first time I saw it was on IMDB, and I’ve seen it mistakenly repeated on other sites — even in an interview with Stellan, which is odd. His character’s name is actually Erik Selvig. I’ve also seen Colm Feore’s character erroneously referred to as Ymir. He’s not Ymir. Wikipedia, take note!
Yeah I was reading that just after I finished reverting your edit, I should have read FIRST! "Wikipedia, take note!", that is too funny!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:00, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
Reply
The user most directly responsible for the Young Justice article is User:Mirlen. However, I don't know if he has an interest in the Avengers show. It may be worth it to get him to give it a look over.-5- (talk) 14:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I don't have a working relationship with him. We both just kind of worked on the article at the same time.-5- (talk) 14:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
request
This is just a request on if you feel like participating in the The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film). I am mainly hoping for more commentaries like cast interviews on the cast section like what you did in Thor (film) and Captain America: The First Avenger and I admit I am not as out there in Wikipedia (purposely some times) as you are. I also admit I searched and they are not hard to find I even mentioned some on the talk page and I am always welcome for that article to have more constructive information to be a even more decent article and I know you are good at that. So please if you feel like it join along with helping. ;) Jhenderson77718:34, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok good deal. Just curious though what do you mean "We shouldn't be in the habit of posting comments for the sake of having them." You think I do that? Ouch! I didn't think I was doing that. Jhenderson77719:58, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
No I dont, your a good editor that was directed at everybody who might be coming across that talk page. You're doing a great job there and elsewhere.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Oh ok thanks. Appreciate the kind words. Honestly I am an ok editor. I am mainly a responsible contributor and do what I can. And I feel that you are a good editor as well and it's nice working with and discussing with you. Jhenderson77720:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
Nice add with the translation in the footnote. You've really been doing excellent, excellent editing, if you don't mind my saying! --Tenebrae (talk) 22:58, 9 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah there seems to be a conflict between this poster and others and the official website. I think we go with the others since this is the only one that doesn't match.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2011 (UTC)
And thank you, TriipleT, for your own kind kudos on my page. Comics Project sure is getting to be a nice place to be. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I am creating the film project page for the film, and i could use some help. I know you are experienced in this area. Please Reply. Rusted AutoParts (talk) 18:59 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for stepping in on the Superman: Man of Steel issue. I was beginning to get very frustrated with User:Robsinden, and your intervention helped to defuse that frustration. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 19:22, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
DYK for Wrath of the Titans
On 29 March 2011, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Wrath of the Titans, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Wrath of the Titans, the upcoming sequel to the 2010 film Clash of the Titans, is being shot in 3-D rather than being converted to 3-D like its predecessor? You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Thanks for the note.[1] Sorry to be tardy. I looked into the article, examined its current sourcing, looked into its potential, and then offered my opinion.[2] Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.23:10, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry
I hope you don't mind the not feeling 100% sure of the "Film Project" article this time around. I don't think this needs to be a habit too much when some editors feel strongly about this. I can see where editors are coming from in both sides of the equation. Jhenderson77700:26, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Why do you apologize? There is no need. Wikipedia is a colloboartive project and as such differences of opinion are had. I just stated that the AfD process shouldnt be a deterent and infact is a valuable tool for determining consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
And I agree with you. I apologize even though I do not need to really apologize sometimes. It was also the only name of a section header I could think of at the time. Silly me :b Jhenderson77715:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Will do. I am deathly under the weather and curtailing my Wiki'ing until those moments when I'm not feverish or working (the show-must-go-on thing. Fortunately I have no commute). Back at full speed soon, I hope. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
Would you mind copyediting and updating this a film article. The user didn't really want the information to go but he was fine with it as a article incubator. Jhenderson77715:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Input?
Based upon recent discussions in several places, I have begun work on an essay that seeks to clarify just how and when discussuion of a film-before-its-filming would per policy merit inclusion in some manner, or per GNG even merit a seperate article. Please look over User:MichaelQSchmidt/Future Films and offer your insights. Thanks, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q.00:27, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
comment
Hi Triii.
