User talk:Doniago/Archive 32

Numbers station undo
Ok, IMDB is not a reliable source, I used the link merely to verify the existence of such a film I described. On the other hand, removing the entire paragraph was excessive, esp. since it belonged to the section that was about the mass media references. There's a reference in regarding the use of Numbers station as a plot element in The Fringe that uses AV Club as a reference. Is that more reliable than IMDB?

Anyway, I have undone your edit and replaced the IMDB link with the link leading to the official webpage of the film. Again, the sole point is to verify the existence of the film. If you consider this also an unreliable reference, then please suggest which source you would consider reliable. Bloodydisgusting? Some other horror film dedicated website?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marko Parabucki (talk • contribs) 22:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually the point isn't to verify the existence of the film. As discussed at WP:IPC, you should provide a source that demonstrates significance. AV Club, as a third-party source, does this. Bloodydisgusting would also do so if it mentions the numbers station aspect. I'll hold off on making any edits for now. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 23:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've put up the Bloody Disgusting review ref. which does mention the numbers station aspect of the film (to quote: . The transmission is a non-human voice reading a series of letters and numbers that make no sense – until the climax of the film.

Radio transmissions of this sort, especially ones that appear to be in a childlike voice, alone, are incredibly bothersome to me. I’ve read over the years about such types of broadcasts, with explanations being everything from government transmissions to amateur ham radio users communicating.) Hope it settles the issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marko Parabucki (talk • contribs) 18:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thanks for your understanding and digging up a better source. Greatly appreciated! DonIago (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of The Simpsons episodes. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 7 September 2014 (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 do 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. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox television
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Infobox television. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

