Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs) |
Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 81: | Line 81: | ||
I've been working on an article for this in my [[User:Adamstom.97/sandbox/2|sandbox]]. It's is based on articles for real current affairs programmes, but I put plenty of emphasis on the fact that it isn't real, and that it is part of a series of viral marketing campaigns. I see this as a sort of central hub for the different WHIH stuff, so at ''Ant-Man'' and at ''Civil War'' we mention that they did it, and link to the full article for more info, similar to what we do with the tie-in comics. I also think we should make mention of the campaign at the main MCU article, mostly because it is another way that Marvel is connecting and expanding their universe. I know your stance has sort of been against something like this, so I thought I would bring it up before taking it any further. What do you think? - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 04:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
I've been working on an article for this in my [[User:Adamstom.97/sandbox/2|sandbox]]. It's is based on articles for real current affairs programmes, but I put plenty of emphasis on the fact that it isn't real, and that it is part of a series of viral marketing campaigns. I see this as a sort of central hub for the different WHIH stuff, so at ''Ant-Man'' and at ''Civil War'' we mention that they did it, and link to the full article for more info, similar to what we do with the tie-in comics. I also think we should make mention of the campaign at the main MCU article, mostly because it is another way that Marvel is connecting and expanding their universe. I know your stance has sort of been against something like this, so I thought I would bring it up before taking it any further. What do you think? - [[User:Adamstom.97|adamstom97]] ([[User talk:Adamstom.97|talk]]) 04:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
:Wow. That's well crafted. Present this on the MCU talk, so others can weigh in, but I'm coming around to making this happen. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93#top|talk]]) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
:Wow. That's well crafted. Present this on the MCU talk, so others can weigh in, but I'm coming around to making this happen. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93#top|talk]]) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC) |
||
== ''Captain America: Civil War'' box office == |
|||
Me if I did say I own the page. The truth is everyone knows I don't. So there's no point or arguing there like child. Second, why can't you just let me handle the box office section like I've done with every major movie box office section from ''[[Jurassic World]]'' to ''[[Star Wars: The Force Awakens]]'' to ''[[Furious 7]]'' to ''[[Minions (film)|Minions]]''? No one has a problem with any of my 100+ articles edit in the box office section. So why you? I haven't violated any wikipedia rules and regulations. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE is clearly being violated by the "cast" section where each characters are getting a MAJOR HISTORY work. I'm not laying emphasis on every 60+ individual markets in the box office section? Am I? I'm just mentioning the top openings and details of a few notable markets, big one like South Korea, Japan, UK, China etc. that won't even be 10. If I was to violate that rule, I would have to write the detail box offove performance of EVERY SINGLE MARKETS but I won't cause I know that's not legal on wikipedia. Please. Lemme do this. I have been doing this from 2014 and I'm good at it. I don't want someone to come over and tell me what is right of wrong because I'm approaching this at a neutral and rational point of view keeping in mind that it's not a blog but wikipedia. NO ONE in the history of my edit over 100+ box office articles have disagreed with me except for one or two in ''Age of Ultron'' page last year which I suspect it's you and your minions. I don't have a problem if u add additional informations but please u don't need to re-write everything. That is so unnecessary. Do you do it just so it can fit your POV? I don't understand. And especially with the North American section, if I have been keeping a track projections are going down. You won't even know that had I not written it. So in other words, I DO ALL THE HARKWORL RESEARCH and YOU DO ALL THE EASY WORK OF EDITING TO FIT YOUR POV. Please do a research of your own and not rely on someone's hardwork and ruin them. My informations are accurate taken from reliable source. And you deleted the Chinese section of the box office which I spent TWO NIGHTS doing research about. That's vandalism. I hope when I write informations down again u don't re-write it again unless they incorrect informations. I hope when I edit future box office sections I don't encounter you again. I pray to God. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I'm off to doing more research... |
|||
[[User:Josephlalrinhlua786]] ([[User talk:Josephlalrinhlua786|talk]]) 11:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC) |
Revision as of 05:47, 7 May 2016
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 31 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 1 section is present. |
Civil War
