User talk:Favre1fan93/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

"Television Miniseries" vs Miniseries

Hello, regarding my edit to WandaVision, I replaced "television miniseries" with "miniseries" because practically, no one really says television or tv miniseries, since simply miniseries also tells the same knowledge. I think that for all of the MCU tv show articles, replacing "American television miniseries" with "American miniseries" would be more concise, while conveying the same info. Like I was saying in my edit summary, the tv miniseries likely stayed because it was preceded by "web" and "streaming". Thanks! Hummerrocket (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Well "miniseries" can apply to literature as well, so "television miniseries" is not incorrect and provide the clarification. Saying something is a "television series" or a "television miniseries" works. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Arrowverse crossover cancelled?

See what you can add since I'm kinda busy at the moment. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Yup I saw. Will make edits for it! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

I have been meaning to send this your way for a while!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Thank you for everything you do across across all of these articles, and a special shoutout to your work on all of the Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode articles recently! adamstom97 (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Likewise, thank you for the barnstar. Your contributions across Wikipedia should not go overlooked either. I often feel a sense a relief when I see your signature in an edit summary because I know the article is in good hands.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For all the work you do on film and tv shows. Starzoner (talk) 15:05, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Executive producer

I would challenge the executive producer notes on both Doctor Strange 2 and Ant-Man, as we don't usually note executive producers and there are more important details than those that don't make it in to the lead. I think the more important information for the summary is that they left, and Wright's story credit. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I just wanted to point out that Ant-Man, being in a similar situation with a director leaving after being hired, currently had the EP info in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Spider-Man: Homecoming

Hi, Favre. Hoping, as old colleagues, we can speak about the cite formatting. Just want to run some thoughts by you:

I've had conversations at Help talk:Citation Style 1 with Trappist the monk, one of the major coders of the citation templates, and from what I gather, the particular template used affects metadata in some significant way that I personally don't understand. Template:Cite magazine even says that template is used to cite "an online magazine article." Template:Cite news notes there are only minor differences between that and "cite web," and the output is the same, so the practicable difference is in the metadata. Perhaps we can speak more. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I've obviously have not been privy to any conversations you've had, but would be open to seeing them. As far as I'm concerned (and this isn't against you), I don't see the issue with cite web citing information obtained from any website, and your general editor/IP editor isn't going to either. And then in regards to cite magazine, it only says "an online magazine article" twice when stating how to use the url parameter. It's intro text states This Citation Style 1 template is used to create citations for articles in magazines and newsletters. so I still would equate this template for a physical magazine article and if it happened to be duplicated online, then you add in the url. That then would not equate to changing Variety or THR cites (since both publish physical magazines) for their online content to cite magazine. If I picked up one of their physical magazines and wanted to cite content from it, then I would use cite magazine in my view. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Favre. Some of the discussions with Trappist, myself and others — and a lot of is above my head, so I could be misinterpreting some of the more technical aspects — is at User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 8#Monkbot question, User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 9 #publisher vs. work parameters in CS1/2 citations — follow-on query and User talk:Trappist the monk/Archive 10#Question, in which he says the importance of the metadata is that "metadata, while not directly visible to the general readership, are read and consumed by readers using reference management software (Zotero is one such tool)."

I'll go see where I saw that we treat online periodicals the same as print periodicals. I do see that per their Wikipedia articles, online magazine such as Slate, The Daily Beast and The Root are all italicized and considered magazines. There doesn't seem to a feeling that something is less of a magazine if it's online.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:12, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I gave some of those discussions a look over, and as far as I can tell, I don't think anything is being done incorrectly. The point I'm gathering is when using cite web, the "website" parameter must be used, not "publisher" as that is what causes the problems. The parameters at both Spider-Man articles cover this, so I don't think there is any issue with them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:10, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Right. What I'm saying is that online magazines like Deadline Hollywood should take "cite magazine" and not "cite web."--Tenebrae (talk) 13:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

But as much of its content is online now, and the articles are being sourced, cite web isn't incorrect either, as long as all the template parameters are filled in correctly (ie, using "website" not "publisher"). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I won't push it. It just seems that when we have specific templates made for specific purposes, that we can put any online source under "cite web." That seems to me to be against the purposes of these other templates.--Tenebrae (talk) 20:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I 100% get that, given you could use cite web for a tweet or online video, when cite tweet and cite av media is better. But to me, the documentation for "cite magazine" does not clearly define its use for strictly online content (versus physical media). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi

I have noticed on your bio that you work on a lot of content that revolves around superheroes and comics. I need help with getting my article about a media organization that covers these topics published. Your help is welcomed, but if you do not want to, that is also totally okay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:New_Rockstars TonyStank123456789 (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2021 (UTC)TonyStank123456789

WandaVision

Hey, you may still be getting to it, but there are a couple missing refs at WandaVision from your last edit. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Did this fix it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, sorry I should have realised it was just typos and not missing refs. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

All good, no worries!! Sometime in the heat of it all copy/pasting across articles, I get the names messed up. Thanks for letting me know, because it could have been completely missing refs. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Draft redirect to mainspace

Wouldn't it be better to delete drafts which you don't think are worthwile than to redirect them to mainspace? I don't think drafts redirecting to actual pages is supposed to be done.★Trekker (talk) 09:55, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Mainspace articles can't redirect to the draftspace, but drafspace can redirect to the main. At least when moving a draft to an existing mainspace article, I do find it worthwhile to establish the old draft name as a redirect in the immediate after the move to ensure existing links (if at all) are maintained. Down the line (one month, 3 months?) it's probably okay to then delete. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Good work everywhere. I appreciate you for all of this. Starzoner (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Wandavision

It is getting ridiculous that every few days a newbie editor decided to start the same discussion about the main cast. This is WP:BLUDGEON. And the ones agree with that person seem to be also be newbies editors. — YoungForever^(talk) 17:08, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm starting to wonder too if MarvelousMusician397 and Anubhab030119 might be socks. In my eyes, those are the two that are both relatively new accounts and they seem to be constantly commenting to agree with each other. I will look into their edits to see if I feel a proper SPI is warranted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi (WV)

Hi,

I've just read the discussion I wasn't part of regarding the billing and after reading that I feel like an apology is fit from my side. I've missed that and therefore said stuff you might had said before. Reading it, I've found that you got a point that it's best to wait until march 5 when we got the full show to change crediting depending on appearances. So, hereby an apology for my hasty/pushy behavior. Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate that. As has been stated, the credits are the definite source to show what the "main" cast is, and while this series is unconventional, it does do that. And it's also hard to judge a series off of only a small portion of its episodes that have released. Rupp has indicated she's most likely appearing in more episodes, and the same could be true for Melamed. Come the final episode's release, another discussion can be started if we as editors need to reevaluate how actors appeared in the credits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi, just saw you archived discussion number 1 million regarding main cast. Which I understand. Btw, didn't we collectively agree to keep off any cast discussion until the last episode is out on march 5th? Scenarioschrijver20 (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Reversiones

Oye amigo, si es que hablas español, tengo que preguntarte algo, por que reviertes mis ediciones? --Lil Pablo 2007 (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Lil Pablo 2007, sorry amigo. I don't think Favre speaks Spanish. Even I don't. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

La razón ya fue explicada en cada resumen de edición, pero tus principales ediciones fueron agregar sinopsis a las películas del Universo cinematográfico de Marvel. Estas secciones resultan redudantes, debido a que ya hay una sección que detalla la trama completa, sumado a un pequeño resumen de dos líneas en la sección inicial. Sinopsis como esta en Spider-Man: Homecoming tienen oraciones con juicios de valor (versión de es.wiki) con muchas palabras que deben ser evitadas (versión de es.wiki), además de que fueron sacadas de otro sitio web sin estar entre comillas ni tener la referencia adecuada, lo que lo convierte en una violación de derechos de autor. —El Millo (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you Facu-el Millo for responding. I put your response in Google Translate and it seems you answered as necessary. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

TV

Do you have an objective reason for your reversions besides "I want it to be inacurate"? There is zero reason why the section can't just be "television".★Trekker (talk) 18:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Your edit was reverted again by someone else, and their edit summary essentially sums up what I was going to say: the vast majority of the properties in the section are series, and the special is clearly noted, but the heading shouldn't be changed nor that content moved out because of it. As well, "Television" is not descriptive enough, because television what? Are they TV films? Documentaries? No and series again is the best descriptor, while also considering how we have the related article List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

RE Spiderman Move

Hi User,

Hope you are keeping well. I am just asking what is the logic / plan behind the migration of the Page from Untitled Spiderman Far From Home sequel to Spiderman No Way Home?