Would you please stop undoing good edits that I am making to the article?
I mean, they are clear mistakes. White superemacists boycotting the film. No, that should be *some* white superemacists etc etc. Conficutus (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Still awaiting your reply on the talk page [3] Thank you. Conficutus (talk) 17:07, 7 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the little tick on the DYK Livens Large Gallery Flame Projectors. There is going to be a programme on TV tonight all about this weapon. I was thinking it might be nice/useful to have on the front page at the same time. Is there a way to ask for this? No worries if not. Best wishes and thanks! (Msrasnw (talk) 13:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC))
Have you ever thought of putting the {{maintained}} template on the discussion page of Thor (film). Just place {{maintained|1={{user|TriiipleThreat}}}} if you do. :) Jhenderson77719:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I feel about that, even though it says it doesn't imply ownership, I'm concerned it might. I'll still watch recent changes and talk page discussions.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Oh no it won't imply that. But I understand. It's good to know who the main contributor is sometimes if there is and when there is a maintainer or maintainers like yourself the article seems to be better. Jhenderson77719:41, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Uncivility on Thor
You've just reverted 12 days of Idris Elba editing, including your own edits, without discussion. That certainly isn't WP:CIVIL. You're supposed to discuss first in a edit controversy. Clearly, you find that I have the better argument, so rather than conform to it you are undoing over 24 edits to the article. It's fine to be WP:BOLD but not when you are in the middle of a dispute and you have already said in a sedt summary not to be WP:BOLD but to discuss first, just today. ₭₦→talk • contribs12:00, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification on my User page. I have given the talk page on Thor a break and follwoing advice, mentioned it on the WP:NPOVN board. You can find it here: Thor # Idris Elba (NPOVN) I'm addressing the undue weight in the Idris Elba section. Thank you. KN→talk • contribs09:29, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
I have reassessed the article as B class. I added an additional free image to the article and did some copyedits, please review them. I'd recommend expanding the lead section as well as the reception. Repair or replace the dead citations and after after a few weeks for stability, I'd recommend nominating it at GAN. Good work to all those involved in improving the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:39, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
The article Thor (film) is looking great. You wouldn't mind helping this article out as well to GA article likeness since it's one of the next superhero film going out in theaters. Jhenderson77714:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
I have full confidence that the cast section will be nice when I am done with it so thanks for the sources BUT I am a little disappointed with the production section, I wish for it to be expanded a bit, when I first started it I thought it would go through more updating it didn't turn out as such. So if you find crew interviews in the future as well that will be swell. Thank you. :) Jhenderson77701:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
IMDB is often incorrect especially when it comes to upcoming films, so I wouldn't change anything unless it is referenced by a reliable source.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Jack the Giant Killer (2012 film) - filming location
It has been confirmed that they are filming in Norwich.
You're right, I hadn't read the source, I didn't think a frivolous lawsuit could potentially hold up a film or every case by a whackjob would have that potential so I didn't think such a thing was possible.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:55, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
ILM
Hi, Triiiple T. In this case, given the high reliability of ILM's own website, that if this news doesn't appear (yet) in RS media, my take is that we can say that, "According the ILM's website, it is involved in production of The Avengers in an unspecified way." That's the absolute truth, and we're not projecting, but putting it in context. And I'm flattered you asked my opinion!
I just saw X-Men: First Class. It's the best X-Men movie since the first. The ads had me thinking it might not be, but it's great. And every second you see January Jones onscreen, you're saying to yourself, "Oh. My. God." --Tenebrae (talk) 20:09, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
How are we to cite it though? I'm sure they will eventually update the website and that information will be moved and since its java-based I dont think we can archive it.
Oh, I see ... I thought it was just a matter or archiving. I went there and took a closer look. Yeah, there doesn't even seem to be any way or loading just the frame. And "View More" just takes you offsite.