Hey, just letting you know that I'm going to try and avoid as much Civil War stuff as I can sort of from now on. It might be futile given how long it is until we get to see the film, but I do want to try. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Same. I'm not seeing until the day it comes out here in America on May 6 (which seems excruciatingly long). I'm going to try keep the article on my watch until Wednesday, when the review embargo is lifted, to try and do that (though an IP said something on the talk about adding the plot after the premiere tomorrow, which has me a bit nervous). If I can make it through that, then I'm going to unwatch the article, main MCU page, list of films and the film actors pages. But the real trick will be avoiding news articles. I'm going to try my best to navigate if I can to stockpile anything useful to add once I'm back but who knows with that. Luckily I'm foreseeing myself being busy in the coming weeks so that should help some. I'm also pinging @Richiekim and TriiipleThreat: so they know of our plans. But thankfully, the article is semi protected so we should be good for the most part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:25, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- We usually get them a bit earlier than you, but my local theatre isn't showing it until our May 5, which does seem ridiculously far away. It was that IP that got me scared, plus the huge amount of info we got today, and how they released a clip from the film already which I really don't want to watch yet. And yeah, news sites is going to be a struggle, as I'm not really going to be up to much for a while. Anyway, good luck to you, and enjoy when you do get to see it (the early reactions are getting me way too excited). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll probably be unwatching very soon too since the first public screening is tomorrow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah. If something doesn't go up tonight, it definitely will tomorrow with the CinemaCon screening. Also, we'll have a bunch of Doctor Strange stuff happening tonight with the new trailer. Hopefully we'll get a poster and updated billing to work with. Thanks guys! Enjoy Civil War when you both see it too! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'll probably be unwatching very soon too since the first public screening is tomorrow.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:51, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- We usually get them a bit earlier than you, but my local theatre isn't showing it until our May 5, which does seem ridiculously far away. It was that IP that got me scared, plus the huge amount of info we got today, and how they released a clip from the film already which I really don't want to watch yet. And yeah, news sites is going to be a struggle, as I'm not really going to be up to much for a while. Anyway, good luck to you, and enjoy when you do get to see it (the early reactions are getting me way too excited). - adamstom97 (talk) 06:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Just a curtsey to you all (@Adamstom.97, TriiipleThreat, and Richiekim:), the Civil War article is still a-okay. I'm going to try to get the reception section started so it isn't horrible. BUT, I'd steer clear of the talk page at this point. Quickly glanced at it, and may be entering spoiler territory. Obviously your call on everything, but I'm going to try and hold out a few days more on the page. (As of this post, list of films and film actors are also okay). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nope. Scratch that bit on the reception section. Wanted to, but started reading THR's and felt it was giving a bit too much info for my taste. I'm going to let that all be for now and cautiously keep an eye on the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
A cup of tea for you!
![]() |
Thanks for the barnstar! Likewise your efforts maintaining/improving MCU articles are greatly appreciated. TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC) |
Cap:Civil
Hi, Favre. Actually, I didn't get an assignment to write about it, so I won't be seeing it until what they call the "all-media" screening a few days before it's released. Unless that changes, I'll have to keep away, too, to avoid spoilers. But I'll be in there afterward! : ) --Tenebrae (talk) 12:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
- No worries! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Reply
Am waiting patiently for May 6 to arrive to go see it, but I have been potentially spoiled. Just saw the names on IMDB, so I figured I'd get people to keep an eye out for sources we can use. Rusted AutoParts 01:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Got it. That's why I was asking, because I didn't know if it was a result of seeing the film or being spoiled unwillingly. I'm taking very very cautious steps around the internet the next few weeks myself. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:44, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Plot script
In regards to your request here of determining the lengths of film summaries, it has been fulfilled. Same script, same link, but it now determines if a film infobox has been used, and if so, checks the length of all text under any area titled "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", "Summary" or "Plot summary", with 700 as the limit. And if a film infobox hasn't been used, it proceeds with the regular checking of episodes. Enjoy. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:29, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
- Awesome. I've notified the Film project about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:57, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Avengers: Age of Ultron
You might well be correct — and I've certainly left it as you had it — but I've never heard this and I've been reviewing films for 35 years. All the publications I've written for round up to the next minute only if it's 30 seconds or more. Where do we find information that the industry generally considers one second over as the point to round up? --Tenebrae (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not certain where we can find info for the industry, because I'm sure where ever we look is going to use their own method (be it the 30 second round up/down, or any seconds in the 0:00-1:00 constitutes 1 minute.) I'd say maybe look at BBFC listings of films and/or online retailers (like iTunes) to see if any rounding is done. To me, the 0:00-1:00 method makes more sense, because why would you wait 30 seconds to consider it part of the next minute. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Archiving
Hey, I was wondering if I had to do something to have more than one archive page for my talk, or if it happens automatically. It just seems like there is quite a few discussions already archived to the same place, and I don't really understand how it all works. Since I (poorly) copied the code from you, I was hoping you could help. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- You can either lower the
