User talk:Favre1fan93/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.-related

Hi, I was wondering what you think of Season Two of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. so far even to the part with the Marvel Cinematic Universe's version of the Inhumans. When it came to my edits to Agent 33, I was working on sorting the performances because some of the fans have heard the voice of her actress Maya Stojan mixed with Ming-Na Wen as a side effect of her damaged Photostatic Mask that she has not yet removed (some are speculating that it fused to her after she was shocked in the face by Melinda May). This was mentioned on the Marvel Cinematic Universe wiki by those who have seen the episodes that Agent 33 was in. Either way, Maya Stojan is still involved with the voice of Agent 33 but uncredited. Once the second half of Season 2 airs, we'll know what will happen next and the identity of the man with no eyes who also has a Diviner. --Rtkat3 (talk) 01:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Ant-Man teaser

It's a television advert, I don't think the specific show makes any difference without any additional information.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

In my eyes, that make a difference, because if it was just to debut next Tuesday, then yes, I agree with you and as we have always done. Don't just put the date. But I see this as similar to the AoU trailer with AoS, that Marvel is taking advantage of their various properties to promote themselves. I felt it was fine because of that, but we can wait to readd it until Tuesday when we get the reactions, if that would be better. If we do that, let's just hid the source, not outright delete it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Theres a lot more information regarding the Age of Ultron trailer then just the date and where it aired. I think it's best to wait and readd the information with any relevant analysis. As of now it violates guidelines.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Then as I said, let's just hide the ref and/or the content as well. And I did the same thing over at AoU regarding the second trailer releasing during the College Football Playoff. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semicolon

Sorry for coming off heated there, but I could've sworn I remembered it being brought up. It's an actual coding problem, not a personal preference. According to MOS:ACCESS, the semi-colon headers don't work on screen readers, and we need the articles to be easy to read for everyone, you know? Again, I'm sorry I've been so standoffish as of late. Work has been stressing me the hell out and my fuse has been considerably shorter. I'm trying to get a better grasp on it, I swear.

On an unrelated note, how awesome is it that Paul Rudd gets to be the first writer/star of a Marvel movie? Sock (tock talk) 01:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem. So in an instance like this, all the other film pages are like that. So you should go around and change them, using MOS:ACCESS and stating you talked with me in the edit description.

Ant-Man will definitely be interesting. I hate to agree, but I do feel this could be Marvel's first flop. But I hope to be proven wrong. I just want it to have prove to be a nice tying point to Agent Carter. Which, by the way, did you watch last night? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll do that now. And I'm not entirely certain that it'll flop, but I'm guessing it'll have a gross closer to Thor than The Winter Soldier. Guardians pretty much solidified the mindset of "Marvel can make anything good" for a lot of people, so while I think Ant-Man fare worse than the last few films, I doubt it'll do poorly. I did watch Agent Carter, and I think I'll actually stick with this one (I jumped ship on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. five episodes in). Atwell is just way too awesome, and Peggy's character getting some more background is fantastic. I really, really enjoyed the first episode, so I hope it stays this strong. Sock (tock talk) 02:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I enjoyed Agent Carter as well, and can't see what easter eggs they pepper in. As for you jumping ship on AoS (and you call yourself a Marvel film fan... [kidding :)]), I highly recommend watching from the Cap:TWS crossover on. The beginning of this season has been so much better and they are actually leading the "tie-in" charge with their revelation during the mid-season finale, then just following along with the films. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, a Marvel film fan :P I'll give it a shot. I've heard that it's been getting consistently better from everyone who's talked to me about it, so I'm not closed to the idea. Season 1 just felt weak, for lack of a better term. I was curious to see how the show would work with the TWS twist, so I'll probably watch it on sheer curiosity alone. Sock (tock talk) 02:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. As a fellow colleague working on these pages with you, highly recommend you pick up from that point. I do agree with you that it was not the best at the beginning, but from that point on, it just felt like a whole new show, and season two started out how season one should have. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agent Carter international broadcast

I started a discussion on WT:TV about international broadcast. Dcbanners (talk) 11:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion

Hi again. Happy New Year. Can you offer your opinion on which photo is better for the Infobox here? If you're not able to participate, just disregard this message; you don't have to message me. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 01:01, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Origins

I can't remember if I've asked in the past but I think it'd be nice to get Arkham Origins to FA or on its way before Arkham Knight is released, it'd put it on a good track to all main games being FA status. If you have any spare time I'd appreciate your input on what the article needs to get it there. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:08, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe you have, and I'll help where I can. I'm finding more and more that my time here is spent in upkeeping and expanding all the MCU related articles. I'm trying not to take on large projects, but I would be more than happy to help you out at Origins with what you need. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Just on the offset, I'd say trying to see if there are any new refs out there for the voice actors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

DYK for A.K.A. Jessica Jones

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thank you for the DYK credit but more importantly thank you for your tireless contributions to Marvel Cinematic Universe television series articles. TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Glee (season 6)

Hello, there is a current ongoing discussion revolving around the style of crediting writers for the TV series Glee, over on the talk page. I thought you may be interested in voicing your opinion. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 08:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Category:Films distributed by Paramount

Category:Films distributed by Paramount, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Origins

I got your prove that the name on the website you picked is a spelling error. YouTube may not be a reliable source, but look at 16:45 on this video on Robert Costanzo at the credits here. Same result in every game out there. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. The source we have on the page DOES list it as "Costanzo". I don't know why the lead is like that then. You may proceed with the change in the lead. Sorry again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Katana

Hey, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character Katana's Talk page. It concerns Arrow. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:28, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guardians of the Galaxy (film) you 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 08:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

The article Guardians of the Galaxy (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 13:22, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your significant contributions that helped promote Guardians of the Galaxy (film) to good article status.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:35, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Box office

Hi, in the lights of the recent edit I made on the page, you reverted the edit stating: "Reverted good faith edits by Dibyendutwipzbiswas (talk): This is not true (saying NA) as the numbers do not include mexico, just US and Canada. (TW))". Well, that may be OK in the BANANA REPUBLIC, but I guess it's not ok here in Wikipedia. Why ?? I explained this below.

I know little geography myself and I know this too that Mexico falls under North America geographically but that doesn't mean when it comes to Box office it have to be the same case. Take a look at here, Mexico falls under other territories. And when Domestic or North America is written, it means only USA and Canada. You can't possibly argue that Mexico falls under North America when it comes to box office; and Canada has its own independent box office figures, I have not seen such a case in my entire web surfing history. And if you argue against my statement, then I have to take it that an entire site is incorrect according to you. Moreover films theatrical release date in USA and Canada coincides. Right ?? I am opened to suggestion, please. DtwipzBTalk 13:59, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Please read the comments in the Featured List review which has the discussion on why the current wording is used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey

Long time, no see :) I think that specific info about leaked emails is probably a bit much for the MCU film list, which is more about actual movement and development. Seems like it would be a better fit on a draft for that movie, or whatever section we're housing the "main" section for now. What do you think? -Fandraltastic (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes! Long time! (Small plug, if you are around, we are trying to nominate the film articles for a Good Topic. I remember you suggesting that way back when. Would love your input in the discussion.) After that side bar, first, I still can't believe this!!! Really happy! On to the content, maybe we trim it a bit for the List of films page, and then yes, move it to our draft (yet to be created, but I will get on that now) and the section (over at Spider-Man in film). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:47, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Haha yeah, it's a cool piece of news. And I'll look into the GT stuff when I have a minute. On the subject of that Spider-Man in film page, someone split out the trilogies (even though one is just two films) to their own pages but didn't trim the main page at all. So there are huge sections duplicated, and completely redundant pages. Not sure why the 3- and 2-film series need their own pages, anyway? The whole thing seems like a mess, haha. -Fandraltastic (talk) 06:53, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I was not aware of that. I'm literally going to create the draft now, and will look into what you just said about the pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:56, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I definitely think that some form of that Sony hacks stuff should be kept at the list of films article, and agree that a draft should be set up for the actual film article. Also, I have been watching that Spider-Man in film page for a while, but have kinda given up hope for it - it really is a mess. If we are going to make a concerted effort to improve it now that it includes MCU info, then I am happy to help, but it might be a bit of a struggle. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:58, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Spidey draft is done. It's crude, but it gets us in business. I'm heading over to the Spider-Man in film page to see about that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

Page protection

Do you think you can get the list of films page protected, I'd do it myself but I editing from my phone right now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do! :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. T.A.H.I.T.I.

Hi- About that page. I AM new at this and I understand I should have started in the sandbox, but the page did have a lot of information about the IMDB page for the episode, and TV.com. The episode summary was too long, and I was cutting it when you deleted it a second time. There are lots worse pages out there. I thought the procedure was too flag a page with too much unnecessary detail and ask users to improve it. And I was doing that. I had already done two edits on it with that express purpose. What do I have to do to gett he page back. I'm not trying to start an edit war but I think you are deleting the page without looking at it. Thanks, Eva Karriaagzh (talk) 04:42, 18 February 2015 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Karriaagzh (talk • contribs) 04:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

First, IMDb and TV.com are source we should NOT be using. Second, I did look at the article and it was just a large plot summary. If it is just going to be that, it should not be an article. The editors who work on the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. articles put a lot of effort into making them the best pages they can be on the onset. Thus, as I said, I suggest you continue crafting a page in your sandbox, and if you feel you have an article ready to go, you can contact me or Adamstom.97. But until then, the article should not be created in the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I see you went ahead, again with creating the page. I have tagged as necessary to indicate it needs to be cleaned up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand how you say there is no relevance in the difference between - and :

Every single movie of Star Wars is sold in the Star Wars: Episode X - Subtitle format. You're telling me that noting that format is another way of writing it is harming the article? I don't understand your decision to revert. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 06:57, 20 February 2015 (UTC) And you're also saying that news sources writing it with the "-" instead of the ":" doesn't mean there is a difference? The statement was it is written two ways and you're removing the sourced statement as if it was false/harming the article/not relevant. It isn't false, it isn't harming the article, and it the statement (addressing the name) is relevant when placed there. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 07:02, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The use of '-' versus ':' in publications is just based on that publications manual of style. It does not indicate any difference in the title of the film. It is a stylistic choice of the publisher, not from Lucasfilms or Disney. It a similar situation if one outlet wrote Avengers Age of Ultron over Avengers: Age of Ultron. It doesn't mean anything different. Thus, stating that at the Star Wars film is unnecessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The official way they are sold are with the "-", does this not get any recognition? Or should we wait until the Force Awakens has been released to judge? Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Again, that is just a style choice, not a fundamentally different title. It is still a non-issue and one that, again, doesn't need to be noted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:51, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure, maybe some would disagree with you. I see your point and I do agree it is a non-issue but maybe using the official style wouldn't harm anything. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:56, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

...but the official styling is with the ':'. See here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I guess so. I just know the official styling of the other films is Star Wars: Episode X - Subtitle. Where Star Wars: is the title and Episode X - Subtitle is the subtitle. I guess this film doesn't officially follow the others unless Abrams decides to officially throw in the episode number. Oh well, cheers. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:10, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

And the official styling is with ':', yes. Same as the others. Star Wars: Episode X - Subtitle not Star Wars Episode :. But maybe it is too soon to apply it for the 7th episode. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 20:12, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Just a comment: The films (at least since the prequels started) have always been written as Star Wars Episode X: Subtitle. See the respective pages here on Wikipedia for this. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I realize this, but that's just how we have been listing them on Wikipedia. It isn't like it is concrete and must not be moved. Haha. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:31, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

