User talk:Doniago/Archive 92
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 85 | ← | Archive 90 | Archive 91 | Archive 92 | Archive 93 | Archive 94 | Archive 95 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Deleted Almost Famous edit
Thank you for your feedback. I hadn't read all the guidelines regarding editing of plot/synopsis areas. Admittedly, this is a movie I liked so I did get carried away trying to add details but I see how that can make it too complicated or long. I'll also make sure I know the definition of a "minor edit". R. Vandiver — Preceding unsigned comment added by TreToro335 (talk • contribs)
Four Weddings - Sir Hamish Banks?
Hi,
Regarding your reversion of my recent edit at Four Weddings and a Funeral, MOS:HONORIFIC makes interesting reading, but seems more relevant to biographical articles than to a list of characters in a film.
Hamish is introduced by his first name in the film, and referred to as such in every case except just prior to his wedding speech, when his full name and title are given. The title was removed by a previous editor who mistakenly noted that he's never referred to as such in the film; my edit was intended to correct that mistake.
My feeling is that "Sir Hamish Banks" is appropriate to the character list, but not to the synopsis. "Hamish" tout court is more consistent with the other named characters, while "Hamish Banks" (the status quo) is neither one nor the other. Thoughts?
Jean-de-Nivelle (talk) 20:00, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
The Goonies Citation
Hello
You mentioned you removed my story on the Goonies page and left articles on how to cite references
Unfortunately, while I do know how to add a reference, I've yet to find a direct source wikipedia may consider valid for the story. The story of Albert Broccoli approving the bond theme's usage in return for using the Close Encounter tones has been on the internet for some time, including on sites like IMDB and seems credible despite this.
So while I thought it was worth adding, I was lazy and hoped someone might be able to do the job for me. ;-P
Jourell (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- If that's the case, I think your best option might be to ask at the article's Talk page, but I suspect many if not most editors may not be keen to do someone else's "homework" for them, as it were. I might be wrong though! I'm glad you recognize the issue though, and thank you for your understanding! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
June 2021
Hello, I'm Akiji. I noticed that you reverted my change in an article, The Miser, arguing the lack of a reliable source. My source is the very name of the work in question: The Miser's full name is "The Miser, or the School for Lies" as that's how Molière himself wrote it at the head of the manuscript of his play. "The Miser" is the shortened version. If you want extra sources, a simple net search should provide them by the hundreds. Here's one example at the Scribd archive: https://www.scribd.com/book/385646170/The-Miser-or-the-School-for-Lies-L-Avare-ou-L-Ecole-du-Mensonge
Thank you for your good work going over editions. Akiji (talk) 18:40, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Bugger, I'm having trouble getting the site to resolve for me right now, which is weird because I've looked up works there before. Anyway, you're welcome to reinsert the full name with that URL as a citation. I won't argue it. Thanks for understanding my concern; I've just never heard it referred to as anything other than The Miser. Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Seriously?
Are you seriously removing words like "Treasure hunter" and "meanwhile" from a plot synopsis to "trim" the section down? First of all, the fact that the guy is a treasure hunter absolutely is relevant to the entire reason that he's searching for the jewel. Second of all, do you really think that this is serving the synopsis better?
You're not helping the article. Somebody has to sit there and repeatedly beg for your approval to add RELEVANT information in to a damn wiki article? Some of the best Wiki articles that I've ever read were ones that were later butchered by people like you.StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 18:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- You're welcome to discuss at the article's Talk page whether waiving the WP:FILMPLOT guideline is warranted in this case, but you're the one who was adding material without making any effort to keep the word count within the guideline despite my pointing it out to you, so I'll thank you not to fault me for having made a good-faith effort to do so. DonIago (talk) 18:38, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
It's a four-hour movie. And you're nitpicking over literal WORDS that are relevant to the plot. And it's not even as if you're re-writing the relevant information to be less-wordy, you just removed it altogether. Then I add it back and have to hope that it suites your guidelines for a four hour movie. Seriously. It's The Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law, and you take it too Goddamn seriously. StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 19:13, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
- Would you care to rephrase this in a manner that makes it sound more as though you're interested in working together to resolve this rather than throwing accusations at me based on your personal opinions? Because I've already told you what your best option is if you're unsatisfied with the plot summary currently and feel that we should disregard WP:FILMPLOT. DonIago (talk) 01:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I AM throwing accusations at you. You're not improving the articles. And I don't intend to "Work together" with you, as you know full and well you're not going to change a damn thing that you're doing. You're going to listen to what I have to say, and then go "Interesting, BUT WP:FILMPILOT..."
