User talk:Favre1fan93/Archive 2

Guardians of the Galaxy
Hey wasn't sure if you saw this yet but they released the first image of the team. It's a suitable replacement for the concept art in the comics page. I'd do it myself but I can't upload images from where I am.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:51, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I did, but I can't upload where I am either. :/ - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Arkham Origins
I think with the edit of Kimberly Brooks as Barbara Gordon, the issue is that from what I recall, Kimberly Brooks isn't in the cast listing of the game credits, so she probably didn't voice the character and the source given is incorrect. Re-check the credits if you'd like it's been a while but I'm sure I looked for Brooks the last time someone removed it and she isn't in there. Not that any source exists to say it was Laura Bailey either.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We can just remove it. I'd rather not have it, then have the info be incorrect. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:29, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Marvel One-Shots
Hey, I was just thinking if we can find some reviews for each of the Marvel One-Shots then I don't see why we can nominate it for GA. The article has really come a long way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You read my mind! However, I know for critical reviews (at least Rotten Tomatoes) none exist. But I do believe comic-y news sites (like IGN) may have reviewed them. Also, while I've got you here, if you wouldn't mind or had the time, could you possibly comment on the List of The New 52 publications Featured List review? It kind of got stalled, and I'd like to try and get it passed through. Thanks! And I'll start by doing some general clean up on the One Shot page, if you haven't already. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, can you review the situation at Ant-Man (film) regarding sourced material and over-linking. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking into it now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify my stance, only Pym being a scientist is sourced in Variety. Also the terms moniker/pseudonym/alias/ I think would qualify as "everyday words" per WP:OVERLINK.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it. Took care of Moniker, and the only source on Douglas and his description is Variety, as everything from it is in the Variety source (I made sure). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Right, so the ref should come after "The sciencist who," the rest is OR although true.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:34, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I think I fixed it, but Variety does say everything about the "in the comics" part of the description. Here's the paragraph from the Variety source: "People have been curious for sometime how Wright would handle the universe of “Ant-Man,” since the superhero was portrayed in the comicbooks by both Pym and Scott Lang, whom Rudd will be playing. Pym was the scientist who originally created a chemical that allowed him to change his size and when he retired, he handled the title of “Ant-Man” to Lang." - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gotcha.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:48, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A reference problem
Hi! Some users have been working hard on Category:Pages with broken reference names.

Here you added a new reference   but didn't define it. This has been showing as an error at the bottom of the article. " Cite error: The named reference  was invoked but never defined (see the help page). " Can you take a look and work out what you were trying to do? Thanks -- Frze  > talk  21:16, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that. Forgot the closing " in the reference section. All taken care of. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Rollback Request
Hi Favre1fan93, I've added the rollback flag for you. Pedro : Chat  13:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Congrats, just be careful when working with touch screens.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:00, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Pedro. I generally stick to keyboard editing, but will keep that in mind Triiiple! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

some New 52y-things to look for in the coming days
Welcome back from your vacation, though you were always kinda here anyways! From my own research and boredom, you should be seeing lots of this stuff being announced/solicited for April 2014, so between today and next week. Batman and Wonder Woman #30 is already official via CBR's announcement for another month of MAD variants. the Sinestro series was announced by Newsarama earlier today. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 04:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I had about 90 minutes each day I was away to get on, so I wasn't bottle necked when I got back. Wow. I haven't looked in on the comic news sites yet since I got back, so I was unaware. Glad to know Eternal is starting up, as expected. What are you hearing on the new number 1s and 0s? Are they limiteds, or new ongoings? Glad Nightwing still appears to be around, and interesting that the JLC title isn't beginning just yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, nice to see you have the trust of Bleeding Cool's Rich Johnson. That article also answered some of the questions I had. Wow (again). Lot of changes to the publication page will have to be done once the solicits are official. Probably thinking sometime during the week. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If you are on, a few things: 1. SUPER frustrated that all the April info you heard is coming out in piece meal. Makes adding it to the page difficult. 2. (the more important one) What are you hearing on Justice League United (nee Canada)? While it is forming from JLA, is it a totally new series (ie because it is launching with a #0 issue)? That will change how I edit it on the page (I'm going with how I'm reading it now, which is it is a totally new series.) Never mind. my thinking was correct. A new question now is (and I've brought this up before) can we say all April 2014 launches are "Seventh Wave" without a source? I think it's gotten to a point where we can rightfully assume, without anyone questioning, that the October - Dec 2013 titles were Sixth Wave, and these are obviously Seventh. 3) When the solicits do come out, can you make sure with everything I did beforehand, I covered it all? I feel so overwhelmed with it all! (Also if I don't get to it, the Forever Evil page will need the April Solicits url). Thanks!!!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry I've haven't been too active recently. This was my last week of full time work...back to school next week, so I should be more active then. Very good job updating everything and all of my "rumors" have been confirmed, woo! ;) . For the waves, I'm not really sure. The titles are obviously grouped together in terms of releases, but I'm not sure if it counts as OR to assign it a name. If you did it, I probably wouldn't object to it. and yeah, I'll make sure everything is covered and cited. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 17:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I get it. I'm heading back to school as well next week. I'm going to go ahead with the adding the release in the table. I will however, refrain from calling them such in the paragraph before the table. Also, if you can look at the FL review, and see if there is any other way to address ChrisTheDude's comments (still about the colors). I added a bit, so I'll see if he responds, or you can add an input too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:43, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Johnny Depp filmography
Hey, I just wanted to say thank you for adding your opinion to that topic. I appreciate it :) Would you mind adding it to the discussion on the article talk page? Talk:Johnny Depp filmography. LADY LOTUS • TALK 19:45, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Star Wars/Marvel
I don't think we can find many examples of other franchises following the "Marvel model"; Star Wars is important because it's Disney, so they're applying the same model to other franchises of theirs. I think we should because it was a very change and the news resonated much around the social networks. I'd say we should keep that in the article. Magegg (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't you start a discussion on the MCU page? Leave the content as it is, and start up that discussion so we can get other editors' opinions. Like I said in the edit summary, I'm not really sure how I feel about it, and am still leaning towards no inclusion, but maybe a discussion with others will change that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:13, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Also it is Disney which owns both Marvel and Star Wars, so is it really an impact if they are just using their own system. The section is called "Impact on other studios" by the way.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence some of my reservation. I suggested to Magegg that they should bring it to the MCU talk, but I do feel there will not be much support (from myself, you or others) per the reason you stated Triiiple. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Captain_America:_The_First_Avenger
Please discuss the Infobox billing block for Captain America. Changes are likely to be made after discussion. -- 109.78.203.40 (talk) 20:29, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

No need to wait
P.S. Can you also help with a DYK nomination? I think I put it in the wrong entrance. Thanks.--Mishae (talk) 21:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Quicksilver/Scarlet Witch
Sorry about the whole Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch thing. - TreCoolGuy
 * Just read more into the sources. Words like "word is", "reports" and the fact that there is a "?" in the title, tells you it is not definite or a rumor. Also the trail of where the info originated is not reliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok no problem - TreCoolGuy

Iron Man (2008 film)
Hi. I agree with your reversion of my edit on Iron Man (2008 film). I had made the changes before I realized that they did not actually appear as such. Apparently, Infoboxes are tightly woven technology and do not allow for flexibility of display information, which I only realized with this edit. Regards. Steve Stevenmitchell (talk) 11:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Yeah, the Film infobox doesn't really need anymore separation, and wikiprojects work hard to make sure only the necessary, pertinent info is displayed in relevant infoboxes. If the film page is done correctly, the gross will have the distinction you were looking for in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Pratt quote
Hello good friend, regarding your recent addition of a quote from Chris Pratt, it seems like a pretty standard audition process, but instead of reverting I thought I'd ask you first because maybe there is something there that I am not seeing.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I read it more to the fact that he was very hesitant to even take the role, but once he heard what Gunn wanted, the part clicked and he knew it was his. Maybe more of the earlier quote would help in stating that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm, sounds like he was nervous which is understandable. Perhaps if he was more specific about what Gunn wanted it might be more insightful. Take for instance, Hiddleston's quote in Thor (film).--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe Pratt's would not be good but maybe this one with Bradley Cooper would be good? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah the comparison to Goodfellas is good.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:55, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Category: Marvel Cinematic Universe characters is up for deletion
Just a heads up, Category: Marvel Cinematic Universe characters has been nominated for deletion. Here's the link to the discussion. Richiekim (talk) 18:33, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
 g s k  17:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:26, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Edit-warrior
You and I have both reverted User:Finealt for violating WP:FILM and WP:RS guidelines, at Iron Man 3, Monsters University, Frozen and The Lego Movie, and now he appears to be edit-warring after leaving an uniformed comment on my talk page. I hope you'll have a chance to keep an eye out if he continues this pattern of violative edits. With thanks, Tenebrae (talk) 01:08, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I always have Iron Man 3 on my watchlist, but can add them and the other films to it if you need me too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * It might not be a bad idea. He seems to have calmed down and is discussing things, which is a big and welcome step. Still.... --Tenebrae (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I will watch them for their contributions. Also, this is a thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:47, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Will do. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Wow. Did you see this? In all-caps, yet. Got him blocked for a week. --Tenebrae (talk) 20:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah. He did the same thing to another user too and he's apparently retired. I mean, once you and I reverted him on the film pages, he did and said this, jumped ship to the TV project, did the same types of edits regarding international coverage, got into an edit war with someone, got blocked at ANI for edit warring, said those statements, and then retired. If they do come back after their block, they have mounting incivility on them to warrant a longer block. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Adaline (film)
Hello Favre1fan93, I liked your idea of using draft for film articles. Please check out Adaline (film), I think it is better to move it to draft untill its filming begins. Studio has set the confirmed start date of 10th March. When it begins we'll move it back to namespace, what do you think? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 15:19, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Any and all articles not deemed ready for the mainspace can be a draft, so if you want to save the info, they definitely propose that it get moved there, then outright delete. It does fail WP:NFILM, so it would be fine to move to a drat space, over deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * So, how do we propose it. Can you do it please? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 19:54, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I hope. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you adjust the mainspace page to redirect somewhere appropriate? I have nominated for the page to be deleted until it is ready to come back to mainspace, but a more useful redirect might work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:09, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm restricted to create redirects or moving articles. So, I'll redirect it to Lee Toland Krieger if you give me permission only for this one (or do it by yourself). -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * We're okay. The page got deleted. Just work on it in the Draft to get it ready for the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:07, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 09:26, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you please take a look at my TALK PAGE, if any article of PROD nominated needs to get moved in Drafts.-- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 17:09, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting response
If this is a follow-up to your formatting of the storylines last year, I have use the quotations for the pages that have the quotations of the storyline. As for the other thing, the part where I mentioned "a reboot of the DC Comics universe" was a way to let people know of the recent reboot in "The New 52" that we are in in order to sort it from the depictions in the Pre-Crisis comics and the Post-Crisis comics like the depictions of some DC Comics character way before "The New 52" happened. Did I leave anything out? --Rtkat3 (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but as your recent edit on James Gordon indicated, you still use italic formatting around The New 52, where there should not be any. And the stuff in parenthesis are not really needed, as that is what the link to the New 52 will tell them. By stating "In The New 52" and linking to it is sufficient. If you do wish to continue adding it, format it as "In The New 52, a 2011 reboot of the DC Universe,". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:34, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Winter Soldier passes
I think it was also to attend the premiere itself and walk the red carpet. So it may have a place in that area. Rusted AutoParts 03:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * The way it is worded does not imply that. "The unnamed bidder paid out the sum for the chance to walk the red carpet and meet the glamourous 29-year-old actress at the after party for the US premiere of her forthcoming movie Captain American 2, which will be released next month." I have bolded the important phrase here. The way it is stated, implies that all it was was to be on the red carpet and then meet her at the after party. This is versus the other one that say: "Bid now on 2 tickets to the premiere of Captain America : The Winter Soldier in March 2014 plus meet the stars of the film, Scarlett Johansson and Chris Evans." Again, bolding the important phrase in that, which is actually to attend the premiere screening. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hulk in film
Why has this been redirected like the other?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you mean why hasn't it? I didn't believe consensus was clear. While it's not a matter of tallies, it was two merge votes and two keep, and Jhenderson's stance didn't really seem to change after the short discussion we had. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, there is a separate discussion for that article. I don't see much of difference between Hulk in film and Iron in film. I make my points there and hopefully sway consensus.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I made separate discussions for each. I realized after I could have consolidated them into one larger discussion. But that one was a little harder on my judgement due to the 2003 film. But I think it could all go back to the Hulk in o.m. page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:49, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

I completed the merge. The page could use some more images. I was thinking maybe a joint one showing all forms of the Hulk (Ferrigno, Bana, Norton and Ruffalo). Would you be able to create that, much like the one (I know you didn't create it) on the list of MCU characters page? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah I was think about that, do you know if Marvel actually released a composite shot of the different Hulks perhaps on The Avengers DVD? I'm not sure if the is enough WP:FUR to support three non-free images.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the image, but I also didn't look very far. I'm also not sure about the non-free part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Non-free images are any images with copyright restrictions, which includes any image stemming from a Marvel property.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:06, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I meant I was not sure if the WP:FUR would apply or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, you always can add FUR with sourced content, but I don't see it with what currently exists on the page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just start by seeing if I can get the photos, and see where we go from there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Pretty much something like this, with Ferrigno too maybe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If not, we can add FUR by finding some analytical comparison of each version from a RS.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:46, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe this should do the trick. It doesn't have those pictures I linked before in the article, but it definitely can be used to comment on them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Good find! There's definitely enough here to justify the images. I'm just wondering how to present all info; trimming it all down to caption length, as a single section or dividing it amongst the three bulleted entries.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Spider-Man in film
Thank you for fixing the Spider-Man in film article from the IPs vandalizing the page. Spidey 104  01:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Linking
OVERLINK says "may" if helpful. His name is already linked in the info box and lead. It stopped being helpful. Additionally, Vancouver is already linked. Linking it a second time doesn't enhance understanding the series. If it should be repeated anywhere in the article, it should be in the development section. Oh wait, it's linked there too. You can't have them all. Be smart about it. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I hit enter to fast on my most recent revert. Per WP:BRD let's leave as is and discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. So in all the time I've spent on here, NEVER has the infobox been considered part of the OVERLINK count. It has always been link in the lead and first occurrence outside the lead and maybe another time, if it is further away from the first article linking. The infobox can't really be counted because you can't assume a reader is going to look there first. They may just dive into the article, so it has to be linked there. So the issues: Vancouver, Stephen Amell, and Oliver Queen. Discounting all infobox links, Vancouver is only linked in the lead and development sections, which is fine. Stephen Amell is in the lead, series overview, cast section and caption of the photo. That seems like one too many, and I think to solve this issue, all staring cast links in the series overview should be removed, because they are listed just below it. Finally, Oliver Queen, which is piped to Green Arrow, so looking at Green Arrow, it only appears three times: the lead, summary and characters sections. All of those are fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Parks and Recreation, edits needed
I see that you are a prolific editor at Parks and Recreation (season 6). I removed a few short summaries, as part of a CCI investigation. This means some episodes are missing summaries. I thought you might be willing to add them, or could identify someone who might be willing to do so.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  19:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi . Can you point me to this investigation, and what the issue is? Just quickly looking over what you removed, it appears the summaries are the WP:COPYVIOs from the press releases. Is this the issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The investigation is here. Yes, they are possible copyvios. I identified sources for all but one, however, given the track record, I removed the other one as well.