Perhaps this, and it might be a solution for other such Java-based or Fash-based sites: Give the URL followed by " > OUR WORK > IN PRODUCTION " --Tenebrae (talk) 21:23, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
I noticed this article being made too. It looks like filming starts this Monday, so let's invoke WP:IAR and see if filming doesn't begin as planned. If it doesn't, we can take action then. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:10, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
You have an iPad? Coooooool! I'm waiting for the price to come down, but I'm starting to see them everywhere. Now what with the just-announced iCloud (I think they're calling it), that could make iPads indispensable when on the go. Nice! --Tenebrae (talk) 14:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
Green Lantern Criticism
I just read up on Ebert's review and I don't think its fair to say it is negative, it seems positive tbh. Not praising but he says he liked it more than Thor (Which is something I think would be important to mention considering the movie type). I don't have the time right now to do anthing with it as it's 2am and I'm going to bed but I do think that needs changing as it appears he has given it 2.5 out of 5 and most of what I read seemed to say that he was ok with it, just that it was nothing special. He also specifically praises Hector Hammonds character, again something that might be worth mentioning. Just thought I'd pass this along as you seem to be the most involved editor. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 00:56, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
It's not a big deal either way to me, but don't you think there is something contradictory about saying that per WP:CRYSTAL we can't categorize an article as a 2012 film when "2012 film" is in the title? -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:31, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Just wanted to say "thanks" for your recent revision to the "The Avengers" page. I saw that rather erroneous edit, and was about to change it back myself. XP CorinthMaxwell (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
TMZ is usually pretty reliable — its owner is an well-known attorney who certainly knows libel law. And in this case, the site says it spoke with the stunt man directly. My gut instinct is to wait until a mainstream source says anything simply because while I'm sure this person did tell this thing to TMZ, we don't know if this person is telling the truth. Unlike a mainstream news outlet, TMZ (like RadarOnline.com) pays its sources — and people have been known to make up or exaggerate stories in order to be paid.
Of course, the standard we operate under is verifiability, not truth, which can be highly elusive, so if TMZ is considered a reliable source generally at Wikipedia, then guidelines say go for it. Just speaking for myself, I'd wait and look around some more to make sure this guy really is an Avengers stunt man and really was hurt on set (where he can get workman's comp) and not in his back yard. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
And y'know, I've just seen USA Today run a Charlie Sheen item, saying "TMZ reports," and MSNBC run a Sheen item with "according to RadarOnline.com." I don't know if that means an encyclopedia can trust them, but if they're good enough for USA Today and MSNBC...! --Tenebrae (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
Monsters University
With reference to this discussion which you participated in, I see that the page has been created again, despite little further development. Would appreciate your input on the talk page. --Rob Sinden (talk) 09:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Hugo Weaving as Red Skull.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Hugo Weaving as Red Skull.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
"Red, white and true blue 'Captain America'" Originally published: July 14, 2011 4:51 PM Updated: July 15, 2011 12:21 PM By FRANK LOVECE. Special to Newsday
In this origin story, Cap earns his stars and stripes fighting the unambiguous good fight against the Nazis -- particularly grotesque mastermind the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving) -- alongside a multiethnic group. Though unnamed, they're Marvel's "Sgt. Fury and his Howling Commandos," minus Nick Fury.
"They are commandos and at one point they do howl," Markus says with a chuckle. "They're called the Howling Commandos in the script, but no one says that out loud." Director Joe Johnston says at one point they were to be called the Invaders -- igniting off-base fan speculation that the same-name Marvel superhero team would appear in the movie.