I note you asked me to stop copying and pasting. Why is that the case? The article needs its new heading since the Movie title is confirmed. The rest of the article needs to remain the same therefore the copy and paste move was simply to make the page with the new title identical to that of the previous. Likewise the previous page I had redirect to the new one so any article linking to it should remain to work.

Please let me know in a little more detail what your thoughts/plan is on this.

Best wishes, John

-- JohnGormleyJG (✉) 18:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@JohnGormleyJG: Articles should not be copy/pasted as you have done. Please read WP:BEFOREMOVING for the explanation, which has to do with edit history and retaining attribution. The specific reason why the article could not be properly moved in this instance was because the article had move protection rights to prevent the false moves that occurred yesterday because of the fake title reveals. As such, only an administrator can perform the move, and it has been requested to be done as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Killmonger

Hi, one question, if I made an article about Killmonger in the MCU, what should it be called? The character has several names, e.g. Killmonger, N'Jadaka, Erik Stevens etc. Thank you. IronManCap (talk) 11:33, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't really know. My instinct would be Erik "Killmonger" Stevens, but WP:TSC says quotes should generally be avoided in titles. I'd create a talk page discussion at Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe about this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say Erik Stevens. Because birth name does not always override the common name. Liken this to Kara Zor-El Danvers, Kal-El Clark Kent and Simon Morrison Adrian Chase. --Kailash29792 (talk) 18:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I appreciate the opinions. Facu-el Millo suggested the title 'N'Jadaka (Marvel Cinematic Universe)', but I’m concerned that that might not be his most commonly used name. IronManCap (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Team Thor

Hi Favre1fan93, I own the Blu-ray release of "Captain America: Civil War" and can confirm that the original "Team Thor" short is NOT included. However, it is included in the digital version's bonus content. I refer you to the Blu-ray.com review for this film as proof: https://www.blu-ray.com/movies/Captain-America-Civil-War-Blu-ray/117435/#Review -Duffman1132. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duffman1132 (talk • contribs) 03:42, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Ralph Bohner

Hi. I don't mind if the information taken from the critical response section in the WandaVision article about Ralph Bohner is reworked, but as it is right now when you removed it from the reception section, you also removed it as a criticism. It is a notable criticism so I think it belongs in the critical response section but I think it's fine if it's included in analysis instead as long as it includes what the critics said in the sources I provided. But right now what you wrote there only has part of it as how people speculated. If you leave it that way then the content of the original paragraph should be reworked and included somehow in the analysis section. --Osh33m (talk) 00:29, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It's not being removed as a criticism. "Analysis" is still a subsection of "Reception" and as I explained, since these discussions are pin-point critiques/discussion of the series, "Analysis" is the most appropriate. "Critical response" should be for full reviews from sites/commentators that discuss all elements of the series, not just one or two. Also, as I moved it, so too did I copy-edit it to remove the excessive quotes used, plus removing info either not needed or to better parts of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Fair enough, but you omitted a lot of what was written, like Chris Stuckmann's take, Olsen's assumption of the multiverse and Shakman's comparison to the Mandarin. Do you plan to incorporate them in analysis as well?

In fact I would argue that the red herring of Ralph Bohner is significantly different from all of the rest since it involves an actual appearance of a character, while all if not most of the rest was just dialogue and speculation. --Osh33m (talk) 01:09, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Chris Struckmann's material wasn't anything worthwhile to include on this commentary (plus it was part of a larger review of the series, and as added was also entirely quoted material), compared to the IGN piece. Olsen's comment is fleeting, and in context, is her giving a quick thought of her first take before realizing his use in the show. Mandarin comment was moved if you saw what I actually changed. Red herrings can be characters too, as noted by Dottie being one of them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited WandaVision, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trade paperback.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, there are two things you can do to evade future DAB links. Install this script, and this, which shows DAB links/redirects in a different colour. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:27, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Kenh37

Making factual corrections about the appearance of the DCEU Flash, over your claim about Barry Allen, on CW's Crisis on Infinite Earths and having them reverted indicates false and misleading factual information. DCEU's Barry Allen never appeared in the cross-over but the Flash obviously did. Also removing the external link to the video for Entertainment Canada's reporting on the cameo and the youtube link seem uncalled for, as well. If DCEU Barry Allen appeared, in person, anywhere in the cross-over, I challenge that the claim be verified as I did about the Flash fact before it was erroneously reverted to misinformation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenh37 (talk • contribs) 22:00, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Your additions were incorrect factually or with legal implications. First, from the article: Miller's Allen, who had not yet gone by the moniker "The Flash", is given the name by Grant's Allen in the scene source. Second, all of the external links you added were of copyrighted material through non-official means, which is WP:LINKVIO. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

Line breaks

It doesn't particularly matter to me, but I saw Special:Diff/1012342503 this edit summary, and thought that I'd point out that whether this is true or not depends entirely on the readers monitor resolution or browser window. In my current window "sitcom" and three references show up on a new line, and on my phone it's actually showing in three lines. -2pou (talk) 21:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey

Are you planning on writing an article on New World Order? I was gonna take a crack at it but I figured I'd ask Wikipedia's resident MCU expert what his plans were first.Americanfreedom (talk)

It's currently being constructed in the draft space at Draft:New World Order (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier). You are welcome to help create it there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:41, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

X-Men references

Hey, this source that I added to the NWO draft has a paragraph about S.W.O.R.D. in WandaVision and Madripoor in Falcon as the first references to Fox-owned properties. I think this could be good to add somewhere, maybe at the main MCU page where we talk about the Fox acquisition? - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah that seems like a good spot, and then maybe just SWORD on the Phase Four page in WandaVision's third paragraph. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:51, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Also when you feel good about the draft (minus reception), I'd say go ahead and move it. I'm hoping to spend some time tomorrow going through reviews, and can do that either with it in or out of draft space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Fox changes look good, and cool I will probably do another once over and then make the move since I think the writing and filming stuff we have is probably enough (especially if you have a plan for reception). - adamstom97 (talk) 02:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Yup, sounds good. I'll avoid doing anything (including some production stuff) until you make the move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:34, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Echo confirmation

Hello. The Variety piece on the Echo series says that the project may be in the works, but they couldn't get confirmation from Marvel or the writers reps, whereas Deadline at least says they have confirmed the info (doesn't say with whom). Small details, that aren't really important overall, just clarifying what I was doing. Not sure what might have been a better placement (if necessary). -2pou (talk) 21:36, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@2pou: Variety has "confirmation" wording in their article that is the same as Deadline's. Variety says: A show centered on Echo, a deaf Native American character who will be played by Alaqua Cox in the “Hawkeye” series, is in the early stages of development for Disney Plus, Variety has learned exclusively from sources (bolding mine). That's the same as Deadline saying Deadline has confirmed that Hawkeye spinoff series centering around that series character Echo is in early development with Etan Cohen and Emily Cohen set to write and executive produce. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:40, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

 -2pou (talk) 21:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

The inclusion of Paramount and DMG...