 * Obviously, the ideal situation would be for me to rewrite, but there are over 1000 edits to review, so I am removing when necessary, and trying to identify editors familiar and interested in the subject matter to recreate properly.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  20:35, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll try rewriting them and double checking all the others. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have begun rewriting some of the summaries, but as I was, an IP came in and readded COPYVIO ones. Don't know if you might want to look into them as related to the user you blocked per your investigation. Special:Contributions/76.226.193.139. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I left a welcome message and an explanation. I see that you were diligent on their last edit, noting that one of the three addition appears to be a copy, while the other two do not. That's puzzling, but we can AGF.
 * The overall review of the editor's edits is going remarkably fast, partly because it is relatively small, partly because several are working on it simultaneously.
 * As an aside, I see you were from CT, now in NY. I am in CT, my daughter moved to NY, so we are geographically close.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Iron Man 3
The article Iron Man 3 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Iron Man 3 for comments about the article. Well done!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  12:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Avengers/Iron Man 3
Hello, I started a talk page discussion on the list of Paramount Pictures films page. About adding Avengers and Iron man 3 to the page. Thanks for reading this message and have a good day. – TreCoolGuy (talk) 3, March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!
Many thanks for the kind words and barnstar! With regards, your colleague, Tenebrae (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Iron Man 3
Hi Favre, congratulations on the recent GA. I have nominated this for Did you know, which will hopefully result in the article appearing on the main page. The link is Template:Did you know nominations/Iron Man 3. However, I couldn't find which reference backed up the worldwide gross of $1,215,439,994, would it be possible to add it please? Thanks, Mat  ty. 007 17:33, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

MCU as a Good Topic
Hello all. With the recent promotion of Iron Man 3 to GA status, I was beginning to think, how plausible is it to aim to make the MCU topic a Good Topic? All films up to IM3 are GA and the cast list is a FL. Currently, the main MCU page is awaiting GA review, and Thor:TDW is just about ready to be nominated. Do you all think this is doable and would you want to work towards this? Initial outlook is trying to having a better stance and possible nom prep by the Avengers: Age of Ultron release in May 2015. The question now is, what other pages in the MCU template would have to believe included. I believe the One-Shots page (which is quite close to GA nom), Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. main page and its cast page should be, and then any article(s) related to the new TV series. I am questionable about the Tie-in comics page as well as the individual film soundtrack and video game ones. Let me know what all your thoughts are, because I think this is a very attainable goal (depending on how many additional pages need to be worked on). Or is this not the right time to consider this, as we are still in the heart of page creations for the topic, and it would put added pressure on the new pages to get them up to GA status by a set deadline per retention requirements for Good Topics? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * This was asked about over on the good topic page a bit back. So, per the advice there, we should focus on getting the main article and the one-shots article up to GA, and make a "Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe" (or something similar) page. I think keeping the scope of the topic on the films is the only way to make a GT feasible, and expanding it to include the television series would be a bit of a disaster. -Fandraltastic (talk) 05:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with Fandraltastic, we can achieve GT relatively quickly by focusing on the films and the main article (they'll understand the upcoming films are a work in progress). Once we achieve GT status, we can work on expanding the scope to include the other articles.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:25, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. I was not aware of the previous discussion, and that we could exclude the TV series at the moment. That makes it seem like a much easier goal to obtain! Thank you both! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just so you don't think I am ignorant, I am aware of the discussion and will participate where I can, just always got something going on. As soon as I win the lottery and can quit my job I'll help full time. DWB (talk) / Comment on Dishonored's FA nom! 00:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * No, totally Dark. I perfectly understand, especially with the added load today. Timing on my part was a bit poor if I say so. But I just wanted to know if the desire was there and obviously this is a long, long term goal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I already helped with Iron Man 3, think I'll try and dive into the Thor 2 Blu-Ray to develop that film's article and "complete" the set (as the MCU nomination is still pending... and the future movies are an issue; The Winter Soldier could get to GA level while still in theaters, but the Topic Nom still requires peer reviews for Guardians of the Galaxy, Avengers 2 and Ant-Man). igordebraga ≠ 00:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Igordebraga. Like I said, this is a long (long) term goal, so no need to rush through stuff. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The New 52
Thanks for the kudos. Can you offer your thoughts in the discussion I started on the talk page? Silahim1967 continues to add unsourced interpretations to the article. Nightscream (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll read up on it. I'm a bit busy at the moment, but will try to take a look. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Transformers: Age of Extinction
How come you removed the names for the C7 Corvette and the Bugatti Veyron? Crosshairs and Drift are their official, confirmed names. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DecepticonsFTW (talk • contribs) 03:05, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No source was provided that stated those names. The page was using sources that were not reliable. As the page is a work in progress, only so much can get done in a day. So I was not able to find this information. If you can find it from a reliable source (TFW2005.com is not reliable), please feel free to add it. As I can tell from your user name, you most likely have a bias for this page, so it is imperative that sources are from reliable locations. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * TFW2005.com is indeed a reliable source. Do you think they sit around making stuff up? No. They get their information from other sources, official sources, or the toy leaks, which have proven to be pretty credible in the past for those characters. Try these websites out and read for yourself. Toys can be confirmations as well, because they are modeled after the characters in the movie. http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/02/02/transformers-age-of-extinction-super-bowl-trailer-preview/ http://www.inentertainment.co.uk/20140203/transformers-age-of-extinction-trailer-brings-the-dinobots/ http://insidemovies.ew.com/2014/02/02/transformers-age-of-extinction-super-bowl-spot-dinobots-galvatron/ http://www.tfw2005.com/transformers-news/transformers-movie-toys-products-30/uk-toy-fair-2014-day-2-transformers-toy-merchandise-news-179122/ DecepticonsFTW (talk) 03:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It most definitely is NOT a reliable source. It's a fan forum. However, the first and third sources you just provided are perfectly reliable. Any info from those can be added to the page. I am trying my best to restore all info to the page with reliable sources, but at the moment, I'm really busy on and off Wikipedia. So I'm encouraging people who want to add the info to do it from reliable sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for changing it, but TFW2005 can be considered a reliable source, since fans actually follow production more than others do, and know some of the inside information. A member of the site attended Toy Fair 2014 in the UK, where Hasbro was showing the toys off and sure enough, their names were confirmed at the fair. He told the admins of the site and they posted the information. Also, Cyclonus isn't confirmed. He was merely a cover-up name for the identity of the Freightliner Argosy on a call sheet that was leaked a while back. The website I gave you got a majority of their news from Transformers fan sites. http://www.seibertron.com/energonpub/download/file.php?id=28627&t=1 DecepticonsFTW (talk) 06:10, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:UGC and WP:SPS for your own personal knowledge on Wikipedia policy (doesn't hurt) and as it pertains to this discussion. What you described TFW2005 as fits that bill - unreliable. The one site I used did not get their info from fan sites, even if it looks as though they did. That's not how reliable sources, at least comic and film ones, get their info. And Cyclonus is added because we have a reliable source saying so, even if it may contradict info from a fan site. (Again, how Wikipedia works.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:27, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another site for you. You could include this under the 'Inicidents' heading since it deals with the two brothers in Hong Kong who tried to attack Michael. http://thediplomat.com/2014/02/hong-kong-brothers-plead-not-guilty-to-transformers-4-extortion-attempt-assault/ Also, sorry for being extremely biased before. - DecepticonsFTW (talk) 02:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize. By biased, I was just referring to your username, which has "Decepticons" in it, so I can obviously tell you are a fan, and rightfully so. And being a fan of anything, we tend to scour the internet for any and all information that we can get on what we are passionate about. But that doesn't always mean that those sites and information are best to add to a Wikipedia article. When volunteering here, we have to check our fandom at the login page, and report findings from trusted, reliable sources. And unfortunately, fan forums, which TFW2005 was, couldn't be used. I also did act a little rashly, but in being bold, I wanted to get the sources off the page, which in turn, left the information unsourced. And now I don't have the time to devote to it as I had wished, hence my talk page edit, supplying source locations. So hopefully it will be good going forward for the page. I will take that source you gave me and add that information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:51, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Since Toy Fair is here, some characters are going to be getting revealed. This picture released from Hasbro themselves depicts toy lines from the upcoming film. http://tformers.com/transformers-4-age-of-extinction-first-look-dinobot-construct-bots-reveal-more-characters/22540/news.html As you can see, Strafe is seen and is that pterodactyl from the teaser. Should this be added? DecepticonsFTW (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * First, the source as is can't be used - unreliable. Second, anything regarding toys should be stated in a "Marketing" section. See pages such as Captain America: The Winter Soldier or Guardians of the Galaxy (film) for how to properly mention the information (basically, just a statement that they exist, not much detail). As such, you can not make the correlation between the toy names and the Transformers as they appear in the film. A prime example of this happening in the negative, was with Iron Man 3 and the toys for the different armors. Certain armors had different names as toys than for the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's another site saying Strafe is the two-headed pterodactyl seen in the teaser. It's from the source that you labeled as reliable last time. http://comicbook.com/blog/2014/02/03/tranformers-age-of-extinction-super-bowl-trailer-five-questions-raised/DecepticonsFTW (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a step closer but still not there. I was going to add this source, but this is just an observation they are making, not stating facts. So it is still not a confirmation unfortunately. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:34, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Melanie Specht
Should we add Melanie's character to the list of humans. Apparently, she says her character is the other assistant to Stanley Tucci's character. http://moviehole.net/201473773melanie-specht-on-her-transformers-age-of-extinction-role - DecepticonsFTW (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Go for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

New Trailer
Ratchet was seen in the new trailer that was released about 41 minutes ago. Shall we add him to the Transformers roster? http://i.imgur.com/2SNCXT9.png - DecepticonsFTW (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You need a source that commentates on him being in the trailer. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Understood. But I think the page needs to be locked again. Ever since the trailer dropped, the page has seen an increase in ridiculous edits with no sources whatsoever. - DecepticonsFTW (talk) 02:54, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * If you believe so, you can request page protection at WP:RPP. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Detective West
Sorry to bother you, but this "fan site" is followed on Twitter by the cast of the TV series Flash as well as the creators of it, the "fan site" version for Arrow is also followed by the cast of this last, and the creators of this and also the official account on Twitter Arrow. It is a reliable source. Truly sorry for the inconvenience and thank.

El Ecléctico (talk) 20:41, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter if they are followed by cast or crew: it's a fan site, which is unreliable. These sources can not be used. Green Arrow TV is not used for Arrow, this should not be used for The Flash. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Saving Mr. Banks
There is a discussion currently underway at Talk:Saving Mr. Banks, that includes another editor and myself. Since the issue in question has led to an edit war on the related page, I am attempting to gather a third, neutral opinion on the subject, in hopes of reaching a resolution. Your input will be appreciated. Thank you. ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 22:40, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

FOX Animated Universe
I have started a discussion on the talk page for the FOX Animated Universe to keep it. You can find the discussion right here. Thanks and have a good day. - TreCoolGuy (talk) 09 March 2014 (UTC)

Iron Man 2 hatnote
Hey, I took out your good faith addition of the hatnote to the Iron Man 2 page. I know some other pages do similar, but the proper way to handle it, per WP:RELATED, is to summarize related topics on the page with a link, and use hatnotes only for unrelated topics. Since the video game was released in conjunction with the film, rather than as an equally weighted but separate endeavor (like a film adaptation of a book), it doesn't really merit the hatnote. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 09:08, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Discussion
Since you've recently participated in a related discussion at this article's talk page, I'd like to alert you that there is a secondary discussion at Saving Mr. Banks currently underway. This time, a consensus is being attempted to be reached, regarding the placement of one of the article's sections. Your input will be greatly appreciated. Thanks, ~ Jedi94  ( Want to tell me something? ) 18:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

S.H.I.E.L.D. quote
Regarding this edit, I don't know what you mean by it felt like a S.H.I.E.L.D. film. The article doesn't seem like it would lead one to that opinion. Also I've been trying to cut down on some of quotes in the article. This particular quote doesn't seem to say that much. I guess my question is: is it really necessary?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:09, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Just speaking, if you compare this film to the first, this seems to focus more on Cap and SHIELD, while the first was just a Cap film. I don't know how much else it may be stated in the cast section, but it definitely seems like something to note, given their inclusion of Fury, Black Widow, Falcon (who is a SHIELD agent), and Pierce and the World Council. I understand the desire to cut down on the quotes, but I feel something noting this, if it is included with pairing Cap with SHIELD as he can't go back in time, or with the character quotes, would be helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Iron Man 3
Thanks for your help Victuallers (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Adaline (film)
Will you please take a look at Draft:Adaline (film), the filming has begun now, please move it to Adaline (film) - thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:17, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Doctor Strange and archive links
It looks like that an IP user from the UK is once again removing archive links on the Doctor Strange article. Thanks for catching his earlier removal. Mtminchi08 (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll be on the look out to see if it continues. Is this a recurring issue? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)


 * See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 47 from November 18 and 19, 2013 regarding Doctor Strange and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Archive 47 from January 21 and 22, 2014 regarding Inhumans. Mtminchi08 (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh look at that! I was part of the discussions. Haha. My mind is so fried in real life and here on wiki. I still watch the page and will continue to do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Infobox television episode
There are some issues with proposed parameters for Infobox television episode. I've left a message at WT:TV about this but unfortunately the templates used in the TV project draw little interest, even though they often cause us grief. Because of this I'm approaching experienced editors directly, with a view to getting some more input. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television provides an introduction to the issues. Your attention would be greatly appreciated. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Batman: Arkham Knight
The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam
Well unless those three editors explain what they feel is wrong, how I am supposed to know what is wrong? Linking to guidelines without a clear explanation for how these guidelines are actually relevant doesn't help anybody.

Jdogno5 (talk) 04:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

To the administrators about the Space Jam article: Requested protection for the article until dispute has been resolved. Is that reassuring?

Jdogno5 (talk) 00:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Cap
Will do, my good colleague! --Tenebrae (talk) 18:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

