User talk:Darrenhusted/archive19

Book of Eli
So, tell me ... are those cast members linked to in the very first paragraph of the article? ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 19:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the fact that the actors are already Wikilinked in the first paragraph AND in the infobox, these are clear examples of WP:OVERLINK and I have reversed your reversion of the inappropriate addition. An IP editor was bold...I reverted...it's your job to discuss before re-adding them ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:08, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Each section is treated as a separate entity, so the cast can be linked three times; in the lede, in the summary and in the infobox (once) without it being overlink. If there is a details casting section then cast members are linked there rather than in the summary. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The Book of Eli once again
Since there seems to be disagreement regarding your recent edit, I wanted to be sure to reach out to you in taking up the issue. I wanted to note that the article's talk page includes a detailed discussion regarding what is appropriate with regard to this in the plot summary. Multiple editors contributed and reached the consensus that the brief mention is, in fact, appropriate. And, of course, consensus is the means by which editing decisions like this are to be made here.

I realize, of course, that you may not have been aware of that discussion. So I just wanted to let you know about it and suggest that, rather effectively taking it upon yourself, by continuing to remove the content, to unilaterally override that consensus, perhaps you'd care to re-open the discussion on the talk page and elaborate upon your point of view beyond what is possible in an edit summary. I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say on the subject and I'm guessing that other editors would as well. Mwelch (talk) 22:54, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The Dark Knight box office section
What's the problem with it? Why did you undo the changes? First of all, I added more records it still holds and removed many details about who held the records before it. Also, I thought it was better to distinguish worldwide, North America and other countries because previously the two last paragraphs didn't present things in chronological order (especially concerning the re-release and how much was the film's gross before and after that) and because there wasn't any logical sequence (e.g. why not write about the estimated tickets in the beginning where the opening weekend gross is mentioned and why write about it after its overseas earnings?). Thank you in advance. Spinc5 (talk) 06:34 September 6, 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:True Blood season 2.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:True Blood season 2.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude ( talk ) 06:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Kevin Smith
Hello Darrenhusted,

The intro lists 7 out of 10 of his movies, and 4 out of his first 5 movies. I would think his second movie would be at least as significant as his third. Would you consider either allowing this in the intro list, or would you consider pairing down the list even further to a smaller number? Niluop (talk) 13:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Trim it to significant films; don't list every film. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:33, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it reads perfectly now with Hearfourmewesique's changes.Niluop (talk) 03:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 18th and Potomac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Bill O'Brien


 * 2162 Votes (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Steve Ryan


 * 365 Days (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Steve Ryan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Please study wiki guidelines and stop deleting good faith edits (written in relation to Seven Pounds film).
Your "undo" of good faith edits in Seven Pounds (film) has been undone fore a THIRD time, and this is because you are mistaken in your thoughts of what is allowed in a plot summary. From Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary: "This section [the plot] may contain COMMENTARY on the work... (then goes on to explain)". With this alone I may rest my case. Furthermore; Please read the whole of How_to_write_a_plot_summary. Also, study the plot of Memento (film) which is RATED a GOOD ARTICLE. Examine how the commentary helps understand the plot better and is warranted. Please, with respect, study guidelines [and prominent, rated articles they refer to] before deleting good faith edits. Cheers. Romancer (talk) 17:35, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Memento is told backwards, an explanation of the structure of its plot is fine. Seven Pounds just withholds information. The plot is fine without telling the reader that we don't know Will Smith's motivations at the beginning, rarely does a film start by having every character tell the audience what they are doing. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition, Fight Club is a Featured Article, and it doesn't step outside and explain the plot using "in the film" at any point. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:05, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Examples of where commentary is not present are irrelevant. Changing your reasons every time you undo, implies you are more concerned with the undo rather than finding a good explanation why your idea of the plot is more presentable. Seven Pounds has several flashbacks which are part of the movie, as opposed to Fight Club. The only difference between Seven Pounds and Memento is that in Memento both story lines take 50% each whereas Seven Pounds may be 85% main plot and 15% flashbacks. I see no reason to not mention the structure of the movie or at least hint at it (the clues offered along the way in the flashbacks). The line is definitely not clunky and fine as it is. Romancer (talk) 02:22, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S - Seven Pounds is ALSO told backwards - at least about 15% of the time. Ergo by your own argument an explanation is warranted (indeed, Memento deserves a rather large explanation whereas Seven Pounds deserves a short sentence - as is the case). Citation added for a review dealing with said structure of Seven Pounds' plot, as is found in Memento's plot section. Romancer (talk) 02:48, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Seven Pounds isn't told backwards (Memento runs backwards, Seven Pounds uses flashbacks, totally different), it starts at the end, withholds information, then gradually reveals it. The line remains clunky, but at this point I don't care. The main reason I had it on my watchlist was because editors kept changing Tim to Ben and vice versa, in view of that being the twist. At this point I really don't care if the plot for a second tier Will Smith film gets altered; FA is the aim not GA, and most FA film plots don't break the fourth wall to tell the reader what the characters in a film are doing, so change what you like, I'm done with that page. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

How I Met Your Mother
Perhaps rather than just revert my edit you could have asked me about it; that would be standard. I was going to explain it on the talk page but got distracted with admin stuff elsewhere. To answer your question the websites listed in the tie-ins are way out of date.  fr33k man  03:12, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Then mark that section. If the sites are deadlinks then tag them as deadlinks. Darrenhusted (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

You Reverted Good Faith Edit Using WP:TW - Justifying it With the Word "Butchering" On 24 August 2012
Please review WP:EW. On 24 August 2012, on the 'Weekend at Bernie's' movie page, using WP:TW you reverted a good faith edit that was made. You characterized the edit that you reverted as "butchering" in your edit summary. You did not take the time to try correcting any perceived errors in the editing, which took extensive time to complete. Instead you simply reverted hours of work, which was in good faith, and characterized that hard work as "butchering." Again, please review WP:EW and feel free to undo your revert. This might be a good chance to actually edit the page instead of simply reverting. If this entry on your talk page is somehow in error, I apologize in advance. Thanks in advance. 72.129.81.5 (talk) 10:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The plot was edited to almost nothing. I stand by the use of the word. Darrenhusted (talk) 09:25, 30 August 2012 (UTC)