IMDB and Release Dates

Whether you like it or not, it's a simple fact; Season 3 was released on February 11, 2015. I watched the first episode of the season, and whether or not it was a mistake doesn't change the fact that it was released. That is undisputed. Since the year is 2015, and it was released, it is perfectly okay to add the (2015) next to Season 3. As for the IMDb edits, I already said that the titles were NOT user generated and both policies you quoted were irrelevant. I'm the one that put the edit in originally and then YOU started reverting them. So by saying that I'm the one edit warring and you're not is a load of crap. There is both common sense AND A CITED SOURCE to go along with the episode title. There are people who cite TWEETS FROM TWITTER for episode titles, and they don't nearly get as much backlash as I'm getting. Just because we have two different OPINIONS on what IS and IS NOT a reliable source, doesn't give you the right to continue to revert my edits, and have the nerve to report me, when you were doing the EXACT SAME THING. Rswallis10 (talk) 05:20, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

The result of your complain is that the page is now protected from all three contributors edit-warring; please take the time to discuss the matter using the article discussion page, and not cluttering up noticeboards. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Calm down

Your revert summary was directed at me. I reverted myself to the Latin America because I was unsure if my revert to the US date only was valid. Next time, I suggest you look at the edit summaries before you point fingers. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 19:54, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Merlyn/The Dark Archer

Hey, I thought you may like to voice your opinon on a matter that is currently being debated over at the DC comic book character Merlyn's Talk page. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 04:58, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could use your expertise

I could use your assistance over at American Horror Story: Hotel, that is if you agree. I have a bunch against me, and could use some fortitude. Thank you so much, LLArrow (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Arrow pilot

I've been working on a pilot page for Arrow (see here). Can you think or any other sources to expand on some of these sections?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:01, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll take a look, and if you don't mind, I'll give it some c/e / formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:54, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Don't mind at all. I've largely just been dumping information in, so it definitely needs some smoothing out before it goes into the main space. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:12, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I changed the "Pilot" identifier back, because those episodes are not actually titled "Pilot". They are a pilot. Plus, it seems weird to say "Pilot" is a pilot, it makes it seem like "Pilot" is really referring to Pilot when you're reading. It's the same way we did it at Pilot (Smallville).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Tell me what you think, and I'm still hopeful you can help expand. I've at least set the basic structure and gotten the reviews it. I plan to utilize this image for the infobox, since it was the official poster provided for the pilot.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:28, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll work on the VFX stuff I said, and the casting a bit possibly. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: So there actually isn't as much on the VFX as I thought. I have the company names though: Go Blue FX and Zoic. I added the little piece I felt was good to have about Sara. But other than that, I think you are at least in a good place to move it to the main space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:03, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved it over. We can continue to try and find some more information to expand it, but I agree that it was good enough to move over.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: Great. Also, what are your thoughts on an Arrow nav box? I whipped something up quickly in my sandbox here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that would be nice. I usually don't put the links to the episode and character pages on the headers so that people don't think that it's going to a generic page definite episodes and characters. It also helps to make the nav box look fuller. Just my thoughts though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I understand how you'd want it to look. Can you edit what I have so I can see what you mean? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. It's how we treated the Smallville navbox.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 02:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm. I see. My only thought is that if we move forward with it, someone will change it to the version I originally had, and they really don't have any reason not to. Just my thoughts. Do you feel we should add any other links to the "Related" section? IE the links to the remaining main actor articles?

I've seen people change it, but the reality is that we're talking about easter egging, and that would be the reason not to do it the other way. "Characters" and "Episodes" are universal terms that could go to the universal page, so theoretically the argument would be that hiding a specific page in those terms would be in violation of WP:EGG. At least, that's my understanding, though I know that people do it the other way (though, from what I can tell, they only do that because it's what they see and not because there is a logical reason behind it). I don't think anything else should be in "Related Links", though I would caution against including Amell. If you include Amell, then you're going to see a rush to add all of the actors in the series.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Would it just be a similar situation like in the Green Arrow template when we use the '**' to go in the ( and we just say "Episodes" and "Characters" there and we link to the LoE and LoC? I feel they are the same thing and not really a violation of EGG because a reader is expecting to go to episodes about the show or characters about the show. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it's not a straight violation, but to me it makes it cleaner and there isn't any confusion when they are out in the open. Not to mention, it doesn't look like the nav box is being used for 3 articles. I think it's easier to get away with that when you have a large nav box and you want to save space. I've just never bought into the idea of hiding the pages within the headers. I didn't understand the purpose when they can be out with the rest of the articles. It doesn't have to say the full name either, it can just be "Characters" and "Episodes". I just think it's best when they aren't hidden in the section headers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:04, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's not beneficial about it. Per WP:SEEALSO, and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Embedded lists#See also lists, the Smallville pilot is precisely what the see also is meant for. It's meant to include related topics that a reader would likely want to read. It's another pilot, based on a DC comics superhero, on the CW (formerly the WB), filmed in the same location with the same set pieces, and with the same director. We can add a Flash pilot if/when that page is created, but I would say that the Smallville pilot page is an appropriate see also link. Why do you think it's not beneficial?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:43, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I feel it would imply too much that the two are related (ie universe-wise) and while it has similarities that you mentioned, if you look at it from its most generic point (a DC Comics pilot) why wouldn't we then include the Aquaman one or the many Wonder Woman ones? Maybe though, if we add Smallville, you should do this: "Pilot (Smallville) – Filmed in the same location, w/ same director, etc." That I think would help solidify why you are including it (beyond the generic reason that I [and maybe others] automatically associated it with). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I was going to add the description originally, I just never actually did after I put the link in. If that would help, then I say let's do that. I wouldn't want to exclude it because people might miss-associate it with being in the same universe. See also sections don't have to be direct connections, only ancillary ones.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:19, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes I think that would help. At least for me (if I didn't see your edit summary I would not have known why you chose to add it, going first to it a) not being in the same universe and b) why not the other DC pilots?) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I thought about including the Aquaman pilot, but I didn't because I wasn't sure it would be relevant given that it was never actually picked up, like the other half dozen ones that were created over the years. Do you think we should include them?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 05:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I would feel maybe only the Aquaman one as well, if any additional. You could link over to List of television series based on DC Comics. I'm currently (as in as we are talking here) working on cleaning it up some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll add the clarification for them, and link to the list of TV series you have there.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:11, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

I know you were hoping for more info on the Arrow pilot, but I was curious if you knew about more on the Flash pilot? I haven't done a significant amount of looking, but I thought I'd check with you. I got the pilot page set up. I need to go through the reviews, but I'd like to find more pilot production/casting info (like we did with the Arrow pilot) so that it isn't a pure pull from the main page.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:10, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Yauch

Yauch is only listed in the Agent Carter press releases for "Time and Tide", "The Blitzkrieg Button", and "A Sin to Err", but he actually appeared in "Now is Not the End" and "The Iron Ceilling" as well. Though he obviously wasn't a major character until his last appearance, he was a recurring background character, making it more believable that they worked in an office with a group of agents, rather than just having random extras in the background the whole time. He also did things like going with Thompson and Krzeminski to the nightclub in episode 1. And obviously his last appearance was a bit more significant. I don't see the harm in listing him as a recurring character for the season, and I think he is definitely higher up the "food chain" (so to speak) than a character such as Rose. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I for some reason find that really hard to believe that he was in those two as well. Marvel is usually really good about listing characters in the press releases, even if they don't initially have a character name they will eventually. And I double checked with iMDb, and they only list him as in three episodes. I guess I'll have to look back to see. Obviously if that is the case, then yes he should be recurring. But based on the official press releases, he is in only three episodes, that's why I moved him. Let me see what I can find, unless you have any material so I don't have to comb through those eps again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not actually 100% on the ep5 appearance, but he was definitely in ep1, just check out the nightclub scene, or the debriefing for the nightclub mission where she is pouring the coffee, if you can. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I see he's in ep1. So that would be a total of 4 appearances. Still to me a bit on the fence. If we can definitely confirm he's in Iron Ceiling, we can move him back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I just had a look, and he pops in almost 17 minutes into ep5 to give Carter's file to Sousa. He doesn't really have any lines so I guess they don't have to give him guest star credit for it, but he is definitely in there. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

So based on that, that is kind of the reason why I moved him to the guest spot. Guests can be recurring, just in minor roles, and I think Yauch definitely fits that bill. As I said too, I didn't remember him outside of his death episode, so that would really only be his major appearance/contribution in the episode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I know where you are coming from, but you are putting personal opinion (you only really remember him from his last appearance) before fact (he appeared in more than half of the episodes). I myself took notice of him when I recognised his name in about the 4th episode, and so I remember him for more than just his episode 6 appearance (although that is by far his most significant appearance). If you look at the divisions we have made for SHIELD, everyone in the recurring section is either significant enough to have been announced as recurring initially, or has appeared in at least 4 eps. The guest section includes some big names (both in terms of characters and actors), plus a few who made 2 or 3 appearances. I think 3 guest appearances, plus 2 non-speaking but not-background appearances, puts the character more in the former character than the latter, but that's just the way that I see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

We also have to remember we are only dealing with 8 episodes here opposed to 22. I'm using my personal opinion to justify the delegation to a guest that may be recurring, over just straight recurring. It may also be better to get other opinions on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Just for clarification, how do you interpret the titles "Recurring" and "Guest". I have been approaching it as recurring being guest stars that appear repeatedly, specifically at least 4 times, and guests being any other significant guest star, be that due to a famous or stand out actor/character, or a reappearing guest star who hasn't reached that 4 ep threshold. With this definition, it does not matter how many episodes are in the season, because the recurring criteria is not about how much of the season you have appeared in, it is about how many time you appear within the season. So even though AC has only 8 eps, we should not approach this any differently to a season of AoS. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have a similar view of the two terms, but for "Recurring" there should be some significance or notability to the character. The wording we specifically use at AoS under Guest characters is: "recurring guest stars that appear in lesser roles or make significant cameo appearances". So while yes, I have been using the rule of thumb of 4 appearances (in season or across the series), there has to be some significance to those appearances. If we had actor John Doe appearing as Man #1 four times in the series, just in the background, a simple line in one appearance, I'd say that was just a Guest character. So in my eyes, Yauch would just be a guest star. It doesn't harm our rule of thumb number, just plays into the "lesser roles" wording aka the notability of those appearances. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:54, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

That does make sense, and I actually do agree with your point there, but I still take issue with Yauch being lumped in with some of the other Guest characters, when I see him as closer to some of the Recurring characters, like Krzeminski. I guess that is just personal opinion on my part as well, so maybe we do just need to ask for some more opinions and see if we get anywhere. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Well this was helpful for me too, because we realized he was actually in more episodes than press releases said. Personally, I would have maybe moved Krzeminski to guest too, if his source didn't specifically say recurring. So I think we should go to the AC talk and see how other users feel about his notability: did he, or did he not, have enough notability in his appearances. If yes, he'll be listed as recurring; if no, a guest. That sound fine? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, sounds good to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

There is an RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Request_for_Comment whose outcome could affect WikiProject Film. You may wish to comment. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:44, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

This thing you do

This "thing" you do, where you revert claims backed up by sources needs to stop. If someone says reports claim so and so is going to happen and it is backed up by a source, please do NOT revert it. (pending material, of course) You said Latino Review is not reliable here, but the claim was that it reported Goddard directing the film and the claim was sourced. Now, I did not say that it was confirmed. So stop reverting. It'll begin to be disruptive. Thanks. Have a swell day. Eric - Contact me please. I prefer conversations started on my talk page if the subject is changed 22:57, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War; Spider-Man inclusion

Hey Fav, can you please go back and look at the line that state the inclusion of Spider-Man, and read the entire line from start to finish, if you read closely, you'll see that it doesn't make sense from the line that was first presented, to the new line that was made when you edited it. It doesn't make sense, and look like it was trying to convey another message entirely. It needs to be cleaned up, or re-worded some how to make it look, coherent. It just looks disjointed to me. Please go back and read the lines, and see what changes can be made to make it look more presentable and, like I've said, more coherent and a complete sentence, instead of two seperate sentences that look un-even. Npamusic (talk) 06:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Where specifically because you added that content a few places. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I think I found it at Spider-Man in film. I fixed it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

No, on the Civil Warr page. I fixed it already. Npamusic (talk) 20:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Agent Carter edit/reversion "come" is *not* part of original quote

Hi. I see that you reverted a recent edit I made to the Agent Carter page. My edit was to correct the phrase "femme fatale-come-special agent" appearing in the article to the form "femme fatale-cum-special agent".