Besides Paramount Pictures having studio credit for Iron Man 3, the studio was in association with this movie alongside DMG Entertainment.

XSMan2016 (talk) 19:30, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

References

Marvel logo animation files

Hey, I was looking at the logo animation files and from their names it's hard to tell when they were used as both use "new" in their title. I think these could be renamed to something like this:

• File:Marvel Studios flipbook logo new.ogv -> File:Marvel Studios logo animation (2013–2016).ogv
• File:Marvel Studios New Logo And Fanfare July 2016.webm -> File:Marvel Studios logo animation (2016–present).webm

What do you think? --Gonnym (talk) 16:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I've moved both to new names. I used similar names you suggested, adding "and fanfare" after between "animation" and the dates, and for the newer once, I disambiguated it as "since 2016". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Nice, thanks! I also noticed you renamed the Ms Marvel logo file, could you also rename File:Agent Carter logo.png, File:Runaways logo.jpg, File:Cloak & Dagger logo.jpg and File:Marvel's What If...? logo.png with the added dab? --Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

template:rp in TFatWS articles

Do you know why {{rp}} is used in Truth (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier) instead of the relevant cite template parameters? --Gonnym (talk) 18:41, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, because we are using the ref "EndCredits" to cite content from three locations: the main on-end credits for the starring actors, the actual credits list, and then the VFX vendors of the episode. The citation is formatted to let readers know at what time the credits start in the episode, with {{rp}} being used for the specific time stamps, much like citing a specific page number. As there is no timestamp template serving a similar function, {{rp}} has been the most useful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

So I'm assuming that the reason not to use {{Cite episode}} |minutes is so you won't have 3 references for the same item that differ only in the minutes? I can understand that, though to be honest, with only 25 sources in that page, 2 more wouldn't be really cluttering it. --Gonnym (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes exactly. We're pulling the info from the same source, so why duplicate it multiple times? That's my view on it anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Assistance Requested

I could really use your help and/or the help of someone more knowledgeable on Wikipedia's rules than me if possible. I'm currently in the middle of a light conflict with an editor over whether there should be an "antagonists" header in the Power Rangers Dino Fury character page for a group of antagonists who aren't stated to be part of a named organization or group. My argument is that it isn't necessary because it should already be obvious in the antagonists' information. Their argument is that most of the previous Power Rangers series' pages have it, and thus, so should the Dino Fury page. I know this subject might be out of your wheelhouse compared to the pages you normally work on, but I could really use some advice on how to proceed and I want nothing more than to put an end to this before things get worse. If you are unable to, then perhaps you could direct me to someone who might be able to. Either way, please respond when you can. Blazewing16 (talk) 02:45, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

WP:ANTAGONIST and WP:OSE are what you probably want to look at. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Wanda Maximoff's Image

Deriving from this.

Since AOU Wanda is old, Is it appropriate to change it now we have Wanda in her full glory as the Scarlet Witch in WandaVision? I've uploaded A new incarnation of the image (Too big and wrong license, though Milo could fix it). But I've decided to contact You since your one of the people I work alongside with during most of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier's episode articles. It also would be cropped to showcase only Wanda, Thanks! ChannelSpider (talk) 03:02, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

ChannelSpider, I got this. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Oh ok. ChannelSpider (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Kailash29792. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Franchise usage at MCU list articles

The infoboxes at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films have been bugging me for a while. Neither usage is what the template is for (film or TV series), but a sort-of-franchise usage with needs that the current franchise template does not offer. I was thinking of maybe creating a new infobox that would allow these pages to have a similar look. I've created simple examples at User:Gonnym/sandbox/franchise based on what is currently in use in those articles (I've split the TV one into two, as almost the entire usage was split, which really begs for the infobox to be split as well). Care to look and offer any thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Hey, talk-page stalker here. Perhaps this proposal can be brought to Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe, the central article, in order for more eyes to see it. —El Millo (talk) 00:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: My only issue with creating specific templates would be, are there other articles that would benefit from it? I feel like yes to a film one perhaps, but not so for TV series? Otherwise, could the film and tv infoboxes simply be modified, or use "child" coding to get the desired result. I also personally don't see an issue as they are now, but am not against changing it. (Also, I'm planning not to be as active for the next week or so, so apologies for any slow response.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

In the film franchise infobox, the only added parameter is |num_films=, which could easily be added to {{Infobox film}}. —El Millo (talk) 02:51, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93, Marvel's ABC television series, Marvel's Netflix television series, Marvel's young adult television series, Adventure into Fear (franchise), List of Star Wars films, List of Star Wars television series, Sony Pictures Universe of Marvel Characters and potentially DC Extended Universe and Arrowverse (from those that I can think of, but I'm sure there are more). @Facu-el Millo, I'd be opposed to adding any non-film parameter to the film infobox. Code should be used correctly and not abused. It might work fine in the MCU articles, but by adding it you open up a lot of protentional misuses. This is similar to the current situation, where the film and TV infoboxes are misused here with, for example, pseudo headers such as "Total". And just to repeat what I said earlier, a reader viewing both the film and TV lists shouldn't experience a completely different infobox style when both serve basically the same thing. --Gonnym (talk) 13:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

DCEU and Arrowverse should keep {{Infobox media franchise}}, so really, it's mostly the MCU lists and Star Wars lists. My opinion then is I don't see the need really to create an entirely new infobox for these lists. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD and Agent Carter not canon

I know this isn't the best source, but do you think this info should be monitored? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:06, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Here's Comicbook.com talking about the same topic. —El Millo (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

It is something that could probably be mentioned at the list of TV shows in the development section, but I don't think we should be saying they aren't canon or anything. The wording at the different TV series articles is still correct I feel. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't think there's much too this. It is indeed "Legacy" content when compared to what Marvel Studios is doing. Doesn't mean it isn't canon, since the Marvel TV shows never fit nicely in the Phases anyways. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

ten

Why did you undid my revision? All tv shows episodes are written by word. Just this one is by number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Josephzbazin (talk • contribs) 20:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Please see MOS:NUMERAL. Numbers 1-9 should be written out (ie one, two... nine), while 10 and above should be as numerals. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe GA Reassessment

Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Comics animated TV series: Related Topics

Maybe your right about it. I think however it’s worth noting the networks Disney assigned. MegaSmike46 (talk) 23:43, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Agent Carter

My edits on Agent Carter were not unconstructive. They were perfectly inline with other TV show pages. Makro (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

@Makro: They were at the very least disruptive at the continued addition of the table, when I explained each time in my removal that a) that type of graph was not appropriate where it was placed, and b) that graph was not appropriate in general given the ratings info was already covered in the "Ratings" section of the article. Other TV series may use graphs, but that doesn't mean they have to be used, especially since there is no guideline in MOS:TV saying such. - 16:21, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Question

Any thoughts on Draft:Shuri (Marvel Cinematic Universe) possibly being mainspace-ready? IronManCap (talk) 22:46, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

The Flash season 8

Over here, could you please add this source? I can't paraphrase it properly, and it's almost bedtime for me. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:39, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Doing it as you posted this! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:41, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

I see I unintentionally undid your revert

Just so you know, we are always supposed to categorize films by year. It does not matter if the infobox covers the year. Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 21:04, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

{{Infobox film}} automatically categorizes films to "YYYY films" cats based on release year. Your edit didn't accomplish anything except add unneeded wikicode to the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:33, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

I get you now. I did not know that. Thanks for letting me know I need to be more careful. Sorry about the disruption. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:03, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

No problem. If you don't know, it's easy to miss. But if you do simply look at the page, you'll see the year cat is one of the first ones listed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:06, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I did this through automated editing. I guess Cat-a-lot can not detect if the category is already present. I guess I will have to use AWB instead. I guess these were all cosmetic edits. Scorpions13256 (talk) 23:50, 27 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Studios

I’m not sure about Marvel Television. Anyway, there’s no need for a separate TV units. Convolution.