With the films premiere on hand and the international releases rolling out, do you think you can ask for preemptive temporary protection as is customary.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I can approach Mark Arsten to keep an eye on the page, but I don't think it will really fly asking for protection preemptively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:04, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I guess it depends on the admin, I know we've done it pretty regularly in the past as protection is not punitive but done to prevent vandalism.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I usually approach Mark. I can look in the logs of the other pages, but do you know of anyone else? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well theres JGreb but he hasn't been very active lately.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Ged UK is has also provided protection. I will approach Ged and Mark, though both have not been very active over the past few weeks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Just wanted you to know, I got a prescreening ticket, so I will be seeing it on 3/20. I will work with Tenebrae to add the appropriate material when it comes time and quell any vandals, if you want to unwatch the page at some point to be spoiler free until you see it. Also, I messaged Callanecc about adding the page protection. We'll see where that goes. Also on a separate note, I have some (hopefully) free time this week, so I am working on making a Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Lucky! Yeah, I'll probably unwatch it as the international releases near. However with you two, I know the article will be in good hands. I just hope you don't get overwhelmed, not just from vandals but from the influx of new editors unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Page protection will help with some of that.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:57, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah I'm super excited! Apparently the ticket RSVPs "sold out" super quickly. I was refreshing the Facebook page all morning, and I had to leave at 12:30, so luckily it went live at noon. I do think that this page has been pretty good regarding spoilers. Unfortunately, I feel I know too much about the postcredit scene, but I've been deaf to anything else that might have been floating around. I'll let you know if Callanecc gets back and doesn't decide to protect the page (you'll obviously know if they do.) But I'll hound some admin if it gets bad come 3/26. (Hell, even the 20th might have people coming to the page.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I have an admin watching the page. They are online for the next couple of days, and will block if they see it getting out of hand or I ping them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I have just unwatched the page.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I just got online now, so I may as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:24, 17 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Wanted you to know that I wasn't able to get into the fan screening :( so, I'll be unwatching the page as well until I see it, which I don't know when that will be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Shailene Woodley's interview with Total Film
This video contains Shailene Woodley's interview with Total Film, where she states she may not be able to return to the Amazing Spider-man franchise. It is from Total Film's official YouTube channel. Is the link still allowed on Wiki? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:02, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The YouTube link yes, or better yet, it actually on Total Film's site (if it is). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Spider-verse
Thanks, but I think you have me confused with another editor. I don't believe I ever mentioned anything about that storyline on the Project page, nor do I have any plans to edit or create any articles on it. The only intersection between my edits and that storyline is that when I added information to the Spider-Man 2099 article about that title's relaunch this July, I also added mention that that character will appear in the aforementioned storyline later in the fall, because the Newsarama story I cited mentioned this. But thanks anyway, buddy! Nightscream (talk) 19:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * D'oh! I was thinking of your 2099 post on the Comic project, and thought it was for this event. My mistake!! Still a useful article though. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion on a source for comics articles
Hi. Your opinion could be very useful in this discussion. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Loki's scepter as Infinity Stone
I undid your revision describing Loki's scepter as an Infinity Stone. In this article, Kevin Feige appears to deny that the scepter is an Infinity Stone. Richiekim (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Had not seen this article yet. Thanks for sharing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Long time no talk!
Hey man, I don't know for sure if you remember me, but I did the GA review for Iron Man 3. I just recently checked on what the Marvel Cinematic Universe's article was up to, and saw that you'd decided to nominate it and got a reviewer pretty quickly! Congrats! I hope it goes well for you. Any other stuff you've been working on lately?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  01:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you Corvoe! Yes I do remember you. Thanks for checking in. Well, since we talked, most of the Marvel Cinematic Universe content was split off to List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films, and that is a Featured List candidate. I'm mainly working on the remaining film pages for the upcoming MCU films, and that is the main brunt work I can put in these days, with other minor stuff here and there. I'm also trying to finish up Forever Evil and Forever Evil: Blight, but I don't have the time to add remaining plots/reviews for what has come out, but it is on my to do list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Damn! Well done, man. I'll see if I can give you a hand whenever I get a moment. I'm not familiar with either, but a few Google searches and articles can fix that. As far as my article work goes, I've been doing a lot of stuff on The FP, an article I made essentially single-handedly, that I've recently submitted to GA. I'm hoping for a review soon, but I know how they can be.
 * Based on the list's current state, I'll be amazed if it isn't promoted to a featured. It deserves it. Glad to see you're still working hard!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  04:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies to you specifically for my hastiness over at the Ant-Man page. I appreciate the fact that you're being cordial with me. It means a lot, actually. I don't blunder like that too often, but I appreciate the fact that you didn't jump on me.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  00:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Removal of wikilink on Outsider (comics)
Hi. Just wondering why you removed the wikilink to Jeromy Cox from the Outsider (comics) page. It's not a redundant link and the page exists. Kdring (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Another favour!
Hi Favre1fan93, Do you have access to the North American Theatre Online resource? If so, could I ask another favour and see if you can access the entries on John Barrymore and Lionel Barrymore? Cheers! - SchroCat (talk) 16:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can access it. What do you need from it/how can I get this info to you? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fantastic - and thanks for going to the trouble of doing this: it's much appreciated. Could you c&p the entries on John Barrymore and Lionel Barrymore and send them to me (with the rules too)? I have the "email me" tool activated so pop by User:SchroCat and click on the envelope in the top right of the page. Many, many thanks! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:04, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Sure thing! Glad I can use my universities database access! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The FP
I don't know if you saw my last message under "Long time no talk" due to the Ant-Man fiasco, but I was actually going to ask, if you had any time, if you'd be willing to look at The FP's GA review. If not, I totally understand.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  01:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I would love to, but I unfortunately do not have the time to give to a review. I'm sorry! I would have if I did. Good luck with it! Let me know if you need help during the review, as I would be able to manage that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's okay, I appreciate the offered help all the same! I'll be sure to tell you when someone starts reviewing it. Thank you!  Corvoe  (speak to me)  10:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The FP's GA is open.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  02:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Gross of re-released films
Reported the matter about box office gross of re-released films here. Please care to comment and voice your opinions. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! It helps having great people like you with similar interests to work with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:01, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PubCon Wikipedia article deletion discussion while user Mark_Arsten is away.
Hi Favre1fan93,

I thought I'd contact you since Wikipedia editor Mark_Arsten is not actively editing at the moment, and I noticed your helpful replies on his talk page. Here is the issue I wished to discuss with Mark, and perhaps you can lend a hand in his absence:

Hi Mark,

I'd like to first thank you for being a Wikipedia editor, and also ask for your help as I work to reinstating the PubCon conference article:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PubCon

I'm the primary contributor to the article and noticed its deletion when I went in to add new information about the CEO of Microsoft Satya Nadella, who is one of our keynote speakers.

Our conference is in its 15th year now, with roots dating back even further to BBS days, and our Wikipedia article is meant to provide the public with basic factual information about our conference's history, which includes many notable keynote speakers such as Craig Newmark, Malcolm Gladwell, David Pogue, .etc.

I included a number of legitimate citations throughout the article, and would like to include new ones, including a link to an article on Microsoft's website written by Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella about Pubcon.

Can you please undelete the PubCon article, or open the deletion talk up for further discussion? I'd like to do whatever I can to update the article to make it as helpful and legitimate a Wikipedia reference as possible for the public.

Thanks for your time and assistance, and again for being a Wikipedia editor.

Lane R. Ellis (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)lanerellis
 * Hello. I can't do what you are asking; that is a task only an admin can help you with. You can find a list of active ones here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Favre1fan93,

Thanks for your reply and for the helpful link to the list of active admins. I'll choose one and contact them for help.

Lane R. Ellis (talk) 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)lanerellis

Revert
It was a good faith edit on The Big Bang Page, I just don't have a way to reference being at the tapings. But I understand the why of your reverting. No Problem.

Tensor1155 (talk) 01:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I reverted. We unfortunately can't use a user's word from going to something like that to confirm. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Sound mixing in CA:TWS
What are you exactly not liking about the last sentence? Maybe we can come up with a solution.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You fixing the WP:RELTIME issue solved it. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Marvel One-Shots
Hi, Favre. I guess those come as DVD featurettes, and I don't usually write about video. But I'll see if someone at Disney can help. --Tenebrae (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes that is how they come. No need to stress over it, but if that could work out, thank you so much! Even if they could just send that logo, that would be all I need. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Amazing Spider-Man 2
Hi, you undid a change I made to TASM2. The section on the UK release date is in the wrong tense, which is why I removed it: "Sony will release it two days early and premiere it on 16 April" - this has already been and happened, so it's out of date. If you can change it to the past tense then go for it; I couldn't think of a good way to word it.

I also reworded the budget, because it was misleading. The article suggested, with "$190 million of the film's budget", that the marketing budget was included in the $255 million budget mentioned at the top of the page, when in fact the two are different things - the overall budget for the film is ~$440 million. I changed the sentence to make it clear that the marketing budget was $180-190 million and that this was separate from the production budget, rather than generalising it to "the budget".

I would have just changed the edits back, but I feel it's more constructive to have this dicsussion here. Treeroy (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Teeroy. As I noted in my undo edit summary, the content was fine to include with a little rewording, which I did here. As for the budget, I believe you are misinterpreting the information. The Deadline source states: "ASM2’s production budget is said to be around $255M, with about $180M to $190M spent on marketing." The way I am reading this, leads it to the $180 coming out of the $255. I say this because it does not say something to the likes of "with about $180M to $190M additional spent on marketing." If that was added, I would have agreed with your edit. But since we do not have a source stating the overall budget is your claim of $440M, I think this is how we must interpret this info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Hey hey hey
Just thought I'd pop in with a friendly reminder to use explanatory edit summaries when reverting edits that are not obvious vandalism. I can see why you reverted this one, for instance, but the ref looks useful, and the editor in question is a good contributor and I'm sure would have appreciated an explanation. Not a huge deal, and I'm not trying to "call you out" or anything; just something to keep in mind. Cheers! Evan (talk&#124;contribs) 03:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Ferrigno
Hey, Ferrigno said the same thing to the same (unreliable?) blog for the first movie, and his voice ended up just being a minor part of the mix. I think we should wait until a stronger source presents itself for that piece of info. -Fandraltastic (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was not sure about the reliability (maybe Triiiple knows because he reworked the info rather than outright removing it) so if you feel it's questionable, I would not oppose you removing it. I feel it could be the same situation as the first one as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:15, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Ant-Man
Hello friend, is the quoted phrase in this edit really beneficial? To me the previous version was much more concise without losing any context but I might be missing something.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it is, as when I was adding the previous info, which you moved to the main page, I was not quite clear. I think it give the context that Wright's film was meant to be an origin, and all the characters in The Avengers had been established before they appeared in that film (I guess sans Hawkeye). So Ant-Man appearing in that film, as an origin of sorts maybe, would negate Wright's plan for the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that what the sentence said: the film is an orgin and it didn't fit in the chronology of The Avengers?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:07, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * For some reason, I was not reading it clearly like that. It might have been the way the words were ordered originally. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Man of Steel costume
Hi, I discovered some info here and here on the creation of the Superman suit from Man of Steel. Because extracting much content from sources and giving them the right placement is hard for me, and since I have had little to do with the article, I thought you would be interested in adding the info to Man of Steel, as you have been editing it well lately. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, anything to say? Kailash29792 (talk) 05:00, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not an active editor on that page, and don't intend to be. I just did a few edits on the page. You should post this info on the talk page there to get a better response/support/help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:16, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Template for Episode VII
Just to gather consensus from active editors, do you think we could create a template for Episode VII to put at the bottom of the page, like the other Star Wars films, considering that we at least know of a handful of characters that are returning? D ARTH B OTTO talk•cont 20:44, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

MCU box office position
Really quick regarding your recent edit at T:TDW (nothing bad, it just got me thinking), do you think it would more beneficial list the film's current position in the MCU, or its pinnacle position in the MCU. I can see benefit in both, but I am divided on which to present in the article. If you think its the latter, perhaps we just use the archived source as a reference. I suppose this might apply to all BO records as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Never mind, wrong person. But you more than welcome to reply at User talk:Fandraltastic.--TriiipleThreat (talk)

Amazing Spider-Man 2
Hi, Favre. I'm a little at a loss as to the reason for your edit. Once a film is released, the Cast section only needs to cite any quotes that are there, or anything controversial. These cites did nothing more than verify, say, that Denis Leary or Stan Lee are in the film &mdash; but they're credited on the film's end credits. If you look at, say, two random movies, 12 Years a Slave (film) and Prometheus (2012 film) &mdash; and these are just two that came to mind; I could give a zillion more examples &mdash; you'll see that they don't have cites for onscreen credited roles. We really don't need to cite "Sally Field as Aunt May" now that the movie's been released.--Tenebrae (talk) 05:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I guess I mixed the reason you stated (for quotes and such) for also citing characters played. Been busy off wiki and I wasn't thinking though on that. You may redo your edits again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:25, 3 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Cool. I've seen and liked your work around the Project, so, yeah, I figured it was something like that! --Tenebrae (talk) 06:28, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Agent Carter (TV series)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks Triiiple. I hope to keep up this streak, now that my semester is done and I have a lot of time. I have my eyes on the One-Shots page next to finally get that into GA nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Update for S.H.I.E.L.D.
As I understand, you are authoritative about the MCU. Could you take a look at the page for S.H.I.E.L.D. and update it to best reflect the implications of "Beginning of the End"? Transphasic (talk) 22:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Seems to have enough information on that page, allowing the actual AoS pages to do the brunt of the detail work. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:32, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Marvel CU, AoS, Agent Carter, TBBT, etc
Hi Favre1fan93,

I just wanted to stop by and leave a message. I love the shows you mostly edit on, and I'm happy to know you created most of them. I've been watching your edits for a while, and you're an inspiration. Extremely good edits on extremely good articles! I'd like to talk more, if you like? Maybe even talk about editing together, I'd love to help you out in anyway I could? Limbsaw 18:26, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Person of Interest
I saw the hidden note. CBS has announced new episodes "In the fall". That's 2014. The note is no longer relevant. Unless you're trying to argue that, for example, we can't have an article about 2016 Summer Olympics because it isn't 2016 yet. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:03, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can give your explanation where I've reported you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:48, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I've just started a discussion on the talk page, given the entry of an IP who's never been near this topic before into the fray. I didn't detail many of the reasons the assumption BB is making are problematic you did in an earlier post, so you might want to bring them over from your AN3 noticeboard post, if you're so inclined. --Drmargi (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I'm at my whits end. It happened. Again. Is it too much to suspect Bugs is socking? Usually socking IPs aren't those weird number letter comobs. Anyways, I don't want to, but I'm reverting again, not only because of the change, but because we are in this discussion, per WP:STATUSQUO. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 00:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know whether it's sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, but the two have cleared edited together on the same article at the same time, and the IP has two blocks for disruptive behavior. Let's see how long it persists.  Meanwhile, Bugs is still holding his breath and talking everywhere but the talk page, which makes it all more suspicious. --Drmargi (talk) 01:00, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree. Plus, if you haven't seen, there are two more redlink users at ANI/3RR, who were reported for very similar edits: User:Mmddyy28 and User:Rswallis10. Somebody out of all of these seems to be socks or meats. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 01:05, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a cluster of them; Aussie and Davejohnsan are talking about one more on Aussie's talk page. Given Bugs' history and his current petulance, I don't expect him on the talk page anytime soon.  He's already attempted to deflect the responsibility for the discussion onto us, but it's been sitting there for several hours, a Bugs-free zone.  Meanwhile, someone else is pouting because I called a fangirl a fangirl.  Oye! --Drmargi (talk) 01:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The New 52 - August's variant cover theme
I just wanted to share this with you before I get a chance to throw it up on the article. I think it deserves a good laugh.

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=52884 &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 18:58, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh man. Really DC editorial? You can't think of anything better? Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 20:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

DuckTales composer
HI there, thanks for writing me. I have just re-added Mark Mueller to the Duck Tales Remastered page. He is the sole writer of the song, that was featured in the Disney Afternoon show (which I was a big fan of back in the day). Though Jake Kaufman did compose the tracks for the game (and the upcoming CD), he did NOT the write the song that we all know (and I love), and Mark did. It's pretty clear he has... watch the credits on the show. It's all over the internet, too. He's been credited on the Disney Records as the composer (words and music). Songwriters usually get the shaft when it's time for credits... but fans of that show know he's the writer and it's important to give credit where credit is due. I've used the reference from a legitimate music sales site which rightly gives the songwriter credit. Mark has that credit... please do not delete again as Jake Kaufman did not write the song but is taking sole credit for composing all music on the game. Thanks! Marianb102 (talk) 21:38, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he is not credited as composing music for the game. That is entirely separate then what you are claiming. You need a source that says Mueller explicitly worked on this game, which is not the case. You can not add your own assumptions that this is true because you are "a big fan" and have "watch[ed] the credits on the show", which is not the same. I am removing the content again, because it is not correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 05:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

MCU Good topic
Hey, I saw you left that "good topic" progress report thing, and I think you misunderstood what I meant when I was talking about initial scope. I don't think we could pick and choose what we want to include, we'd have to define the scope as one specific set of articles in order for it to go through. I was thinking something like this, with the film topic as our starting point, and the "main" topic (along with other subtopics, ie television) as an eventual goal. -Fandraltastic (talk) 18:04, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
 * So in your thinking (and based on what I was thinking), it would not include the main page, One-Shots page, tie-in comics page, or the last two in that table? - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 23:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is
In the next day or so I'm going to be looking at setting up an RFC about removing archive.is from the blacklist. Werieth has fucked up Arkham Origins and the Joker articles and presumably more, I posted about 20 links he has left without an archive (and one he has outright killed) on his page and he just removes it, the guy is disruptive but that original RFC is being used to shield him. It's bull that user-added links are being removed and hopefully a new RFC can put an end to it. Just letting you know. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
 * I did see the edits, though I didn't know how much was made worse or not. I forgot to mention to you that there is a current discussion on the Admin notice board here. And I like the new sig. I (theoretically) have more time and might give Joker a look at for ya! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:39, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Reference for GotG DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 19:33, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll take a look at this later and add stuff to the page if I can. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Did you see that I commented on your FLC? DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 19:44, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. I'm getting around to it. I'm dealing with a very unnecessary and drawn out discussion at the television project. Meant to get to that and start your Joker review, but I see that has started. I'll try to expand on the reviewers notes if I can. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 19:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Batman vs. Superman
I'm thinking of declining the speedy and opening up a move request instead so we can get a consensus. I do see the name in use in various different news medias as a working title. IMDb has it listed as well, although I know that this doesn't automatically mean anything. If it is an informal title, it's one that's so widely used that it's considered to be the official working title. That the studio has registered BatmanvsSupermanMovie.com and Batmanvs.Superman.com helps this along as well. I can see where you're coming from with this since it isn't the official-official announced title, but it's used predominantly enough that it should probably be debated. Even if it ends up with only 1-2 people coming in and voting for the untitled title, at least this way you can point to the discussion and say that there was an official consensus and avoid any potential attempts to do move wars. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡)   06:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * You can open one if you want, but it is not an official title at all. I don't even think WP:COMMONNAME would apply. Nothing official regarding the title has been released except when Goyer said it was a consideration, along with Superman vs. Batman. We can very much say in the lead "The untitled Man of Steel sequel (also known as Batman vs. Superman with fans and the media)". - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 17:17, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ...but as such, I have started a discussion on the article talk page to get a move going. - Favre1fan93 (talk – Comment on List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films' FLC) 18:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you for doing that. I've checked in and the consensus seems to be fairly unanimous, so I moved it early. I figured it was inevitable, but I did want to get some sort of official consensus because I have a strong feeling that people will attempt to move it in the future. It's usually better to have something to point towards to say that there was a move opened and that it was fairly unanimous. 08:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

FYI
There's a discussion on AN concerning your signature: WP:AN. Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

A page you started (Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Music of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, Favre1fan93!