Your reversion noted that I shouldn't change direct quotes. However, ref. [2], the source for the quote, a piece from July 19 2013 [1] actually uses my version of the text. The safer-sounding "come" happened only when the article was quoted in Wiki.

Can you remove the reversion, please? Beanyk (talk) 03:10, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Somebody else has reverted it. There's a good example of the correct use of "cum" at wikt:cum#Preposition. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:07, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Eobard Thawne

Why do I feel like we'll be removing that name from Wells' character description in the future? :) Sorry for the fanboying, just couldn't refuse. LLArrow (talk) 05:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

(Butting in) I think it has more to do with the fact that he may have identified his real name as Eobard Thawne, but it isn't the name he goes by on the show, so it shouldn't be listed as the credited name.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:03, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

I am actually referring to my personal belief that Wells is lying about being Thawne. Just a theory I'm working up. As I said, fanboying. LLArrow (talk) 06:29, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Well considering Barry just time travelled, we have to assume what he said and killing Cisco was real, but that Barry is going to stop that. So who knows... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Discontinued Series?

I am not sure why you are moving all of the DC series to discontinued. After the coming convergence event this Spring, 25 of the current series are going to continue. My understanding is that the existing numbering will continue as well. e.g. the last Batman pre-convergence will be #40 with #41 being the first Batman post-convergence. Here is a link that lists the new and ongoing titles: http://www.dccomics.com/blog/2015/02/06/new-books-new-creative-teams-the-complete-list-of-new-and-continuing-dc-comics

The New 52 branding is ending post-convergence, but 25 of the series are going to continue. These series are not being discontinued and re-booted.

As with the New 52, all those titles are coming to an end. As of this month, they are no longer a "New 52 publication" because the New 52 as an imprint no longer exists. There are notes on all the continuing titles explaining they are not "discontinued". Also, please see the Teen Titans section now as an example: once all titles are there, no "Current" or "Discontinued" headings are going to be used. Second, please also see my sandbox where I am working on a solution to this issue. The content in the sandbox is not yet ready to go live in the mainspace. Once it is, I believe it will solve the issue. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) you 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yash! -- Yash! (talk) 17:41, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I have left the initial comments. Thanks! — Yash! ^[talk] 05:29, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

TFL notification

Hi, Favre1fan93. I'm just posting to let you know that List of The New 52 publications – a list that you have been heavily involved with – has been chosen to appear on the Main Page as Today's featured list for April 13. The TFL blurb can be seen here. If you have any thoughts on the selection, please post them on my talk page or at TFL talk. Regards, Giants2008 (Talk) 23:22, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)

The article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Yash! -- Yash! (talk) 07:01, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Closing the Spidey conversation

Hey Favre! I just thought I'd give you a heads up that you should probably sign the message you made for closing the discussion so no one thinks you're trying to hide it. I'm sure you aren't, but usually, any closing messages are signed so the right person can be contacted if need be. Thanks! Sock (tock talk) 20:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

D'oh! I knew something was off when I did it. Sorry about that and thanks for the catch! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposal in MOS:Film

I could use a comment from you on this part of MOS:Film on the proposal about having year in film articles have the release dates of specific countries that made that certain film. BattleshipMan (talk) 01:19, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Daredevil articles

Hey Favre, I'm not sure what your thoughts are on this, but I was thinking about not making individual episode articles for Daredevil or the other Netflix series. This is mostly because Netflix series are pretty much considered to be singular "13-hour movies", and so a lot of the info, like filming, release, reviews, etc. are about the series as a whole rather than individual episodes. Also, we clearly have our hands full already with the AoS/AC articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

100% agree with you. It is also very different having all 13 episode release at once versus once a week. Additionally, Netflix doesn't have streaming data (so there goes that part of the article) and individual episode reviews are few and far between (generally season ones as you see have already been added). I think it is perfectly workable to add any seminal individual episode moments in the respective sections we only have. The only thing we should worry about these series, is if they end up going for more seasons, we can break up the content then. I wouldn't be opposed to creating single articles here and there, should ones really stand out (maybe the first one??). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't make an article for the first or last episodes just because they are the first and last episodes, as it seems some series do, but if a particular episode seems to stand out from the rest for some reason then we could definitely look at it. And if more seasons are made I don't see why we couldn't do as we have done for AoS and break the page up into individual season articles, as you have said. Glad that we're on the same page. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

A week or two after the episodes release, we can create a discussion on the talk to see if anyone feels a certain episode deserves their own article. I'm not going to be able to watch many episodes on the 10th, so I'll be off the article for at least a week or so until I can watch them all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Good idea. I myself do not know how long it's going to take me to watch them all, but I'm sure there will be plenty of work for us to do once we have seen them. P.S. I'm very excited. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Yeah, I'm not sure how many sources you'll be able to find on individual episodes. Only Chapter 1 of House of Cards has a stand-alone article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 08:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That's why I felt maybe the first episode could get one, but definitely not all. We can all figure it out once articles have been released discussing the season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

The Hulk

In the films, he is very specifically called "The Hulk", not "Hulk". It doesn't get any more complicated than that. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But that's not part of the character name, much like the Joker example I used. He is the "Hulk". Not "The Hulk". It's the same as saying (or not saying) the Black Widow over The Black Widow or the Falcon over The Falcon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

But it is part of his name, and the same with the Joker, in the sense that they are referred to as "The Hulk" and "The Joker". Heath Ledger did not play a character called "Joker", he played a character called "The Joker", and this is reflected in the appropriate places here on Wikipedia, including at List of Batman film cast members. The Black Widow and Falcon examples don't apply here, because in the films they are referred to as "Black Widow" and "Falcon", not "The Black Widow" or "The Falcon". Hulk in the films is called "The Hulk", so the "The" is a part of his name. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree with that Adam. The reason for "The" with "Joker" is the same as why it is sometimes said to be "the Batman", because the addition of the article implies and inflection of "the one and only". It is not part of the name. If you look at Jack Nicholson in Batman, he identifies himself as "Joker", even though when others referred to him they said "the Joker". Notice, I don't capitalize "the" in either instance, because the name is not "The Joker", but "Joker". Take Avengers for another example. Captain America says "Hulk", not "The Hulk". You only use the article when the inflection is necessary for the same of grammar or emphasis. The use of "the Falcon" or "the Black Widow" would be just as appropriate if used in the right context, but doesn't actually make "the" part of their name. To further illustrate the point (and to suggest that List of Batman film cast members is incorrect in its identification, just look at how it is used at Joker (comics). The only time you see a capitalized "The" is at the start of the sentence. Every other time it isn't capitalized.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:10, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

After looking through an online copy of The Avengers script (although I cannot confirm its authenticity or if its final script), "Hulk" and "the Hulk" are used interchangeably. However, the only time "The Hulk" (capital T) is used, is at the beginning of the sentence.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Just to tack onto that, when you look at his dialogue, he is listed as just "Hulk".  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I guess the recent TV spots for AoU hsve said Hulk, so it can probably stay without the "The", but I'm still iffy about The Joker. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree The AdamStorm97 Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. intro link

Another editor not explaining a reversion? -- and I'm surprised this time it's you. Anyway, this is basically what I told Ditto51: The first name given is what should be linked. If the first one isn't the main one, then they should be switched around. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Well since what you linked is a redirect to what is currently linked, it's not really a benefit to the reader to have your wording linked, when it will just be taken to the article that has the title of what is currently linked. It is just a matter of using the official name first, while directly mentioning the WP:COMMONNAME afterwards. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:06, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I agree, according to WP:NOTBROKEN. I still think it's better to have the first one linked. Also, why is the infobox title not consistent with the article title and the lead -- and COMMONNAME? --Musdan77 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 1)

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 20:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you...

... for your message of thanks re. my edit to Star Wars: The Force Awakens! I don't think anyone's ever bothered to click the "thank" link on an article for me before, so thank you for your thanks! 14:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Sure. I did not have the ability to put the time in to fix up that section and you did it correctly. Well deserved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

TV related RfC

You recently participated in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television/Archive 20#Presenters' years in infobox. Subsequent to this discussion, an RfC has been opened at Talk:Top Gear (2002 TV series)#RfC: Should years be included in the infobox, in which you may be interested in participating. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Civil War

Hey, noticed that the Civil War article has been moved to mainspace. It'll probably need to be peer reviewed for the Good Topic to stay up to date. You probably have more time available to look over that than I do, so if you wanted to start the PR process up I thought I'd give you a head's up. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 07:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Fandral. I've misinterpreted those criteria points, and believe you are correct. I'll get it set up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Perhaps for the next film (Doctor Strange, I believe), we should have a peer review of the draft when are a one or two away from filming.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we get Doc Strange peer reviewed before November filming starts Triiiple? (I think you forgot a word in there. I believe you were trying to say one to two weeks away from filming, yes?) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but I actually meant months as the peer review process might take some time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

That makes sense. I agree with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory - Kevin Sussman

Can I remind you of this discussion, in which you were a participant, and then point you to the latest edit-war at The Big Bang Theory (season 8), starting with this edit which then lead to this discussion. What are your current thoughts on how we handle Kevin Sussman, given that nothing has changed since 2012. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:38, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Aether / Reality Stone

http://www.craveonline.com/entertainment/film/interviews/852437-exclusive-interview-kevin-feige-on-the-infinity-stones-civil-war-and-more-marvel-studios This source was used by Marvel Cinematic Universe Wikia. It contains an interview from Kevin Feige where he confirms the Scepter's stone as Mind Stone (although it was mentioned in AoU itself) and he says that Soul and Time Stones are the only ones that have yet to be appeared in MCU. We already know that the purple gem inside the Orb was the Power Stone and that the Tesseract is the Space Stone. The Reality Stone was only rumored previousl and even I wished for a confrimation, but this interview leaves no other possible explanation. CAJH (talk) 18:50, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

That is the source to use, definitely. And as an FYI, just because the MCU wikia used it doesn't mean it is right for us to use it (in this case, that is not an issue). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I would have not used it myself if it wasn't trustable one. CAJH (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World - Help with mid-credits scene

Because you are currently actively editing pages related to the Marvel Cinematic Universe and because you seem to be an experienced editor I ask for your help. I made an edit with respect to the mid-credits scene of Thor:The Dark World. Could you please help me by responding to the question posted on the talk page of Thor:The Dark World and by providing advice and assistance on the matter of the mid-credits scene? --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

AJC.com

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss AJC.com it is a WP:NEWSBLOG run by The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, which specifically mentions Jennifer Brett and Mark Bradley in the tour of their site. So in that since, it seems completely reliable. I'm more concerned the verbiage in the article. "I'm told" is code for heresay and indication that the author is unwilling to take credit for the information by passing it to someone else, thus avoiding any responsibility for libel, slander, or just being wrong. Actullay this is only in reference to where the cast members may have dined.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Well a big concern (still) is they are the only ones reporting this. Not even other third parties directing back to this. So that has me a little concerned about the reliability. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:39, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems like the sort of source that is reliable but not very noteworthy, meaning that it may go under the radar in terms of other parties reading their stuff, but we are able to find this and use it. That's just how I see it. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice of a discussion at Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron#Subsection: RE: "visit" over using either the word "visit" or the phrase "go to" in a particular context. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Robin's VA in Arkham Knight

I noticed that you've removed the source about Robin's VA in Batman: Arkham Knight, claiming that it's due to Matthew Mercer's account being unverified. While I understand the need to do this to keep out any fake/illegitimate sources, you're being too strict with the rules here because:

A. Mercer voiced Anarky in Batman: Arkham Origins, and the AO page, as well as the Batman: Arkham series page, still uses his twitter account as a source to verify this information.