Hi. Your opinion on what would be the best photo for the Infobox in the Grant Morrison article is requested here. If you could take the time to participate, it would be greatly appreciated, but if you cannot, then disregard; you don't have to leave a note on my talk page either way. Nightscream (talk) 01:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Pedantic Protagonists
Hi there, I saw that you reverted someone's addition of the standard "x is the protagonist" line. Could I get your opinion on [4]? I had removed a similar line only for it to be reinserted. Thanks! Doniago (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Thor Tales of Asgard.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Thor Tales of Asgard.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Do not remove my material. Seek to improve it. There is IN FACT UNDUE WEIGHT by this CCC organisation. They represent a 1/10th of a percerntile of the people upset with the casting. PeterHarlington (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Detroit Steel
Thanks. I don't create a lot of new articles from scratch, so when I do, I try to be comprehensive. The compliment is much appreciated. :-) (The article probably could use a few more secondary out-universe sources, though.) Just out of curiosity, what do you think of the Equus (comics) article? That probably the last comics character article I created and wrote from scratch. Nightscream (talk) 22:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)
It's not a big deal but they say he saved over 400 soldiers. EDIT: I don't care about it being added, just didn't appreciate it being called exaggeration. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Please give an example of a "character description section" like you suggested for the Phil Coulson draft. Thanks. --Boycool (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Hi, TT. Nice catch, and it was my fault for not making my edit summary clearer. The Newsday sidebar citation was an Ibid. of the Newsday main-article cite and link, so this sidebar was already linked online above in the References list. I should have noted that in my edit summary. While I'm here, though,I want to ask if you think this Ibid. needs to include the existing link from the citation's first mention above? Would that be redundant, or would it make this clearer? Thanks again for spotting that.--Tenebrae (talk) 14:59, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
I've tried making the cite clearer by adding a link — since it's just last name, I'm thinking users will understand it's an Ibid. Any way you want to improve it / make it clearer, go for it! (Also: Apologies for misspelling your name with three "p"s instead of three "i"s in the edit summary.) --Tenebrae (talk) 16:11, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
A: EMH, again...
Sorry for bringing this up again, but there's a problem with the page, which I noted a while ago. The paragraph about the Micro-series states that "Its 20 episodes are essentially small segments from the first five episodes". However, this does not reflect the table which shows the episodes in air order, rather than the actual order. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 06:55, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
I think he only says that "Breakout" is essentially the pilot in his own opinion, but he actually says the words "first five episodes". So, there's nothing wrong with the paragraph. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:47, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
He does not refer to "Breakout" as a pilot because it aired first, but rather because it is a better "test" for the rest of the season to come, as it is the first episode where the "Avengers Assemble", hence the opinion thing. Besides, a pilot episode does not mean it is the first episode of the season. And when he referred to the "first five" episodes he was referring to the actual order. He also says "first five" that many times, that it shouldn't be ignored from the micro-series paragraph. I propose that the table be ordered by production code, so as to better reflect the paragraph. And also, because it makes more sense. Just because the channel that gets to air it first jumbles up the order, doesn't mean wikipedia should. Besides, the "first five" episodes did air before "Breakout", but in smaller segments. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
There is no guideline for TV episode order. However, whilst the convention is air order. I am proposing to make this an exception to the convention (not guideline), because the first five episodes are called just that. Not "micro-compilations", the "first five" episodes. So to avoid confusion, I reccomend production code be used as the order of episodes, rather than air order, but just in this case. Also, when you say "Production Code", it loses its true meaning. The production code IS the episode order - the order in which the episodes were meant to be shown. Then TV channels air things differently and we like to order it the way we saw it. So, after all of this, "Breakout" IS the sixth episode of Season 1. Many sources state that, and the paragraph should not be reworded as they reflect verifiable information (being that the "first five" episodes are just that - the "first five" episodes). To me, production code makes more sense all around anyway, as it is a page about the product, not a page about the different ways in which the product can be ordered. And the air order changes from country to country, but the production code never changes (a very rough analogy would be a list of the elements in the periodic table: If you listed them, you would order them in their actual order (atomic mass), rather than the order in which they were discovered (first viewed by the public)). Besides, the first five episodes aired before "Breakout", although this was in separated form. Also, for your information, if you desperately desire the usage of air order over proper order, you might want to look at episode 19. And yes, I understand that this conversation should take place on the talk page, but we had already started here. Do you mind if this conversation is copied to the talk page, so that others can contribute (which I doubt they would - there hasn't been an overwhelming number of interested editors)? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 13:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Original research has been mentioned on the talk page. This is a policy on Wikipedia, like it or not.