Wikipedia editor Carriearchdale just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thank you!"

To reply, leave a comment on Carriearchdale's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Flash link
how about a link to fictional universe? the concept may not be completely familiar to all readers of the flash article, and may expose a reader to the concept.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I thought that I had made a link because I had the same feelings as you. I think even better ones would be Shared universe or Fictional crossover. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Forever Evil
Hi.

I noticed you reversed my changes.

Please be aware that Justice League 30, Justice League of America #14 and Suicide Squad #30 all have the Forever Evil banner on them. Regardless of whether they were solicted as part or not they are bannered now and should be included.

Because if we want to split hairs a lot of the Constantine's in the Blight storyline didn't have this banner but are included as internally they say they are part of the storyline.

Cheers

The New 52
Hey, dude. Have any ideas of how to make The New 52 flow better and be less repetitive? Every month, it's basically, "In [month] [year], DC announced... It was also announced...". I'm pretty sure the article could easily be FA/GA/A once that kind of stuff is cleaned up, since it pretty much covers every aspect of the New 52 and is mostly well sourced. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 20:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Why don't we take out all the info on variant covers and make that a subsection in the Production heading? After that, I think we can change the wording to include such things as "in the [month] solicits" or "[month]'s solicits revealed X". I think beyond that, we should get something in the Publication history that can better classify how the families are essentially no more (and subsequently add that to the List of publications page). Possibly something with a link to DC's site solicits that says "By [month year], DC began soliciting all of their titles as "The New 52" titles, while grouping the titles within the larger solicitation similarly to their previous families." We should probably get a peer review for it before bringing it to GA, just to see if someone on the outside would like to see some other info, or something expanded, that we haven't included. I'll gladly help with what I can. I'm just all over the place on here at the moment. Trying to finish up Forever Evil, work on Batman Eternal and The New 52: Futures End, and a bunch of work for Marvel Cinematic Universe pages. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Daredevil (TV series)
This MFD has been speedily closed, history merge performed. — xaosflux  Talk  17:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia, and Guardians of the Galay editing
Dear Favre, Sorry for my poor citing on The Guardians of the Galaxy movie page. The Ravagers is a DC Comic villain team, they have nothing to do with Marvel. So, may you please at least change that? Can you also tell me or give me a link so I can learned how to cite properly? Thank You - SimeonMTG

Sources: http://www.comicvine.com/ravagers/4060-58919/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ravager_(comics) http://www.dccomics.com/tags/the-ravagers
 * I have posted a welcome template on your talk page, that has a lot of useful links to start out here on Wikipedia. However, we have a reliable source from here that states that Marvel is using the Ravager name in the film to classify the smugglers. And once again, you were trying to cite the comic book from the most recent series, which is not connected to the film. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by SimeonMTG (talk • contribs) 02:48, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Marvel One-Shots logo
I just stumbled upon this apparent logo for the One-Shots:. It's legitimacy is doubtful, but do you think it is worth using on the page until an official logo is released? - adamstom97 (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not if it's "legitimacy is doubtful".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, that is very similar to what has been used at the top of the Agent Carter and All Hail posters. Can you please provide the website url, not just the image url? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Here is the website url: . - adamstom97 (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the actual link Adam. This is really close, but it is not exactly the same, so we should not add the image unless it is the accurate one. Compare your's to the ones used on Agent Carter's poster and AHTK's. I do appreciate you finding this and thinking it would work. This is the closest we've gotten to finding the logo to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you can find an extremely high-resolution (natural, not stretched) of the AHTK poster, I can extract the logo. The logo on the Agent Carter poster is too stylized to that particular film to be of any use.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's been the issue Triiiple. All the ones I've seen on the internet are small in size and resolution. I had tried with the Agent Carter one, but yes, it was too stylized to make it usable. I'll keep my eye out. And with none coming on Cap:TWS, we might not get another poster for a while. I had asked Tenebrae a while back, since they are in the media/journalism, to see if they could get one, but never heard back. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:28, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Metacritic's "normalized" scores
Despite Metacritic's claims, their scores are not "normalized". Please see WT:Manual of Style/Film/Archive 6. Thanks. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 23:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What is this in relation to? I need some context, because I don't know what you are talking about. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:16, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I think you have added the word "normalized" to one or more film articles in describing Metacritic's scores. If not, my apologies for the intrustion. 75.177.156.78 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Can't say I have done this. I work all over the place, so I may have, but nothing comes to mind, and I generally don't stick to Reception sections on film pages as my edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:47, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

We had edit conflict
Sorry, I was having an edit conflict with you (I was just about to remove and replace my original reference when you did the revert). I have actually been dormant user of Wiki, so not sure about new rules. I have removed the shop link and replaced it with something else. Please feel free to remove it if it's against wiki rules. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Since you have added that, I actually found an English source, so I will get to replacing it. Thank you for finding the non-store one initially thought! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:51, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks once again. My wiki editing skills and rules are rusty (but I do remember that refs should be in english whenever possible). So, I actually prefer to stay passive and watch whatever in my watchlist and will do so for most of the time. I do edit when I felt the article needs updating urgently. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 02:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your original edit was in good faith, hence my revert. But then you went out an found a proper source, so I will always welcome that type of editor. Best of luck returning if you are! (And FYI, I'm still taking care of other pages on my watch list. The source I found is here if you want to change it. Also talks about a collector's pack, which will be good to add.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

MCU recurring cast and characters
Do you think having a table like this at the main MCU page will make it easier to get the information across? Instead of people reading through the information to see who has reappeared across different mediums, they can quickly and easily see that information. If they want to know specifically what films, short films or television shows the characters have appeared in, they can follow links at the top of the section to the appropriate pages. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Prose is good for that section. Not everything has to be made into tables. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Avengers
Apologies for not linking with hyperlink back to the original page but I gather you know what this is about. Please could you direct me to te source which explicitly states that the movie will only release in 2D and IMAX as the information suggests. Kind regards and apologies again, Mythical Curse (talk) 21:34, 6 June 2014 (UTC).
 * Have you even read his revision summaries? See one. Nothing in the lead needs to be cited, as long as it is mentioned in the article itself, in this case, it is in the Avengers: Age of Ultron section. The article has never said it'll be ONLY 2D and IMAX. The film will in IMAX 3D as well, that just isn't in the article. Only 2D and IMAX are cited, though. &#124;&#124; Tako (bother me) &#124;&#124; 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
 * A) You have not read my edit summary, or the article apparently for that matter. B) Here is the source used on the page, stating the film will be in IMAX. Thus it is being released in 2D and in IMAX. If your issue is that that information makes it seem like the only formats it is releasing in, that is not the case. Most likely, it is also going to be in 3D and IMAX 3D, but editors can't assume that unless we have a source to state such. So, it can only be the way it is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:12, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I finally got round to reading your source and it appears we still have an issue. The source only states that the film will be released in IMAX and not that it will release in 2D. Most likely, it is also going to be in 2D but editors can't assume that unless we have a source to state such. So, I have therefore changed it to reflect this. Kind regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 14:30, 8 June 2014 (UTC).
 * No issue. Source says it will release in IMAX and as it is currently filming, that means it is being filmed for 2D. That's the industry. You film in three ways: conventional film or digital (2D), 3D, or in IMAX. If the source said filmed in IMAX, then we'd have an issue possibly including 2D. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

If you can provide a source stating that the movie is being filmed in 2D then it can be added. If not, we cannot assume that it will be available in this format and as such it should stay IMAX only. Kind regards, Mythical Curse (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC).
 * If one is not provided that filming is happening in another format, then it is known that it is 2D. Since we have none for 3D filming or IMAX filming, that leaves only one option that is not assuming anything. And as stated, this discussion should be on the article's talk, not mine. And also stated, per WP:STATUSQUO, that stays during a dispute, so do not revert or undo again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, there are no sources to suggest that it will release in 2D, just because it may film in it does not mean it will be released in it. Secondly and more importantly, my issue with this article is that by only stating that the film will release in 2D and IMAX it implies that the film will not release in 3D. This is unlikely to be the case and as such, until someone at MARVEl confirms/denies the use of 3D, its release of 2D only should not be in the article.

Sorry that this is so convoluted and messy, Kind regards Mythical Curse (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

To add to that, a mention that the film has been confirmed to release in 2D and IMAX is fine in the Release section as long as it is worded correctly, so as not to imply no 3D release. Mythical Curse (talk) 18:16, 8 June 2014 (UTC).

Batman Arkham Knight
Why did you change my edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terry129 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The lead edit was wrong. You failed to continue reading the lead to see the info you wanted in the beginning of the following paragraph; the Scarecrow info was unreferenced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

An FAC I have going
Hello there! I don't know if you remember a little while back when I asked if you had time for a GA review of The FP, but I've since gotten it up to GA and I recently nominated it for Featured Article. If you have a spare moment, would you mind leaving some comments or suggestions on it? If you can't, I totally understand. Also, be sure to tell me if you have some stuff you're working on that you might want reviewed or to have a gloss over. I'd be more than happy to help.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:33, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Warned the IP adding inapplicable categories on South Park: The Stick of Truth
[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:2601:D:380:468:ED9E:742E:7567:17BF&oldid=613786637#June_2014_2 Warned] after adding Category:Cancelled PlayStation 4 games and Category:Cancelled Xbox One games four times with no explanation. Maybe they'll stop now. meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is RFC 2
I've started a new RFC about archive.is because I'm fed up with Werieth breaking articles and having the backing to do it. Letting you know per our previous discussion. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll head over and comment. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How the heck did you restore those links? When I tried to do it at The Joker, it rejected it due to archive.is being on the blacklist. Maybe it's been removed? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you insert a spam link, as you did at Batman: Arkham Asylum. Persistent spammers may have their websites blacklisted, preventing anyone from linking to them from all Wikimedia sites as well as potentially being penalized by search engines. Werieth (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not inserting a spam link. I'm keeping the link to prevent WP:LINKROT. Yes the RFC said to blacklist it, but if you remove it WITHOUT replacing it with a valid archive, that is NOT good. You are the one being disruptive, not me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:52, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * He isn't going to be blocked for undoing your vandalism Werieth, you're still a detriment to the project. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:53, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * archive.is is a banned website on Wikipedia. You need to find another location for the source. Sorry. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * , I am very well aware of the previous RFC decision. However, it is very much counter intuitive to remove those links without replacing them with valid archives. I am not currently arguing that those links should stay. I am arguing that if you are taking away those current archives, you are presenting serious WP:LINKROT issues. A second RFC has just been opened regarding this, so hopefully a better solution can come out of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I noticed. If that second RFC comes to a different conclusion, then by all means we can re-include the links, but at the moment we can't. Black Kite kite (talk) 20:11, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

MCU comic book appearances
When undoing mine and TriiipleThreat's edits, you made a valid point, that we should only give information on characters first appearing in that medium, which would rightfully remove any potential duplication of information. However, your other point, that "we don't need to indicate the comic book appearances as that is not a portryal [sic]" is incorrect. The wording in each of the List indicator(s) is "A [ref] indicates the character reappears in [medium]". This statement has nothing to do with portrayal, that is why the notes were moved from the actors' names to the characters' names originally (see Talk:List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors). The tie-in comics are just as much a part of the Universe as the other mediums, so why should they get shunted aside? If these notes were about performances, I would agree with your statement, but they are not, so I hope the comic book notes can be re-added to the pages.

I would also like to point out that several characters listed throughout the MCU pages as having been introduced in films, were in fact introduced in comics. The comic Captain America: First Vengeance was released before Captain America: The First Avenger, so many of the characters from that film were not actually introduced in it, but in the comic. That is just one instance of this, so I was wondering, as part of the ongoing expansion of List of Marvel Cinematic Universe tie-in comics, we should look further into this, and rectify the errors, as stating that, for example, Steve Rogers/Captain America was introduced in Captain America: The First Avenger, is flat out not true, so it is something that, in my opinion, should not be stated as fact on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamstom.97 (talk • contribs) 05:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * For the record, I wholeheartedly agree with Favre's rationale. The table is a list of a portrayals and the indicators all point to other portrayals.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:22, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But they do not have to just point to other portrayals. If the indicators were by the actors' names, then they would have to point to other portrayals, but we decided on the talk page that this is not what we intended, and that the indicators in fact point to other appearances by the characters. The indicators are placed beside the characters' names, and the label clearly states, as i said above, that "A [ref] indicates the character reappears in [medium]", not that the actor reprises his/her role in a different medium. By adding the comic book indicators, we will not be changing any of the other indicators that are already there, we will only be expanding upon them, being consistent, and giving information that people could be interested in. If someone can easily find out if a character from the films has appeared in canonical tv shows or short films, with helpful links leading to more information, why can't they find out the same info for characters reappearing in canonical comic books? - adamstom97 (talk) 10:45, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The table is in use in articles or sections about casts. Also over populating the table with indicators is more distracting than helpful.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Marvel One-Shots#Cast and characters; List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Recurring cast and characters; User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/6#Cast and characters. If these are all just about casts, then there is some pretty obvious problems with the naming of these sections. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:26, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously if we are going to list the cast it would make sense to list the roles that they are portraying.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 11:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "The table is a list of a portrayals" - yes. "The table is in use in articles or sections about casts...it would make sense to list the roles that they are portraying." - yes. But the indicators that are already on the pages, that you and everyone else seem to be fine with, are indicators of where the characters reappear. If a character was to go from film to TV, but the role was recast, there would still be a TV indicator placed after the character name on the film page. the actor has not made the transition, so the indicator has nothing to do with the portrayal of the character, just the character itself. This is the same case - a character has moved from film to comic book, but the actor has not made the move, for obvious reasons. The character is still reappearing in another medium, and someone could very well be interested in seeing who from the other mediums have made the transition to the canonical comic books, so there is no reason why not to have the indicators there. If there were so many indicators in the character column that the names were becoming unreadable then i would agree that "over populating the table with indicators is more distracting than helpful." But we are certainly not at that point, and if we are to get to that point, it will more likely happen because there are individual indicators for every film phase, which, for any character that makes even a minor appearance in several phases over the coming years, could cause a ridiculous clutter of indicators. if this is an issue that you wish to address, then maybe we should consider revising how we indicate to readers that characters reappear in other mediums, otherwise, we should stick with the current system, which seems to me to be working fine, and use it consistently, which means adding indicators for comic book reappearances. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The tables as now, have been designed to indicate characters appearing across the visual mediums. Remember, the MCU started as a film series first. It then expanded elsewhere. So when it moved to other visual mediums, per normal Film and Television project conventions, cast lists are created in some form. So we looked to the created film cast table, and saw that that would benefit for the One-Shots. I am also looking to that as a basis for the one that will be eventually on the television series page. As for the comics, unless in extremely unique cases, we are not going to be listing every single character that is appearing. We are not Comic Vine. However, the only instance that I see some notation about comics appearances necessary, is if a character has a very, very notable introduction in an MCU comic, before appearing in a visual medium. And at the moment, I do not think that is the case, especially on the notability end. Since all of those comics are either prequels, interludes, or postludes to the films, it is not really a separate appearance by the character. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not to mention, that we strive to focus on the WP:Real world aspects of the universe; which is why we put emphasis on the cast, not the characters. And to your original hypothesis: the tie-in comics do not carry the same WP:WEIGHT as the films or even the television shows or one-shots.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:51, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yup, those are even better claims than what I was trying to get at. I was circling that guideline and policy without mentioning them. Thanks Triiiple. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If you consider the comics as just prequels, interludes, or postludes to the film, and therefore not really separate appearances, then character appearances in the One-Shots are not separate appearances either, as the One-Shots are all preludes, interludes, or postludes to the films as well (TC is not only a tie between TIH, IM2, and TA, it is also just an extended version of a TIH scene; WHOTWTTH is just a tie between IM2 and T, literally showing how Coulson got from one movie to the other; AC and AHTK are pretty much glorified post-credit scenes, showing the actions of characters from the films immediately following them. They are not new, independent stories as the films are; I47 is the most standalone of them all, but it is still just a brief postlude to TA, briefly expanding upon events from that film). Remember, WP:Consistency.


