User talk:Doniago/Archive 67

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) 12:28, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

nerds and sports part
have been there since january 2010 [] Granito diaz (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So? That doesn't mean it should be retained if there are reasonable reasons for removing it. DonIago (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

I Know What You Did Last Summer plot summary
You reversed my editing saying it "added a significant amount of unnecessary detail". I argue the contrary, despite agreeing that it should be shortened to 700 words (I didn't check the length, my bad). First of all, the existing summary was filled with wrong or made-up information, scenes out of sequence, and missing plot details necessary to understand the information provided later. Some examples: it says Julie and Ray try to reconcile, but it never said they broke up; "Julie investigates and concludes that the person they hit was David Egan": this doesn't happen in the film, it's made up; the "Croaker Pageant" is mentioned randomly at some point without explaining what it is and why they're there; Max is not a fisherman, Ray is; if you don't mention that they knew the man they ran over was still alive, you pretty much miss the entire premise of the film; if you don't mention that all the characters were strongly upset by the events, to the point of ruining their life, you miss both a plot point and one of the defining characteristics of the film compared to other slashers where characters' psychological state is never explored; the reason why Ben Willis is after them is not mentioned, and it's a crucial plot point; Julie is not home at the end; the Southport setting deserves a mention, since it's mentioned in the introductory paragraph of the Southport page itself; and so on and so forth. Please also notice I tried to remove unnecessary details that were in the existing summary. A few examples: what Barry finds in his locker is irrelevant; when Barry follows the man he believes he's the killer, the fact that he "leaves Helen on one of the parade floats" is implicit; That "The officer offers to drive Helen home" is irrelevant, since he's described driving her home in the following sentence. All in all, I'm going to revert to my editing but shortening it to 700 words. Thanks. Kumagoro-42 11:55, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As long as it stays under 700 words (or there's a clear consensus to ignore the guideline at the article's Talk page) I'm happy. DonIago (talk) 13:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I agree it feels overlong. The film has kind of a convoluted narrative, but it's not Kubrick, it should stay within the regular size. I'll shorten it in a bit. Kumagoro-42 14:42, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:2017
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2017. Legobot (talk) 04:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Musicians. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2017 (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) 00:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Safety Dance/Publix
You probably won't consider these good enough sources, but they're the best I could do.

https://twitter.com%2Fsleepingatlast%3Flang%3Den&usg=AFQjCNG33FmP6n-quF73QULciIEVlCgTJg https://www.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfuhnK9gKdPo&usg=AFQjCNF-FR9Jh2IYM7iOnVz7BOvO_MR6Ug

— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:17, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, you're not wrong. (smile)
 * I'm not sure how reliable Twitter and YouTube are as sources in general, but in this specific case they don't satisfy WP:IPCV, which notes that "In popular culture"-style information requires sources that demonstrate not only the existence of a reference but that it was in some manner considered significant. This is typically satisfied via a third-party source, so in this case you'd need a source that discussed Publix using the song.
 * While I imagine this wasn't the response you were hoping for, I hope you at least can understand where I'm coming from. The way I typically put it is that we need to demonstrate not only that the tree fell in the woods, but that it made a sound when it did.
 * You're welcome to raise this at the article's Talk page if you'd like additional opinions. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)::
 * I've been here for ten years and you're new, based on what's on this talk page. It's encouraging when people learn the rules so quickly. And frustrating when I've gotten away with so much for so long. It took a long time for me to figure out that Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be a certain way, and I tended to add anything and everything. I KNOW this commercial is significant but the evidence doesn't seem to be anywhere.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  18:48, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You might want to check my archives; I've been here 9 years and have 67K edits, though granted a lot of that's gnome work. :p
 * In this case, I was pretty heavily involved with discussion leading up to the RfC on this whole issue, because I was getting tired of people adding to the Citizen Kane article every time The Simpsons referenced it (for instance), but we lacked an effective way of indicating to editors why it was a problem.
 * I did a cursory Google check on this situation, and while I'm not sure I agree with you that this occurrence is significant, it does look like the best I can do is wish you luck on finding a good source for it. Sorry I don't have anything more helpful! DonIago (talk) 19:03, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, I saw Suggestbot and the short page. Usually Suggestbot is for newcomers. Anyway, I said what I did because this is the type commercial that shows up on these lists of classics. Since it hasn't, then I really don't have anything to back up my position.— Vchimpanzee  •  talk  •  contributions  •  19:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi
Just so you know, I was joking at the film MOS talk page a long time ago. However, I was serious about the policies, which I don't agree with at all. I don't understand why you and the other editors had to disagree with my suggestions. Why can't there be at least one exception to every policy on Wikipedia?

