User talk:Doniago/Archive 75

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) 12:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It' a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
Of course I would always want to have the best possible sources, at least from among the sources available. But I don't have, never have had, and never will have, a crystal ball to tell which such sources are acceptable for Wikipedia. I had already passed on a blog that said much the same. And all I have ben trying to do is to sharpen more exactly the nature of Kramer's regret, as it pertains to the movie's title. Thus my edit, and thus my citation.107.185.97.165 (talk) 19:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your efforts to locate quality sources, but TV Tropes, wikias, and other sites that publish user-submitted content are inherently unreliable in much the same way Wikipedia itself could not be used as a reliable source. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Whitewashing and Starship Troopers.
Since you seem to be so insistent on the idea that the casting of Caspar Van Dien as the Johnny Rico character in Starship Troopers is "whitewashing", then I expect you'll be making a visit to the pages for Thor: Ragnarok and The Dark Tower, since the former casts black actors as Nordic deities, and the latter casts a black actor in a role that was occupied by a white man in the source novel. If it's culturally offensive to cast white actors in traditionally non-white roles, then it should be equally offensive to cast non-white actors in traditionally white roles, right? So I expect to see you point that out on the aforementioned Wikipedia pages. If you only take offense at "whitewashing," but not the replacement of white characters by non-whites, that would make you a complete hypocrite, wouldn't it? It would mean that you have a cultural standard of reference that you don't assert impartially, but only in support of your own hidden prejudices--a complete ethic double standard that would reflect a real lack of moral character. I know you wouldn't want to be somebody like that, because it would be really contemptible. So I'll be watching to make sure you're consistent in your cultural/ethnic sensitivities, because I would hate to find out you're a hypocrite. I would hope your own conscience would bother you as well, if that were true. So go get busy and right the wrongs on those two Wikipedia pages I mentioned--Thor and Dark Tower. I'm trusting you to do the right thing here. Don't let me or yourself down. Be consistent and fair. Do what's right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Block (talk • contribs) 02:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I deleted your earlier post here for a reason, and it was ill-advised of you to re-insert it.
 * I reverted your deletion once, because you failed to provide any explanation for your deletion of content. I also explained what I was doing, and why, on your Talk page.
 * Since that time, other editors have also made it clear that they feel your deletion is inappropriate. By other editors, I mean editors who are not me.
 * If you have a problem with this, discuss it at the article's Talk page. Editors aren't obligated to edit articles because you think they should, and accusing editors of being hypocrites would constitute a personal attack.
 * I'm pretty sure we're done here. Please don't feel obligated to reply. DonIago (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Boy (album)
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Boy (album). Legobot (talk) 04:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Superman II: The Richard donner Cut
The additions I made were based on the content of the movie as offered by Vudu. I purchased the digital copy of the movie from Vudu and watched it, which is how the changes I posted were brought to my attention. How do I cite the content of the movie as the source? The movie is there for anyone to watch and see the differences. Any suggestions would be appreciated as I feel the information I posted is relevant to the content of the Vudu version of the movie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Allindsey1978 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for contacting me with your concerns. Please note that you should generally sign your posts by adding four tildes (~) at the end of them.
 * To establish that the changes are considered significant, you should provide a third-party source (perhaps a review of the Vudu version of the film?) which notes the differences.
 * If nothing else, it could be argued that you're applying undue weight by potentially listing some but not all of the changes, making it essentially a matter of your own judgment which changes are considered significant. We cite sources so that we can defer to them and say "these are the changes that were considered significant enough to be discussed".
 * If there simply aren't sources that discuss the Vudu release, then the likely conclusion is going to be that that specific release isn't considered especially significant.
 * I hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the only sources I have been able to find is a discussion forum on a website, which is how I myself even found out about it. From what I have read, most people consider the changes significant to the tone and feel of the film, but again unfortunately there are no reviews or some sort of offical press release that I am aware of that can be used as a source even though again the changes are considered worthy of mention in fan circles. Perhaps if Vudu listed the differences in their description of the title... Thanks for the info. Allindsey1978 (talk) 13:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Yeah, as you surmised, a forum won't cut it as a source either. Perhaps in time a review will land on a site that can be used as a reference. In any case, thank you for understanding my concerns and approaching me calmly about them! I maybe shouldn't have to thank you for that last part, but an unfortunate number of editors decide to adopt a "WTF you revert my edits you #&!(*%(*!*!!!!???!!!" approach, so I definitely appreciate the civility. DonIago (talk) 13:38, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem. On the subject of citing sources, is there a "how to" for doing so? Most of my edits usually involve taking existing information and adding a little more detail for clarity, without the need to cite a source as it is already there. Allindsey1978 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I think Help:Citation Style 1 is a good starting point? I'm not sure how tech-friendly you are, but that's the page that goes into what to actually put in the citation itself. DonIago (talk) 18:49, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! Allindsey1978 (talk) 21:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Undoing Revisions
Hello Doniago,

I recently saw a plot addition that far exceeds the 700-word plot requirement. Unfortunately, due to additions made after the 'big one', I couldn't figure out how to undo them to the 'last known good' version all at once. How do I do this without undoing each individual edit? Do I just need to copy-pasta the last good one and re-edit it?