B. Mercer's Twitter account is followed by other verified VAs (Troy Baker, Roger Craig Smith, Steve Blum...). I think that should give the account enough credibility to be used as a proper source, even without actual verification.

So my suggestion, is that next time, you actually check the source for verification, rather than basing on a blue icon for "verification". That is all. The boss 1904 (talk) 06:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

AoS S3 eps

I took from reading this and this that the third season will have 22 episodes as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:05, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the EW source for the 22, but rereading the Variety one makes me think it's for s3. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Woops, must have been a different EW ref, not sure which one now. Anyway, the way he phrases it in the Variety interview definitely sounds to me like he is talking about s3. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Avengers: Age of Ultron - Talk page discussion regarding 2015-05-20 Content deletion

Content added by me to Avengrs: Age of Ultron was removed by you yesterday with the remark "removed some unnecessary info". User:Rusted AutoParts pointed out that the content is disputed and that a consensus should be reached. In order to reach a consensus a request: Could you please state at the talk page of Avengrs: Age of Ultron why in your eyes the removed content is "unnecessary info"? Thanks. --P3Y229 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

You stated your reasons why in your eyes the content is "unnecessary info". I responded to your statement and offered a rewording as a proposal to get consensus in this issue. Could please respond to my proposal in general and my question at the end of my response in particular? Thanks.

I responded to your lastest comment in the issue. Could please respond to my two questions at the Avengers: Age of Ultron talk page? Thanks. By the way: Thank you very much for your input and thoughts into the discussion at that talk page.

MCU

Hi Favre, I've been bored lately and I was thinking of doing a diagram overview of the MCU, showing hte phase 1 films feeding into the Avengers, side things popping up like Guardians, etc. This is kind of what Im going for, except there'd be text underneath each one for the title. What do you think? Worth pursuing? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

• This is more where I'm at right now
• this was the first concept but Im not very keen on it now

Hey! It's always good to be bored! I know we have the official phase 1 time line photo as an external link on the main MCU page or the LoFilms page (not sure which). Are you trying to recreate that? I guess I just need to know a bit more of what you are planning on creating. (I love the image designs though!) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I didn't know about the external link thing I'll take a look, but basically I was aiming for an overview of the phases and connections where applicable, so thor, cap, im1,etc feed into the avengers while guardians woyld be off on its own to the side for the minute, plus I guess mine would be a freely available vector version. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:59, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

looking at the two infographics, I'm not really aiming to create a watching order. So in my mind at least you'd gave hulk, thor, cap, iron man on one row, prob im2 below Im1 and then these connecting to the avengers on the next row before resulting into cap 2, im3 and thor 2 for example. I'd do a mock up but I'm.at work on my phone. Of course it was just sometjing I was messing with to test how much I'd learned from the illustrator tutorials I'd been followin, so I'm.open to input.

(talk page stalker) While I'm fine with the external link, I'm hesitant about this level of in-universe detail in the article. Also are you planning on including references, it could be considered original research.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:15, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind making it if someone can provide me with some refs that back it up, at the moment I'm just going off the films being the primary thing. Also do you mean in-universe on the external links or in the wiki article? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I know where most of the refs lie in the articles so if I see what your visual is, I could probably find the refs to back it up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

The Ant-Man and Groot ones took ages but I think that's all the phase 1 and 2 symbols. Now I can start adding text and lines, etc. See here. I'm willing to take input on colour schemes. When I think of Guardians I think purple, I assume because of the power Stone. Thor, I'm not 100% on the silver, but it fits Mjolnir and I didn't want to use another shade of blue. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:20, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Direct link Ok so that's kinda what I saw in my head, it needs a nice background like a galaxy or something and connecting lines. Now it's laid out some of it is difficult to lay out, since Ant Man would now connect to Cap 3 which would block a line from GotG to GotG2, so Ant Man would probably have to go on hte inside. But yeah, rough idea. Input? You to @TriiipleThreat:. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Those logos are really great! I think I'm getting a better idea of what you are trying to go for. Are you trying to show how the film's are all connecting together? As in the first chunk is all phase 1 films, but IM is related to IM2, with them all going to Avengers, and then branching out of that to phase 2? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:51, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

yeah, so im1 would connect to im2 and to avengers while cap1, hulk and thor1 would connect directly to avengers before splitting into im3, cap2, thor2 whole guardians and antman woyld not be connected to anything yet except maybe their own sequels.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:46, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Forgot about this, only remembered when I came back here. Not abandoned it, just been playing Witcher 3 and stuff, keep running out of time to work on it. Anyway, I saw this here for a live action Batman trailer. I know we don't add trailers but the article mentions some relatively notable people worked on it so I don't know if that in part made it notable. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:04, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think that article in an of itself is enough to include the live-action trailer. Didn't Origins do one too, or I am I just thinking of a really high caliber CGI one? Anyway, the point with that is I don't think we added anything about that at Origins, so the trailer itself, even if we had a notable source, doesn't seem like something worth including. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Aight, thanks for the reply. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:25, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

AKA Jessica Jones

Hey Favre. FYI, I didn't try to move or rename the page. Just added a note on the talk page. Richiekim (talk) 05:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Yeah Richiekim I know. My apologies. I removed the template to fix it that Reach Out did (because I thought it was wrong) and when I went to add what I thought was the right one (which turned out to be the same thing), the Twinkle quick request automatically notified the page created (because you created it as a redirect way back when). Sorry about that. Didn't make my way over to your talk yet to delete that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Captain America Civil War logo.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Captain America Civil War logo.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is an unused redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:44, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Civil War Trailer

As you are interested in the film Captain America: Civil War, you may find it interesting that Paul Bettany (the actor who plays the Vision) has shown us the trailer. See here! Cambalachero (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. tie-ins

Hey Favere,

After you pointed me to the fact that the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. tie-ins are split with a specific intent behind it, I found that a centralized location for all Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins is missing (for me at least). I've copied the entries and references from the individual episodes, season pages and main article to create a finished draft here User:Gonnym/sandbox12. Since you seem to be one of the main contributors the S.H.I.E.L.D. pages, I thought I'd get your thoughts on this and where this might go to (and also how to give credits to the pages/editors where I took this information). --Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gonnym. Tie-ins are not necessarily the same as inclusion of Easter Eggs (which it seems you are looking for based on what you compiled). Most of what you have listed are not "tie-ins", just nods and winks to the larger universe, which inherently are expected, given the show exists in the same universe as the films. Including any of that at the main page or season pages would fail WP:TRIVIA. That is why, like I said, outside of the quotes, we mention the episodes the producers have deemed the "official" tie-ins to the films, as well as the mythology introduced in the show, later seen in the films. However, the individual episode articles are free to mention much of what you have in your sandbox. Hope that clears things up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:18, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused on this then. Each episode page has a "Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins" section (which is where I got this information), is that not the correct title for that section? After reading WP:TRIVIA I don't think this would fail it as its sourced and it explains how the MCU connects the different parts of it, while the information itself is not of the "a captain america issue #1 comic book was seen on a shelf" but more of "this character/item was central to the story movie "x" and it appears here" (more similar to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors). However, that said, I seem to agree that it might not fit into one of those articles but maybe a standalone one. (would still appreciate an answer regarding the episode sections) --Gonnym (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

It's possible the episode articles could be renamed, maybe to "MCU connections" over "tie-ins". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)The title is more for continuity - it is clearly the most appropriate title for the series and season pages, as well as the official tie-in episodes, and serves as a version of those sections for episodes that don't officially tie-in. I don't think it is really that confusing or needs to be changed, and comments/FAQ could be used to clear up some things if necessary. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for the answers both of you. --Gonnym (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Would you two mind taking a look at what I did so far and give any input you have? --Gonnym (talk) 08:59, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I am actually not opposed to something like this, and do have a few thoughts on it: Some of this could be summarised / better presented in table form; some extra info may be required so that this isn't just a duplication of everything we have elsewhere; some critical commentary will be required, in response to how these crossovers are handled (we have some for the first season at the first season page, under Analysis). Anything like this is probably still a ways off, and may ultimately be unnecessary, but I myself feel that you should keep working on it. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:34, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers! I somehow forgot to watch this page so just saw this now. I'll look into what you said and how I can upgrade the article. Question, at what point do you think this article can be moved to main-space and be worked there with more eyes? --Gonnym (talk) 08:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Again, in my personal opinion, I just feel like this is just one large WP:TRIVIA page, what you are attempting, If you make a sandbox/draft version of what you want, I would suggest requesting opinions on the main AoS talk and/or other overarching MCU articles this would fall into to get further opinions on what you would want to make a mainspace addition. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm trying to move away in this article from trivial mentions to proper encyclopedic value of how the series connects to the whole MCU in-detail. Draft version is up @ Draft:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-ins. --Gonnym (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Mallbrats draft and Punk's Dead page overview

Hey man I was wondering if you could give those articles a once over. I've asked if you And the fellow Wikipedia contributes could look at em in the talk pages but havent seen anything from you guys. It would mean a lot to me as I've worked hard on revising and putting the pages together. Here are direct links: Punk's Dead and Mallbrats. Npamusic (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Burningblue52

Any chance this is a sock of TreCoolGuy?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Possibly? Edits are generally related to MCU articles. However, another user brought up a possible sock to his SPI archive, and an admin confirmed that possible, plus one not mentioned, so I would have thought Burning would have been covered in that too if it was. We can keep our eye on them though. Also that IP 75.xx on the drafts. Might be him too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: I just made a new request in Tre's SPI case file. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

This is Burningblue52....I have no relation to TreCoolGuy(?) whoever that is. I don't know how I can prove this, but I have no clue who that is. How do I respond to this claim? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Burningblue52 (talk • contribs) 04:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Npamusic

