User talk:Doniago/Archive 86

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) 23:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Please stop editing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_disaster_films
It's a list of films. You're putting an unreasonable burden for sources on it.

Stacecom (talk) 17:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:LISTVERIFY? DonIago (talk) 02:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

National Lampoon's European Vacation response
Gary Owens was heard as the "Pig in a Poke" announcer named Johnny in National Lampoon's European Vacation. I do not know why he wasn't credited. I might re-add it when I find a reference mentioning his role. Would that be alright with you? --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If you can find a reliable source that credits him, I'm absolutely okay with you adding his name back with an appropriate citation. Thanks for reaching out to me! DonIago (talk) 15:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 08:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

The Island
Hi, I added location boat scenes of The Island movie because I found the exact spot by using the photos on the web. You can compare the cited image with the movie scenes and confirm it by yourself. The only official statement about that scenes is they filmed it near Italy. Wally boat was produced in Monaco that is 50 miles away from Portofino. Bye Marco
 * What you're talking about is original research. We need a source that's said they filmed there, not our own analysis. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 02:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 17:31, 8 July 2020 (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) 23:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

re: Lantern Waste
Done, please see WikiProject_Deletion_sorting/Fictional_elements. Also I'd encourage you to review other entries there, many of which I proposed and which deprodded by the same user who as usual doesn't even bother with a rationale. In particular, forcing us to discuss stuff like Miraz's Castle I think violates WP:POINT... sigh. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 01:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's pretty bad. I don't feel that editors should be allowed to DEPROD without at least a token explanation, and I'd love to thear the rationale for keeping the castle article. DonIago (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

The Thing
Doniago, if you take the time to watch the film "The Thing", by John Carpenter, 1982, youll discover that actually the details added were entirely necessary, and the previous summary inadequate. It missed out on considerable detail, which in fact mislead me to a small extent when I watched the film (after having read the summary). Consult the specific guidelines for films for further reference.

As such, I have restored my edits to the page. I suggest that if you go back, watch the film, and then still disagree with me, that we discuss the changes in detail on The Thing's talk page.

Thanks, an anonymous editer 86.7.223.84 (talk) 10:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:FILMPLOT is a pretty bright-line rule with wide consensus that makes it clear that generally plot summaries should not exceed 700 words. If you feel that this article merits an exception to that rule, you will need to get consensus to ignore it at the article's Talk page. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 14:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Closing RfCs
According to Requests for comment, There are several ways in which RfCs end: 1. The question may be withdrawn by the poster (e.g., if the community's response became obvious very quickly). In this situation, the editor who started the RfC should normally be the person who removes the rfc template. That seems to be the case with the two RfCs I started and then closed on Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion‎. They were obviously not going anywhere. Do you think any other conclusion is likely, or even possible? Aymatth2 (talk) 01:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I think they'd been open long enough and received enough feedback that withdrawing wasn't necessarily an appropriate course of action, and I don't feel that your closing notes made it clear that that was your intention, but as evidenced by my reverting my own edit, I decided it probably wouldn't make a difference in any case. DonIago (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Both proposals were suggested by different editors, in the case of RfC on Limiting PROD to new / low activity articles‎ and  in the case of RfC on limiting de-PROD to confirmed editors. The closing notes were clear about the reason: no consensus in the first case, and zero support in the second. These doomed proposals clutter up a broader discussion that is otherwise proving very constructive. But if you think it would be productive to revert your revert, you should of course go ahead. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I already did revert my revert, so I'm not sure what you're referring to at this point. DonIago (talk) 02:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverting your revert of your revert. That is, re-opening these doomed discussions. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Given that I reverted my original revert because I decided it wouldn't make a difference, why would I revert that revert? I'm almost totally lost in terms of what purpose this conversation is intended to serve now. DonIago (talk) 02:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose and  may be upset about my closing discussion on their suggestions. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, you could revert yourself if you're not sure that closing the RfCs was the best idea. Alternately, if they have significant concerns I'm sure that will become apparent. DonIago (talk) 02:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * As I said, my "suggestion" to restrict deprod to autoconfirmed editors wasn't a genuine proposal. It was intended to point out how silly it is to similarly restrict PRODs. Reyk YO! 07:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not bothered about the RfCs as I have low expectations. Having switched to WP:PRODSORT for prod patrolling, I'm finding that it works better than CAT:ALLPROD, enabling me to effectively sift out any topic that shouldn't be there. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

My Knight Rider 2000 filming location revert
I've added some source info on the filming location and added the category back. I don't edit very frequently so I hope I did it right. I'm not sure though why "Production location(s)" in the infobox can say San Antonio but the category was removed. Anyway thanks and let me know if anything remains incorrect. --Tenticle (talk) 22:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your improvements to the article!!! The infobox really shouldn't have mentioned San Antonio without any discussion in the article; I missed that myself. Thanks again! DonIago (talk) 02:26, 23 July 2020 (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) 23:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Livin' Thing - song by ELO.
Hi Doniago!