This is not an invitation to discuss the locking the article, this post, indulge in personal attacks or disparagement of others, or bide time for the page protection to go down.
Thank you for reverting my edit to World War Z. We are all trying to make things interesting and factual but you really don't need to be so aggressive about it. Your rudeness is quite offputting.Rgnewbury (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, TriiipleThreat. You have new messages at Talk:World War Z. Message added 00:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I invite you to leave your thoughts here. I know you've had to put up with my thoughts on this page a lot, and you've already contributed a fair bit, but as you know, the discussion became quite messy, so I thought it best to take it from the top, because frankly, at least some of my points need some attention. Also, I've tried to summarise it neater in dot point form. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 08:19, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
FWIW: It may be that he shouldn't have beed the one to do it, but it did need to go back until the discussion winds down. - J Greb (talk) 21:43, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
A cup of coffee for you!
I originally came to thank you for adding an infobox the the DC reboot article, but then stole your tables from your userpage too, so double thanks are in order. Cheers and keep up the good work! Benny DigitalSpeak Your Brains09:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I think it's probably best that you put up the paragraphs that you've got already. They're good enough to put up there, and we can sort out the intricacies afterwards... --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
Will do. Might be a few hours, though &mdahs; afternoon deadline crunch... Hey, you in NY? You going to Comic-Con here next month?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Well, that's a nice part of the country, too. I looked at your edits, as requested. First, thank you for removing that racist edit by User:JohnC. Hard to believe someone would say shit like that in Wikipedia, or, more to the point, expecting it to stay. Bravo. The Elba and Hiddleston additions are certainly sourced very well, and I thought you encapsulated the Hiddleston quote perfectly. With Elba, I found "has plans for Thor 2" a bit vague — he can't cast himself in it, so I'm not sure what "has plans for Thor 2" means. I'm sure that's just a matter of clarifying. The only other thing is, since it's a video interview, adding a timestamp for where he says this. I'm pretty sure there's a template field for that; I'll try and look it up. Overall: the same high-quality edits as always! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Looks like the "minutes" field is only at the "cite episode" citation template. If I can figure out how to create a template for video interviews, I'll put that field in. (There's a "cite video" there now, but it's not specifically for video interviews.) --Tenebrae (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Red Dawn (2012)
This is regarding your recent deletion of reference to a review of the film "Red Dawn" at Red Dawn (2011 film). The review, which includes a detailed description of the film - and which has been cited by Variety, The Los Angeles Times and other media outlets - is the only existing account of the film prior to its controversial edits, and is clearly 'notable' in the most basic sense. Your merely calling the review 'non-notable' does not make it so. Please argue your case rather than simply hit the 'undo' button. --Thorpe7915:12, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Let's be cordial in our approach to other editors. Not all editors may be familiar with WP:BRD, so it helps to take the higher road and start a discussion. If it's not vandalism, it's not a problem to keep around a little longer. After all, you know you can ask for additional opinions from WT:FILM about whether to include the content or not, and the issue will be resolved ultimately. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey, since we talked about different kinds of presentations for cast members (I think at Thor or The Avengers), I'm curious what you think of this experiment of mine. I put a collapsible cast list at the beginning of the plot summary. I did this for a couple of reasons. One is that I find it frustrating to have the "Cast" section after the "Plot" section as I don't think the order helps people cross-reference (meaning that they wouldn't scroll down further to look up the actor for a role). That leads me to my second reason for doing this, that the cast list is not quite important (especially past the main actors) to show in full, but I still want to provide some readers to navigate all the actors that have blue links. You can see the presentation at Apt Pupil (film). I'm pondering other ways to use the collapsible list; maybe to collapse a film's supporting cast? Like in a comic book film, we could explain the main actors and roles in details, but we may have a list of people for which there's not going to be much direct detail. What are your thoughts? Erik (talk | contribs) 13:07, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Oh, another reason I'm doing this is that I don't like to stuff the plot summary with actors' names. I find it distracting, and I don't think it's a good way to "get rid of" a basic cast list (by this kind of merging), especially when not all the roles are explicitly mentioned in a plot summary. Erik (talk | contribs) 13:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