I have no concrete proof as of now, but I can't help but feel this guys another User:TreCoolGuy clone. Music related name, same deep involvement with comic related articles. Just be on the lookout for any familiar edit patterns. RAP (talk) 01:02 17 June 2015 (UTC)

South Park: The Fractured But Whole

Don't you think the redirect should be converted into an article? Sure there's still no other news but it's notable enough (obviously) to warrant an article and I think there is just enough information. You could compare it to Dreams (video game) for example. There is less information on that and that has an article. —DangerousJXD (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that game too. I've redirected it as well. There is no info for either of these games to support the general notability guidelines to have them be articles. WP:NORUSH. The info, and notability, will come. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:57, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Topic retention peroid

So on July 13th, Marvel Cinematic Universe films grace period will end due to Avengers: Age of Ultron not meeting at least Good Article status. Since you nominated the topic I thought it would be best to inform you on that. GamerPro64 21:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

@GamerPro64: I'm I really just at the mercy of the system if it is not GA status by then? Because obviously you see it's been nominated in the attempt to get it passed in time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97: so you are aware of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Have we actually nominated it yet? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

No we haven't. I misread Gamer's early comment and redacted the last bit of my first comment. I believe they meant the topic, not the article. But still, if we do nominate it any day between now and the 13th, the question still stands, are we at the mercy of the system to have it completed by 7/13? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

If you nominate it for GAN before the end of the retention the review can be held off until the outcome of the nomination is determined. If the article fails the GAN, then the topic would be taken to review. GamerPro64 04:19, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks for clarifying. The article is close to being able to be nominated, and we'll hopefully do so shortly so we can maybe get the review done before the 13th, but the nomination will at least definitely be in by that deadline. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

GA nominations

I have been adding some stuff to AoS S2, AC S1, and DD S1, and was wondering if you think we need to do anything else with them before we nominate them for GA. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

I think we are in a good spot in all to nominate all. Reviewer will point out any flaws, but I don't think we have any. Maybe just a c/e or so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:24, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I have nominated all three (I am pretty sure I did it right), so I guess we just wait now. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:57, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hey Favre, I was wondering if you could help out with the SHIELD S2 GA review, if you have the time. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. Saw it was getting started earlier, but they didn't say anything, so will look at what they have now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

AoS S2 DYK

So I believe Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2) hasn't had a Did you know yet. I was thinking perhaps something about the Inhumans being introduced, but am not entirely sure about the process or how to phrase one. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:29, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Yeah for sure. Go ahead and create one, because I'm about to go on my wikibreak. Take a look at T:TDYK about how to nominate. Comment here if something doesn't make sense, but it should be pretty straight forward. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:36, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

So it seems because I put you down as a significant contributor we have to fulfill the QPQ requirements of the nomination. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ant-Man protection

The protection just wore off. With release just days away, do you know anyone that can help?--TriiipleThreat (talk)

Beat me to it

That revert was a misclick that I was just about to undo. Sorry about that. agtx 03:04, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

@Agtx: No worries! Happens some times. Just wanted to make sure you actually knew the source said they were in talk, because some people just see these articles and assume it's a done deal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Credits

Usually I can, though I didn't write about this particular film. I'll see if I can get one anyway. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, no problem if you can't. I'll be seeing the film again myself soon, so I'll just take note if I need too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Looks like I'll have it tomorrow. All good! --Tenebrae (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Great thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Ant-Man Box Office

I do understand why my edit in the Ant-Man article was removed. However, Box Office Mojo updated their article on the film's opening weekend with the actual total. [2] Is it all right if we include this article and change the gross back to $57.2 million? If we can't do the latter, then may we at least do the former? And1987 (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

We should maybe include both as in, "$58.2-58.4 million", with both sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Deadline also updated the grosses to actual totals in a new article. There's only one typo in the beginning where they say it made $57.1 million. [3] And1987 (talk) 21:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Oh okay great. I'll change the source. Thanks for finding it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:40, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 2)

Gatoclass (talk) 13:36, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Colors for Template:Infobox televsion season

Hi, Favre1fan93. I would be grateful if you would weigh in here: Template talk:Infobox television season#Compromise: a possible way forward. It's to time to resolve this, and given that the timing of compliance seemed to be the primary hurdle, this would seem to be a reasonable way to resolve what appears to be an unnecessary dispute. Thank you for your consideration. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:43, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

MCU television episode count

Just registered this account. This is the person that edited the episode count for the Marvel television universe.

Agents of Shield 44 episodes Agent Carter 8 episodes Daredevil 13 episodes total 63 episodes

Did you even add those numbers up? That's 65 my friend. 44+8 = 52; 52+13 = 65. And with Wikipedia's expression (ie 'math' function): 65 - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:18, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Beat me to it! I had just done the same, with an almost identical edit summary! : )   --Tenebrae (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Your comments would be appreciated

As an experienced TV article editor, your comments would be greatly appreciated at this discussion. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

DC Cinematic

We still need a better way of presenting it. Either it needs its own section, or we need to bring Batman v. Superman up, because single subsections are not professional ways to organize information. We need another subsection in there to justify the need for the first one.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:05, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Well it just that the page is at a "limbo" point, because Man of Steel is the only released film. Everything else is "Future". I'm going to try doing something, that might help for the time being. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that works well. :)  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 18:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Great. And when BvS is released, we can go back to the former layout. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

@Bignole: Just curious, where in the MOS does it say to avoid single subsections? I didn't think that was a thing... - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

It's not from an MOS, because we don't have MOSs on basic writing. We do have standards for writing articles in the most professional way, and that is a basic writing rule. We do have a help page that discusses it though.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Series overview

Thanks for your recent edit to {{Series overview}}. My initial reasoning behind forcing the start date to be included was because as per WP:TVOVERVIEW, a row can't be created in the overview table without a season table, which I had assumed could only be created with an airdate included. I now see the error of this at List of Person of Interest episodes#Season 5. Again, thanks. Alex|The|Whovian 00:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Yeah not a problem. I was formatting the page and saw I got an error, so I just went in and changed it. But yeah, you were totally thinking correctly, but this happened to be a one-off case that was not incorrect. I'm also trying to adapt where I can the {{Episode table}} as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

On a related matter, since you're obviously a user of {{Series overview}}, there is a move discussion on the template's talk page that you may not have seen. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:21, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Draft:The Defenders (miniseries)

This doesn't take it for review. It just tags it so it appears on the AFC submission system. It's helpful in that if it becomes stale (no edits in a six month period), others will know what's going on (and can postpone any G13) rather than an admin possibly just deleting it outright. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:07, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) But it may encourage premature submission. You also removed Template:Draft article and by proxy Category:Draft articles, which helps editor locate them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

G13 is for AFC submissions. Non-AFC drafts aren't eligible for deletion when stale. Tagging it as an AFC submission actually makes it more likely to be prematurely deleted. Reach Out to the Truth 23:04, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Flash / Legends edit

Hello, Favre1fan93. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
Message added 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Favre1fan93. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
Message added 19:12, 13 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Favre1fan93. You have new messages at DonQuixote's talk page.
Message added 17:03, 14 August 2015 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Everything on Wikipedia can be challenged. If you can't cite a reliable source when challenged, then it shouldn't be in an encyclopaedia article (WP:VERIFY). This is the reason why it's jargon--it's a term used by a fringe rather than something that's widely used in all media. DonQuixote (talk) 18:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

I think you might be misunderstanding what I mean by jargon.

From dictionary.com:

jargon: the language, especially the vocabulary, peculiar to a particular trade, profession, or group (emphasis mine)

From wp:jargon

editors should try to make [topics] understandable to as many readers as possible

DonQuixote (talk) 19:51, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

The phrase passes WP:Jargon that's for sure. And it hasn't been challenged (unless you call what you're doing challenging it) because the editors who work on the articles of this shared universe, know that no name has been used in media, and definitely not one in all media. All we've ever gotten was "Arrowverse" (which definitely can't be used) and that could be expanded to "the Arrow universe", but even still, that is not a proper name for it. I suggest we get additional editors opinions regarding this matter, since the two of us seem to be going in circles and not making any strides. I'm open to suggestions to where you'd like to notify users to join a discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

"Shared universe" doesn't pass wp:jargon unless you can show that it's widely used. "The CW's shared DC Comics TV universe" is an original (and therefore OR) name unless you can show that these shows are called that by the producers or by the majority of the media. Besides, why do you feel that there should be a name at all? They're adequately described as being spin-offs and related shows--terms that are used by every other such shows in the history of television. DonQuixote (talk) 12:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous source

You recently restored a quote, "not to maniacally screw over customers—but because they believed it was good enough." to the Batman: Arkham Knight article. This opinion was from an anonymous source. It should not be represented as fact and fails WP:UNDUE. --Bejnar (talk) 17:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Favre1fan93. You have new messages at Talk:Batman: Arkham Knight#Anonymous source.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Bejnar (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Accessibility Barnstar
		For your work on Template:Infobox television season and promoting accessibility on Wikipedia. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:06, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Marvel One Shots

Hi there, I did the music for the Consultant and Thor's Hammer with Paul and am appropriately credited in the shorts. Please do not remove the credit I added to the Wiki. Thank you! Howard Drossin

You yourself as a Wikipedia user can not claim such things per WP:COI. We need a third party reliable source stating such info. If you actually who you say you are, please do not edit the article again, per the WP:COI policy I linked. If you have further questions, you can respond here, or at the article's talk page. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Here is a link to the actual short film. If you go to the end in the credit roll you will see Muisc by Paul Oakenfold and Howard Drossin. I'd think the actual film itself is a pretty reliable source. https://vimeo.com/45964463

AoS season 2 home media

Thanks for deleting useful info regerding agents of shield region 2 release, the world doesn't revolve around the US, the rest of the world might like to know when we can get our dvds — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENakaStig (talk • contribs) 13:13, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

That is what Amazon or another retailer site is for. We aren't a shopping site. Please read WP:TVINTL, which applies to this matter as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

So its ok for it to state the US release date but not the UK, because at the moment it does, also there's nothing in that link that says I can't put the UK release date and even if it did, it contradicts itself by stating the US release date — Preceding unsigned comment added by BENakaStig (talk • contribs) 19:15, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

SSN

Now that I look more closely, you're probably right — it seems to just be an aggregator. I think we should remove it and try to find a third-party source beyond one reprinting the tweet. --Tenebrae (talk)

And then I looked even more closely and unreverted my self-revert. Turns out to be more complicated. I'm soliciting input from WikiProject:Film editors at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Is SSNInsider a reliable source?. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

@Tenebrae: This may be helpful to use should we choose to replace the SSN source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm all for doing that now — it would take the issue off the table at CA:CW while the discussion about SSNInsider goes on (or begins; not a lot of traction there so far). Good find! --Tenebrae (talk)

Kalish beat me to it and added it to the article. It's there now, all archived and such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:01, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry

Accidental rollback. Most people just fat-finger it, but nope; I had a cat-stepped-on-the-keyboard problem :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Opabinia regalis: Haha. That made me laugh! It's all good. Figured something like that must have happened. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hawkeye

I don't think AoU implies what you are suggesting. There is no dialogue saying that they are quitting the team. it just shows them leaving the facility. IMHO, it's more likely that he his heading home for some much needed R&R after saving the world.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That's true, but correct me if I'm wrong, they only show him going to his family, not a scene in which he's at the New Avengers facility and then leaves, to imply the R&R. Also, see this edit I made around the time AoU came out, and then hit next twice to see edits that Richie made regarding this. (And I believe that's how that text stated until the alliances came out a few days ago.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Batman Arkham Origins edit