Thanks, Bob — Preceding unsigned comment added by SamuraiBob (talk • contribs) 20:04, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Bob, thanks for reaching out to me.
 * Firstly, when leaving notes on Talk pages, please sign them by leaving four tildes(~) at the end.
 * Can you link me to the article? You may be able to go into the history and undo the edit that way, though sometimes what I do is pull the pre-bloat version and paste it on top of the current one; make sure you only paste the plot section!
 * Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

One of these days, I will remember the tildes. >.<

The page is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Three_Musketeers_(1993_film) I attempted to undo the edit, but I think I only undid one, then realized undoing the one I undid would simply bloat the edits page, which is what I am trying to avoid. I rather figured the issue would require a copy-paste, but you can let me know whether or not it works that way when you look at it.

Thanks, Bob SamuraiBob (talk) 20:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Should be all set. Was just a matter of going into the page history and selecting the range of problematic edits then selecting Undo. If you didn't have that as an option it may be because you need WP:ROLLBACK permission. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 20:26, 23 October 2018 (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) 12:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Media about foo
Hi - I noticed your efforts to move "Foo in media" categories to "Media about foo", and while I haven't had the time to participate in any of the larger discussions, I did want to weigh in. For the most part, I support the decision. I can definitely see how "media about foo" categories could be abused - we definitely don't want articles about films being added to categories for every incidental thing that happens to appear in the films. But at the same time, I don't want things to swing too far in the other direction. The way I see it, the guiding principle when categorizing articles should always be usefulness, and there are plenty of situations in which I think a category could be useful, even if it's not what the article is about - e.g. Sleeping Beauty (1959 film) isn't about dragons; a single dragon appears in the film, and only for a minute or so at that (it doesn't even have much bearing on the plot). But the dragon featured in the film has had such a strong cultural impact, that it's arguably become one of the most iconic dragons in film history. As such, no directory about films associated with dragons would serve much of a purpose without including Sleeping Beauty.

It looks like you're doing good work, and I appreciate all of your efforts! I just want to make sure that any new categorization rules don't wind up becoming too stringent.

The one other thing I wanted to point out is that a lot of the new "Media about foo" categories will need to be piped, when placing them into parent categories. I don't know if there's a bot that can take care of that, or if it will all have to be done manually, but more often than not, a category called "Films about" shouldn't be listed under "F", and a category called "TV shows about" shouldn't be listed under T, etc. --Jpcase (talk) 15:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi JP, thanks for coming to me with your concerns! I just went to a sci-fi con over the weekend and I'm still a bit loopy, so please take this with a grain or two of salt...
 * For reference, the earliest discussion of this (I think) is here.
 * It's ironic to me that your concern is regarding the rules becoming too stringent, because I originally suggested "films featuring" rather than "films about", and it was other editors who felt that didn't go far enough. Since then I've done a few of these batch CfDs, though this was easily my most ambitious one (and man, these things take way too long to put together...).
 * I think a better choice for your Sleeping Beauty example would be Category:Dragons in popular culture or something along those lines, if such a category existed. That would allow for the fact that that particular dragon is considered significant while also allowing for the fact that it's not exactly a central element of the film. Alternately, it's possible that a discussion of the subject at that article's Talk page would emerge with a consensus that the category is appropriate.
 * I don't know a great deal about category piping myself, and it hasn't come up in the prior CfDs of this nature, though I would be willing to learn, assuming it's something a non-admin can address and which isn't routinely handled as part of the closure process.
 * Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 15:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope you had fun at the convention! :)
 * Category:Dragons in popular culture might suffice, but personally, I feel that it would be more useful to have a movie like Sleeping Beauty added to a category that specifically focuses on films associated with dragons. I'll occasionally use Wikipedia categories to find films about certain topics, and so speaking from experience, I'd much rather search one category specifically focused on films, rather than having to sort through for myself which articles in the pop culture category are about films, and which articles are about some other form of pop culture. I think that, at least generally, we should allow films that are "highly associated" with a topic to be included in the "about" categories, even if those films aren't actually "about" that given topic. Determining whether a film is associated enough with a topic to be included in a given category would ultimately come down to judgement calls on the parts of involved editors. And if there's ever uncertainty, then as you suggested, I think that allowing editors to seek consensus on talk pages would be the way to go.
 * In my experience, category piping is pretty simple, but in a mass-scale project like this, it could be time-consuming. I wouldn't worry about it too much. If you don't do it, others will eventually take care of it, over time. But I wanted to at least bring it to your attention.
 * Thanks for responding! --Jpcase (talk) 18:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