 * However, I understand that you guys control everything that happens on these pages (you have put a lot of work into them) and that you will not change your mind about what you think is right or wrong, even if you can't give logically-sound reasons for keeping things your way, so I will let this go now. But for the record, I have not been convinced that making my edits was the wrong thing to do, and until such a time as I am, I believe that we are missing an opportunity to improve the quality of several Wikipedia pages, which is our job as committed editors.


 * Also, I would like to point out to Favre1fan93 that WP:REVEXP clearly states that when reverting you must provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion. Therefore, you are being disruptive with your reverts of my edits to the One-Shots cast table, and the TV cast table. I don't want to start an edit war, so I will refrain from re-editing those pages, but in future, please remember that statements like "Should be as previously" are not acceptable explanations. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I know you are acting in good faith but it just seems you are going out of your way to try and fix what ain't broken. WP:Consistency is inactive. Its not a policy or guideline or even an essay. The fact is that articles can do there own things. There is a general manuel of style and more specific ones tailored to individual WikiProjects, but not all articles have to resemble each other exactly. This is done out of necessity as articles are developed based on subject matter, available reliably sourced content and the consensus of the contributing editors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TV
Hey, good work on the MOS:TV stuff! Way to grab that brass ring! Quickie: I'm not being a wisenheimer, (buuuuuuut,) is WP:SEASON the wikilink you were going for? I thought you might have meant WP:TVSEASON but I'm still unsure. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No WP:SEASON is what I wanted. That states you should not be using Fall or Spring due to differences in hemispheres, as well as users reading in countries (like Aussie) who don't have a "Fall". So the use in the guideline is to discourage sentences being written such as: "The show will return in Fall 2014." That means something totally different to people or doesn't mean anything to some. It is meant to encourage the "will return in 2014 of the 2014–15 season" writing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Okeedokey, Smokey. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

MCU Television
I was wondering what your current stance on this page is? A while ago you mentioned that there was still plenty of work needing to be done, and that we were in no rush. I agree that we are still in no rush, especially because it will be a while before the next MCU show airs, but i think the influx of information concerning these shows, and Daredevil in particular indicates that the page would not be idle if we were to create it now. Also, by moving the page to the mainspace we would be able to clean up the main MCU page, which is currently suffering some WP:WEIGHT issues with the much larger amount of information dedicated to the TV section compared to the other sections. If you still want to hold off, and continue improving the article in your sandbox, then i will understand, but i do think it is time to at least reconsider the move. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, would you consider adding a Development section to this page? Both the One-Shots and Comic book pages have this, and it would make sense to collate all of that information in one place, and leave the ABC and Netflix sections to list the individual shows (i assume the page will eventually be moved to "List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series"). This would help with WP:Consistency across the MCU pages and within the page itself, and would help with page navigation, as people looking for the development of the series would expect a Development section, while people looking for the specific list of shows will just click on those sections, and most likely expect to find a similar sort of list as is found on the list of films page, list of comics page, and One-Shots page. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I do think we are almost ready to go, and my thought right now is to wait until we get closer to AoS season 2 airing. That way, we will know for certain who principal cast members are, as well as any additional changes. So I'm shooting for a move to mainspace most likely in August. As for adding a development section, in this case it I don't see how a meaningful section can be created. General development was mainly just for AoS, where it is stated now, and if we look at the content in say the One-Shot section, I don't see like equivalents to create a separate section. Also, since we are getting two distinct series on ABC and Netflix, the info that is currently under Netflix series, before Marvel's Daredevil, is more appropriate there because that info applies to all of those series. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, you keep stating WP:Consistency, but that is no longer an active consensus point on Wikipedia, so it should not be used to back up your claims or opinions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have realised that. Although I agree with most of the points the page makes, I do see how it could limit some articles becoming the best they could possibly be. Thanks for pointing that out to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * We do try to make each of the pages have a similar look to them, but we are not beholden to that, as somethings may work for one page, and not for another. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD template
I don't know if you have Template talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. on your watchlist, so I thought I would leave the message here that I also left there:

"Is there really any need for this template? By just adding the MCU template to the AoS pages, you get links to the season 1 and characters page, and all of the other links can easily be found in logical places within the individual links provided (e.g. the character links are all on the character page). I know many tv series have their own templates, but the only reason I could see AoS needing a separate template from the MCU is if all of its episodes had individual articles, in which case an AoS episodes template could be created, like Template:Game of Thrones episodes. Several other series just use overall franchise templates, including Game of Thrones (Template:ASOIAF), DreamWorks Dragons (Template:How to Train Your Dragon), and The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles (Template:Indiana Jones), so AoS won't be alone if it doesn't have its own template. Does anyone have any thoughts or opinions on this?"

- adamstom97 (talk) 04:44, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

New 52
Why do you keep removing the collapsible class from this page? I even left a comment within the page explaining why I was making this change. This page was collapsible several months ago and it made navigation so much easier. This page is very long and is supposed to be a quick reference. It takes forever to scroll to the bottom. I've edited this page several times but only this one feature keeps getting removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.225.6 (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In the article's featured list nomination, it was determined that using unnecessary collapsible lists for the content posed WP:ACCESS issues. Please do not change this again. If you feel so strongly on this, start a talk page discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, I guess that settles that. I didn't even know these talk pages existed. I forgot my login so I thought people were just looking at this like "this idiot thinks he can edit these pages. Ha. I'll get rid of his changes." I felt it was easier to navigate the page when it was collapsible but I guess I'm the minority. ...and I believe in a voting system so I accept that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.234.225.6 (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not use voting, it uses consensus. And that was determined in the FL nomination. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of editors here don't blindly revert IP edits, they only revert with good reason. It was clear you were acting in good faith, but you just happened to be unwittingly acting against consensus. Hard to fault you for trying to help.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  20:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Infobox on GOTG
Thank you for that change. I was torn on where to put it, since the lead paragraph doesn't say anything about the soundtrack itself.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  19:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I understand your placement, but it is fine to be along side the lead paragraph, since the section is about the music in the film. We can tweak it should any other info comes out, or they release an orchestra score as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protection
Hi, Favre1fan93.

I requested yesterday the semi-protection of the List of films based on Marvel Comics, and today it's semi-protected for a period of three months. Tks for your help.OscarFercho (talk) 02:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

MCU good topic
Hey, I was wondering if you could just explain your reversion of my edit a bit more - I figured that since the television series are a part of the MCU, surely they would be a part of a topic called MCU. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah sure. I tried to be as thorough as I could in the summary. Apologies if I wasn't. So what we are striving for currently is for the film articles, the List of films page, and the List of film actors page, to become it's own good topic (that's the top table on the talk page). That is one scope to consider. Then, as an over arching scope, (MCU in general) to become a good topic, would include the film good topic, plus One shot page, comic and (maybe eventual) music page, and the television series page. So that in and of itself will be the largest good topic. And from there, it is feasible to try to include the television articles, along with the list of series page, to be its own good topic, like the film articles. Does that make sense? So the reason I did not include the articles you added was a) they do not fit in to either of the scopes listed on that talk page; and b) the idea of good topic for the television pages should not be entertained yet, as we are not really close to any being good articles, a necessary first step. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, thanks for that. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Music of the MCU
There isn't much more we can do for this page, considering its current scope, besides completing the reception table. However, if we bring some more information and references over from the individual soundtrack pages, we could centralise that information, and negate the need for individual soundtrack/score pages for each film. It wouldn't take much work, though this page is currently low priority and likely a long-term job, and it would mean removing several pages that are already barely notable enough to exist themselves, being not much bigger or more detailed than the music sections on the individual film pages. Do you have any thoughts on this? I realise the page could potentially get quite big, but that seems to me to be a problem for down the line, while the brevity and relative unnecessariness of the soundtrack pages is something we can fix now by removing them completely. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:44, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not really made this a priority to work on for the time being. You are more than welcome to make your edits still in my sandbox. If you want to do that, and approach me when you think you have a mainspace-ready article, I'll take a look at it and make comments on it. I trust you can make some decisions you feel will be good for the page that will be fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the page is still a bit off being mainspace-ready, but looking at it now, it has pretty much all of the information from the soundtrack pages and film pages, do you think it will work as a replacement for the soundtrack pages, or are we still looking at a connecting, list type page with links to the soundtrack pages? Seeing as the soundtrack pages are all Start-class or Stub-class, it seems like it would be easier to merge them all into one, which we could focus on getting to Good Article status. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let's see what you come up with if you bring all the content over from the existing articles into the sandbox. The only thing I might foresee as an issue now would be the size of the page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree about size potentially becoming an issue, but for now I will work on the page as a replacement for the others. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Use the references I had listed when the page looked like this to see if you can expand the prose with info that is not already there. See what you can get for a potential page by combining everything, but looking at some individual articles, it may be more feasible to keep the individual articles. But we'll see; trial and error. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marvel One-Shots
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marvel One-Shots you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Early reaction to GOTG
Personally, I don't think this information belongs in the Critical response area, and I don't think it requires specific mentions of critics or sites. I would say, if we find more reliable sources commenting on their opinions, that we put it in release with a cliffnotes of the opinions. As simple as "The screening was met with enthusiasm from critics" or "positive reviews" or—if opinions echo each other enough—that "was met with positive reviews, praising its action, humour, etc."

I just think it's unneeded to put a piece of information that will be so trivial when the film comes out in a section that will be full of reviews for the full film, not a tenth of it. Thoughts?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I guess that could work. So we have the info, "17 minutes screened etc.." then "which was met with positive reviews, praising the [whatever]. refs" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That's what I was thinking, yeah. It'll be more concise. Out of curiosity (and slightly on topic), did you get to see the preview?  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm working on fixing as we speak. And no! I was so mad. The day they announced it, I was not hounding my Facebook as I normally do, so I saw the post too late and tickets were already gone for all the NYC theatres. And they apparently added some tickets, and I missed those posts as well. But even if I did, I don't think I could have gone. I had tried seeing an early screening of Cap:TWS, and I got the tickets for like a 7 pm screening. I got there at like 5:30 and didn't get in. So they give out WAY more tickets than they can actually take into the theatre. So you have to get there super early to get a spot. Did you see it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:29, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ditto here. I found out one day late, and all the tickets to the only theater anywhere near my area (read: over an hour away, which I would've driven) were gone already. I didn't even know there were more tickets, so I obviously didn't get those. I'm sort of disappointed but I'm also okay with it. I would've loved to see it, but at the same time, I haven't even watched the second trailer in hopes of keeping my expectations in check and my knowledge of the plot to a minimum. I like that I have no idea what Ronan looks like or what Rocket sounds like, ya know? The anticipation is killing me, though. The 2008 Guardians is one of my favourite superhero teams, and the film has already gotten so much right that I can't help but have expectations it might not meet. That said, August needs to be here now. That was very wordy, I apologize.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:35, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good for you for avoiding the trailers. Don't know how you avoided not seeing what Ronan looks like. That's impressive. But having seen the trailers, and the extending one released today, I think you will be satisfied. It looks absolutely amazing. Probably going to be my favorite MCU film after seeing it, I have that high hopes. And I suggest you get off from editing the page in a week or two if you want to keep that mystery around the film haha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know what he looks like, vaguely, from the back, in low lighting, and that his face will probably resemble Lee Pace :P So I very barely know what he looks like. And I've been careful as to which edits I check. I've dodged the "Premise" and "Production" sections for the most part. I managed to go all the way to the premiere of Dark Knight Rises without learning Talia was in it, I just figured it out when I saw Joey King playing young "Bane". I still don't know exactly how Breaking Bad ends. I'm good at dodging spoilers, mostly because I get aggressive when I sense one coming, haha.
 * In regards to the article itself, I figured that would probably be the rationale for reverting. I can understand that it's a uniformity thing, and I respect that. I personally think that either the lead or the infobox should only mention those that lead the film, per se. I would prefer the lead be the one with the smaller cast list (like I edited), but I see there's a consensus for the billing block listing. I won't argue it further, not a big enough issue to me.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  14:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't tell me about Breaking Bad! I haven't started yet and I have avoided all stuff with that. But yes, over on The Avengers talk page, there were discussions, and consensus to use the full billing block (from the bottom of the film poster) to make the bulleted cast list, and such, who is in the lead and infobox. You can find a general overview of the points/consensus I've been working up for a possible essay here and the consensus on The Avengers here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't worry, I wasn't planning to. I never assume people have seen it out of the fear that I might ruin it for them. I can understand where that comes from, it does make sense. I think I'm just seeing a bad moon rising, since billing blocks for Marvel films seem to get bigger with each one. I'll wait until I think it's a big problem to bring it up in a full discussion, though. Also, watching Breaking Bad. It's awesome.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

In regards to your last addition (this is not the edit itself, just the content), do people really think that audiences won't be able to handle a movie without Thor or Captain America or Iron Man? They handled Thor and Captain America without Iron Man. Anyone going in is almost definitely aware that this isn't the Avengers. *sigh* End rant.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think it surprised the writer of the /Film article as well. That's what he said happened when he talked to general screening audience members. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought that was what his opinion was just in general, not that it happened. Well damn. That's immensely surprising. Hopefully we actually do get an RDJ cameo and they just hid it for obvious reasons, but we'll see.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:11, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it could rephrased, it didn't quite stick with me either. How can a preview be criticized for something the general audience may do?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * How about? "However, it was criticized for beginning partway through the film, unable to allow viewers to easily acclimate to the film's tone,[117][119] and for not clearly establishing its place in the larger Marvel Cinematic Universe." This removes the ambiguity as the audience had a definite reaction to this. Also it seems they were confused by the time of events and the lack of established characters.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything other than "partway through the film, unable to allow viewers..." is good with me. I would change that to "disabling viewers from easily acclimating to the film's tone" or something similar. I would agree that the audiences' possible opinions aren't really relevant.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:37, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * My point is: it wasn't a "possible" opinion, the audience watched it and had a very real criticism but the current wording suggests the former.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you're saying now, I misread. I'm still fine with your version of the wording, other than my note above. But your point is a correct one.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  17:55, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with the rewording, or we could remove it all together. That was just a detraction I read in the source. The tone was a bigger point to highlight. But I also think it may be important to cover (probably with the actual reviews) about how will the general audience responds to this. Yes it has been all really positive stuff so far, but I feel that it is from audience members who have been informed about what the film is and such. So if we have to wait on that until actual reviews, that's fine. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marvel One-Shots
The article Marvel One-Shots you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Marvel One-Shots for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 18:41, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marvel One-Shots
The article Marvel One-Shots you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marvel One-Shots for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PresN -- PresN (talk) 19:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Re: A barnstar for you!

 * Sure, let's do it!--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I'll put potential hooks I was thinking of on your talk page. Today was a good Wiki day for MCU articles! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.
Template:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. adamstom97 (talk) 09:41, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * No one has added anything to the discussion concerning this deletion, so I assume no one objects? Can you advise me on how to proceed? I know your quite busy with the other MCU pages (congrats on the One-Shots page by the way, I can't believe how far its come since I created it!), but it would be a great help if you could advise me on this. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I did not realize that was you who created that page. As for the template, I have no idea of the procedure. I would believe that the discussion has to stay open for a required amount of time, probably more than 7 days, and most likely needs to be closed by an admin. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, creating that page was one of the first things I did on Wikipedia. Thanks anyway, I'll have a look around. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:08, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Big Bang Theory season 7
Please stop reverting my edits to the Big Bang Theory (season 7) page. I feel that I have added some essential details to the page and that it is for the best of Wikipedia.