Why did you delete my edit in Batman Arkham Origins? Tanishbheem (talk) 12:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Luke Cage

I have added the source for filming having started on Luke Cage at the draft article, but I don't know how to sort out moving it over the redirect. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm going to remove the info at the moment, because the info traces back to here which I don't believe is reliable. And I checked OnLocationVactions (the site that aggregates filmings from users) and I don't see it there yet. I'll be on the look out in NYC too, but I'd say let's hold off for now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:44, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the working title from Production Weekly and the filming starting info were separate, since the Production Weekly site is just listing films and tv series in all stages of production (it includes things like Doctor Strange, which we know isn't filming yet). I had initially thought not to include it for the same reason you have, but after I read "Luke Cage is filming in NYC now" I thought it was a separate and seemingly definite statement. Also, there have been some separate, unreliable rumours about the series starting filming around now. I don't know what you think about all that though. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

This is tough for me to work through, because I read the Comicbook.com article as making the assumption that because we got the working title, then it means the show is in production. Even though we wouldn't be able to use it, On Locations Vacations is pretty good at collecting all the filming locations for a given day. I'd actually consider seeing how the rest of the week plays out, and see if OLV posts anything. If they make a post that Tiara is filming, I'd say let's figure out how to readd the info (and maybe another source will pop up). I'll ping @Richiekim: to this, see if they have any opinions on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I think that because we are so uncertain, it is probably best to wait and see what else pops up. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:33, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah. But I'll definitely keep my eyes on this, and won't let it slip through. Just like I kept up trying to find a source for JJ wrapping and I finally did! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

The fact that JJ has wrapped also seems like a good indicator that something could be coming out soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes that too. Well we knew from Loeb back in July that they were prepping, because JJ was ending. So I think this is a good indicator to be very mindful of stuff in the coming days. Hell, we may get a press release from Marvel (doubt it since we didn't for either DD or JJ :/). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I would hold up on the page move, onlocationvacations.com does not appear to be a RS. Please find a better source before proceeding.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Favre, are you thinking of moving the page now with the new filming sourcing? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:11, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes. But regardless, with all the casting announcements, I think it is acceptable to have in the mainspace. I've readded the deletion template to Luke Cage (TV series). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That was what I was thinking as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

mannix page, again

Well, I can't respond to my previous message to you, since you removed it -- and you have never responded to any of mine.

But, it is my understanding that you are required to at least try to reach a consensus on edit disputes without wantonly undoing everything. In my previous message, which you deleted, I suggested you simply let your anger go. I was, indeed, angry when I realized it would cost me a day to try to put the production numbers back -- for what turned out to be no good reason since they are included for other television series. The production numbers were already there for this series as well, hence my anger at having to re-do such tedious work.

But, saying that the CBS Syndication Bible is a fansite is simply absurd. How is that defensible? It is the holy grail of information put out by CBS for people buying the series for syndication purposes. It has the CBS logo -- it comes from CBS.

So, if you do not accept that as a valid source of information, then what will you accept as a valid source of information? You owe me that much, if this should go do dispute, since, from my perspective, your actions seem quite arbitrary.

For one thing, if you do not like the source of the production numbers, you could flag this as a concern on the article, but let them there. The fact that you are not doing that makes your actions suspect, I would think.

So, let me know how to resolve this -- and if you do not, then I suppose all of my anger would be justified, going back to your original undo of my edits, then wouldn't it? I mean, your pattern of behavior is just more of the same as that -- completely arbitrary.

And, if you don't help to resolve this, them I guess I'll have to go to the arbitration process.

I realize you may know all of the powers that be on Wikipeida and the system might well be gamed, but this certainly is an interesting learning experience for me, regardless, concerning who the keepers of the information are out there.

It's worth the experience, for sure.

And it's scary, indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jompaul17 (talk • contribs) 01:55, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Force Awakens edits

You again changed around the listing for the character Teedo claiming it wasn't a credited actor. The actor who plays him is mainly known for stunt and stand in work (he was in Return of the Jedi) however he has had bigger roles and this appears to be one of them because the bio for Teedo was added to the Force Awakens confirmed characters databank at starwars.com on Friday September 4th along with the other main actors. http://www.starwars.com/films/star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens It's also not like there are two separate casts (which is why the cast listing adding Gwendoline Christie, clearly one of the stars, as a secondary cast member makes no sense and it's only this way because she wasn't involved in the very first announcement of cast members) for the movie. When the credits roll, his name will be listed among the names Harrison Ford and Adam Driver because he was a cast member. I also personally think it's worth mentioning the main villain, Kylo Ren (his image is plastered everywhere to promote the movie and is clearly the film's Darth Vader), should be mentioned in the premise/plot and not just the new and old heroes. We know he is the villain along with the First Order. Anyways...would rather continue this if so in the actual Talk section for the page, which is very empty and nobody is willing to ever discuss changes made.Jason1978 (talk 11:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

"Credited" meaning in the film's billing block. Per WP:FILMCAST actors who get the bullet are those considered "starring" by the production, and those equate to the actors in the film's billing block, or from official press releases that use wording like "Star Wars The Force Awakens stars...". The order of the actors gets updated once a new release is given, and we have not had once since Christie and Nyong'o were announced as being in the film. So any other actors or character info goes below them. And come December 18, if we haven't received any new listing, we can see how the official film credits role and have a discussion about adjusting the list. As for the plot, despite the good intentions, what you are adding is WP:OR as no premise for the film mentions Ren or the First Order. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

2020 in film

Hello Favre1fan93! Will you please take a look at 2020 in film, I don't know what MovieBarbie2009 is adding there. There's so much un-sourced and unknown material being added. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 15:46, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely

Starting the move request in the talk page might be the best way. --George Ho (talk) 16:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Discussion proposal

Hello, Favre1fan93. Could you consider weighing in on this proposal at the List of Muppets discussion page? ~ Jedi94 (Want to tell me something?) 18:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for your long-term efforts to help new editors. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

Editor Yash! submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I cannot believe I haven't yet nominated Favre1fan93 to be Editor of the Week. I don't know where to start talking about this dedicated editor! He has been on Wikipedia for over three years. With more than 23K edits, he has been on a roll ever since he arrived. Nine DYKs, eight GAs and two FLs are just numbers to mention while talking about his work. He has been "super-active" on the articles of Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), other Marvel and DC related topics. These are some of the most viewed and popular articles on Wikipedia with the articles getting constant updates. I woould not be exaggerating if I say he has not only edited but significantly improved every article related to MCU! His work at other Marvel, DC and comic based video games is also commendable. He is the voice to be called on whenever there are issues in these areas. The amount of dedication and hard work can be seen on many articles which are in a great shape very much because of Favre1fan93. I don't see how else to sum this up; if all the articles on MCU, and many Marvel and DC topics are in a better shape, Favre1fan93 is to be thanked. For all the tireless efforts he has put in those articles subjected to great viewership, he deserves this.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Favre1fan93

Proud Cheesehead

Editor of the Week for the week beginning September 13 2015

With over 23000 edits, 9 DYKs, 8 GAs and 2 FLs. A sounding board whenever there are issues in these areas.

Recognized for

Dedication and hard work on many articles

Notable work(s)

Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU), Marvel and DC

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! . Buster Seven Talk 14:11, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Wow, congratulations!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

@TriiipleThreat: Thanks! Totally unexpected. But I couldn't do all that I do without the help you, @Richiekim and Adamstom.97: provide, plus all the other editors I regularly interact with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars: Episode VIII

I think we should move the Draft:Star Wars: Episode VIII to the mainspace now, after a postponed of filming to Tuesday HERE, production has begun TODAY. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 17:17, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Did you not see the discussion on the draft talk? Per WP:NFF we can't move it until principal photography starts. And this is not it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see the principal photography discussion. But, I suppose that makes sense. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 22:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Yeah sure, I'll take part in the discussion. Thanks. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 01:50, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman: Arkham Knight

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Batman: Arkham Knight you 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 14:20, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Agent Carter (season 2)

Yunshui ^雲_水 14:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on Agents of SHIELD (Season 2)

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman: Arkham Knight

The article Batman: Arkham Knight you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Batman: Arkham Knight for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Can use a hand

I recently tried to add comicbookmovie.com to the blacklist, and an admin said that I need to remove the links from the mainspace pages first. I just started but there are a lot and could use a hand. Here are all the links. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:01, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Are we trying to replace them with reliable refs, or just removing? Because at the moment, I can definitely go through and remove, but I can't really search out replacement refs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm just replacing them with citation needed tags.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay. Yeah I can definitely help out then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Dr. vs Dr

Sorry about that, I didn't realise that this was done differently in America. I will try to keep that in mind in the future. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah no worries. Just given it's a "US" show, we should stick to "norms" for here. And another example (just cuz you wrote it above), we say "realize" not "realise". Stupid z's and s's. Haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Haha I actually wrote that as "realize" and remembered that I need to stay in the habit of writing it "realise" so that I don't accidentally use the 'z' in my work. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:40, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avengers: Age of Ultron

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Avengers: Age of Ultron you 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 03:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avengers: Age of Ultron

The article Avengers: Age of Ultron you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 22:40, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

STOP with the draft link threats

You have been shown consensus where draft links are NOT to be in articles. You have been shown where draft space is NOT long term parking. You have been shown that links from article space is NOT allowed. You reverted me untold times saying I don't have consensus, show me consensus or just plain revert for no reason. I'm getting sick and tired of your threats and insults. STOP!!!

I removed the edit notice that contained links to draft space. This was done per consensus, which I have shown you. You added it back saying, "You've been told multiple times, by multiple editors there is no issue with the edit notice." Where in tarnation has anyone said I should not remove the notice to draft links? Only YOU have said to stop removing edit notices with draft links. I will not stop. Any notice with a draft link will be removed. This includes in articles and article talk pages. Bgwhite (talk) 04:34, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

First off, no one is threatening you. And you did not notify myself or TriiipleThreat to your renewed discussion on the talk for Drafts, given you have issue with this. That would have been nice, as I don't have that on my watch list. Second, both of us have told you your edits of fully removing the edit templates are not constructive. That is the issue. The edit notices are used to prevent premature creation of these articles from IPs and unregistered users. Why? Because it has been an issue in the past, and surprisingly, since the edit templates have been used, the creation of the articles has gone to virtually zero. Now, the part where these templates are still linking to the Draft space is the issue, and can be resolved without you removing the whole thing. As for draft space being "long term parking", this was the one of the main reasons the drafts space was created. Articles for future films were previously created in the article incubator, which was not approved of. So, the drafts space allows a common area to create the article that is not a userspace sandbox (because information is being released about these films, even at this time that is inappropriate or too indepth for use outside of an article). The wikicode of the notice templates is in no way shape or form are harming the code necessary to redirect to the mainspace page or section these articles are, and as stated before, alert any unknowledgable user to why an article is not created in the mainspace, unlike if they were to go to say a fan wikia. And FWIW, I am not aware of how this practice is being used outside the articles directly related to the MCU films. They are added to these, because there is the intent that these articles are going to be made and are high reader interest/traffic articles. And in the off chance any of these announced films ends up being cancelled, then discussions can be held if the draft article is worth keeping anymore. But know that these articles are consistently being watched, expanded and maintained. (Again, like I said, I don't know how this is being used outside these few articles. If they are being used improperly, deal with those. But these all are not an issue, sans their linking to the draft articles, which will be fixed.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:59, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Also this "consensus" you keep referring to is that draft links should not be used in MAINSPACE articles. Perfectly fine and acceptable in the talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I notified TripleThreat of the talk discussion and mentioned that other previous discussions were had. You and Triple Threat continued on having Draft links, saying consensus was never reached and removing them. You will also notice, I started the discussion in a neutral tone and did not participate afterwards, unlike your rant. I have been removing ANY template that contains links to draft space. The one with Captain Marvel today was mistake. I have no problem and never had with the edit notices unless they mention draft links. You re-added the draft notice with the draft link and scolded me. Bgwhite (talk) 05:36, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Because your edit summaries have ranged from "Not needed", to "error fix #95. Editor's signature or link to user space." (which removed the whole edit notice) to completely removing the whole edit notice based on this whole 6 years thing. If your AWB edits (then and going forward) had only removed the draft link, plus were a bit more descriptive, you wouldn't have been getting this backlash from us. I'm fine removing the links to the draft space in the templates. That's no problem. It's the whole removal of the edit notice I (and the others) are taking issue with, and you've just said you "have no problem and never had with the edit notices". So is it possible to amend your AWB task to only remove the links, and not the whole template? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. you 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. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For helping promote Batman: Arkham Knight to Good Article status. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Wish I could've helped you more, just lost my passion for this place a lot. I did find this link though, you've probably got most of the info but there is some new stuff there and its all in one place.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

I understand. I feel a strain as of late, trying to upkeep mainly all the MCU articles and have debated stepping away for a bit. And thanks for the link! I just saw it this morning and will work on add it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.