I received a message on Wikipedia that you have deleted a post that I had added to the article about the song 'Livin' Thing' by ELO, namely a new addition under covers of the song, that the song is performed in the 2011 film 'Hunky Dory'.

If you take time to check out the soundtrack list for this movie on IMDB you will find that the song is indeed performed, or 'covered' there. This is the entry:

Livin' Thing Written by Jeff Lynne Performed by Aneurin Barnard and The Hunky Dory Orchestra

Even better you might watch the movie itself, it's worth seeing!

83.248.101.115 (talk) 10:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Anonymous Editor
 * As I mentioned at your Talk page, please review WP:SONGCOVER. We should only discuss song covers that achieved some level of significance. Typically the best way to establish that is providing a source that discusses the cover in some detail. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

The Stand & IMDB reference

 * I had not read that. Good to know. I see that you left my other reference so I understand how it works. In the future I'll avoid using IMDB as a reference. Thanks. Thunderbuster (talk) 15:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Happy editing! DonIago (talk) 17:00, 31 July 2020 (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) 23:25, 6 August 2020 (UTC)

Tron: Legacy cult classic status
Greetings. On the page for Tron: Legacy, I added a sentence describing it as a cult classic. Besides the simple fact that this movie has an extremely vocal and passionate fanbase, a popular pop culture and news site just posted an article today that explains the film's cult status (according to the writer, anyway). It immediately made the rounds in the film's fan spaces. I included this link as well as another link from a couple years ago just to back it up. The link remover bot apparently didn't like my citations and removed my addition. So considering the fact that the article for the original Tron film doesn't even have a citation for calling it a cult film, I decided to take the bot's advice and just post my addition without the links. But you've removed it and ironically asked for a source. If you would be so kind as to explain why you've removed it or what I did wrong, I'd be very grateful. I understand that a descriptor like that is open to some interpretation and I welcome some fair criticism.--Christuffer (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether or not the article for the first film has a source backing up any claims that it's a cult classic would be irrelevant, as other stuff exists, but I just checked that article and there is indeed a sourced claim about it being a cult film: "Tron developed into a cult film and was ranked as 13th in a 2010 list of the top 20 cult films published by The Boston Globe.[45]". If the claim wasn't sourced I would have tagged it for needing a citation and potentially ultimately deleted it if one could not be provided (though I suspect finding sources that the original film is a cult classic are fairly abundant).
 * If the bot removed your sources, I would look into why they were removed. Did you misformat them? Are they not reliable sources? Whatever the reason though, inserting the claim without any source was inappropriate, as such a claim requires verifiability. We need a source that specifically references the film being considered a cult classic.
 * Hope this helps! Thank you for coming to me with your concerns! DonIago (talk) 02:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)


 * The bot's reason for removing my sources were vague at best. Firstly, the bot suggested posting the text without the sources under the condition, "However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link." Perhaps I am misunderstanding what the bot is suggesting, but that was my rationale for posting it without sources. As for why it was reverted, I'm still confused. I didn't misformat anything to my knowledge, the editor is pretty self-explanatory. I added the link(s) as a citation. Otherwise, my only theory is it doesn't like one or both of the websites. Truthfully, the first citation I made is the one I think fits the most, so I'll be disregarding the second one from here on out. It doesn't matter though because the bot's list of commonly reverted sites is incomplete by its own admission and it said on my talk page that the links are the reason.
 * I was hoping to cite the article recently published by 'The Ringer' because it's a highly popular news and editorial site (over 500k followers on Twitter), and the writer is a verified staff writer. The article specifically notes Tron: Legacy as having a cult following and explains why, they even go as far as to link to other people calling it as such. Therefore, I assumed that adding text stating the film has been described as a cult classic would be accurate, and that the source would be good enough. But since the bot's reasoning is vague and the Wikipedia guidelines don't seem to outright exclude it either, I'm a bit befuddled. As I said before, the bot allegedly has a problem with the link, not the content itself. --Christuffer (talk) 12:12, 7 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Hm. Given that the note the bot left for you said that if you feel the links you provided are okay you can undo its edit, and I don't, at a casual glance, see an issue with the sources you're using, I'd say it might have been best to just undo the bot's edit and restore your text with the sources you were using. If you have concerns about your own sources, you could always ask the question at WP:RSN, but I don't think you need to feel obligated to do so if you're reasonably confident that they qualify as reliable sources. I hope I've been clear that my only concern was adding the information without a source; I hadn't previously looked at the sources you'd attempted to add. It's unfortunate that the bot doesn't more clearly explain the concerns that motivate it to act. Cheers! DonIago (talk) 13:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)