User talk:Cinemaniac86

/Archive1

November Articles for creation backlog drive
 Hello Cinemaniac86:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Pictures for Academy Award lists
Hi, I recently noticed that you added a picture within the last month or so for every acting winner at the Academy Award lists for Best Actor, Actress, Supporting Actor, and Supporting Actress using Template:Multiple image. I find this formatting terrible for narrow screens, as it now forces all of the images to appear before the lists, which means a reader has to scroll almost halfway down the page to see the actual lists. Admittedly, this was an issue with the existing formatting, but using every winner makes it much more apparent. Before causing any dispute, I wanted to run an alternate past you: split the galleries by decade and put them at the start of each section, possibly adding the  parameter to show two side by side to further reducing long scrolling periods. Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey @RunningTiger123, thanks for opening up a civil discussion with me right from the get-go. Much appreciated. Narrow screens meaning mobiles like cell phones and/or tablets? I've only been using a laptop lately, due to being my grandmother's home caretaker. I meant to actually check my inactive cell, just to compare the Wiki-app version, and then also the web version on Safari/Chrome on both phone/tablet, but it's been such a busy holiday season, it became an oversight. However, I can understand and appreciate the dilemma.
 * The main reason I initially moved all of the pictures in the first place back in the summer was to get rid of that atrocious white space issue caused by letting the pics be placed per decade. Plus, isn't there the table of contents to skip past all of that? And it's not collapsible?
 * However, this perrow parameter could work. AND what might be cool about it as well is instead of having 1 picture for multiple wins per person (main ex. Katharine Hepburn), we can now do per each win. Thus each blurb can be unique and custom to that win/film/performance for whatever reason. I'm just not too familiar with perrow, so I don't want to agree with using it just yet without testing it out first.
 * Could you explain to me exactly how perrow works? Is it like those galleries? Or would it still be in a sidebar hanging format? Let's do a little experimentation or trial run before committing to the idea. Sound good? --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 13:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I don't have experience with  outside of reading the documentation. I can test out a version within the next few days and try it on both desktop and mobile – it'll be good to check the latter since the collapsible sections only apply to top-level headings and the decade lists are in subheadings. Also, if we want to add details to the blurbs that aren't directly sourced from the tables, they'll need to be referenced. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've started testing my idea here. I've split the galleries by decade and shortened the captions, but  causes issues when there is an odd number of images (the last image spans the full gallery width). It also makes the gallery pretty wide relative to the table in the Vector 2022 default width. So maybe the best solution is just splitting up the images without that parameter – but I'm open to suggestions. RunningTiger123 (talk) 18:13, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the belated reply. Oh, life.
 * To be honest, I think it looks utterly dreadful. The desktop view is a nightmare of gigantic gaps between decade charts of whitespace. I don't think this is the appropriate solution. (But I appreciate your effort.)
 * I just took a glance at my mobile app for the first time in a while. Scrolling past that barrage of images isn't really that bad, imo. It rolls by quickly; but as aforementioned, the 'button' on the side to pull-up table of contents can easily bypass the images right to the winners & nominees section.
 * The other option, like you said, would be splitting-up images without that parameter or the current one either. Let's say, for instance, the 1930s winds-up with the final image, Donat, ending the parade on the sidebar earlier than 1939. But the '40s, if left as usual, would overflow. What I had modified originally was to place the top picture at the bottom of the previous decade just to help it look good on both desktop and mobile. It's still not that far away from its own set of years on mobile to matter.
 * And then, I just thought of something yesterday/last night. What about doing a ~Gallery~ section? Not sure if that would fly. We'd have to propose such a radical alteration. But figured I'd share the thought. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 16:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a gallery is one option. But if breaking up the images is too much, I think it would be better to reduce the number of images again. Might even be helpful to reduce it to only "important" winners, i.e., people who won multiple times or achieved a significant first by winning. RunningTiger123 (talk) 03:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Peter Ustinov, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Theatre Royal.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:21, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Belle & Sebastian ~ Spotify
"Me and the Major" "You're Just a Baby" "A Century of Fakers" "Marx and Angels" "She's Losing It" "String Bean Jean" "Chickfactor" "I Fought a War" "Mayfly" "Oceans in the Hall" - The Ladybug Transistor "I Just Want Your Jeans" - Stuart/Hannah --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 20:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

CS1 error on January 13
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page January 13, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20Cinemaniac86&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1196790931 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=January_13&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1196790931%7CJanuary%2013%5D%5D Ask for help])

Triple Crown page
Thank you for the correction, I was looking at the International and Primetime Emmys as separate things and didn't make the mental connection. Even so, her 2018 Tony win only put her one month shy of the record! :D Thanks again  Nevermore27  (talk) 20:59, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