The article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 02:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Episode list colours

Hi, I have noticed in recent days through some articles in my watchlist that you have been changing the colours of season/episode lists to comply with WP:COLOUR and Template talk:Infobox television season, and I fully understand why they have been changed (and in fact I've been using the colour analyser tool when creating new tables to ensure compliance, a tool I didn't know existed previously). I was just wondering if there is any basic rule or guideline regarding background colour of season tables headers. Seems to me the creating user typically chooses colours at random per season. I usually attempt to choose a colour or colours used in the show's logo where possible, but just wondering if there is anything more concrete regarding background colours used in season/episode tables, or is it in reality up to the user - provided they comply with AAA-contrast, etc. Thanks, User:Whats new?^(talk) 03:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC).

Hey @Whats new?:. You are basically correct on both accounts. Per a little blurb at the MOS here, Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Television#Formatting, we mention how colors should be chosen. Generally, they are picked based on a prominent color for a series logo or DVD cover art. However, it can also be arbitrary (as long as it complies with AAA-contrast). Out of the discussion on the television season infobox talk, the involved users talked about creating a guideline page to discuss color uses, how to choose them, and give some examples to help, but we haven't gotten around to anything yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Good to know. Thanks so much for your help :) User:Whats new?^(talk) 07:18, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For helping to promote Avengers: Age of Ultron to good article status, and likewise your continued commitment to MCU related articles is invaluable.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:53, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

		The Good Article Barnstar
		For your efforts in promoting the MCU TV articles to good article status. Every bit helps, especially all the hard work put in over the years (regardless of who does the final polishing), and your experience and commitment continues to be vital in the creation and maintenance of these articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Batman: Arkham Knight

The article Batman: Arkham Knight you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Batman: Arkham Knight for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AdrianGamer -- AdrianGamer (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avengers: Age of Ultron

The article Avengers: Age of Ultron you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Avengers: Age of Ultron for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cirt -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Spinoff titles in Batman Eternal

I've started a discussion on Batman Eternal's talk page regarding Catwoman. Would be grateful for your input. Thanks! Millernumber1 (talk) 18:25, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl Jimmy Olsen

It was in a bad format, but it is controversial. Jimmy Olsen character is changed 100% except name and job. It is relevant. It was a critique from Variety not just general commentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conker00 (talk • contribs) 23:23, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

MCU tie-in comics GA

I have just done a bit of a revamp of the MCU tie-in comics page, and was wondering what you thought of a potential GA nom. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I saw. I've been thinking for a while, maybe the article should be List of Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics (as with everything else) and then it would be an FLC. Still not really sold on the recurring cast section though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I've modeled the page more on the One-Shots page than the main lists, as at the time there were no individual One-Shot pages so it felt more comparable than the others. I don't know what you think about the distinction between a One-Shots type page and the main lists, but that would determine whether this was moved to 'List of' or not. As for the character section, I looked to other comics articles, such as List of Avengers members, rather than our usual cast lists since this is our only instance where the characters aren't directly tied to actors. I was actually thinking about a separate 'List of Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics characters' that is more complete, and would include what information is out there on the characters in the comics from the creative teams. I'm not saying that these character lists are comparable to the other pages' cast lists, but I do think that within the scope of the tie-in comics themselves there should be some dedication to the characters, particularly some of the major recurring ones now that we have quite a few tie-in comics. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I get your One-Shot comparison and agree with that, so the title can stay. For the recurring cast, I think as we discussed on the film actors page, I don't know if singling out characters that have appeared recurrently, partially because the medium allows the writers to use any character they wish, since they don't have to deal with actors or contracts. So I don't know if it has the to be pointed out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, I think that there should be a character list for the tie-in comics, just like I suppose the majority of comic series have, and I think that we could do a good job of it anyway. If that does happen, then it would make sense to have a table with some of the major players on the overview page with a main article link above it like we usually do, regardless of the fact that there are no actor contracts or the like. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Double image-related

I used the double image template on Lash's page in order to keep the recently-added pictures from overlapping into the next section of the page. I'm just letting you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Visually, it does not look good, with one vertical image next to one horizontal and all the whitespace below it. Placing them on top of each other is the better solution. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:42, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

If you are talking about Andrew Garner's picture, that's how the uploader of his picture left it and not as the same size as Lash's picture. --Rtkat3 (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

They are two different orientation to the images: Willig's is vertical and Underwood's is horizontal. Yet both are the same width. So to represent them because of this disparity, placing them on top of each other is better and more visually appealing than next to each other. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Arrow subsection proposal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arrow_(TV_series)#New_subsection_for_Arrowverse Thought you might be interested in putting in your 2-cents worth, if not that's fine too. Thanks! LLArrow (talk) 02:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The peanuts Movie

Hello, I see you reverted my edits about the release of the above movie. About the Campobasso premiere, I understand that it could sound suprising but it's actually true! There are only few sources in english, probably because in US they were not much interested in something happening far away ;-) but if I digit 'Snoopy "campobasso" anteprima mondiale' I find dozen of sources in Italian (Snoopy & friends is the title here in Italy, and "anteprima" means premiere). I choose the Cassino source because it was also in English, but if you think is better I can add a couple more refs in Italian (e.g. the libero.it and ilgiorno.it that are mainstream news sites/newspapers). Regarding the 5 november italian/european release date, I thought it was not necessaru to add a specific source, as the info is already in the imdb website, that is linked at the bottom of the article so I supposed it was reliable and not needed to be linked. Do I need to add it as a source also, as a ref? Or use another source (there would be many, as the movie was actually relased here on the 5). Or both? Thanks --Maxbeer (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

@Eylenbosch: The source being in Italian is fine. It just looked like it was a blog or WP:SPS source rather than a reliable one. If you say you can source the info from mainstream newspaper in Italy, that would be fine. Additionally, for the infobox. Per template guidelines, we only list the very first screening of the film, plus the release in its production country (in this case the US). So if you can readd the info, you would just replace the NYC premiere date with this Italian one. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

thanks for your reply, I'll add the sources and update the infobox as you suggested. --Maxbeer (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion

Since we're aiming at consistency throughout the project, I've started a discussion about episode count templates at WT:TV. Your comments would be appreciated. The discussion is here --AussieLegend (✉) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl revert

I'm surprised that you would revert my edit like that. I didn't make those changes for no good reason. I'm not sure what you mean by "wraps for descriptions", but to make it where there's a break like that, the next line would be a complete sentence, and the way it is now, they are just fragments. And you can't say "will portray" without saying when. That doesn't really make sense. It would be better not to list the ones who haven't appeared yet than to do that. And no matter whether they have appeared or not, guest star list should say what episode they are in.

I wouldn't have thought that I would be quoting the following to you, but... WP:REVEXP says, "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." and "If your reasons for reverting are too complex to explain in an edit summary, leave a note on the article's Talk page. It is sometimes best to leave a note on the Talk page first and then revert, rather than the other way around." [Also: WP:Revert only when necessary (too much to quote here)]. Experienced editors like us should communicate with each other, rather than (or before) making blanket reversions. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Really? Still no reply? You're going from bad to worse - going against WP:BRD, by not discussing. Of course I could take it to the article talk page, but it would be better to work it out here. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I've explained in my edit summary about this. When the text is all on one line, and wraps down to a second line, it is reformatted with a new paragraph. Secondly, you most certainly can say "will portray". It's not our job to give specific episode appearances for these characters. We are not a TV guide. And for the most part, when actors are announced, they are just announced as "will appear on the series" without a scheduled episode appearance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:32, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

No, you didn't really explain it enough in the ES or I wouldn't be asking for a better explanation, and you still haven't responded to the fact that it's not correct grammar. It's not "a new paragraph" if it doesn't start with a complete sentence. That format style is fine as long as it's done right (grammatically). And you still haven't given a link to an MOS that backs up your reasoning and says that your reversion was valid. It's not our job?? It's not our job to list actors who "will portray". An encyclopedia is supposed to tell about the past and present, not future. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:11, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

• sigh* It's like "pulling teeth" with you on this. I'm looking for some cooperation here. When you revert a good-faith edit, you have to be ready and willing to discuss it with that editor. We've had some minor disagreements before, but I don't remember you just refusing to work with me like this. I'm not wanting to change it back to the way I had it, but it's not right to keep it the way it is now either. If you'd like, I could give examples of articles that do it correctly. Also, I forgot to say before that saying that giving episode numbers for future appearances is being a "TV guide" (which I disagree with) doesn't explain why you would revert the episode numbers for those who have appeared. That is something that definitely should be done. I haven't been keeping up with the changes made to the article, but I see in the history that the only time you've given an edit summary is when you reverted an edit and said something very similar to what you said to me - and again you didn't give a link to back up what you say. Maybe it is time to take this to the article talk page - but that would put you in a bad light, and I would prefer not to do that. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

General practice on film and television articles that I've come across is to format character listings and descriptions to a new line if on a single line the text wraps. So I don't know where to link you to anything; it's just a practice I've observed. As for the episode noting, that is against MOS:TVCAST. Episodes should not be noted in an (X episode) [or the like] format. Any mention of episode appearances should be made as prose, but only if there is some significance to stating such. Otherwise, using "Actor as character"/"Actor portrays character" or "Actor will portray character" suffices. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you been reading what I've been saying? As I have said, the issue is not the format; it's the grammar in this case. I don't know why you can't understand that. As for the 2nd issue, I don't see where it says what you say it does in MOS:TVCAST. The closest thing is where it says "cast listing should not contain an episode count" (which btw is done in a lot of articles and I personally have no problem with it). That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about one-time guest appearances and what episode they appear in. And nowhere does it say to use "will portray". If there's no RS that tells what episode an upcoming appearance will be in, then they shouldn't be listed at all. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