Marvel TV is simply a label under Marvel Studios. It doesn’t operate anymore. Marvel Studios now operates both Film & TV while using label distinction.

I think, well see what happens. MegaSmike46 (talk) 18:55, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/The 40-Year-Old Virgin/archive1

Would you by any chance be able to review this? It has future MCU star Paul Rudd ;). SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 00:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

SPUMC connections

Hey, I just wanted to go over your additions to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and Spider-Man: No Way Home. We previously did not include SPUMC stuff on the MCU articles because so far the MCU has not acknowledged the connection, and I don't think a Sony executive saying I think when ‘No Way Home’ comes out, even more will be revealed is enough for us to change that consensus since that could just mean an announcement about SPUMC plans after No Way Home is relased. I just think we need to hold on until one of the MCU films actually references a SPUMC film, and I also am wary of ending up with too much duplicate information across the SPUMC and MCU articles. As for No Way Home, we have always said that the future section is for sequels and not other universe connections (i.e. The Avengers (2012 film) connects to many films but we only mention its direct sequels there), to be consistent I think we need to remove that info and then add any SPUMC connections that No Way Home does end up having to the Phase 4 article and the SPUMC article. Does that all make sense? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The main reason I made the section at the list of films article, was the Feige "crossover" quote, the No Way Home castings, plus the new Sony executive material wasn't really "distributor" info. All of that material felt connected though, especially with Vary's commentary on the matter, so that's why I split it off to the section. I think the info needs to be mentioned on some MCU-related article and the main one didn't feel correct since it mostly has to do with the films, even if there has yet to be an MCU film to make a connection. I think our point of discussion is the multiverse aspect that Vary presents, because that, at least today, appears to be the way the connections are going to be made, not through a direct mention in an MCU film. In regards to adding it to No Way Home, yes I agree about the future sections in a normal instance, but connecting to another studio's universe don't seem to be on the same field as "Iron Man 3 continues the story from Avengers so it should be mentioned". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

If we want info at the list of films article, I think we should link directly to the MCU section on the SPUMC article and then try to limit the section on the film list to confirmed connections, just to avoid duplicating too much info. For No Way Home, I still think we shouldn't add info to the future section until we actually know that it will connect to future SPUMC films (at the moment we can only assume that based on rumours and Panitch's vague wording). And even if that is confirmed to be the case in the future, I would note that technically it isn't "another studio's universe". - adamstom97 (talk) 02:19, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I like this information being included in these articles and how it is presented. I do think, as Adam suggested, we should link to the MCU section on the SPUMC article for the films list. As for No Way Home, I think the info can stay in the article, but should probably be moved to "Post-production" for the time being. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:56, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

We can adjust the linking on the films list, but I think the content as is isn't really any duplication from the SPUMC article, as it all relates to the MCU, plus the good commentary (in my opinion) from Vary. I'm also fine with moving the No Way Home content to post-production as Trailblazer suggested. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 and Trailblazer101: I've made those changes. Adjust further if needed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Both changes work for me for now, thanks Favre. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

User:Nik0laX18

Hi Favre, since this editor keeps reverting unexplained and clearly won't stop, should we make a report at WP:AN/EW? I also highly suspect they are a sock since their first edit was a disruptive edit at ANI, which is unlikely for a new user. IronManCap (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you should make a report at WP:AN/EW. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:27, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad we got it taken care of. IronManCap (talk) 20:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hillsborough

Hey! I'm not sure I understand this revert. From what I am reading, the film was developed for television, and aired on television. I am not sure how that does not constitute as a television film. BOVINEBOY2008 20:36, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bovineboy2008: The 30 for 30 series is a collection of individual documentary films that are released under that collection banner. They are not "episodes" in the traditional sense of the term, and though the majority are released/aired on television, some do get released individually and are put up for consideration in "film" awards categories. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Right, I understand that. But this particular film was never shown in theatres or festival. The NYT citation in the article is even in the television section. It is a television film by any definition I would consider. BOVINEBOY2008 20:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Given the nature of what the 30 for 30 films are, I feel the film infobox is the correct one to use, but I'm not going to make an issue with it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Completely understand and respect the edit! Was just trying to understand the justification since it didn't line up with my view. Happy editing! BOVINEBOY2008 20:58, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

File rename batch

Could you take a look at User:Gonnym/sandbox/tests2#MCU and see if you can clear anymore of those? Gonnym (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Sure. Sorry I've forgotten about them. I'll get to them soon and let you know if I have any questions on resulting names. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I've done the vast majority of them. I put responses in your sandbox to some of them. We can further discuss if needed here on my talk or there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Move

Can you move Mother and Child Reunion (The Simpsons episode) to Mother and Child Reunion (The Simpsons)? That's the proper format. – ChannelSpider (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Restoring unsourced content on Venom (2018 film)

I am not sure if you have actually looked at the content you are restoring, but it is not supported by the article body and some of it is even contradicted by the content in the main body, and so I have reverted it per WP:BURDEN policy. I have also left a comment about my change on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Loki's posters

Hello. Sorry for my bad english, I am using a google translator. What about posters for the Loki series on the English Wikipedia? Have you discussed this? I would like to suggest an idea to use these posters with quotes from the episode: [1] [2] [3]. I uploaded them to Russian Wikipedia and used them for articles (ru:Славная миссия, ru:Вариант (Локи), ru:Ламентис). I think it turned out beautifully. — Vladlen Manilov (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Hi, I'm not sure if Favre1fan93 was aware of these posters but I was not and I think they look great. I don't see why they shouldn't be added to the articles here. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:59, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad you liked it. If he likes it, he can upload them. I will not do this without consensus, and I am not sure that I would have done everything right because I haven't done this before on English Wikipedia. — Vladlen Manilov (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I have WP:BOLDly added the posters, as they are official promotional posters that clearly align with scenes from each episode. Thanks for the suggestion! - adamstom97 (talk) 05:56, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Great. — Vladlen Manilov (talk) 06:53, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I was about to make a post at Talk:Loki (TV series) about these when I saw the third episode one released and realized it was a possible pattern. Thanks for the suggestion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

WandaVision

Hey, I saw you added some costume info to the WV article but I haven't taken a look at it yet. Just wanted to let you know that I have a bunch more design and effects info sorted out and ready to add to that article and the episode articles as soon as I have time over the next day or so. Then I just want to do some work on the analysis section for the WV article before we go for GAN. I am also planning to do a similar thing for FaWS sometime soon as I have seen plenty of good sources out there but just haven't had the time to sort through everything yet. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

It would be nice if content relevant to the character could also be added to Wanda Maximoff (Marvel Cinematic Universe). Cheers! BD2412 T 21:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: That sounds good! As I said on the WP:MCU taskforce talk, I definitely wanted to wait until at least the Emmy nominations were revealed to consider any GA nominations, and I just looked up that they will be revealed on July 13, so I think the timing will work out. WandaVision is definitely closer in my opinion to a nomination, and I'm sure FWS will get there after anything you have ready to add. I think the only thing I'm really sitting on for WandaVision is some visual effects info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:53, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I also want to try and get some more images on the WandaVision page. I think they need them, but am at a bit of a loss at least for ones on Commons, so we might need to pick some non-free ones that would be really beneficial. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I have a non-free one that I think will go well in the VFX section, I already have a bunch of VFX content that I will add shortly so I can add that image in when I make the content additions. In terms of keeping things balanced throughout the article, it would be good to add something in marketing or analysis I feel. Also, an external media link for the title sequence like we have at FaWS would be good but wasn't sure if you had already checked for a good video option or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Oh good thought on an end credits link. Unfortunately, I did a quick YouTube search, and there's nothing official. We could perhaps use a singular image from Perception's case study site? I don't know what VFX content you've found, but I've been holding on to this and other articles from that site that I felt might be good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

I'll have more of a think about the title sequence. I have been pretty thorough with my search for VFX sources and I do have that site, so if I can get my stuff in soon then hopefully there won't be much for you to add. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:44, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, I have a suggestion regarding the title sequence stuff. If we want to have something for it, we could have an image from Perception's site alongside a House of M image like the one here to compare the two since we have commentary for that in the section. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:12, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

I like making the House of M comparison! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Draft:The Satanist's Apprentice

I have developed this draft because the episode's animation is its USP. However, it's gonna be too overwhelming for me. While I develop the broadcast and reception parts, would you please help in expanding the production section, particularly the animation info? Kailash29792 (talk) 09:23, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Never mind, I've taken care of it. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Jessica Jones titles

Hey, I noticed an issue with the working titles. Jessica Jones (TV series)#Development mentions only "AKA Jessica Jones" (emphasis is mine):

• In December 2010, Melissa Rosenberg was developing AKA Jessica Jones for ABC under her new production banner Tall Girls Productions, along with ABC Studios and Marvel Television.