Iaalir5 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see your talk page. You are just creating WP:PLOTBLOAT. Summaries in the episode table should not cover every single minutae detail of the episode and should only be 100-200 words. It is currently 156, and with your edit, it is 269 and covers detail not needed for the brief summary overview of the episode. If you feel so strongly that the plot be expanded, propose that an article for the episode be created. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Marvel One-Shots
Hello! Your submission of Marvel One-Shots at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Note: It's just a wording suggestion. Really not an "issue".  Corvoe  (speak to me)  01:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Small query before I pass the DYK (I don't think it needs to be cluttered). Would you be opposed to me changing the commas around "known as Marvel One-Shots" to mdashes? The hook would look like this: "...that Marvel Studios considered making stand-alone short films—known as Marvel One-Shots—involving Loki, Black Panther, and Damage Control?"
 * That's fine. Thanks Corvoe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Ultron
Some of Ultron's abilities from the EW article might actually be useful but we've trying to keep the plot information in the cast section to almost a bare minimum, just enough to give the reader a basic understanding of the character. Typically this is handled in a single sentence albeit a long one. I don't mind you re-adding it if we can keep it all trimmed down.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll see what's in it when I pick up the issue. And I was questioning the plot info in the cast section when I added it, so I understand that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Marvel One-Shots
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:24, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Cosmic cube
Ya cut me. Ya cut me deep. LADY LOTUS • TALK 20:22, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's policy. If I didn't do it, some one else would have. See WP:NFCCP point 8. It is most applicable at Cosmic Cube where it already is. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

MCU tie-in comics
I noticed in the Good Topic table on the MCU talk page that the comics page is the only start-class article. With the recent edits I have done to the page, I believe it is better than that now, though I'm sure it's not as high as a Good Article yet. Do you have any thoughts on this? Should we get it reviewed to at least have no start-class articles there? - adamstom97 (talk) 03:12, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I will come by and evaluate it. Most likely it is now a C class. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:00, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I very much like all the additions you did to the article. Seems much better on first glance. The next step you should do is a) archive all the web sources on the page. You can use Webcitation.org. It is really simple to do and will put it in line with the other MCU pages. (And remember to bring the archives to the main page for those refs there. Or put the whole ref in the table so it is transcended with the table, not just the name tag. That might actually be better.); b) Make sure any text on the page has a source. I noticed the last GotG section had nothing for sources. Otherwise, good recent additions. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response, I'll have a look at further edits when I can. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:18, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Now that I have sorted out those sources, do you think the page is to B-class yet? Even if it is not, I was wondering if you had any ideas on what we could do to make this a good article? - adamstom97 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not a B yet. Still needs work. I just tagged it with the tone template. How you are portraying info gained from sources could be better, and written in a more encyclopedic tone. And then just general formatting for the whole page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:42, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Maria Hill
Hey, I'm the person who added the information about Maria Hill to your Avengers: Age of Ultron page (which is an amazing page by the way) and i would really appreciate it if you kept it on your page as all the information is true and Maria Hill will be a main character in Avengers: Age of Ultron. Thanks. If you visit this page it will tell you my source is genuine http://uk.ign.com/articles/2014/01/22/cobie-smulders-on-reaching-the-end-of-how-i-met-your-mother-i-know-the-whole-thing.
 * We are not saying she is not in the film, she is just not a starring role. Actors that get a bullet on the page (at least for Marvel Cinematic Universe film articles) are ones that receive billing "starring roles" (also per WP:FILMCAST). At the moment, the source we have to state this is this. And it does not list her as a starring role. So for now, she states at the bottom of the cast list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

GotG premiere
Do you think this source is reliable enough to use in the article? Its from the website of a marketing firm in LA, saying that world premiere will take place on July 21, 2014 at the El Capitan Theatre. Which could be true since this source from Marvel confirms the date and all of MCU's Hollywood premiere take place at the El Capitan since it is owned by Disney.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:54, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Found a source on Marvel.com about a competition that will let people go to the premiere on July 21. Maybe use this coupled with the El Capitan source for the whole report until we have a single source? Also, here's an archive link just in case.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:07, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I mentioned that source above. It seems very likely that the info is correct but I am not familiar with this company and was wondering if we could use it, all things considered.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Here's another source from a property management group in Hollywood saying there will be street closures in the area for the premiere on that same day.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Welp. That went completely over my head, my bad. I didn't read your message correctly, I thought you were saying that sourced confirmed that all of their premieres happen at the El Capitan, so...yeah. Sorry for that. To your question, I think it's reliable enough based on its clientele. I'd say go ahead and add it, but keep an eye out for a better one as we get closer to July 21 (or, worst comes worst, pass it). Also, sorry I keep interjecting on GotG stuff, it's just the first Marvel article I feel an express motivation to upkeep.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  15:59, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I would say all of this coupled together makes it pretty safe to say the premiere will be then and there.  Corvoe  (speak to me)  16:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Will do. Thanks.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey guys. Just getting on for the day. I was going to ask you both about them being in Singapore. That made me believe that that was the premiere. So could that possibly be it? This was the source I would have used to support that, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 15 July 2014 (UTC)


 * That would definitely be an earlier premiere.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Will change then. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:38, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Apparently, it's at the Dolby Theatre but I can't find a source. Perhaps tomorrow. Also it is being billed as the world premiere despite the fact it was not the first premiere.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've been questioning if the Singapore one was actually a premiere, or just a press event (ie interviews and such). I think the LA one may be a safer bet, and just move the Singapore info to marketing. I'll see what I can find for the Dolby Theatre. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , what are your thoughts on the LA premiere being the first over the Singapore one? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:29, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I found this article from Yahoo!, which indicates that the Singapore event was indeed a premiere and not a just a press event.Richiekim (talk) 02:34, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome. Thanks for that! I saw you added the YouTube link for the Dolby theatre for the LA one. Hopefully we can get a print source tomorrow for it (and some photos!). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * So I watched the Jimmy Kimmel interview, and at the end, he said the premiere was at the El Capitan, as the audience was going over to it. The Dolby and El Capitan are across the street from each other, so is it possible the actual premiere was at the El Capitan, and the red carpet was at the Dolby? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah that stretch of Hollywood Boulevard is pretty packed. The old Hollywood Masonic Temple, where Jimmy Kimmel Live! is broadcasted is now apart of El Capitan. So do you know for sure they were heading there to watch the film or Jimmy Kimmel?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey guys, shows that this is definitely being billed as the world premiere, and the liveblog suggests that it was in the Dolby Theatre, not the El Capitan Theatre (see also this image: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtHMpgGCcAEgkVB.jpg), though both were decorated for the occasion. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe the premiere was at the Dolby, and an additional screening was at the El Capitan. Because in the link you provided for Marvel.com Adam, the first two pictures show both theatres made up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yea, it's pretty confusing. I think one of the pictures shows fans standing in front of the El Capitan, facing away from it, towards the Red Carpet. I don't know what that means, but at least the tickets confirm that the official world premiere was at the Dolby. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The live stream confirmed it for sure. It was at the Dolby and the El Capitan was not even involved. It just had the marquee done up for it. The live stream hosts commented on this too, saying how they were at Dolby opposed to El Capitan as was usual. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (Season 1)
Hi, I'm trying to come up with a compromise for the edits with you and 140.32.91.4. I noticed that you kept some of the edits. Why did you keep those specifically? Also, I noticed that your reason for your edits was to fit the summaries within the appropriate limits. I didn't realize there were limits. Can you tell me where to find these parameters? They will be helpful with the compromise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulson Lives (talk • contribs) 17:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Short summaries should be between 100-200 words, per the template instructions here. Many of your additions were a) unnecessary information to the general summary of the episode b) over the word limit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am working on getting the summaries at 200 words or less. As I was reading through the episode summaries, I noticed that most of them had vague pronoun references and incomplete summaries (which is what I assume was trying to be fixed).  I will post revisions tomorrow.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coulson Lives (talk • contribs) 03:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Comic Con Panel
Hey guys. So I wanted to see what your availability during the comic con panel was (Saturday 7/26 at 8:30 EST) so we aren't stepping on each other's toes with what is hopefully a lot of announcements. Here's what I'm thinking on how the panel will break down: start with some GotG stuff, reminder that it comes out next week; main event-Avengers AoU cast panel; small panel for Ant-Man with at least Reed and Douglas; then the game changers-confirm titles for some of the new release dates/give some '3' films subtitles, actor confirmations. If you all will be online when this is happening, can we break tasks up? My thoughts for when the panel was happening. Some one sticking to: And then once the panel has finished and we know what we are dealing with:
 * GotG and Ant-Man (Corvoe will cover)
 * Avengers: AoU
 * New titles - redirects in the main space and starting articles in the draft space
 * New titles - character "in other media" sections updates, updates on the main MCU page, List of films page, film actors page and the template if needed
 * Some one to fill out refs/consolidate them if we have just put urls in for the time being
 * Some one to go around and archive

Let me know if you were thinking of anything for this at all, like my thoughts, hate my thought, whatever. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Im not sure how much I'll be able to contribute Saturday night but I can help with copy-editing afterwards. Also I've already been in contact with some photogs so I can help with adding images as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:35, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Thanks about the photos. I always forget about those, but you always end up adding some good ones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We always have Gage to fall back on, as well. As for me, I was planning on watching whatever panels I could, and I'd be more than willing to look for articles on new updates. I think I'd be better suited to updating stuff we already have rather than creating new stuff, as I'm still not 100% on how to structure things here. I'd be happy to cover GOTG and Ant-Man, though I may be calling for help after I've added all the relevant information. In all honesty, I'll take whatever. I'm flexible.  Corvoe  (be heard) 17:49, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I hope Gage still decides to contribute, last year a lot of editors came down on him pretty hard.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:53, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I totally missed this shebang. Why? He gave us a lot of good-to-high quality photos.  Corvoe  (be heard) 17:55, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I also missed this. - 17:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can seem to find the discussion(s), but basically people were upset he was replacing images with his own images and accusing him of self-promotion, which IMHO is totally ridiculous. Non-free images are already hard enough to come by without biting one of our best contributors.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Did a bunch of digging, and found it. I'm sincerely hoping that was an empty threat.  Corvoe  (be heard) 18:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be great Corvoe! You have been doing a fine job contributing with us. That's why I included you in this, because I know you know what will fly and what won't on these pages, once the flood gates open and everyone rushes here to start the articles etc. But I do think this info for those two films will be light (maybe more for Ant-Man), but even if you just get the info on the page and do, that's fine. We can all get around after to do deep clean c/e and formatting. I just felt it would be good to have some breakdown between us, so I'm not trying to add something on the GotG page, and edit conflict any of you. (Side note) Also, I saw this edit on your user page. You can definitely help us get GotG to GA status once it is released, and I look forward to you helping us do so. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:57, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You flatter me, Favre :P I'm mostly wanting to focus there because those are the two can't-miss parts for me, since they're holding my interest the most (GOTG because I'm excited, Ant-Man because I can't help but wonder how it's gonna turn out). Very good idea having this spaced, though. (Side note reply) I thought that would go unnoticed, haha. To explain that a bit better, I feel like any time I find out information about a Marvel film, it's already in and archived. I suppose I shouldn't have removed it, but I'm not planning on ceasing my edits to Marvel films. More so, I'm just thinking my contributions will be smaller than most (though this whole idea may change that a bit). And thank you, by the way, for all the kind words.  Corvoe  (be heard) 18:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Hey (still getting used to that). So I'm an idiot and realized that I am 99% going to be unavailable during the Comic Con panel. With that said, if you are still going to be online, it would be great if you could just keep an eye on things. Richie didn't respond here, but he might be on as well. The main thing, I think, if you could look out for, is to make sure articles don't get created for any of the new films announced. If you could be watching for that, myself and Triiiple can do the heavy lifting c/e if you aren't comfortable doing that once we can get online. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It only happened today, you're allowed to need some time to adjust :P I will almost definitely be online, so I'd be happy to refocus. I'll get #REDIRECT List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films#Future ready for copy-pasting early on. I'm sure Cap 3 and Doctor Strange will be created at least once a piece. Also, whenever I'm able, I'll be sure to try and add GOTG and Ant-Man info.  Sock  (The Editor Formerly Known as Corvoe) (be heard) 19:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sure a lot will written about the panels, if we can just keep down the fan cruft until Monday, I am sure it will be fine. If only we can get mass protection now.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you think we'll be able to swing that? Also, what would we need protected? GOTG and Ant-Man are both semi already.  Sock  (The Editor Formerly Known as Corvoe) (be heard) 19:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh mass protection would be a dream! Sock, we have drafts for Cap 3 and Doctor Strange articles ready once they enter production per WP:NFF so if any one makes those pages, they should be reverted immediately. The only issue with requesting for protection is a) not many admins share our sentiment for preemptive protection and b) we can all only guess what these films will be and we don't have definites. For example, Cap 3 will most likely get a subtitle, and I made a lot of edit notices for the pages, but we don't have any on pages for potential titles or subtitled pages, beyond ones in the draft space, because we don't know what is being announced. Here's what you should know though for articles:
 * Sequels (ie for Cap, Thor or Guardians) should redirect to previous film's "Sequel" heading
 * New franchises should redirect to that character's "Film" subheading on their page or In other media page.
 * We should focus on making sure articles don't get created as a priority. The existing film articles are not much of a priority. GotG, Ant-Man and AoU all have protection to cover the panel. I'll also ping again to see if he will be online to help. It's all about trying to corral messes for us, before they get out of hand and it then takes a lot of behind the scenes work to get it back to how it should be. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Depends on the admin. GotG and Ant-Man will need protection for sure. Marvel Cinematic Universe and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films will probably need protection too. I wish we could protect the page names of any titles that might be announced as well but we'll have to wait on those as there is no clue on what subtitle Marvel might give them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:02, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Do you have an admin you can approach maybe? Since Mark has taken his leave, I haven't had a good "go-to" admin who understood the level of attention these articles attract. Maybe User:HJ Mitchell. I think he did the most recent AoU protection. If we want to try those two MCU pages, we should throw in the film actor page too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey guys. Sorry I took so long to respond. Dunno if I'll be available Saturday night, but if I am, I'll be happy to help however I can as usual.Richiekim (talk) 20:25, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response Richie. Good to know. I appreciate it as always. Sock, if you do happen to be the only one of us online, don't worry and do the best you can. We will all help fix/add things once we can all get online. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:30, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

So I've been looking at how things have been covered at comic con the past few days, and this is what I've concluded. It is optimal to wait until the panel has ended to actually add a source for anything. That being said, what I think the best course of action when the panel is actually happening, is to just make sure no articles get created. The major reason this is, is because any created would fail WP:NFF. I have hopefully safeguarded all articles for potential films we know about and have drafts for (Cap 3, Thor 3, Black Panther, Doctor Strange) with big, attention getting edit notices, telling users just this, and where they should go for the info they want or are looking to add. So if you can be doing that while the panel happens, and wait on finding sources for the info until after, that would be the best, in my opinion, on how to corral this. Also, there is a slim chance I may be online for the panel, more likely around the end than the beginning. I'll ping you somewhere to let you know if I am. Also, pinging to see if he will be on later as well to be a help. (Adam, you can look through this convo, see what we've said and our general plan of action. Let me know if you'd like to help, or have questions about what should be happening.) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I can do that. I already have the main space page redirects for Doctor Strange, Cap 3, and Black Panther on watch, so I'll know if they change.  Sock  (previously Corvoe ) (be heard) 19:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Awesome!! Thank you so much for helping. Really appreciate having you on board. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry it took so long for the reply, I just woke up! I should be around for most of this afternoon, so I would be happy to help with reverting any hastily made edits or new pages, and I will gladly do what I can over the next week or so to help add all of the info we learn and continue with clean up, archiving, etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Great. I am also online so I'm here to help too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

This Newsarama live blog will be great to use once the panel is over. And this one too from CBR. In addition to individul sources. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm following Comingsoon.net's live blog right now.-Richiekim (talk) 00:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm at Comingsoon.net's live blog as well and already some great stuff! - adamstom97 (talk) 01:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Same. But Newsarama's has it all in text so that is what we can use to source. I say forgo sourcing now, because it will get out of control. I will archive what everyone does after this. Just get the urls on there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Pym/Van Dyne Confusion
I don't know if this would help much, but it should clarify a bit...

http://www.deadline.com/2014/07/ant-man-evangeline-lily-corey-stoll-marvel-comic-con/

Particularly this part;

"She’s not the only one who may not have the latest Ant-Man info. Lilly was at first introduced as playing the role of “Hope Van Dyne” instead of Hope Pym, causing confusion for some fans. Hope Pym and her mother Janet Van Dyne are two different but related characters in Marvel lore, the latter also known as superheroine The Wasp, who like Ant-Man has the ability to shrink herself. In Marvel canon she also has ties to the Avengers. Lilly, however, is playing Hope Pym, the daughter of Douglas’s Hank Pym who in one strain of Marvel comics lore later becomes the supervillain Red Queen.