To be honest, I am not sure if it is much of an improvement over a basic cast list (which I also find to be not very useful). Perhaps it could be useful as you say to list the supporting cast, for whom not much information is available. Personally I think the best cast sections offer some insight into the actors and their roles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Are you referring to the presentation within the collapsible element? It can be a standard bulleted cast list within that element. I agree that prose is important. I was thinking that the collapsible nature could help separate the list from prose since sometimes we have a list of roles with shrinking paragraphs. I just included it in Apt Pupil's plot summary as an enhanced approach, but it could also stay in the "Cast" section and be collapsed until a reader wants to review all the actors and their roles. Apt Pupil does not have that many roles compared to other films, which is part of the reason why I moved it. For an ensemble film, it could be used as a kind of tucked-away cast list that is easily accessed. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I was just referring to a table versus a minimal actor-role list. Though its use in Apt Pupil specifically is fine considering the style of that article's cast section. I would suggest moving it there or below the plot rather than above it, for purely esthetic reasons. Also I don't think there should be a "one-size-fits-all" approach to these cast sections as the level of detail depends solely on the amount of information available.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
The fictional character does not meet the general notability guideline and, without reception and significance in reliable secondary sources independent of the subject, the topic of the article is not suitable for Wikipedia as a stand-alone article since it falls into WP:IINFO.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Galius super.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:Galius-zed.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
I've added them both to the Copy Edit page, but they may not be seen too fast, just depends on what editor takes an interest in them. The only other thing I can suggest is to move all your references into the reflist as this will make it easier for the copy editor and reviewer to check the work. Not necessary though, but you DO need to just check your references and make sure they are all filled out properly and use teh same formatting, (i.e. either 2011-06-01 or July 1, 2011 but not switching back and forth between both). Moving them into the reflist (remember if you do this you have to name them first) will make the second suggestion a lot easier. Also enable ProveIt in the gadgets if you haven't already as that also will greatly help you fill out references without searching through the code. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Don Markstein's Toonopedia is back
...but for how long? As you're probably aware, this invaluable resource went dead around July or August, when Markstein was undergoing some serious health issues. The site came back online within the last couple of days. I'm unaware of what's happened in the interim, but for however long it's up, I'm urging WPC members to archive as many of its pages as we can. (WebCitation seems to work with it; Wayback/Internet Archive seems be prevented from archiving due to a web-bot or some such.) I've gone through, so far, all 97 of the comics creators whose articles I created (listed here), and I'll start going through the character, publisher, etc. pages I've created.
In the meantime, I'll add this note to Don Markstein's Toonopedia, and if you could help spread the word, I think archiving its pages is an important thing we could do (and which, obviously, would take a lot of us to do). With regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Just a note. I didn't really notice the blogs as much in the CA piece, for some reason they jumped out at me in Thor. Try to find a non blog source for as many of these as you can, especially if you take either of them up to FAC.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ22:53, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Well, thanks! Your own work on the Marvel movie articles is pretty amazing. It's nice to open a talk-page message without and have that feeling of dread suddenly dissipate! :) --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Oh, my! Well, believe me, if anyone deserves the lion's share of the credit for the Thor and Cap movies, it's you!