But the lead says:

• By late 2013, Rosenberg was reworking the series for Netflix as A.K.A. Jessica Jones. Ritter was cast as Jones in December 2014.

The lead name isn't mentioned anywhere in the article and contradicts the development name. So either both were working titles and the lead title should be added to the body of the article somewhere, or one of the two isn't correct. After you fix this issue, I'll adjust the categories on the redirects. Gonnym (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

So I noticed this too and thought my change was premature, but it wasn't. Yes, when it was first in development at ABC, Variety reported the title was AKA Jessica Jones, but then if you look in the middle of the second paragraph, when it was officially at Netflix, it was first announced officially as A.K.A. Jessica Jones per In December 2014, the official title was revealed to be Marvel's A.K.A. Jessica Jones. That was then shorten to simply Marvel's Jessica Jones, so the A.K.A. with periods I would consider the official former title, while AKA without would be the incorrect name. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm confused, if both are the working titles, aren't both former names? Gonnym (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

The series's first development was at ABC, when it was revealed as AKA Jessica Jones, but it never went further than the initial scripting. Then it moved to Netflix, where much of the ABC series was retained and then reworked, and was first announced as Marvel's A.K.A. Jessica Jones, before shortening to Jessica Jones. If the ABC development counts as a proper former title, the perhaps both need that RCat template. But since the ABC series never materialized, I'm not viewing it as a proper former title of the series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

IMP Awards

Please stop adding IMP Award links, they are not a reliable source per WP:RS, and there are other more reliable sources available (in this instance, WP:SOCIALMEDIA clearly allows the use of Twitter, which was already being used). You can clearly see that the IMP Awards site is designed to push sales by linking to poster purchases on sites like eBay, Amazon and elsewhere using affiliate links. This is meta-spam, and the Twitter source is perfectly fine. Also, keep in mind that as inserting linkspam is considered vandalism, 3RR does not apply to the removal of spam links. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

@Locke Cole: IMP Awards has never been viewed as an unreliable source, especially since they are a collection/database for various poster releases that can be accurately sourced as having been released (to dissuade from say fan-made posters). They are not WP:LINKSPAM. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good rationale. The site is very clearly setup to make money off of affiliate links, and we should avoid unreliable sources like that when we have better sources available. —Locke Cole • t • c 15:36, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

It's not OSE. The site says the following: "Internet Movie Poster Awards - One of the largest collections of movie poster images online." No where is that indication that it's designed to push sales as you are claiming. It's a database, much like IMDb is for actors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have to agree with Favre on this. IMP Awards routinely posts higher quality images than found on social media. Furthermore, the link in the source should lead to the actual file used in the edit. In this case it was IMP Awards.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, social media posts can sometimes be removed or links shifted, but generally speaking, I've yet to see that happen to IMP Award links, so even if grabbing the image first occurred from social media, replacing to the IMP Awards link is more "stable"/guaranteed in the long run. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:59, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Hey there Favre! I'm not sure you know me, but I'm Dcdiehardfan. As a new Wikipedian, I am amazed at your work and service to Wikipedia. Your tireless and useful contributions to the MCU articles amaze me! Keep up the good work! Dcdiehardfan (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Black Widow's actual weekend totals

I don't understand why it is not worth putting the actual opening weekend total of $80.4 million in the United States and Canada for Black Widow along with sources that confirm it. All major films with articles here on this website had their weekend debuts totals updated after actual were released. I could list them, but they are just too many too count. And1987 (talk) 00:05, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

File:Loki "For All Time. Always" poster.jpeg

Hi Favre, I missed the last fullstop after "Always" of the episode name here. Could you move the file to File:Loki "For All Time. Always." poster.jpeg? IronManCap (talk) 19:10, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap:  Done! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. IronManCap (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Archive voice cameos in For All Time. Always.

Hey, Favre. Do you think these archive voice cameos should be included in the List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series actors (Marvel Studios)? —El Millo (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I didn't think so. They're all so fast and to the average viewer probably just an assortment of the various MCU films and series. I think if we do get articles covering any in particular, we can just go in depth at the episode article. Adding them to the table would not be the best course of action in my view, because it's not like there's a corresponding image really to go with them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I think we can use the fact that the character voices just play during the Marvel Studios logo as a justification not to include them in the list. —El Millo (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Yup, exactly. The only prominent one I picked up "in episode" was Vision's. I also think once we get some further insight from Waldron or Herron as to why the clips were chosen that were, that might help veer against any table additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I would agree with just keeping them in prose at the episode article and not putting them in any cast tables. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Feige D23 podcast

Hi Favre. Kevin Feige recently talked about Black Widow, Loki and the multiverse in the MCU in a D23 podcast. When including this info in articles, should we use {{Cite podcast}} and cite the podcast directly, or use {{Cite web}} and cite secondary sources reporting on the podcast? IronManCap (talk) 14:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@IronManCap: it depends on what info you're pulling from the discussion. If it's something that a secondary source is covering, just that is fine, and conversely if it's just in the podcast and not covered by secondary sources, use Cite podcast and |time= if applicable. And if necessary, use the podcast and secondary sources if needed. I've vaguely seen he did this podcast but haven't really read up on anything that he said. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It came to my attention because of this. IronManCap (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War

Could you at least provide a reason for udoing my addition to the article? Denis Mattos ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 16:56, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)He did, he linked WP:EGG, which addresses why your edit was reverted. —El Millo (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

FSR, clicking the link didn't open the exact sub-item relevant to the reversion. Still, I gotta ask: what would Wikipedia standards have me do in this case? Is it considered proper to just parenthesize a direction to the proper article, as in "(Events happening during this exile were covered on Black Widow (2021 film))"? Denis Mattos ^{(Talk) (Contributions)} 21:39, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

If it needs to be explained then a note can be added with additional information from outside of the plot summary, generally with reliable sources to support that content. You can see such a note earlier in the same plot summary about the events of Age of Ultron. But in this case no such note is necessary because there is nothing to be explained here, the link you were adding was simply a "see more" link that should not be added to a plot summary. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Quick question

Any comment on the current status of Black Widow (2021 film)? Should we wait until the film gets award nominations before going for a GAN? IronManCap (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know if it is a rule or just a custom, but I think we normally wait until a film is out of theaters before nominating it for GA-status. —El Millo (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

From memory we generally wait until about a month after the film is released on home media before going for GAN. A few weeks after theatrical release is definitely too early. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Alright. I've not been involved with this before so I was unaware. Thanks all. IronManCap (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, as Adam said, now is definitely way too soon. I personally haven't even really looked the article of late because I've been focusing on Loki, and I can guarantee there's probably work needed to be done at Black Widow. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

NTV

What could I do to help speed that notability guideline to an RfC? Having this spun out would really help with figuring out where NMEDIA is going. This has SNG-level buy-in unlike the rest of NMEDIA, so I don't want to drag WP:TV down with the other issues with that page. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:54, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: There were a few other editors per the recent talk discussions that had wanted to include material that is not yet in the guideline. I personally have been busy working on other areas of Wikipedia so I haven't been able to give attention to this again. However, if an RfC would simply be to get the guideline approved, even if there is more material we know we want to add, then I think it's at that point and can proceed. But if we need to wait to have those outstanding sections covered, outside of pinging other editors who wanted to add something, I'm not sure what else I can suggest. I'm trying my best to spearhead the approach to an RfC, but am personally being cautious on how much I add/do myself (because I could probably write up a lot of what's outstanding) to avoid an WP:OWN assumptions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, That's understandable. The main problem is that NMEDIA had some real problems elsewhere. The main thing for an argument like adopting NTV is convincing editors that something beyond the GNG is needed.

