User talk:Darrenhusted/archive15

Family Guy
can you help me get family guy to a GA/FA. -- Pedro J. the rookie 21:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Tropic Thunder
If you're still interested, feel free to give the page a copyedit. I plan to nominate it later this week, so if you can get to it in next few days, that'd be great. If not, we'll see how the FAC goes. Thanks again for helping to maintain the article. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm right but it doesn't matter
Yes, the actors in Gilliam's new film play the same character. But Watanabe plays the decoy in Batman Begins. Decoy. A different character that assumes the name. The name isn't the character. I don't care enough to campaign to get consensus on it, but right now I'm telling your that only Neeson plays the character that is actually Ra's al Ghul and that the sentence is wrong. ArtistScientist (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

/
Oh, I was told by another user that they waste space. Queen kitten (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I sent the user a message and told them what you said, so if they revert my reverts on that particular "issue" I'll let you know. :) Queen kitten (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Could you help me? I'm having an issue with User:Kiwisoup. I'm guessing the line breaks in the brs should probably be in there, but I'm not sure if they have to be or not, since in many articles, I have seen them without the breaks. Queen kitten (talk) 10:48, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining it, I understand now. Queen kitten (talk) 17:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

By the way, thanks for also help fixing them with some of the articles, I'm fixing them with some other articles that I edit. Queen kitten (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:42, 20 October 2009 (UTC).

Oh, and removing the / from the tags part was done because of another issue with another editor that said that having those were a waste of space, as I said before in my first post. Queen kitten (talk) 17:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Creating Disambiguation Pages
You wrote:

''Don't do a copy and paste move, and (american television series) is not the correct subtitle. It would be (TV series). If you want to move it then propose the move on the talk page and get a consensus. Darrenhusted (talk) 12:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)''

Is there a tag of some sort that can be inserted that would initiate discussion on merging a page to a disambiguation page? I found another example, Good Riddance, where I inserted a note on the discussion page as you recommended [], but I'm not sure how that will initiate any action.

Your assistance is appreciated. talk Wallstreethotrod (talk) 11:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

(500) Days of Summer.
Ah, I'm glad I'm aware now. When I first started using Wiki to make lists of films as my interests expanded back to the '60s and prior, I noticed immediately that flag icons were used, and thought it was aesthetically pleasing. And what flags I didn't recognized, hovering revealed the information needed, so I've been following that practice with no qualms until now. I would like to alter it though to another method I've noticed--bolding the countries, then listing the dates. This way, we could both group the three American release dates (earliest: Sundance; limited & wide, all in America) and then the UK one, if need be, so that it stands out more, but still follows guidelines. Sound better to you?

Let's talk on a more pleasant level: How incredible is this film? It's nice knowing there's a Wikipedian who loves it as much as I do. Definitely my second favorite this year, after the incredible The Hurt Locker. Have you seen that?--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 01:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Very nice. I have a superstition about seeing movies I'm predicting awards potential for twice before the year's over; probably in January. I need to see it again anyway, since I saw it on a bad date--but if I loved it then, I'll *LOVE* it encored.


 * THL will hopefully get Picture, Director, Actor, Screenplay nominations--and it would be amazing to see Bigelow become the first female director winner. As for (500), I'm probably one of...one person predicting it for Picture, because of Fox Searchlight's amazing record getting Pics nominated (2004, 2006-08...and 1997, but I digress). But as long as the screenwriters get the nom, that's good enough. I'm sure it's got Golden Globe noms in its future as well.


 * And please, I hate overlinkage, and have actually delinked constantly in infoboxes. It's a pet peeve when I see a name linked in director, writer, producer, actor...so I'm all over that. I limit Wikilinking to thrice per article at most: once in the infobox, once in the cast section, and once in the intro or plot (I've seen both before, but it's a trivial matter). The only reason I've linked dates is because lots of TV series tend to link them, so again, early habits stuck with me, which I will now curb.--Cinemaniac86Dane_Cook_Hater_Extraordinaire 01:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Saw 7 & 8.
Darren, you and I usually get along, the only thing I'm saying is the fact that it's not hurting to mention them. It doesn't fail the guidelines. The pages aren't being created, it's just a mention. It was announced, it's very much like the Star Trek franchise, and a couple pages, mentioning the 12th film which has no signed director, no production start date, not even a story line, yet it's confirmed by reliable sources and mentioned. I just don't understand the hurt if they were confirmed with writers and such. Do you know what I'm saying? --HELLØ   ŦHERE 03:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Fight club issue
I see once again that you have reverted my change without discussing my main issue, i.e., that I believe the current text is factually incorrect. Could you please just answer this question: Do you think the current way that the plot is stated is factually correct (i.e., that Tyler tells the narrator that he has to hit him in order to stay at his house)? I obviously believe otherwise. If you do believe it is factually correct, then there will be no reconciling our views. But if you don't answer this question and keep reverting me for imprecise wording and other stylistic reasons, then I will keep looking for a wording that is both appropriate and that I view is factually correct. Remember (talk) 01:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Your beliefs do not concern me, the current text is correct and written in a way that summarizes rather than narrates. Darrenhusted (talk) 10:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Obviously we cannot discuss this issue.  I see something as obviously factually incorrect and you see it as correct.  I will not edit war over this because I have better things to do with my time.  You could have saved me a lot of time if you had just been honest and told me this upfront instead of reverting everything based on assertions that the proposed text was poorly written (which in may have been in your opinion but there was a more fundamental disagreement at heart).  In the future, please state your opinions more openly so that I won't have to waste my time trying to find a solution where none exists.  I am copying this dicussion on the Fight Club discussion page so that people will know how this issue ended. Remember (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Minor edits
I read up on minor edits and saw that you were on the list of users with "rollback" rights which is an exception of the minor edit usage guidelines. Sorry for the confusion! Kiwisoup (talk) 04:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Tables
Ok I'm going to ask you the same thing I asked JpGrB:

Decided against what? Not using tables? What have I missed? I thought that's what the tables were for? I've read this and there's nothing against it. --Micwa (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tables are difficult for new-comers to edit, therefore most film pages that meet FA or GA do not use them. In many GA and FA reviews it is discussed by reviewers that they do not encourage the addition of information like here, and close off growth. In fact if you look at this and this then you will see that it is better to leave a cast section out if the actors are identified in the body of the plot summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So to reach FA status -- the cast would need to be greatly improved, and by adding a table it would further diminish those goals of making it a FA? By that logic, all the Saw movie pages would need be re-written.  But is the Saw franchise even worthy of being a FA?  Is it possible?  Thank you. --Micwa (talk) 19:30, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Lost.
I'm sorry. TVOvermind seems more reliable that "Blogspot", I mean, it's a blog, we don't use those as reliable sources any other times, you know? But thank you for providing a reliable source. The only problem I'm seeing is that it cites DarkUFO, which is the blogspot source. So, I'm not sure what to do. --HELLØ   ŦHERE 00:03, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work and fast!!
I was trying to revert the edits by User:Truthful Scientist but you beat me to it every time. Nice job!! - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * One of the handy things having rollback. Darrenhusted (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I am trying to figure out how to get rollback now. Right on man Happy vandal fighting.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)