January 2024
Hello, I'm EmilySarah99. Wikipedia is written by people who have a wide diversity of opinions, but we try hard to make sure articles have a neutral point of view. Your recent edit to Grigori Rasputin seemed less than neutral and has been removed. If you think this was a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. EmilySarah99 (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Robert De Niro sidebar
Template:Robert De Niro sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Al Pacino sidebar
Template:Al Pacino sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Bette Davis sidebar
Template:Bette Davis sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Katharine Hepburn sidebar
Template:Katharine Hepburn sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 03:59, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Paul Newman sidebar
Template:Paul Newman sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:00, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Spencer Tracy sidebar
Template:Spencer Tracy sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ingrid Bergman sidebar
Template:Ingrid Bergman sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 04:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Maggie Smith sidebar
Template:Maggie Smith sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Angela Lansbury sidebar
Template:Angela Lansbury sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:07, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Laurence Olivier sidebar
Template:Laurence Olivier sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:09, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Charlie Chaplin sidebar
Template:Charlie Chaplin sidebar has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Bette Davis
Hi! I see that you fought bias against Davis by certain users. I've removed a section which was added by MonicaAng to the Davis article which was largely speculative and actually implied Davis killed her husband (!). I was surprised this piece of WP:OR, gossip magazine junk was on that article for quite some time, but all of a sudden a new user came up and restored it. I invite you to take part in the talk page discussion, if you have an opinion about that. Shahid •  Talk 2 me  10:29, 5 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Ugh! Yes, that user was an absolute menace. You should read the talk page history on Hollywood Canteen. I literally did a deep dive for a week during my free time on that GenealogyBank (same source pool of hers) to obliterate the OR, and even then, the indignation in the face of facts. Apparently everyone in Hollywood bent over backwards to misconstrue the proper story. Hilarious. Since I was fighting a battle alone, I raised hell as best I could indignantly, and thankfully the article is as close to accurate as possible I think? One day though, it ought to be reexamined with enough support to have the true "Davis/Garfield discussing and contemplating the foundation at the Warner Bros. green room" origin story implanted in the beginning and the lede. For now though, small potatoes. Sorry, I had to rant. Thank you for taking notice of my efforts!
 * And yes, I forgot about that! I found that amusing, albeit preposterous. But since I was in the midst of my own brouhaha, her article's various problems slipped my mind. So glad you are taking notice! Are there any others, or is that the only other problem you've noticed? I think I corrected the Canteen section properly. Maybe just take a cursory glance to make sure the POV doesn't have any vitriolic implications. It is quite obvious they were submitted from the wrath of a crazed Crawford devotee. Thanks for the heads-up as well. I shall head on over there! --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 15:31, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I can't believe you had to deal with this nonsense. I came across the article of Davis by chance a few days ago. I remember the hard work put into it by my wikifriend, long retired User:Rossrs, and I was shocked by what it had turned into. Rossrs has been a very inspiring figure in my own work on several actor FAs (from India). The lead had apparently been blanked before by someone and different users had since improvised little by little additons until it ended up being the uninspiring chunk of details it was. Her honours by the AFI were removed. And this astonishing block of speculation re her husband was shocking. To find out that much of that was done by users who worked on the Crawford article where they blanked some negative commentary there was a rather amusing revelation. Is it really what some people waste their time doing? I have to say I like them both quite a lot, and I can't believe there are people who still engage in this fancruft. And almost a century later! It just doesn't make sense to me.
 * Now I see similar things on the Hollywood Canteen article. Thanks for letting me know. I demand that the names of Davis and the other founders be restored. I have started a new topic on the talk page, and clearly there's consensus against the removal that happened a few months ago. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  21:54, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what a joy it was all alone too. The AFI I believe can easily be reconstructed, or has it been already? Yes, and it's funny how easily it went unnoticed. I made a report, but it was kinda bemusedly referred to as WikiFeud: Bette vs. Joan, which made me laugh too, can't deny! It's not about that for me; I am a fan of Joan too. Bette is one of my top faves, but Joan is a great actress too. Humoresque I just saw for the first time recently, and it was riveting. And coincidentally, lol, stars John Garfield! How ironic.
 * It's really dumb for fans to engage in the same feuds of celebs of yesteryear. Let's embrace them all. Appreciate everyone. It's not difficult. Some overdo it, hence where the word "crazed" comes in, which I was chastised for below. But as I hopefully clarified, in the context of edits back then, from around like May or June of 2022 I think it was from the user (you'll see on that page's history), and notice where it got out of hand. She and I did make a good phrasing compromise, where I felt comfortable in how it attributed primary credit to Bette and John, while acknowledging the others' assistance in their construction. My only dismay was the lack of them meeting up in the green room of WB. That was dismissed as "gossip", but if there's enough reputable book proof of that, and we get consensus to include that, that would be the icing on the cake.
 * In any event, I do appreciate that you're taking an initiative on contesting sketchy inclusions based upon gossip and hearsay, because it's exhausting. As long as we don't canvass, that's all. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 19:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I actually pinged you on the Hollywood Canteen talk page. I want the info re David and Garfield put back in the lead. I've provided a brief source overview. Consensus is to readd that, for sure. Shahid  •  Talk 2 me  15:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you understand the irony of you bemoaning anyone saying something negative about DB whilst referring to anyone who doesn't agree with JC bashing as 'crazed'. Pot...kettle...black.... 94.173.227.182 (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You misread or misinterpreted that statement. None of that prior brouhaha had anything to do with any JC articles or issues; they all had to do with BD-related articles, phrasing, and almost specifically with the Hollywood Canteen and its establishment.
 * The difference is I like both actresses. I was not coming after JC at any point, trying to discredit factual information about her. But several editors alluded in the track record of this editor that they had an immense bias in trying to erase anything negative about JC in her articles, while diminishing accomplishments by BD. So it's not nearly the same. --Cinemaniac86TalkStalk 19:02, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024
Hello ,

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:
 * You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
 * Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
 * To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)