What are the areas that were considered for additional treatment? If some or all of those can be incorporated and then RfC started, I think it will be to everyone's benefit. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agatha All Along

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agatha All Along 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 Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 21:01, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agatha All Along

The article Agatha All Along 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:Agatha All Along for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:21, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the ping. It's at WP:ANI now. Cabayi (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure. When I reexamined that editor's comments and looked at the page history, I realized you had closed the discussions, and that you are in fact an editor, and what they did did not seem proper. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:03, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Don't sell yourself short. You're an editor too! Cabayi (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

D'oh! Meant to say you're an admin! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agatha All Along

The article Agatha All Along you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agatha All Along for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Agatha All Along

Hey, just a small note regarding the commercial performance section for this article. In all of our other articles we have the box office/viewership data/album charts/etc. before the critical response section, so that's why I made that move. I could have been more clear about my reasoning when I did it. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:17, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Totally, I figured that's why you did it. When I put that placement, it felt in this instance the chart performance was because of the critical reception, so it made sense in the order of the episode to see that after you've already read about it viral nature and the critical response. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I can see that. BTW, thanks for all the ongoing Loki work. I have been spending less time on that stuff since you've been working on it and its meant I could do more work getting WandaVision ready. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, no problem! And I've been working on that because you've been on WandaVision haha. I do still need to give a c/e pass myself for at least the main WandaVision page to start. I think I've gotten in most of the Loki material I was sitting on. I know you and I both haven't even been on Black Widow and I've got a lot of stuff I'm sitting on/know that probably needs work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:55, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Haha. I have been more aware of the "X said... Y said" stuff since you brought it up and have also been looking at quotes as per usual so I am pretty happy with the c/e improvements I've made at the episode articles. And yeah I haven't even put Black Widow back on my watchlist yet but I am also sitting on some stuff for that which I hope to get to soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:05, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Team Thor

Hi Favre, shouldn't Talk:Team Thor (film) be moved to Talk:Team Thor for consistency with the article name? IronManCap (talk) 22:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Didn't realize the moving editor didn't handle the talk pages too. That's very annoying. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks as always. IronManCap (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

WVRDR_ERROR_100 <Oest-of-th3-Gs.gid30n> notFound

This is the title of Legends of Tomorrow's 100th episode. But how do I create a draft/redirect with the restricted characters? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kailash29792: How about Episode 100 (Legends of Tomorrow)? – IronManCap (talk) 13:59, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 and IronManCap: wow, what a title. Per WP:FORBIDDEN, "< >" are the only characters not allowed (plus the underscores), so I would imagine, in theory, the title could exist at WVRDR ERROR 100 Oest-of-th3-Gs.gid30n notFound. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

And then "DISPLAYTITLE" can be used to put the underscores back in, and {{Correct title}} could be used to note why the carrot brackets aren't used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

What Favre said is the correct path. Remove "<>" from title, add correct title template and use displaytitle to fix it. Just as a note, I have a feeling that title might change before airing. Gonnym (talk) 16:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that Favre's suggestion is a smart way to go. This is the strangest episode title I have ever seen. --IronManCap (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I also have a feeling the title will change upon release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I tried moving Draft:Legends of Tomorrow 100th episode to the above suggestion, but it disallows more than 9 consecutive capital letters. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 I moved it now. Seems to work. Gonnym (talk) 07:51, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Agatha All Along

On 17 August 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Agatha All Along, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the WandaVision song "Agatha All Along" was inspired by the theme songs of The Munsters and The Addams Family? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Agatha All Along. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Agatha All Along), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Reverting without Twinkle or Rollback

Hi Favre, how do you revert multiple edits without using Twinkle or Rollback (like here)? Is there a script or something for it? IronManCap (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I usually span the edits in question, then you can generally click "undo" and as long as there haven't ben changes since that would affect it, you can perform the undo. Alternatively, I click [restore this version] for the previous diff through Twinkle. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Yup, just tested it in my sandbox. Thanks! IronManCap (talk) 17:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Moving files

I noticed you move files manually and update the filenames in articles manually as well. As updating filenames is a drag I created LuckyRename some time ago, you may want to give it a try. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 11:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@Alexis Jazz: Cool, thanks! I've installed it and will try it out. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

WandaVision logos

Hello, thanks for unreverting my edits on the WandaVision episode pages. Actually, I saw that you added the title card logos from Season 7 of Agents of Shield and I thought it would be a good idea to do the same for WandaVision. I haven't added the logos for episodes 5 and 6 because I wanted them to be in an SVG format and when I was making them it turned out to be a lot harder than I expected. I know I could upload them in a PNG format instead, while I think that the 80s logo could easily be listed under the PD-textlogo tag. I don't know about the 90s logo, it's quite complex design and I wouldn't say that it's a "logo image consists only of simple geometric shapes or text". Would it be better if I uploaded it under "Non-free media" or if I made a simpler SVG version, where there would either it would be completely black or use gradient pattern instead. I am really not sure what to do, so I thought it would be best to ask someone else.

Also I wasn't going to add the Agatha All Along logo, but I saw that you created the page so if you think that it would be useful to page I would be happy to make a SVG version and upload it.

Anyways thanks for your help! - SINGmeAsadSONG (talk) 04:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@SINGmeAsadSONG: As with any logo, if it is non-free, there needs to essentially be an "ironclad" reason justifying its use in articles, per the WP:NFC rules. That said, if you don't feel any additional WandaVision logos can meet the threshold of originality as simple text to upload them on Commons, we should not upload them as non-free media. As for Agatha All Along, the logo in in the existing image of that article so that would be redundant. Hope that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:08, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If we don't think we can pull simple text from the 105 and 106 logos, I think we could upload the full title cards as non-free with commentary since we can talk about the logos and work done on the backgrounds. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Feige

It includes Feige's interview for being a response to a Chinese journalist, which is a response to a Chinese audience (on Wikimedia Comnons there is a poster of Hong Kong, but it seems that in the rest of China there is no prediction yet). Hyju (talk) 23:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

importance-bottom

It would seem the templates aren't supporting the bottom option. I think I can add support to it, however, that would mean adding it for the entire project and not for the task force only, which might (and probably) not be what they want. What should we do? Gonnym (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Is that per WikiProject template? I was looking at the code of {{WikiProject Film}} and {{WikiProject Comics}} (which I know allows "Bottom") and I didn't see any sort of difference. I would just assume a user could add any of the 5 levels plus "NA". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears the Film project as a whole doesn't do importance, but I guess I'm still confused as to why "Bottom" wouldn't work for the taskforce the same as it has been working for top, high, etc. I know we don't have bottom categories yet, could that be why? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Because of the existence of Template:WikiProject Comics/importance. That sub template is what allows to set the bottom to true. Gonnym (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see. Could we create Template:WikiProject Film/Marvel Cinematic Universe task force/importance just for the taskforce? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