Marvel-watchers might chalk the ambiguity up to scripting changes made between Wright’s version and the studio’s later revisions. Yesterday Deadline reported that Patrick Wilson, Matt Gerald and Kevin Weisman have fallen out of the pic, which has been in some state of flux after director Wright dropped out. Insiders say Gerald and Weisman’s characters were omitted in the newly evolved version of the script. Wilson, on the other hand, had a scheduling conflict."

I mean ultimately it probably doesn't matter too much, but I thought I would throw that out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.223.207.79 (talk) 02:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. We got Marvel's actual source and she is indeed Hope Van Dyne. Appears to be Hope Pym from the comics (Red Queen I believe) just using the "Van Dyne" last name. Maybe Janet makes an appearance as Douglas' wife?? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Movie Verification
Is the link below true or it is only romours?

https://www.facebook.com/fhmmalaysia/photos/a.10151473475440535.531900.172564000534/10152568780735535/?type=1&fref=nf Kelvintjy (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Rumors - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

AC Unity
Hi, Just thought I'd bring the discussion here about the sources for the writer and composers. With regards to the writer, he participates in a podcast with official Ubisoft community developers Gabriel Graziani and Adrien Gbinigie, he talks about the game itself and how he was brought onto the project, that video is a perfectly valid source.

As for the composers, I can assure you that it's Chris Tilton's official page, he and the Team Lead Audio Director Richie Nieto have a huge following, and his twitter account is linked on his official website www.christilton.com, and so is Sarah Schachner's on her respective site. Is it okay if I can re-edit the long overdue details?

Thanks :) --Djonathan 16 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Djonathan. I appreciate the effort you made in getting that info on the page, but the sources you used are why I questioned the additions. For the video source, per WP:VIDEOREF, the channel the video is hosted on needs to be officially related to the content of the page. So in this case, it should be the official Assassin's Creed YouTube channel. As it is not, it is tricky to use. While it does look legitimate, I don't know for sure, and thus am assuming. Also, the twitter and facebook link, per WP:TWITTER, we can only use verified accounts (the ones on both sites that have blue checks), for if they don't, they fail point 4 in what I just linked, as we do not know if they are truely the ones producing the content. It sucks, because it appears you found confirmation, but we unfortunately need more reliable sources, per our guidelines, to add that info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Favre

I understand, hopefully some concrete sources surface in the coming weeks, I'll endeavour to locate as many as I can. --Djonathan 16 (talk) 07:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix logo.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Kingdom Hearts HD 2.5 Remix logo.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. Stefan2 (talk) 16:17, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Batman: Arkham Origins
Hey Favre, I was thinking about taking the above forward for FA now that the last DLC is out and there doesn't seem to be any further info available for it short of voice actors. Do you think anything else needs doing to it before hand? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 09:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Not that I can think of. I've also never gotten a page ready for FA so I don't know what else has to be done that is different from getting it to GA. Also, FYI, once GotG releases Friday, I'm going to be taking a wikibreak for a bit. I need one. So if nothing has happened by the time I get back, I'll be ready to go to help with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, enjoy yourself Favre. On the FA side, it's mostly just making sure it is complete with all available info. I can't really think of anything that needs adding except maybe a little single sentence plot summary of the DLC, so I'll just have to check the refs and then it might be good to go. Also I watched Assault on Arkham but it may as well have just been called Suicide Squad, Batman's barely in it and it doesn't really reference the Arkham games either. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:53, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Knowing what you said now, I'd say DLC plot and other media (that might be the biggest non-thing in the article at the moment, if there is anything to add to it). And I have yet to see Assault, but I figured it wouldn't really truly exist in the universe. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy opinion
Okay, I don't want this to hype you up too much because I'm afraid that if you don't like it it'll be my fault. However, this is my 100% honest opinion of Guardians of the Galaxy:

It is my favourite film based on Marvel characters. X-Men, Spider-Man, Thor, Avengers, Iron Man, Captain America, Hulk, everyone. Without a doubt in my mind, I can say it's my favourite of all of them. Now, I'm also a massive fan of James Gunn and his style, so maybe I liked it more than most, but I know a good amount of people who agree with me (including those that saw the film with me).

So I apologize if this harms your enjoyment in any way, but I felt you should know what I thought. You said you're seeing it tonight, right?  Sock  (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 18:42, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Got back an hour or so ago from seeing it: loved it!! It is really up there for my favorite Marvel film. I was a little disappointed by the post credit scene. BUT, I absolutely loved twig Groot at the end! That was great! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Futures End
Hey, I'll leave you to doing the citations. I'm just separating all of the little plots right now and making them a bit more focused because in this case of Futures End where all the plots happen at different times, keeping them restrained in the order they happen would be a little bit less than beneficial. --Schmeater (talk) 20:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay. Even if you could just get after the info each time, that will help me in the long run. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:43, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Arkham Knight
What do you think about my theory? Just give it a chance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:URDNEXT/sandbox URDNEXT (talk) 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
Hey Favre, if you get a second, I would appreciate your input at this discussion. Obviously it's not required though, so no pressure. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:21, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Variety
Hey Favre! I've been working on a new article, and I'm struggling with archiving web pages from Variety. It consistently goes to the interstitial and then refreshes at the end of the seven(?) second buffer time. How do you work around this?  Sock  (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 23:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I have to check, but I think the archives do that, unfortunately. I just put them in and hope for the best. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Someone must have figured out a workaround, because I re-archived a Variety page sourced on GOTG and I got the interstitial, but it works fine when clicked from the Wikipedia page.  Sock  (pka Corvoe) (be heard)(my stuff) 18:16, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey
Hey, do you have any time in the future to help take Batman: Under the Red Hood to GA? I would be easy if there were a lot of references. Thanks for everything in advance! URDNEXT (talk) 02:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Webcitation
I don't know if your saw or not, but Webcitation is back up and running! - adamstom97 (talk) 10:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank god. Sock   ( tock talk)  11:20, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I did thanks! After looking at all new page edits, I'm going to go back to my edits over the past few days and archive up! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy: ready to nominate?
Hey guys! I read over the article just now, and I can honestly say that I think we're ready to nominate it. If you disagree, let's try to figure out what we need to do to improve it so we can have it ready to go in no time! It'd be awesome to get Cap 2 and GOTG promoted within a few weeks of each other. Sock  ( tock talk)  14:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Its too soon. There is still a lot to had from the box office and post production. Also its at the height of the article traffic and stability is still a major concern. When we get closer to home release, I think we should be good.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Valid points all around. I suppose I'm just anxious. Sock   ( tock talk)  17:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree on too soon as well. While I believe this will be a much quicker article to nominate, as Triiiple said, we still have stability and other content to add/worry about. I'm anxious too, because we spent so much time on it, but we have to wait a bit more. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if this would be of any use to you in the MCU stuff but The Hollywood Reporter article about James Gunn's birthday gift highlights the three items that have appeared as Infinity Stones in the films. Just if you needed a single source for them. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:52, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

A Misunderstanding
I am not a sockpuppet. I was merely trying to contribute to this website and my attempts to do so have been misunderstood. If there is anyway to clear my name of these accussations, I would like to use them. This is my first time using Wikipedia and I have no reason to abuse the rights that I am given on this site. I would also like to explain that I find it hard to cite my sources on this site to back up any of my contributions and would like some assistance. Thank you for your timeEditor35109 (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)Editor35109.

Date formatting thing
From the documentation: "In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates." (emphasis mine) --erachima talk 07:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
 * A) common by who? It does not say, and I have never seen that enforced in my time here. B) WP:MOSDATE says: Access and archive dates in references should all use the same format: the format used for publication dates, yyyy-mm-dd, or the format required for the citation style adopted in the article (my emphasis). The page is adopting the MDY format, so refs should be included. I'm not going to edit war over this; they are dates. But some consistency would be nice. That line you quoted should also be brought to attention at the template talk, because it is contradicted in the MOS, which I would look to first rather than the template documentation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * It accurately reflects WP:MOSDATE. Which as you note, says: "Access and archive dates in references should all use the same format: the format used for publication dates, yyyy-mm-dd, or the format required for the citation style adopted in the article." (emphasis mine) --erachima talk 13:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Batman, nananana
Hey man! I was wondering if you can copy edit Batman: Under the Red Hood's plot section? I don't think I can pull it off myself! Thanks for everything in advance! URDNEXT (talk) 12:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * By the way, do you know if in film articles, I should have a whole section for theme? URDNEXT (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWN
Please familiarize yourself with the guidelines at WP:OWN. Your opinions do not take precedence over other editors or the conventions of the English language. It's not useful to label edits you disagree with "disruptive". Also, check out Consensus and WP:BRD if you have a specific complaint. Woodshed (talk) 21:05, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I see this comment is over a disagreement for the wording at Gotham (TV series). I'm gonna have to say that Favre is in the right here. An upcoming show does not technically star anyone yet, as it hasn't been released. I don't see the problem with adding upcoming. Also, all of your cites to Wikipedia pages were invalid, as Favre definitely isn't showing article ownership, there is no consensus on the wording of the page (though Favre has support from WP:SILENCE, which is referenced in WP:CONSENSUS), and per WP:BRD you should have been the one to start a discussion, not him. You seem to be quoting articles you've not read yourself. Sock   ( tock talk)  21:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am very much aware of WP:OWN, and I am not in any fault regarding it. However, you were not only reverted by me, you were done so by another editor as well. So I suggest you read up on WP:BRD and familiarize yourself with the process to start a discussion, lest you receive more warnings for your editing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

agents of shield, awards
please!!! stop change that, if doesnt make any difference why are you change? i dont want fight — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.182.164.232 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:OSE. Prose, for the time being, is an acceptable representation of this information over a table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Redirect to Draft
Is it possible to redirect a mainspace topic to a Draft article until filming starts? According to my thoughts, rather than redirecting the topics in mainspace somewhere it should be possible to redirect them into Drafts, as it'll help editors to find a place to add data for upcoming events/films. What do you say? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * In short no. Drafts are not articles and should not be treated as such. Redirecting a page to the draftspace would just be circumventing guidelines like WP:NFF. We can however inform editors of a draft's existence through talk page messages and Help:Hidden text.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Everything that Triiiple said is correct. A Draft is not part of the mainspace, and should not be linked anywhere from the mainspace that a reader will unsuspectedly come across it (in terms of looking for factual info). While Drafts I may have a hand in are up to date, others may not be. Think of them as articles being created in user subpages, except more open to all editors. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright, got it, thanks to both of you. Where do I put Help:Hidden text about Draft if the redirect is not existed? Actually I'm thinking to work always in the Draft for upcoming films like you guys are doing, so the question is...while I'm working in the Draft on a topic and someone creates the same article in the mainspace before moving the Draft. Will that Draft be moved (merged) to mainspace in that condition or not? Hope you get my message correctly :). -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:53, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not entirely sure on a good place to put hidden text if no redirect exists. If based on a property (comic, book, etc.), in that article's subsection should be good. As for if the page gets created unknowingly without the draft content, you can request a WP:HISTMERGE if it is necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Then there's an article The Jungle Book (2015 film) created unknowingly or knowingly, because I had mentioned in the redirect that a Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film) was in development. So what about this article which was moved by ? Even the redirect which was removed to make a space for other article had edit history of more than 10 edits (wasn't an empty redirect) and I had mentioned the Draft in it. And the production of the film is also not confirmed by a reliable source, it has only one source which is just a Film database site. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 10:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe production has started, per the sources on the mainspace article. I would approach an administrator about the situation. I believe your draft work takes precedent over the newly created article (1, because you started it sooner, and 2, it appears to be more accurate than what was created). So find an area on the HISTMERGE page to request such, or approach an admin about redirecting/deleting the mainspace article, per WP:NFF. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't we wait for the production to begin before requesting for the HISTMERGE? And there's also another article in this situation, please look at the history of Alice in Wonderland 2 which I think needs to be merged into Alice in Wonderland: Through the Looking Glass. If so, please recommend me a good Admin relating to Film articles. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Should should take care of the HISTMERGE now imo. User:Mark Arsten has been helpful to me in the past. Explain your situation and he should help. Or User:HJ Mitchell. - Favre1fan93 (talk)
 * Thank you, I've told the whole situation. Please comment on his talk page. -- Captain Assassin!  «T ♦ C ♦ G» 06:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World
I don't think it's accurate to call the reception to Thor: The Dark World "generally positive". For instance, on a quick Google search, I found that CBS, E!, Indiewire, Vulture, and the International Business Times all refer to it as receiving mixed reviews. Would you be okay with me changing the lead to reflect this information? Sock  ( tock talk)  18:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I just didn't think it should have been removed. You should cite the statement with one of those sources. Or add the full review to the page and cite the mixed part there, so we don't have a cite in the lead. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How would you advise I cite it and the review? Put it at the front of critical response or what? Sock   ( tock talk)  19:20, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well we generally discourage of "summary lead sentences", but that is when readers are making the assumptions. If we have a source, I think you can do: "The film received mixed reviews from critics.[source] Aggregate stuff" - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for Wolverine (character)
I am inviting you to take part in this discussion to determine if the page should be called Wolverine (character) or "Wolverine (comics)." --Rtkat3 (talk) 22:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone made a page for Jungle Book (2015)...
So then I decdied to redirect it to Jungle Book (2015 film) but as it turns out it just goes to the main page-maybe they should be combined? thanks! (I was surprise there was no page for it now) But yeah I was just thinking this! Wgolf (talk) 18:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Oops forgot to put the page they made-The Jungle Book (2015).