Also, don't trust or listen to. He was obviously lying about my age. I am 17 years old. DBZFan30 (talk) 19:50, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: September 2017
You're calling me disruptive? I'm merely trying to do what every serious-minded Wikipedian tries to do, namely contributing information which I think to be important or at least complementary.

If you could read German, I'd recommend you seek out the article edition history of the German version of Spider-Man: Homecoming and how user IgorCalzone1 started an unjustified edit war with me because he considered his writing style and plot summary superior to mine, just because (to quote him) he "had spent so many hours writing it up". If you could comprehend his choice of words and use of circuitous formulations in his initial plot summary, though, I'm sure that this would be an example you'd truly call "disruptive". DanielC46 (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest you review WP:IPCV. When adding "in popular culture" information you need to provide a source that demonstrates not just the existence of the reference, but also that it's considered significant in some manner. You did neither. DonIago (talk) 14:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Still, a more civil tone (and the exclusion of threats) from the beginning would really go a long way to avoid resentments and unnecessary conflict. So please, next time point out inefficiencies on the writer's part a bit more gently. DanielC46 (talk) 14:36, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I would have used a more civil tone if I hadn't seen that you'd already been warned twice this month alone for engaging in similar behaviors. At that point it becomes difficult for me to believe that an editor isn't doing such intentionally (or at least neglectfully). My opinion is that you really need to be more careful to provide references when adding information to articles. I'm not sure why you're not doing so, but it's evidently becoming problematic. DonIago (talk) 14:43, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * As I said before, I did my contributions out of a sense of goodwill. And in the example you pointed out (the Japanese voice actors from Restaurant to Another World), others have also made contributions to the same topic without providing or citing reliable sources. Did THEY get rebuked or their entries reverted, like mine were? The answer is: No, they were NOT. So why does everybody decide to pick on me exclusively? DanielC46 (talk) 15:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * If you're going to bring up a "why me" argument, you may want to check the history on that article, as I removed a number of unsourced entries shortly after leaving a note at your Talk page. I don't doubt your intentions, but you have been asked before to provide sourcing. When you're asked to change your behavior and you fail to do so, you're being disruptive even if your intentions are good. DonIago (talk) 15:04, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Then instead of just criticizing people for providing unsourced information, a critic should provide such a sourced information himself to prove his point. And as for your argument "When you're asked to change your behavior and you fail to do so, you're being disruptive even if your intentions are good" - even if looking feverently, it's often hard to come by any reliable information even in the Internet era, especialy when you can't really tell the difference, as was the case with me. If people get criticized for that, but no constructive input is provided in turn, what's the point of maintaining this site then, anyway? Especially since a good portion of informations on this site is not (if ever) reliably sourced anyway, even if the article itself is sanctioned as a whole. DanielC46 (talk) 15:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You've been editing here for over five years; are you telling me that you're unfamiliar with what qualifies as a reliable source? Or that if you can't provide one, then per WP:V you have to expect that other editors may remove your material? If you want information added to an article, it's on you to ensure that it meets the inclusion criteria. If you want to add information but can't find a source, ask for help at the article's Talk page, but don't try shifting the burden to other editors. If you can't source it, don't add it to the article. DonIago (talk) 16:07, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Where to draw the line?
Hi Doniago. Re this, I started to make the same revert but realized, after some quick checking, that there doesn't seem to be much in the way of consensus on- or off-wiki about how old something must be to be historical. The film in question is set roughly 40 years before its release date. I'm just curious about your rationale. Where would you draw the line? Rivertorch  FIRE WATER   19:32, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Ha, good question. I looked up Historical romance, and didn't see anything there suggesting that 40 years ago was old enough to meet the criteria. DonIago (talk) 19:59, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello to you both. Don't forget that per WP:CATDEF there has to be sourced info in the article to support the category before it can be added. If you can find a secondary source stating that the film is a(n) historical romance then the time lag doesn't matter. I'll tell one thing about how weird life can be - when something that was an active part of my life like the The Denver Dry Goods Company for over thirty years shows up in a book as though it was long ago history I knew I had reached an age where I couldn't pretend I was young anymore :-) One other item - I saw an Ang Lee interview where he (jokingly) mentioned that he couldn't understand why everyone was calling BM a gay cowboy film when it was obviously a gay sheepherder film - heehee. Best regards and enjoy your week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 20:19, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Am I being chided for actually doing some research before doing a revert rather than doing it just for policy-based reasons? Oh happy day! :p DonIago (talk) 20:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh I wasn't complaining D and I apologize if it came off as that. I mostly wanted to mention those two humorous (or lame depending on one's POV) items. Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 21:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
 * You're fine! :) DonIago (talk) 03:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Yikes - for want of an "n't" I almost made this worse :-( Thanks for the reply D :-) MarnetteD&#124;Talk 03:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
 * (laughs) I figured that was a typo. AGF and all, ha. DonIago (talk) 03:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lady Bird (film)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lady Bird (film). Legobot (talk) 04:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ernie Wilkins
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ernie Wilkins. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Wonka quotes
Hi there,