If it's not feasible, we can scrap it and just go with low, though I did feel that those video game tie-ins would be better suited as "bottom" importance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

The whole family of the banner templates are an unforgiven maze. The simple answer is that I don't know if a sub-template like that for a task force could work, but the documentation of {{Importance mask}} makes me believe it can't. Gonnym (talk) 19:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Great, then we'll just scrap it. I'll readjust those video game articles back to low. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for input

You have previously contributed on Talk:Star Wars: The Bad Batch#Panjabi as a starring actor - a new discussion is now in place ("Post-season reassessment") - so I thought I'd notify yo uto see what your input was now. 141.92.129.43 (talk) 09:38, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yuen Wah's involvement in Shang-Chi

Hi Favre1fan93! I saw you reverted my edit and said it does not look reliable in the edit summary. But actually the source I provided is from HK01, an established news company in Hong Kong, and it is considered as a reliable source in both the Chinese and Cantonese Wikipedia. The article mentioned that Michelle Yeoh and Destin Daniel Cretton posted some photos with the members of Shang-Chi cast on Instagram and Yuen Wah could be seen among them, so it is not a rumour or a hoax. In fact there are actually many other articles which covered Yuen Wah's involvement, like Ming Pao{1} and Oriental Daily News{2}, for your reference. But since Yuen is a Hong Kongese actor and most of his works r Hong Kong-based, I think not many English movie reporters would care about and mention his involvement, that's why I used the HK01 article as source and maybe that's the reason why you couldn't factcheck it by Googling it in English. --Prince of Erebor (talk) 15:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My computer did not render the cantonese symbols of the url, hence why I did not want to attempt navigating towards it and assumed it's unreliablitly. Regardless, I've found an English source here that mentions her as being a part of the cast, so I'll readd with that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

I see. It's true that Cantonese characters in url links look garbled. So yea it seems more proper to use the Syfy article as source. Sorry for the inconvenience caused and thanks for your help!--Prince of Erebor (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for clarifying. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:22, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Shang-Chi

Hey Favre, since you were able to see Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings early, was the film any good? — ChannelSpider (talk) 16:41, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I very much enjoyed it, yes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice! — ChannelSpider (talk) 10:34, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Request

According to an admin recommendation, you are experienced in the field of FAC. Will you help or supervises Frozen II so it became a featured article. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frozen II/archive 2 Wingwatchers (talk) 22:50, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wingwatchers: I don't know which admin may have said that, but I have no experience getting any article to FAC, nor have I participated much in reviews for them. I hope to try for articles I regularly work on, but at this time, I generally do not participate in GA or FA reviews outside of articles I've worked on. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:05, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Armageddon (Arrowverse)

Can this source be used to say it's filming, and worth entering the mainspace? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:24, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't think so, because the part that links it to Armageddon is from an unreliable source, and thus WP:FRUIT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Xu Shang-Chi (Marvel Cinematic Universe)

Hi Favre, please can you move this to Draft:Shang-Chi (Marvel Cinematic Universe) per the talkpage consensus, as that's the WP:COMMONNAME? IronManCap (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

 Done - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for WandaVision

On 8 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article WandaVision, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Marvel Cinematic Universe television series WandaVision was structured to follow the five stages of grief by starting with denial and ending with acceptance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/WandaVision. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, WandaVision), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:02, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of We Interrupt This Program

Hello! Your submission of We Interrupt This Program at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC) — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:13, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Page need to help

Can you fix a page title Draft:Batwheels please. Blackknight1234567890 (talk) 17:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Answering on behalf of Favre, since he is currently on-and-off Wikipedia for the next 2 weeks it seems. I assume you want the Batwheels draft to be moved to mainspace, however it only has 1 source and was declined. — ChannelSpider (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Don't Touch That Dial

On 19 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Don't Touch That Dial, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that to portray "drunk" Vision in the WandaVision episode "Don't Touch That Dial", Paul Bettany took inspiration from Dick Van Dyke's drunk acting in The Dick Van Dyke Show? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Don't Touch That Dial. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Don't Touch That Dial), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK nomination of The Series Finale

Hello! Your submission of The Series Finale at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Morgan695 (talk) 23:39, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience

On 21 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the WandaVision episode "Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience" employed a variety of live special effects such as wire rigs to emulate television series of the 1950s and 1960s? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Filmed Before a Live Studio Audience), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Ms. Marvel in 2022

Hey Favre. Regarding your recent reverts on the Ms. Marvel release update to 2022, author Adam B. Vary just tweeted the Variety article and said: UPDATE: I've confirmed what was obvious to most Marvel Studios observers: #MsMarvel has moved from a late 2021 release on Disney Plus to 2022. It seems this confirms that he had sources that confirmed this to him, instead of just speculating that's the case. What do you think? —El Millo (talk) 16:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

@Facu-el Millo: Thanks for finding that. That's the source we should use, not the Variety article that previously was. Let's go back and restore the changes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

I'm on it. —El Millo (talk) 16:40, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

References

DYK for Now in Color

On 24 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Now in Color, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that director Matt Shakman filmed footage specifically for the opening of the 1970s-inspired WandaVision episode "Now in Color", deviating from typical sitcoms of the era that used stock footage in their openings? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Now in Color. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Now in Color), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for All-New Halloween Spooktacular!

On 26 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article All-New Halloween Spooktacular!, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Olsen and Paul Bettany wore comic-book-accurate Scarlet Witch and Vision Halloween costumes in the WandaVision episode "All-New Halloween Spooktacular!"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/All-New Halloween Spooktacular!. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, All-New Halloween Spooktacular!), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for We Interrupt This Program

On 26 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article We Interrupt This Program, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the WandaVision episode "We Interrupt This Program" was pitched like an episode of CSI, deviating from the sitcom genre of preceding episodes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/We Interrupt This Program. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, We Interrupt This Program), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

DYK for On a Very Special Episode...

On 27 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article On a Very Special Episode..., which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the crane shots at the end of the opening sequence for the WandaVision episode "On a Very Special Episode..." were added as an homage to Full House? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/On a Very Special Episode.... You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, On a Very Special Episode...), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Review of Crash Bandicoot 4: It's About Time

Hi there, Favre1fan93! Thanks for reviewing Cat's Tuxedo's nomination at DYK, your review checks out for the most part. Something I think you missed was that Cat's Tuxedo made a special date request for their hook to run on October 2nd—as the reviewer, you had an extra requirement of assessing the validity of the request and, if it's valid, asking that the nomination be moved to the special occasion holding area. I've pinged a couple admins on WT:DYK, so it should be fine for the most part, but that's something to keep in mind as you make more reviews. Thanks again for participating in DYK! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for this. I was not aware of that, and assumed that was on the prep editor to look at and deal with as they are the ones moving and promoting the DYKs. Is this information codified somewhere in regards to date requests and the reviewer needing to consider that? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

The relevant info would be at WP:Did you know#Date requests, i think. As for why reviewers are tasked with determining validity, it's a good question. I think the answer is that prep set promoters like me usually don't look at a nom in-depth until the nom has worked its way to the middle or end of the backlog, and by then it could be far too late. The reviewer is already on hand pretty close to when the nom is submitted, and they can see to it that the nom is moved to a special holding area, where the prep set promoters can keep an eye on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:17, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks for the info. I'll keep that in mind if I come across that in a future review. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Questions on television episode displaytitle template

Your revision here [4] alerted me to some potential problems with my approach to working on the Category:Pages_using_infobox_television_episode_with_unnecessary_manual_displaytitle maintenance category. A good deal of these have the episode title along with the series title in parenthesis for disambiguation, such as: {{DISPLAYTITLE:The Couch (''Seinfeld'')}}. In spot-checking what I've done so far (since I noticed the above mentioned reversion), it appears that removing the {{DISPLAYTITLE}} in these cases does still appropriately italicize the series title. But I want to make sure that's the case. Are there any other potential issues or pitfalls I might not be aware of while working through these? TIA. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