|maxarchivesize=
or manually update|counter=
. The bot keeps adding discussions older than a month from the last sig to the archive until it hits the size limit. I think I made mine really big so it wouldn't automatically make me a new archive, since I like to archive my discussions by year. Hope that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2016 (UTC)- It does, thanks. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:24, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Jessica Jones
I went ahead and nominated Jessica Jones (season 1) for good article, since all I was waiting for was that referencing issue to be sorted. If there is anything else you want to address first, I'm happy to help with that straight away before anyone picks up the review (hopefully soon). - adamstom97 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- I haven't really looked to see if there is anything else to do on the article, but I'll definitely keep an eye on the GA and help where needed. Agent Carter S2 should, and could, probably be next to nominate after a little polish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
- All good, and I can definitely have a look at AC soon as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Iron Man & Iron Man 2
I noticed you changed the recent edits to the Iron Man and Iron Man 2 films. However, the previous edit had plenty of resources and descriptions from the actors, as well as the director. What was the reasoning of purpose for you to change what they had done? There's no dispute about it -- Jeff Bridges was Iron Monger in Iron Man, while Johannson, Cheadle, and Rourke are Black Widow, War Machine, and Whiplash respectively. The director did tons of press work discussing each of these characters; not to mention all of the marketing that was put into the films to depict such cases. I don't understand your re-edit to the lesser-specific information....— Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningblue52 (talk • contribs)
- First, always sign your comments with ~~~~ so people know who they are talking with. Second, as has been explained to you MULTIPLE times, we can only list characters as they are named or called in the film. Anything else is incorrect. It's not like we aren't linking to the said characters. They just can't be listed as such because that is incorrect. (Additionally, since these edits are very much in line with your own, I am tempted to open an WP:SPI investigation into you, since this can be seen as trying to further ones editing.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
WHIH Newsfront
I've been working on an article for this in my sandbox. It's is based on articles for real current affairs programmes, but I put plenty of emphasis on the fact that it isn't real, and that it is part of a series of viral marketing campaigns. I see this as a sort of central hub for the different WHIH stuff, so at Ant-Man and at Civil War we mention that they did it, and link to the full article for more info, similar to what we do with the tie-in comics. I also think we should make mention of the campaign at the main MCU article, mostly because it is another way that Marvel is connecting and expanding their universe. I know your stance has sort of been against something like this, so I thought I would bring it up before taking it any further. What do you think? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
- Wow. That's well crafted. Present this on the MCU talk, so others can weigh in, but I'm coming around to making this happen. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Captain America: Civil War box office
Me if I did say I own the page. The truth is everyone knows I don't. So there's no point or arguing there like child. Second, why can't you just let me handle the box office section like I've done with every major movie box office section from Jurassic World to Star Wars: The Force Awakens to Furious 7 to Minions? No one has a problem with any of my 100+ articles edit in the box office section. So why you? I haven't violated any wikipedia rules and regulations. The WP:INDISCRIMINATE is clearly being violated by the "cast" section where each characters are getting a MAJOR HISTORY work. I'm not laying emphasis on every 60+ individual markets in the box office section? Am I? I'm just mentioning the top openings and details of a few notable markets, big one like South Korea, Japan, UK, China etc. that won't even be 10. If I was to violate that rule, I would have to write the detail box offove performance of EVERY SINGLE MARKETS but I won't cause I know that's not legal on wikipedia. Please. Lemme do this. I have been doing this from 2014 and I'm good at it. I don't want someone to come over and tell me what is right of wrong because I'm approaching this at a neutral and rational point of view keeping in mind that it's not a blog but wikipedia. NO ONE in the history of my edit over 100+ box office articles have disagreed with me except for one or two in Age of Ultron page last year which I suspect it's you and your minions. I don't have a problem if u add additional informations but please u don't need to re-write everything. That is so unnecessary. Do you do it just so it can fit your POV? I don't understand. And especially with the North American section, if I have been keeping a track projections are going down. You won't even know that had I not written it. So in other words, I DO ALL THE HARKWORL RESEARCH and YOU DO ALL THE EASY WORK OF EDITING TO FIT YOUR POV. Please do a research of your own and not rely on someone's hardwork and ruin them. My informations are accurate taken from reliable source. And you deleted the Chinese section of the box office which I spent TWO NIGHTS doing research about. That's vandalism. I hope when I write informations down again u don't re-write it again unless they incorrect informations. I hope when I edit future box office sections I don't encounter you again. I pray to God. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I'm off to doing more research...
User:Josephlalrinhlua786 (talk) 11:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)