American Dad! Changing to the fewer-season-number
Hey there, us over at the American Dad! talk page are considering are deciding if we should KEEP the longer-season number (in which Season 11 would be the "three episodes" and TBS's season would be Season 12) or CHANGING to the fewer-season method (in which Season 10 is the three episodes and Season 11 is the TBS season). On September 12, 2014, we will be changing or keeping the episode guide and are asking you to vote on to KEEP or CHANGE the episode guide. Thanks. Spongey253 (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Heh. Honestly, I'm aware of the debate and have been making an effort to keep myself out of it. :p Still, I'll take a look and contribute if I think I have anything useful to add. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Salami slicing
Please see the talk page, and please stop reverting the work of others until you're willing to cite your reasons in your reverts and/or defend your actions on the talk pages. Doing so would save both you and other editors a lot of grunt work. Calbaer (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Done, but with all due respect, best practice is generally considered to be WP:BRD - Bold, Revert, Discuss. Meaning that you should have initiated a discussion the first time your edit was reverted instead of readding. Additionally I provided my reasoning in the edit summaries, so it is misleading to claim that I did not provide them. DonIago (talk) 20:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hank Scrpio - List of one-time The Simpsons characters
I only added 1 sentence and I clearly stated which episode, which in itself is a reference surely, therefore not original research "A picture of Hank Scorpio can also be briefly seen on the Springfield Wall of Fame in Take My Life, Please." Abcmaxx (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems like trivia to me, unless a third-party source took note of it. Additionally you are the one claiming that it's Scorpio, unless he's named in the episode; in that regard it is original research. DonIago (talk) 16:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not too sure why are you so keen to ridicule this. It has a picture of him saying Hank Scorpio on the Wall of Fame in the episode I watched. He does appear as a famous Springfieldian, given how popular he was for one-time character this shouldn't really be of any surprise, (especially if he gained control of the entire East coast and is a villain fighting the military). The rest of that article isn't exacly choc full of references, but surely some good faith and common sense must prevail? Here's a reference for you http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Hank_Scorpio, I knew I can't have been the only one to notice. Apparently he has a brief speaking appearance in the opening sequence of the episode 500 Keys too. Abcmaxx (talk) 01:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It wasn't my intent to sound as though I were ridiculing it; I simply don't believe it's appropriate without a reliable source making note of it. As I said, it seems like trivia to me. Unfortunately wikis are not reliable sources. If you disagree with me you're welcome to bring this up at the article's Talk page. DonIago (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you're reading too much into this. It was an interesting fact, and like I said the reference is the episode itself - a visual reference is still a reference. If you're going to be a kill joy and so "anal" about (excuse the crude term) 1 sentence then it's not really worth my time to be honest. It simply a fact regarding Hank Scorpio, thought people might want to know, it's relevant to his character Abcmaxx (talk) 10:21, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, calling me anal and killjoy is unnecessary and unproductive. If you would like to retract your personal attacks I will be happy to discuss this further. DonIago (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fine I retract it (although really? Wasn't a personal attack, it was just an observation) but I'm not discussing 1 sentence - clearly no common sense will prevail, I see no point in being pointlessly harsh in application of criteria, clearly the episode itself is not a reference you're willing to accept for some strange illogical reason. Abcmaxx (talk) 12:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not willing to accept it because my concern isn't whether the picture appears, but whether it's significant. As I'm sure you would agree, not everything that occurs in every episode of the show has encyclopedic value. The best way we have to determine what should be included is to go by whether third-party sources took note of it. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 13:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Erm, Hank Scorpio isn't a significant figure, in fact the whole article is full of pretty insignificant figures - it's all trivia by that logic surely? I think anyone who looks up Hank Scorpio would probably want to know of as many facts as possible. His picture on the Wall of Fame was a result of his success in that episode, therefore continuity etc. He was also to be the villain in the Simpsons Movie, but was scrapped at the last minute - clearly he's slightly more than some of the other one-time characters Abcmaxx (talk) 13:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've seen him come up in articles in EW and other publications, so he does have some level of significance. Additionally, as you noted, he was supposed to be the villian in the film. And yes, the article probably does need a massive overhaul and greatly improved sourcing. But that's an argument for cleaning-up the indiscriminate information that's already in the article, not for adding more of it. DonIago (talk) 13:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * What part of that fact is WP:indiscriminate? It's an article about extra-detail for minor characters. I added extra information about one of them. If my input broke WP:indiscriminate than there would be no article at all, as my info was either a list, or log or any other of the things listed there. I have an overall sense your "clean-up" of the article would result in half the article gone, making it much less informative nd rendering it useless, as technically, the entire article is about indiscriminate detail (i.e. non-significant characters) Abcmaxx (talk) 17:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The fact that you're not providing a third-party source to indicate that it has any degree of significance, as I've maintained since this conversation started. Provide a reliable source that took note of the info and it'll be fine. And honestly, if I wanted information about minor characters in The Simpsons, I wouldn't come to Wikipedia. We're trying to build an encyclopedia here, not a fancruft database. DonIago (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That is some silly logic - why would you need a third-party source if there's a first party source ie. the episode itself? And Wikipedia is not a "fancruft" website, but if I you can say that for any article - if i was looking for Warta Poznań, why not just ggogle it, go to their website, or just go to one of the many Polish football websites? If I wanted information on lower league teams that's where i should go right? I bet if I found a third party website you'd just write it off as insignificant, because I doubt there's anything I can do to change your mind. By the way, if this is too much info for Wikipedia, perhaps that article shouldn't exist at all, after it's all technicallly "too much info" (Encyclopedia's are meant to be comprehensive - yes that means as much info as possible). The same way dictionaries define colloquial terms too.Abcmaxx (talk) 22:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome to raise your concerns at the article's Talk page if you are unsatisfied with the course of our discussion. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Lawrence of Arabia
Hi Don,