Do what you must, but only two of those edits were reverts, the others were attempts at compromise. Per WP:BRD you should have engaged in discussion after the first revert, not re-revert, which I have politely asked you to do.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
BRD doesn't override 3RR. I've got your talk page watchlisted, so we can keep the thread together here. I'll not report you this time, because I think your edits were in good faith, but be cautious in the future. And I'm sure the other editor would have reverted me in a second or two more had you waited; therfore 'do what you must' is silly.Dreadstar☥19:38, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
2¢ (old watch on this talk page btw)
Dreadstar, you comment reads as "You're at 3RR, back off or I'll force you over it." WP:BRD is designed to preempt edit warring. When an edit is contested it should be discussed on the talk page, not in the edit summaries.
Right now both of you could be blocked for edit warring. Which is a pisser since:
TriipleThreat is more or less acting within standing consensus with the MCU films - not to include information in the plot or related sections that is not explicitly in the film.
You are with in bounds to add sourced information related to "This is that in the comics" with relevant sources in the production or related sections.
I've added a 3RR warning to the anon IP's page. It looks like three editors are now monitoring that editor's behavior. Thanks for the head's up. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:08, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
I appreciate moving the reference to the explosion into the correct decade, but I think you've dragged the Ms. Marvel thing with it into the wrong decade. As you say, there's no suggestion that she was aware of the change at the time, though you can't really tell from Captain Marvel as she just disappears from the book at that point. IMO (without reviewing Ms. Marvel #1) the change occurred sometime later - in the '70s should be discussed there.
Now that I think about it, wasn't the change to Binary also due (at least partly) to her Kree genes? Dmforcier (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
Hey can you do me a favor. I just want to expand on the filming section of The Amazing Spider-Man (2012 film) and I haven't had much luck on finding sources for that certain topic. You don't necessarily have to edit on the article I just need some links to help expanding on it. Last I heard it sounds like they moved filming to NYC which isn't stated on the article. Jhenderson77720:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I have seen those images a lot on the web but that's a better source than just a article saying "I found images." Do you know the name of what Andrew is swinging on. Jhenderson77719:25, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what he is swinging on, but rather than describing the images, the article can be used to support that filming occurred in NY at a particular point in time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:42, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok I expanded a little bit. I thank you for the source. I also noticed a lot of your articles have a marketing section. Can you give advise at what I can put there to make a section on. Should information about the teaser trailer and the website be added and that a action figure is about to come out? I never really created a Marketing section before. Jhenderson77720:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
The guideline to follow is WP:FILMMARKETING which states, "Do not merely describe the content of customary marketing methods such as trailers, TV spots, radio ads, and posters. Instead, use reliable sources to provide useful commentary about a method, such as a trailer's intended effect or the audience's reported reaction to it." So a trailer by itself is invalid unless accompanied by critical commentary or if there was something controversial about its release like The Hangover Part II. I would include things like viral marketing campaigns, promotional partners and merchandising (video games, etc.). Just use your best judgement about what readers might find useful even after the film has been released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
This was my plan on the trailer information:
A teaser trailer was leaked on the internet and aired at the San DiegoComic-Con at July 2011 while being attached to the superhero film Captain America: The First Avenger.<--[1] --> Rob Keyes of Screen Rant felt that "it takes on a noticeably different tone from that of Sam Raimi-Tobey Maguire trilogy of Spider-Man movies, and presents itself in a similar fashion to what Christopher Nolan did with Batman Begins."<--[2] --> Germain Lussier of /Film felt that the trailer makes it feel like a small film when judging with all the leaked photos of filming going on that it is not going to be a small film. He commented that the trailer makes it look more like "a superhero Twilight." He states that "this is a big action movie with massive practical effects all shot in painstaking 3D with a hefty price tag. This trailer really doesn’t sell that."<--[3] --> Steven of the website Movie Muse Reviews feels that "there’s a sense of annoying déjà vu with the fact that we see the spider bite scene and watch Peter’s discovery of his powers again, something that will really test this reboot with audiences who feel like they already know where Spider-Man came from.