"Sleep Walk"
Hi. You reverted one of the changes I made on the "Sleep Walk" article, and the reason you gave was that I didn't provide a reliable source. What exactly constitutes a reliable source in this context? The citation I provided was posted by the person who wrote the rendition of "Sleep Walk" that I posted in the page, and I think that a primary source is a reliable one when it comes to music and who was inspired by what. I understand primary sources are dubious in many situations, but I don't think this is one of them because it's an artist directly saying that they took the melody of a song from "Sleep Walk". --Douggiejones (talk) 17:01, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Douggie...I'd recommend looking at WP:SONGCOVER if you haven't already done so, but also when you added the entry you included information about changes made to the song which did not appear to be discussed at the site you linked to (I'm not seeing where the artist comments on it?). For us to make claims about changes on our own recognizance would constitute original research. Any chance that this cover of the song has been discussed at a site which could be used as a better reference? If not then I think the most you can say is that this band did a cover of the song...but again, if there isn't evidence of this cover being significant in some manner, that could be a problem. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 17:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * On the link provided, the song is referred to in full as "'SLEEPWALKING (COUPLES ONLY DANCE PROM NIGHT)' (MELODY FROM 'SLEEP WALK' BY SANTO AND JOHNNY)". Additionally, on the liner notes for Interstate 8 (which are available here), Isaac Brock even gives partial credit to Santo and Johnny because he took the melody from their song and put it in his song. It's true that there's no discussion being made on the link provided, but it's directly stated in that link that Santo and Johnny's melody was co-opted for use in the other song. In any case, it isn't a direct cover, and it's certainly significant enough to where I'd never heard of "Sleep Walk" by name until coming across the Modest Mouse rendition of it. Here is a secondary source that I think also solidifies that it's significant enough to be mentioned in the Wikipedia page for "Sleep Walk". Hope this clarifies why I made the addition, and I hope it's enough information to have it included. --Douggiejones (talk) 17:54, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd recommend refactoring what you added originally, with more emphasis on the Chicago Tribune article. I don't think anyone will question its credentials, and that the song merited a mention there, at least to me, sways the argument in favor of inclusion. Good find!
 * I knew Sleepwalk from both La Bamba (film) and 12 Monkeys myself. :p DonIago (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

List of Fiorello H. LaGuardia High School alumni
Hello Doniago, I restored Nicki Minaj to the list because their Wikipedia biography contains content confirming attendance at the school. Gab4gab (talk) 17:22, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:CIRCULAR. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but you're welcome to provide a reliable source used at that article. DonIago (talk) 17:26, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

There are other things in List of fictional elements, materials, isotopes and subatomic particles that don't cite reliable sources.
Some of them don't cite any sources at all. --REDsEngineer (talk) 20:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * If you want to delete them, I won't stop you. DonIago (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The rules are: This list contains fictional chemical elements, materials, isotopes or subatomic particles that either a) play a major role in a notable work of fiction, b) are common to several unrelated works, or c) are discussed in detail by independent sources. None of them say that I need a verifiable source to get them from. Oh and one of the ones that doesn't cite a source is Frinkonium, which CLCStudent wouldn't let me remove because it's apparently major. --REDsEngineer (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, good point. Sorry, lost track of which article we were discussing. You're welcome to include information to establish that what you're adding satisfies those criteria, but don't ever use wikias in citations. WP:SPS is clear about that, and I believe you were talked to about that previously. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Eternal Father Strong To Save edit regarding funeral of former President Bush
Good day. While watching the funeral, I heard the hymn and looked at its article. I saw that the final entry in the "funerals" section described the funeral of Senator McCain. My edit was made within minutes of the event; hence there were not yet any online references. Now there are:

https://www.ajc.com/news/national/george-bush-funeral-live-updates-president-body-flown-air-force-one-washington/ZFY9H8bIvj90ddB713n3HI/

https://abc7chicago.com/politics/world-leaders-attend-national-george-hw-bush-funeral-/4830965/

Thank you. I do not have time to redo my edit now; I will make it later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh59 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; thanks! DonIago (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2018 (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) 18:14, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I had a few minutes and added a slightly different version with a citation to a report about the funeral. The report looks like a summary of the funeral before it occurred, but stated that the hymn was to be performed. I hope that is good enough for now. Later today I will see if I can find a news report about the funeral and add that to my citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh59 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)