I simply know that that character was dubbed by Robert Rietty. I should know his voice because he is my father. I would appreciate if you would put that information back on the page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.164.219 (talk) 17:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Doniago I took opportunity to move this to the bottom of you talk page so it would be easier for you to find. IP Wikipedia requires reliable sources that are WP:SECONDARY and verifiable. I am sorry to say that your knowledge of your fathers voice does not meet these requirements. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album)
You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Stone Roses (album). Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see WP:Requests for comment. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Avatar
I perfectly know IMDb is not a RS, but that's not important in this case; it's supposed to be a box of review settings, and IMDb is one of the most visited movie forums so people would defiantly want to know what their review is. I wont take it any further though. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never seen a film article that included a box of that nature, and IMDb as a review source is similarly not reliable because their reviews are user-submitted and there's no auditing process in place (that I'm aware of, at least). If you feel movie articles should include such a box I'd encourage you to discuss the matter at WT:FILM, but I believe there's already been discussion of adding such reviews to the infobox and it's been rejected on the grounds that we should be providing more detailed analysis than just "X site gave the film Y stars." Cheers. DonIago (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian McKellen
Did you even take the 10 seconds it takes to follow the link? The article Empire Icon Award is the main category of this award and has there a reference regarding Ian McKellen's winning this award. You are more than welcome to add a few lines to the Ian McKellen's article regarding his winning this award if you want, but please do not remove the category link as it makes its much more harder to track which name was removed from award winning categories.--Gonnym (talk) 14:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want the category added to the article then it is incumbent on you to ensure that the article includes appropriate discussion. Articles must include information verifying the categories that have been assigned to them.
 * Frankly, I might have been inclined to help you out with that, but not when you open the discussion by snarking at me. Good Day. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you serious? I was adding it to the article after you left this message only to notice it was already there: Ian McKellen, roles and awards. It of course cannot be in the main Ian McKellen as no award is there. I do not know what your issue with this is, but you are being very disruptive and since I do not want to go in an edit war with you I ask you to add it back. --Gonnym (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If you want to add a category to Ian McKellen, the information to verify the appropriateness of the category needs to appear in that article, not a related article, per WP:CIRCULAR. Presumably the information is cited in the article you listed, so it should simply be a matter of adding an appropriate sentence and reliable source. You're welcome to do so and then add the category. DonIago (talk) 14:06, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Either you are just trolling or you really fail to understand, there is no place in the article of Ian McKellen to add an award section as that section - Ian McKellen was apparently too big and it leads to another page. You are linking me WP:CIRCULAR which is irrelevant here as it says: "Do not use articles from Wikipedia as sources.", which I'm not doing. The source is an outside source material, which is on an Ian McKellen award page (as it should be), I won't put the category on that page, as it makes no sense, as it deals with the person who won that award, not the Wikipedia article that said award is listed on. Also, showing you are in-fact not trying to follow the wikipedia guidelines as you state, but going after this specific entry, the following award categories or template are on this article, yet not appearing anywhere else:

Templates:
 * Annie Award for Voice Acting in a Feature Production
 * Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Actor
 * Broadcast Film Critics Association Award for Best Cast
 * Drama Desk One-Person Show
 * Drama Desk Play Outstanding Actor
 * Drama League's Distinguished Performance Award
 * Independent Spirit Award
 * Los Angeles Film Critics Association Award for Best Actor

Category:
 * Category:Annie Award winners
 * Drama Desk Award winners
 * Category:Back Stage West Garland Award recipients

These are of course just a small example, as I'm not going to go over all awards, most of which wont appear at all in the article, or in the lead without a reference at all. So I ask again, please add it back. --Gonnym (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I think you've made a valid case for discussing this matter further. Categorization specifically states "It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." There's no exception made for situations where information that might be pertinent to the categorzation has been moved to a separate article.
 * I'm in no way targeting your specific edit beyond the fact that it was recent. Those other categories should also be addressed. In any event, I'm not going to add the category back but will bring up the question at Wikipedia talk:Categorization and would invite you to join that discussion. DonIago (talk) 15:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion here. DonIago (talk) 15:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverted "The Tommyknockers - Mini Series"
I see you don't agree with myself, and IMDb, that filming took place entirely in New Zealand. I gather you are also in NZ, and conversant with local and international productions ? No point in my debating this as you've already exercised your authority as a know-all. 125.238.160.170 (talk) 05:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)Kenz
 * As I'm sure you're aware, editors are not considered reliable sources. Neither is IMDb. Feel free to re-add the information with a reliable source. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 12:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Before the devil knows you are dead
Maybe this citation / source will convince you that other people also see the movie as neo-noir

http://www.slantmagazine.com/film/review/before-the-devil-knows-youre-dead : Most of Before the Devil Knows You're Dead works so well as a fatalistic, post-Tarantino neo-noir that the last third's attempt to frame the drama as King Lear-level tragedy plays as an unnecessary reach.

I hope you will turn back your change now, greetings. Jcjlf (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable to me. Feel free to add it as a citation. DonIago (talk) 17:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)