Thanks for your feedback on my additions to the Willy wonka and the Chocolate Factory page. I'm not sure if this is the best way to contact you, forgive me if I'm doing it wrong.

I haven't included any original research, I can see how it might appear that way, but I'd like to draw your attention to the first paragraph I added. I reference a book written by the director, Mel Stuart, where he describes how the screenwriters wrote Willy Wonka's dialogue with a lot of quotes in it. I haven't assumed this, it has been written about in 2 sources. The sources say that he mainly quoted Shakespeare but 'his tastes were wide ranging'. All I've done is list all these quotes and what he is quoting.

I have been through this process already as I tried to make this a separate page. I've had 2 other wikipedia moderators tell me that the content was fine, it just didn't warrant its own page. So I am hoping to include it here.

Many thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonkaNerd (talk • contribs)
 * Thank you for your message.
 * Firstly, please be sure to sign your posts in the future, which you can do by adding four tildes (~) to the end of them.
 * The citations you provided only establish that quotes used in the movie have also been used in popular culture. You need to provide sources that specifically point back to the film itself. Otherwise you are engaging in synthesis by making claims that are not explicitly supported by the sources. Put another way, all you're doing is pointing out things that could be no more than coincidences, or otherwise were unintentional.
 * I would recommend focusing on quotes that the book you mention specifically notes. If it doesn't note specific quotes, then a one-line sentence to the effect that the screenwriters intentionally referenced in popular culture quotes should suffice.
 * I would encourage you to review WP:DISCRIMINATE as well, and consider whether noting every single quote the movie uses which may be a pop culture reference really merits discussion in the article. DonIago (talk) 15:18, 30 September 2017 (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) 23:44, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Family Guy lead, redux
Please see Talk:Family guy, about resolving questions not resolved in earlier discussions, at least one of which you participated in. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The Great British Bake Off
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The Great British Bake Off. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This volunteer roll call is sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at dispute resolution noticeboard. If you are still interested in assisting at DRN and are willing to do so by either handling at least one case per month, or by helping at administrative and coordination tasks on monthly (at least) basis, please add your username here. Volunteers who do not add their username on the roll call list will be removed from the volunteers list after November 15, 2017 unless it is chosen to have them retained for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. In case you are removed from the volunteers list, you may re-add your username at any time. However please do so only if you can and are willing to participate as described above. Either ways, I would like to thank you for your participation and assistance at DRN so far, and wish that you will continue contributing to the encyclopedia and assisting when available. The DRN coordinator, Kostas20142 (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Family Guy
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Family Guy. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 14 October 2017 (UTC)