• It seems there's a pattern here. I have to post twice before you post once. First I want to clarify something: When I said, "I personally have no problem with it", I should have added: "for articles about shows that are not currently on." Anyway, why didn't you tell me about the Cast list discussion at the MOSTV talk page? I suppose because you figured I would oppose your view. Not to mention the fact that you were the one who wrote what you referenced to me about six days before that. Is there something you have against me ...something that I did that pissed you off (I mean before I stared this "discussion")? Btw, I didn't make the changes at MOSTV because it was you that wrote it (just in case you might have thought that). --Musdan77 (talk) 05:53, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit on List of The New 52 imprint publications - Justice League Dark Vol 6

I edited the correct information for the title of Justice League Dark Vol 6 to LOST IN FOREVER but you reverted it back to the incorrect title Paradise Lost (the same name for Vol 5 which should have been a giveaway)

A simple check with DC Comics will show that my edit was correct. Source: http://www.dccomics.com/graphic-novels/justice-league-dark-vol-6-lost-in-forever

First, please sign all your comments on Wikipedia with your signature (using '~~~~') so everyone knows who is talking. Second, please read WP:BURDEN. If you change sourced material, it is on you to provide a new source in to the article reflecting such change. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Doctor Strange (film)

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Template: Marvel Comics films

Hello, why did you revert my changes? It doesn't make any sense! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cineplex (talk • contribs) 02:54, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Because it's been discussed and current consensus is not to use your formatting, given the MCU has their own template. See the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Jones

Are you aware that linking to a YouTube video that violates copyright is a Wikipedia policy violation, per WP:YOUTUBE, as you did here? Do you have any relationship with Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs), who added the link back with the same edit summary here? Please respond here. Thank you. Sundayclose (talk) 20:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Acceptable per WP:ELNEVER point 1. Still have an issue, take it up on the article talk. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:30, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, this is not a copyright violation, as it is from Marvel. This would be a copyright violation/illegal if the video linked with to a channel called "BEST VIDEOS ONLINE" or the like. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. Adamstom.97 (talk · contribs) linked it to a different version that was not from Marvel. Apologies for acting hastily. Sundayclose (talk) 23:59, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think it just got caught when I was restoring to before some poor changes. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

ProveIt gadget

Ever heard of this amazing gadget ProveIt? You could use it while editing MCU articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it never has really worked for me, or I haven't taken the time to figure it out. I can knock out refs writing them manually pretty fast, so I'll stick with that for the time being. Thanks thought. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Arrow/Constantine

It has been confirmed by show runner. And if you had paid close attention to the crossover he stated that he has done a return of the soul to the human body last year. Clearly a reference to when he did that for Chas's daughter on his own show.

On August 12, 2015, Wendy Mericle confirmed the series takes place in the shared universe with Arrow, The Flash, Vixen and DC's Legends of Tomorrow. http://arrow.wikia.com/wiki/Constantine#Shared_universe

So it wasn't a show runner who said it but a Writer / Executive Producer on the show. So let me add that on the page without you deleting it.

1) Wikia's can't be used. 2) See the discussion at Talk:List of Arrowverse actors#Constantine. The series is not in the Arrowverse. Only the character made a crossover, not the entire series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Well If wikia's can't be used how about IGN? Listen up.......I am a huge Constantine fan....I won't be doing this if I didn't know what I was talking about.

On August 12, 2015, Wendy Mericle confirmed the series takes place in the shared universe with Arrow, The Flash, Vixen and DC's Legends of Tomorrow.[7]

Wendy is an executive Producer/writer on Arrow P.S attached IGN link which confirms it http://www.ign.com/articles/2015/08/12/arrow-constantine-will-help-bring-sara-lance-back

See the discussion I linked for you above. It goes over all of this, including the IGN source. Still the same. Character is part of the crossover, reprising the role, making Constantine the character part of the Arrowverse, but the entire series is not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

How do you explain what he said then? Constantine stated in the episode that he has done a return of the soul to the human body last year. Clearly a reference to when he did that for Chas's daughter on his own show.

I don't, because that would be original research regarding any opinions or interpretations I have of the material. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Marvel TV season images

I noticed you reverted my uploads of the Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. seasons 1 and 2 as well as Marvel's Agent Carter season 1. I am letting you know that I am reverting them back because having the image of the DVD cover seems to be the precedent followed on Wikipedia, rather than a promo poster of the season. Please don't just revert the images back, but instead talk about it on here so we can avoid an edit war. Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 18:38, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: (talk page stalker) I don't have an opinion on the issue but just so you know that's not how the WP:BRD process works. You do not re-revert to your preferred version then request discussion, you start the discussion after the initial revert and wait for consensus until reverting again.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what Triiiple said. You took issue, so you start the discussion, not re-reverting. I have restored all three images, because the consensus is to keep the images as is, because for the sake of a few words removed/changed, the images are not different. It is also noted in the captions for images on the season pages, that it is promotional images for the season, and the home media covers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Also, other stuff exists, to you stating "having the image of the DVD cover seems to be the precedent followed on Wikipedia". But as I mentioned, they are the exact same image, so it is unnecessary. If you continue to have an issue with this, I suggest you take up a discussion on the season articles, so other users may weigh in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:51, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

My bad on the WP:BRD. Also, after looking at a couple other pages, it seems that I may be wrong about the precedent of dvd covers. The idea that it was the precedent was the only real reason I was changing them. Since that doesn't seem to be a thing, I won't be reverting them anymore. Elisfkc (talk) 19:02, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry about that...

I didn't mean to violate any copyright with my recent edit to Supergirl. It was my bad. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 23:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

@StewieBaby05: It's just for you to know for future reference. You always seem on top of the latest casting news. It is just a matter then to take the extra step, and change the wording for what is given in the sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Point taken. --StewieBaby05 (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:The Peanuts Movie#Reference for alternative title in lead

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:The Peanuts Movie#Reference for alternative title in lead. Thanks. Geraldo Perez (talk) 16:59, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Japanese animated film discussion

Hello, there is currently a discussion going on about whether or not production companies should be listed in "production companies" field in the infobox of Japanese animated films. I personally am in favor of listing production companies in the infobox as the a field IS called "production companies". Logically a field called "production companies" should have production companies listed in it. However, someone else is in favor of omitting production companies and only listing the animation studio. Discussion is here. Thanks. -- Wrath X (talk) 05:05, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I gotta know

This is quite unprofessional of me, but I've wondered. You and I travel in a lot of the same comic circles, I'm curious as to which comic adapted TV series currently ranks at the top of your list? Totally fine if you don't want to humour me. LLArrow (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

Happy holidays Favre, to another year of editing articles and arguing over Star Wars! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:47, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Favre1fan93, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, Alex|The|Whovian 04:37, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Seasons Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Favre1fan93, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing, TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:15, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2016!

Hello Favre1fan93, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2016. Happy editing,  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 17:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Season's greetings

Hello Favre1fan93: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, AussieLegend (✉) 13:33, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Happy Holidays!

adamstom97 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

HNY

One of the benefits of facilitating the Editor of the Week award is that I get to meet quality editors like you. Too many veteran editors spend too much time at the various drama-laden pages of Wikipedia. They rarely take the time to see the hard working editors that fly under the radar of contention and strife and they begin to look at WP as one argument after another. Editors like you are the heartbeat of Wikipedia. Thanks for all you do. Happy New Year. Buster Seven Talk 17:25, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop edit warring

That's it. Three reversions on 24 hours. That's breaking policy. NOT REFERRING TO IT AS EPISODE 7 IS CONTENTIOUS.

• SCREEN CREDITS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
• http://www.starwars.com/films REFERRED TO AS EPISODE 7
• http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-vii---the-force-awakens
• http://www.moviefone.com/movie/star-wars-the-force-awakens/10118651/trailers
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/act-four/wp/2015/12/22/how-star-wars-episode-vii-the-force-awakens-missed-a-huge-opportunity/
• http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-episode-vii---the-force-awakens-2015
• http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/herocomplex/la-et-hc-star-wars-the-force-awakens-posters-revealed-20151104-htmlstory.html
• http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Star_Wars:_Episode_VII_The_Force_Awakens

--Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

@Mrjulesd: I'm not breaking policy by restoring the WP:STATUSQUO (which you are still failing to accept, or apparently read). We are discussion such inclusion, which you are even a part of. The discussion isn't to remove the text you keep adding back. The discussion is if it should be included. Because the status quo before the film was released on 12/17 was not including it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

No the discussion is over whether it is to be removed. It was in the title before, and got removed, which led to the discussion. Stop trying to twist that you are clearly breaking policy with edit warring. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 17:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wow. No it is not! Have you really entered a discussion and not known what it was discussion? Look back at the whole discussion, start with the level 2 heading, going into the two level 3 subsections. Your version of what the discussion is about could not be farther from the truth. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop your bullshit. The thread opens with questioning the already included text. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:09, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Mrjulesd: In the talk page discussion, we narrowed that down to 5 sources. Among the 5, different title formats were cited:

Star Wars: Episode VII – The Force Awakens (supported by RT, MC, and RogerEbert.com)

Star Wars – Episode VII: The Force Awakens (supported by LATimes)

Star Wars, Episode VII: The Force Awakens (supported by WashingtonPost)

If you notice, none of these support the title format you are trying to add to the article, Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens. Per WP:STATUSQUO, we should leave the former state of the article in place until a consensus is reached. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:02, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

In the film titles it comes up "Star Wars". And afterwards says "Episode VII" newline "The Force Awakens". So no punctuation in the film's titles. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:06, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Which if you also read the article, we have sources stating that "Episode VII" is only used in the crawl, not in the title. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The crawl is the title. Haven't you even seen it? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I have seen the film. But the crawl =/= the title of the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

That's the only time it comes up.--Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

And why pick an arbitrary format that is not supported by any of the sources? That just seems strange to me. Either you trust the formatting in the sources or you don't. But if you don't, then we shouldn't be arguing that the sources are reliable. Keep this discussion about the sources or about the format, but not both. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I take by that remark you agree with the "Episode VII" part anyway? --Jules (Mrjulesd) 18:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I think if you re-read the discussion in its entirety (which may take a while), you'll find that no one disagrees that Episode VII is used as a subtitle in the film. The problem other editors and myself have is with the claim that the subtitle should be merged into the film title to produce an alternate name for the lead. While some sources have done this, it is far from being a name that the film is commonly known by (it must be common and significant in order for it to qualify under WP:OTHERNAMES). So while I agree that some mention of Episode VII should exist in the article, I strongly disagree it belongs in the lead the way it is being proposed. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:54, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

About the RfC: Is "Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens" an alternate title to the film?

OK I really dont find the RfC introduction [4] was grossly biased. But I do believe some subtle biases remained. Like the link to the official website was not labeled as such. Also I believe Episode VII actually is part of the film's title, occurring before "The Force Awakens" is mentioned. Even the ordering of options could be seen as bias. These are subtle points which other might not agree with.

Look overall I'm not unhappy with the RfC's introduction. In fact I'm glad you did it, it was the best solution for the situation. Overall it was pretty good. But I feel happier now that I have expanded the text somewhat, as part of my support Ep7 statement. The fact that two opposers have fully said their viewpoints can only help. --Jules (Mrjulesd) 23:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Favre1fan93!

Happy New Year!

Favre1fan93,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks both for your contributions to Wikipedia and also for being a valued friend and colleague. Very best wishes to you! --Tenebrae (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

.