So I just wanted to tell you that it's annoying as all hell. People like you butcher great articles for no good real reason. Seriously, it's the Letter of the Law vs. the Spirit of the Law. You didn't even improve the writing, you just straight up deleted relevant parts to the plot. StrangeApparition2011 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Martian Child
I am unclear as to what it means to cite IMDB as a questionable source, but nevertheless, what I said is objectively true: users on IMDB have rated the movie Martian Child with a very favorable 6.8 rating. Unless the rating of 6.8 is not objectively verifiable - which is true, it is... - I am baffled as why you removed the note. As the co-writer and co-producer of the movie I am simply pointing out that despite lukewarm critic reviews, audiences genuinely like the film, as noted by their ratings on IMDB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Craboo (talk • contribs) 05:14, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- IMDb is not reliable as a ratings service because their ratings are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew, as discussed at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Audience reception. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Touch of Evil plot summary
Thank you for your correction.
The problem with the summary as it stands now (IMHO) is it leaves out too much background info which is necessary to understand the plot. For instance, the summary says that Miguel Vargas takes an interest in the investigation, but doesn't say who Miguel Vargas is, and why his interest matters. Same with Hank Quinlan and his partner Pete Menzies. Who is Hank Quinlan, and what kind of partner is Menzies? And the article does not identify "Uncle" Joe Grandi as the leader of a gang of criminals; it only says that he has a brother whom Vargas has been investigating. Without this information, the summary is bewildering and incomplete (again, IMHO).
Well, I'll try to come up with a rewrite which will add the background info without making the thing too long. Stay tuned.
Best wishes, HandsomeMrToad (talk) 06:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for understanding my concern! If you don't feel there's a way to come up with a satisfying plot summary that's also under 700 words, you're welcome to raise your concern at the article's Talk page, though in my experience, unless a film is exceptionally long or detailed, editors usually come down on the side of feeling that it should be possible to stay within the word count guideline. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Joe Rogan Experience on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
It's a Wonderful Life
I appreciate the edits to get the plot (barely) under 700 words, but also think it's important to convey that George resigns himself to running the Building and Loan after it's clear that Harry can't, and that Harry won the Medal of Honor for his actions, which prompted Billy to boast to Potter and, subsequently, become distracted and fold the money inside the newspaper. I had made other, subjective tweaks that I thought helped the flow. Plummer (talk) 13:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Plummer, if you feel those additions are important to understanding the plot then I recommend that you consider what you're willing to trim in the process to keep the plot within guidelines. Otherwise, you're welcome to raise the question of whether the plot for this film is sufficiently complex that we should waive WP:FILMPLOT at the article's Talk page, but FWIW, I'd likely oppose a waiver for this film. Hope this is helpful! DonIago (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly; your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
List of fictional religions
Ok. YborCityJohn (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Requesting evaluations of the The Great Gatsby FAC nomination
Hello, Doniago. As you're one of the more active editors of The Great Gatsby article, I was hoping you might weigh in on its current nomination as a Featured Article Candidate. As any Wikipedia editor can participate in a review of a FAC nomination, it would be appreciated if you would contribute an evaluation of the article, whether pro or con. → Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/The_Great_Gatsby/archive2 — Flask (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Removal of edit
I don't know how any of this wiki response stuff works, this is like my 2nd edit. You removed my edit of the Fantastic Voyage where I added the reference to it in the Venture Bros. You said I didn't cite it and used an unreliable link. The link I used was a wiki link so ??? and few of the other pop culture reference bits had citations so why remove mine? It is correct, what is the need for scrutinization? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lord Manatee (talk • contribs)
- Thank you for coming to me with your concerns!
- Firstly, please be sure to sign posts that you leave on Talk pages. The easiest way to do so is to add four tildes (~) at the end of your post.
- Otherwise, the issue is that, to be added to the Similar works section of that article, an item must include a reference to establish that a reliable source has connected the work to Fantastic Voyage. I think that was a little unclear with how that section was previously set-up, and I've edited it since to make it more clear that each of the items listed can be sourced to a specific reference.
- Please let me know if you have additional questions! DonIago (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2021 (UTC)