@Butlerblog: Yes, I've been noticing on pages I watch your edits and all have looked good except the one where I reverted. The easiest explanation I can give is if the article title matches the conventional "Episode title (Series title)" where disambiguation is used, then removing should be fine. If it doesn't, then you probably should take greater caution to see if the DISPLAYTITLE is indeed needed as was the case with Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! That helps clarify. ButlerBlog (talk) 17:05, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for The Series Finale

On 7 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Series Finale, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Elizabeth Olsen consulted on the Scarlet Witch costume that debuted in the WandaVision episode "The Series Finale" so it would be less revealing than her past Marvel Cinematic Universe costumes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Series Finale. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Series Finale), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Previously On

On 8 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Previously On, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Wanda Maximoff was referred to as the "Scarlet Witch" for the first time in the Marvel Cinematic Universe in the WandaVision episode "Previously On"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Previously On. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Previously On), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision)

On 11 October 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benedict Cumberbatch was originally expected to have a cameo appearance as Dr. Strange in the WandaVision episode "Breaking the Fourth Wall"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Breaking the Fourth Wall (WandaVision)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Your opinion

Hey, I noticed that at Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. series finale the word "and" was not bolded so I did some modifications to the infobox for that type of style. Could you take a look at whoami and Hello, Elliot using the infobox /sandbox. Should we unbold the "and"? Gonnym (talk) 11:45, 13 October 2021 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Yes, I'd say like the AoS finale article, the "and" in whoami and Hello, Elliot should not be bolded. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Nathan Edmondson

Hi. My attempts to get others to help regarding an editor blanking content from the Nathan Edmondson article, and refusing to discuss the matter, have only been slightly successful. I've contacted three other admins, and put messages on the WikiComics Project talk page, and only two other editors have so far responded. Since you've participated in disputes regarding comics articles before, can you offer your views in the discussions? My analysis of the blanking, which I did at the request of another editor who alerted me to the problem, is here. The subsequent RfC began here. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:20, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Samba TV tracking

On Shang-Chi I said in particular in my edit summary that Samba TV tracks over 28 million TV sets in the US. See that here (https://observer.com/2021/10/dune-is-getting-a-sequel-but-how-did-it-really-perform-lets-check-the-data/).

In addition, Samba TV itself states it tracks tens of millions of households (https://www.samba.tv/press-releases/samba-tv-and-605-partner-to-create-an-unparalleled-omniscreen-addressable-tv-footprint).

It tracks far more than over 3 million households which you claimed on the Shang-Chi film. The article you use doesn't use clear language (https://deadline.com/2021/11/red-notice-viewership-netflix-record-dwayne-johnson-gal-gadot-ryan-reynolds-shang-chi-1234874738/), but an older article from the same source says it's panel size of 3 million households (https://deadline.com/2021/06/cruella-first-weekend-on-disney-was-39-behind-mulan-in-households-samba-tv-data-shows-1234767514/).

That is not the same as it only tracking households around the 3 million range. It also stated that 4.2 million households watched Red Notice which wouldn't be possible if its numbers were only around 3 million. Please read what a person is saying before editing. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Ghostarchive

This website can archive online videos, especially from YouTube. It might be useful for most MCU articles. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:49, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy

Please explain why Spielberg's comments on the film are valid but his ranking of the film isn't? Its basically the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhantomFelix21 (talk • contribs) 05:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What If cast section

What was the point of the cast section changes in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=What_If...%3F_%28TV_series%29&type=revision&diff=1056967861&oldid=1056910021 ? In what possible way do you think it made the article superior to the cast section in the previous version? When you described the edit, you said the prior cast section changes were unexplained. But they were explained in the description of the edit that made them. And when you described the edit, you said you were restoring a version that has consensus. But obviously it does not have consensus, in light of the fact that someone changed it. - 2603:9000:E408:4800:8CF4:AA1F:BCD6:77B4 (talk) 18:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

"Consensus" does not mean "unanimity". Since the previous version was the established one, it is in essence the one that has agreement between editors. Your version changed the established one with a bold edit, but as with every bold it, it can be reverted to the previously established version. If you wish to change it, you'll have to start a discussion on the talk page and get a new consensus that supports your version. Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Please also find the discussion for which the cast section was discussed and consensus was formed for the version that you changed, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Seek consensus

Instead of reverting again seek consensus for your bold edit which changed something that was so on the page for long. I have never seen any article separate streaming viewership from reception. And MOS:FILM doesn't say Reception is only meant foe initial release, nor the Home Media section says anything you are claiming. Besides streaming and home media are not the same. AbsolutelyFiring (talk) 17:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I've started a relevant discussion on the film's talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

NTV

I know (the hard way) that it must have been frustrating that WP:NTV wound up an essay (it appears more due to what's become a consensus about SNGs itself), but I'm glad that you stuck with it. Now that the television stuff is gone from NMEDIA, I will probably put some of the more minimal parts of the NMEDIA rewrite in there (mostly to improve the copy, not so much to change its meaning). Even if it's just having an essay, having television programming spun out of there is a massive relief. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:53, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: Thanks. I did feel some points brought up in the RfC were good to take into consideration, but the general feeling I got was, "if this isn't good enough for SNG, then what would be and why then do we even have them?". Anyways, thanks for the encouragement. As you will probably see, in the NMEDIA "Programming" section, I kept the first two paragraphs for the radio programming, but they do more or less duplicate WP:NTVLOCAL now, so adjust or remove that radio info further as you see beneficial. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:56, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I actually had some material in the rewrite intended for that type of event. (Nothing else covers radio programming, so it kind of is left there.) The main reason I still want to use some of that rewrite text is that the way NMEDIA is written suffers from the type of internationalization and focus issues that used to be very prevalent (and still need cleaning up) in the way TVS and WPRS are structured. I had to change TVS from being so narrowly defined that everyone else was tagging pages that clearly belonged there but which weren't in the previously defined scope of "North American broadcast TV stations", like CNN or Doordarshan. That was to the detriment of maintenance tasks related to other types of linear TV services. (Infobox television channel needed two PrimeBOT runs to effect a massive overhaul!) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

MCU music

When undoing this edit on the article Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe the reason you mentioned was "as all unsourced/possible WP:OR". Not only the information regarding Paraskevas' work on Hawkeye was sourced in the same way as other information on that article but format is also the same as in other sections like Avengers: Endgame. The themes contained in the score for Spider-Man: No Way Home (which has been officially released on digital platforms) are mentioned with the track they're in, as it is in the sections for Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame. Please clarify if the sources considered missing should indicate if in fact Horner's and Elfman's themes are repraised, which now seems to be a must only for this score since that is part of the soundtrack itself, even including the tracks. Please note this is a comment asking for further elaboration on the lack of sources even when the major section affected on this edit follows the structure of sections above, and/or comments on how to correctly source the information of the 3 sections and the paramaters for that. I'm asking for further ellaboration since I won't start a undo-undo chain because of obvious reasons that would lead to vandalism. The edit I made contained information for 3 sections, so if the sourcing problem is with 1 or 2 of those I would like to know if something on the edit was actually worth keeping. 1234a7q (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Clint-mas, Favre1fan93! Here's to a 2022 full of madness! InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:01, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas, Favre!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, SirDot (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and have a happy new year for 2022! – SirDot (talk) 02:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! Trailblazer101 (talk) 15:43, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

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 heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2022. Happy editing, JOEBRO64 16:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy New Year, Favre1fan93!

Happy New Year!

Favre1fan93,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
SirDot (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

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

Happy Holidays

★Trekker (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, 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:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays!

—El Millo (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:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message.