<--[4]--> The end of the trailer where Spider-Man is swinging in the city has been reported as strikingly similiar to the 2008 video gameMirror's Edge. <--[5][6] --> Jhenderson77701:22, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Honestly, I think the /Film review is really the only useful one, as it is the only one that provides critical commentary of the trailer itself not the subject matter of the film. This will be handled in the Critical Reaction section later. Also the comparison at the end seems a bit weaselly, it is either similar to the game or it is not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:46, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I am thinking of getting rid of the movie muse one. Because I am not sure if that's a reliable source at all. Weasel Words should be easily fixed when stating by whom or where the source came from. That's what a weasel word mostly is and I am pretty sure you are describing it as something else. Are you thinking it as a useless sentence all together even when explaining what sites feel that way. Looking it up at the internet it does seem that it's a notable claim for there's numerous sources (not just the one I put on there) on it but it can be a opined claim at the same time. Then again so are reviews. Jhenderson77718:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I said its a "bit" weaselly mostly due to the use of the phrase, "reported as strikingly similiar". It's kind of an unattributed claim. Who reported it? It is easily fixable however I don't think the remark is that notable anyway or at least it doesn't appear to be.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:56, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
I fixed the whole who said it. I figured it as a kind of a "reception in between controversy". I added three sources on it although I found more than that. I just added some of the websites who have their own articles. I think the first source on the sentence is the first one to report it although these reports probably started by the videos that the article shows mostly. Jhenderson77720:12, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know. I think me expanding the filming is mostly complete for right now so my biggest concern for the production section is expanding post-production since that's where the film is at. So if you can find sources for that subject that would be awesome. I am definitely wanting better of this article and I find that focusing one one article at one time is definitely helping at making the article better. So if you have time and if you feel like it, post production sources could come in handy. And I appreciate your help. By the way, The Avengers article is looking great. ;) Jhenderson77720:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Since the article is pretty much caught up to where the film is now, you should set up a Google Alert for new content or monitor websites that are tracking the film (remember to trace back to reliable sources). Good luck.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok I will keep that in mind. Right now all the buzz in the news is the release of Spider-Man and Lizard PEZ dispensers. Which I am not sure is worthy enough for inclusion. (Correct me if I am wrong) So I will focus on the cast section for right now. Jhenderson77701:49, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Re: List of The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes characters
The majority of the unsourced character voices can be found in the credits of their respective debut episodes, such as Ms. Marvel and Captain Marvel in "459", and Wolverine in "Meet Captain America". The primary exceptions to this are a bunch of the villains who first appear as part of big crowd shots in episodes like "The Breakout", "The Big House", "Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D.", etc. I'll try to get a list put together sometime soon. I also know that Greg Ellis is, in fact, the voice of Rocket Raccoon in EMH, as was the case in Marvel vs. Capcom, thanks to a tweet by Marvel's Chris Baker; I'm working my way through the archives to try and find it so we can use it as a citation. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. If you're looking for a head start, I checked up, and unless I missed someone, all of Shield and Supporting were credited in their debut episode save for Mockingbird, who didn't talk until Widow's Sting, and Jimmy Woo, who didn't talk until Breakout. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 02:21, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Thor God of Thunder.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Thor God of Thunder.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Should we be accusing him of sock puppetry as well as spamming the A:EMH pages? He has made the same edit three times now, after Scepanmali made the same edit six times and got blocked. Is there some way we can block what he's trying to do, or just block him sooner? --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 22:29, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
I'm fine to just keep reverting his edits, but there must be some way that wikipedia can block that link or something. And anyway, I should be thanking you on the Marvel films template. It was great that you came in to suggest that. We were both kinda blind to the fact that the series subdivisions were only borderlining on necessary, was contraversial, and complicated the navbox either way... So, thank you. --ProfessorKilroy (talk) 14:56, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
I am a litte late but thank you. I appreciate your help. I knew it was all about the license but I just didn't know which one yet and I was trying to be cautious. :) Jhenderson77715:10, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