Wgolf (talk) 18:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Taken care of with a redirect. A page for the film should not exist until a reliable source confirms production has begun, per WP:NFF. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

May I trouble you to comment?
Hey mang, may I trouble you to please comment at Talk:List of Oggy and the Cockroaches episodes if you get a chance? Basically there's some n00b editor of questionable intention who's attempting to take ownership of the article (see article edit history and their absurd ultimatums along with their absurd comments on my talk page. They even illegitimately filed for page protection to prevent any edits that went against their POV. Danke, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:22, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sandbox 4
I noticed you added SHIELD character content to your 4th sandbox that is very similar to the content in my own sandbox 4. I was wondering what your intentions are for this info, and how big of a priority it is for you, and maybe if I should merge my content with yours and focus my efforts concerning this subject to your version? - adamstom97 (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I just kind of did it to see what it would look like. I don't really have any plans for it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film)
Hello Favre1fan93! Please take a look at the source I've given in the filming section of Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film). If the filming has begun really, then move it back to mainspace please. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is an acceptable source, though I don't think it tells us either way if filming has started. These could be test screenings and such. So I don't think it can be moved back yet, at least per that source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Got it, thanks. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 18:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

SHIELD Pilot
I recently made some edits to Pilot (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.) and was wondering if, when you have time, you could have a look at the page, and maybe give some suggestions on where to go with it next? I am aiming to make individual pages for every episode, but would rather get them as good as possible as they are made, rather than having a lot of low quality articles. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'll probably have some time next week to give it a proper look over. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:30, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I have also made some edits to 0-8-4, but there is still work needed there, so if you have the time it would be great if you could have a look over it at some point. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Shoot. I forgot about the Pilot. Yeah. I'll take a look at both today. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I just looked over the pilot. Looks really good. I added one citation needed tag regarding Smulders from January 2013 (I quickly looked on other SHILED pages and could not seem to find the source you used.) Also, I would expand/change the reception section to include reviews from EW, Variety, IGN, AV Club and/or Steranko's thoughts. Otherwise, looks really good at the moment. Going to get to 084 now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * For 084, a few citations needed tags, expand the plot some, and then include reviews from the parties mentioned above as well. Otherwise, good job. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Favre, its always good to have some other opinions. I am just fixing up those citations now, and then will have a look at the reception stuff. Thanks again for the help. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if we can do any more over at the Afd page, but if you could that would be great - I'd rather all this work not be deleted for no good reason. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

As you can see, making a page for all the episodes is a big focus for me right now. If you think I'm being too hasty or need to be putting more work into the pages we have, then feel free to tell me, as, like I said before, I would rather not us have a whole lot of low quality articles for the sake of having them. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Nope. I think that is great that you are making them! But know too, that if it is a strain to make it a notable page, it doesn't have to be made. All that you have done so far is great. And as you get to later ones, remember the "Art of Level Seven" program, adding info on that. After you make them, I'll do my standard c/e read through. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Cool, and thanks again. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

South Park
I wouldn't say pointless, I feel it's a good idea to simply mention further seasons. If it's unlinked with a reference would you be happy? Grapesoda22 (talk) 06:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Convention across the WP:TV project is to not include next seasons until a page is created (when there is reliable information that the season is actually happening). So no, even with a reference saying it was renewed for S18 will not work. The season starts in a few weeks. We are in no rush, and the sources will come. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * My whole point was the infobox didn't feel complete and that just the mere mention that future seasons are happening would harm anything. I've done this with other shows and it didn't cause any problems. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that is incorrect. Future seasons are only supposed to be added to previous season infoboxes when articles are created. Season renewals don't mean anything until episodes have actually aired, or it is reliably known that episodes for the season have enter production. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:FILMLEAD
Hi. Thanks for the heads up. However, as I read it, this is speaking of references to the film itself, not to actions taken by folks working on it (e.g. directors, writers, etc.). For example, imho, it means that a sentence should read: "Citizen Kane is a 1941 American drama film, but it was directed by Orson Welles. In the case of Guardians, the sentence now reads "The film is directed by", which combines the present is with the past tense, directed.  Thoughts?  Onel5969 (talk) 02:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah yes. My apologies. I see what you mean (and what the statement means). I generally look to past MCU film articles for general consistency, and we somehow got away from this on some of the more recent film articles. In our case, the first two sentences of the lead should be 'is', and then 'was' for the directed part. I will go ahead and revert my edit (and change on the other pages). Thank you for taking on the task of copy editing this article. As I stated in my request, I do think it is in good shape, Ibut I'm sure you can find stuff that I have missed, or better phrasing, because I've been staring at these words for the past six months or so. I will let you be now! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. Thanks for discussing.  And the article does seem to be in very good shape, as you can tell by how little I did in the lead section.  I completely understand about wanting someone else to look at it, I've done that with several articles I've worked on for months... you get blurry looking at the same text over and over again.  I'm taking my time with this one, and if I have any questions as I go through it, I hope you don't mind if I run them by you.  Onel5969 (talk) 11:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Question. In the third paragraph in the plot section, it is unclear whether Thanos or Ronan is Gamora's father.  Which is it? Onel5969 (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanos is Gamora's father. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Another question. In the first paragraph there is a mention of "Phase Three", I think that needs an explanatory clause or sentence.Onel5969 (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Third question. In the first paragraph in the release section, it gives a breakdown of the screens that it was released on.  There are two issues I have with it, first, the breakdown doesn't add up to the 4,080 stated in the cited reference, and two, I can't find that breakdown in the reference (granted, it's a long reference, and I might have missed it).  Thoughts? Onel5969 (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From the Deadline source at the end of the sentence: "The film bows tonight in 4,080 theaters, making it the widest August release ever. It will be on 350 IMAX screens for the next few weekends; in addition, it debuts on 3,200 3D, 350 large formats and 240 D-Box — yes, D-Box." I added this content and just added what was in the source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Next question: in the quote in the first paragraph in the development section, you changed back my edit to "in the cosmic side of the [Marvel Cinematic U]niverse." The source clearly has "in the cosmic side of the [Marvel] universe." Am I missing something? Onel5969 (talk) 18:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes. This has been discussed. Feige means the Marvel Cinematic Universe (as compared to the Marvel Universe from the comics), so the clarification is needed. However, the formatting has come under question, since he said "cosmic side of the universe", and the source changed it to "cosmic side of the [Marvel] universe". I personally thought that was the best, as I changed it back to. Let me know how you feel about it, but it should include the "cinematic" to provide the best clarity. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, I took a stab at it. Tell me what you think.Onel5969 (talk) 21:59, 6 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay, finished it. Hope it helps.Onel5969 (talk) 01:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! I really appreciate it!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

The Big Bang Theory Season 8
Hey, I recently added information about episode 5 (I was not logged in, so there's an IP instead of my username) and you rejected it, saying "That can not be used as a source".

But why not? Who can provide more precise information than the one who witnessed the show taping themselves and even have a photo for proof?

Here's the diff of the rejected change.

--Peepay (talk) 15:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A viewer on Reddit is not a reliable source. What are their credentials? Do they have established credibility? How do we know they have not fabricated anything? That is why it can't be used. The mere fact that it is Reddit to start automatically disqualifies it to be used as a source. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I was under the impression that Wikipedia was created "by the people, for the people", as a place to gather the universal knowledge, put together piece by piece, as compared to other encyclopedias which are written by credible authors. I am not fond of intentional crippling of the content only because the one who brought the piece of information in is not an established editor, or a well-known entity. It's not like that person said some unbelieavable stupid things. I would bet their report was accurate, albeit not verifiable. Who is to define where to draw the line between what is credible and what is not? You said "How do we know they have not fabricated anything?" Sure, but how do we know that any other sources have not fabricated things? When you start questioning like this, you could go on forever. Additionally, what would be the benefit of fabricating such report? Do you honestly believe somebody would go to such great lenghts to make up the whole episode story, fake staff and actor listing and put it all up online just to mess with people? I mean - is it possible? Yes (as with any other source). But is it probable? No. --Peepay (talk) 18:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SPS on this matter. Wikipedia has thought of all of that, and created this policy. As reddit is a self published source, it can not be used, in the context in which you added it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I accept that, but still I find it sad that we have that information and yet we deliberately choose not to share it with the world, just because of some rigorous rules. Would the credibility be different if the same user posted the very same content on a different website? (E.g. their personal blog.) Or if they sent it to a website publishing articles about TV shows and they would publish it? Because that happens quite often. (For example here.) I am trying to get a sense of it, because now it seems to me that it was not the content itself that was problematic, it was where the person chose to post the content. --Peepay (talk) 07:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * A personal blog would not be okay, SpoilerTV is also not okay. If a reputable source (ie TV Guide) posted an article saying "Reddit user X went to TBBT taping", that also could not be used, because the root source of the info is still unreliable. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Meh... --Peepay (talk) 14:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

"I don't remember them every making appearances"
well during the scene where Cap is punching the bag in Avengers, remember we see flashbacks of the first Captain America, well in the flashback where we see Cap running thru the woods we see Dum Dum Dugan besides him, and in the flashback of him crashing to ice, we can hear Atwell voice. in Cap 2 when Widow and Cap meets with Zola we see some footage of Red Skull from the first film.
 * You have to give me more context on where I said this... Also, please sign you comments, so I know who I am talking to with ~ . - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

MCU specials section
Thanks for putting that together Favre, and I just want to apologise again for everything that was going on there, I understand it was just making everyone frustrated, and if I'd only waited a wee bit then this would of happened and it would have all been sorted out! - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy
Here's a good source about the visual effects in GotG for use in the post-production section. I know there's a lot there, in the past I just tried tried summarize the role of the companies and a couple of key fx sequences. I do it myself but I don't have the time.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:54, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've been waiting for this! I'll give it a read, and see what I can add. Also, short on time, but it will get done! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Good catch on my editing error for Guardians -the phrase leapt out at me as grammatically incorrect (it's usually "as accomplished an actor"), and I completely forgot I was reading a quote. Thanks.

Oooops also forgot to sign, that's definitely a lack of sleep for ya. Thanks again.Rickremember (talk) 00:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem. Happens to the best of us. Cheers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Flash
Hey, you reverted | my edit over at The Flash (2014 TV series), thank you. I must have been out of it. Read the sourced article wrong (thought it reported Harkness for the 8th ep. of Flash). It's probably all futile given that Captain Boomerang is the Flash's rogue, but hey; verifiable info is everything. Thanks again, LLArrow (talk) 02:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
 * No worries. I thought you were in the right first, and was going to move the info to the Arrow section on The Flash, but then I read it correctly and saw it was just Arrow and he would be in the Flash cross over on Arrow. Most likely he'll get to the Flash to be a Rogue though! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Films vs. Feature films @ MCU
My thoughts behind that was that a short film is also a film, so saying feature films and short films clearly defined the two as being separate. Also, the template uses Feature films rather than just films, and per the MOS we should try our best to remain consistent so as to avoid redundancy. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs FAC
Hey, are you available to provide some feedback at the Sleeping Dogs FAC? Your help is very much appreciated! URDNEXT (talk) 23:44, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Music sections
Hey Favre, I just noticed that MOS:FILM states that the music information in film pages should be in a subsection of the production section, which makes perfect sense since the music is a part of the film, and is produced with the rest of the film. Is there a particular reason why we should keep the music sections in the MCU pages separate from the production? If not I think it would be logical to move them in. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * It says "can" be not "should" be, which is a big distinction. The reason why it is not is because the production section is divided into the stages of filmmaking. The musical score is composed outside of these stages, and can be done at any point during the process.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I see what you mean, but I think there is no way around the fact that it is a part of the film's production. If it was outside of the development, pre, pro, post structure, then we would be acknowledging the sort of fluid timeline of when it might have been produced, while still stating it as a par t of the film and its production, which it is. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Triiiple is correct, and the location within each article is correct. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like a reason as for why. I don't mind having it there if there is a good reason for it, but just saying it is correct is not a good enough justification. - adamstom97 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Triiiple laid out a very solid, correct, reason as to why it is separate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

South Park Season 18
Hey there! I noticed that you keep changing the Season 18 page for South Park to be a redirection. However, the page is currently being made ready for when the episode airs this Wednesday. If you could please stop changing this, that would be great. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.32.153 (talk) 21:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Provide valid sources for the episode, any text on the page and the infobox necessary, and then the page can stay. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Shadows episode summary
I've added in the episode summary for Shadows on the season 2 page, but I've didn't pay attention to some names, like the Absorbing Man's and Lance's boss. Also I think I included everything but I'm not sure? Do you want to check?-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 21:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Boldface
Hey F1F93, hope you're having a nice Saturday. Re this edit, does this conflict with character lists such as at Hey Arnold!? I don't personally care for the bold, but I floated this question past the WikiProject and there wasn't a conclusive take on it--some conflicting info... Take care, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:46, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not bad. Hope your's is good. I knew some one started a bold discussion some where. I'll go comment over there, but yes, I would say that the Hey Arnold! section is in violation of MOS:BOLD. As I said in my edit summary, that line I added was copied from WP:FILMCAST, which I feel is a good emulator to use, considering the quasi-similar nature between the sections of the two projects. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Jesse Warn
Hey, you've been so helpful in the past I thought I'd ask if you would mind contending the nomination for deletion for the director Jesse Warn, if of course you agree with me. Thanks a lot, LLArrow (talk) 02:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Angry Birds (film)
Will you please take a look at Draft:Angry Birds (film), a still from the film and an ensemble cast has been revealed. There's not confirmed source whether production has begun or not, but is it okay to move it to the mainspace or not? I think it's out of pre-production as an image has been revealed, what do you say? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy (film)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guardians of the Galaxy (film) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy (film)
The article Guardians of the Galaxy (film) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:42, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Marvel One-Shots image
Now, I know this likely isn't an official image, but I did just find this (source) and was thinking about whether we should make it the infobox image at Marvel One-Shots. My thinking is it seems pretty unlikely that we will get another one-shot, and therefore another poster, so trying to get one of the official logos seems out of the question. So in replacement of an official logo, why not use this one as a replacement/placeholder? That is what we did for the daredevil tv page, until the official logo was released, and it would mean no longer using a single film's poster to represent the entire series. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:49, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That actually is the official logo! Look at it on the Agent Carter poster and AHTK poster. Download it, and edit it so the white space is gone, and I'd say we are in business. If you don't have the ability to edit out the white space, let me know and I'll take care of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. characters
Hey, just out of curiosity, why are characters in the recurring section that are indicated to have only made guest appearances listed there and not in the guest section?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * How we've been operating, is "recurring" is approximately 3-4 appearances. That gave us all of the season 1 recurring characters. If we use that same principle for all characters, then Koenig and Talbot have been recurring across the series, each appearing in about 4 episodes between season 1 and 2. So while they are only guest appearances in each season, they have been recurring characters across the whole series. Does that make sense? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:31, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ah, its accumulative across the series. That makes sense.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:35, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. The LoC page should serve as the accumulation for the whole series. When I started the season 2 page, I had originally put Tripp and Raina under the "Recurring" section when they were announced, because that was what they had been. But then I thought for a second, and realized that for season 2, they have not been recurring yet. They have both only been guest stars. So those two are recurring across the series, while also being recurring in season 1. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:42, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Any ideas on how to handle the guest section? Leave it like it is, duplicate the same table, or use a modified table?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
 * At the moment, I think we can leave it as is. I don't feel there should be a table similar to the starring or recurring, and any other table format does not really fit imo. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 2
I removed it because on my screen at least, the image in the infobox causes the infobox to effect the size of the column as such it forced the guest column to move down slightly which just looks untidy. It is also almost at the bottom of Recurring anyway so I was trying to tidy it up a bit and make it look less unlevel.-- Ditto51 ( My Talk Page ) 20:58, 9 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Ditto, this is an issue we were dealing with a while back, and this format turned out to work the best over multiple screen sizes and on the mobile version as well. It seems that unfortunately your screen size is between ideal sizes, which is understandably frustrating. If you wish, you could use the edit preview function to play around with the widths and see if you can get to work on your screen though that may cause issues on other people's screens. Alternatively, you could try zooming in or out of the browser, though I understand why you may not want to do this. The only other option I have for you is perhaps starting a discussion about whether names like 'Alphonso "Mack" MacKenzie' or 'Timothy "Dum Dum" Dugan' should/could be presented here differently so as to decrease the column widths. Just for reference, here is a screenshot I just took that basically shows how this is supposed to look.


 * Adamstom97's_agent_of_shield_explanation.png
 * - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * , thanks for informing me that you have the formatting issue. Adam is correct though that we had this issue similarly on the season 1 page, and I thought we had solved it. Obviously we did not solve the issue completely and may warrant a look again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series
Hi, I've left a comment on the above nomination. I see you're away, so take your time an ping me when you've got back to it. Best, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

GotG TV Series draft
"Favre1fan93 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (4,321 bytes) (-51)‎ . . (please do not undo a whole edit when attempting to only fix only a minor part of the edit." Sorry, but removal a source -- a very notable source I might add -- while not yet used in the draft is a major part of your edit proclaimed false "clean up". I placed it there since I was running out of time to edit and want to find it easily. Why would the remove of such a notable source be considered "clean up" particularly when the article is a draft and a minor edit? Also, if you read the NY Times article there is a hint that it is a MCU series as it follows the event s of the movie. Additional you are adding additional capitalization against WP:MOS - MOS:JOBTITLES. Spshu (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Episode tables
I couldn't find anywhere saying when these should be established, so I was wondering if there was a certain criteria for starting an episode table, or if we just do it when we want basically. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * What is this in reference to? Generally, if you have two of the following items, it can be created: episode title, creative team (all or partial) or a concrete air date. If this is in reference to Agent Carter or Daredevil, we do not have enough info yet to warrant creation. Agent Carter is the closest, with most of the creative team known, but we do not have episode titles, or concrete air dates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I was thinking about Agent Carter and Daredevil, but it was also just a general thing because I couldn't see any info in the MOS about it. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:33, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. This one is just a bit of common sense. You need to have a good amount of the information to populate the table, or else you just have a very bare table. That's the method I generally stick too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:41, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

DC Comics "Endgame"
Are you up to date on this storyline? Do you think it requires an article? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:05, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes and yes. Considering Snyder has called it part to of DotF, I think we can get a good article out of it. Also, I just returned from New York Comic Con, and still a bit swamped elsewhere on the wiki, but will help where I can if you want to start something up. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Turns out someone already did it Batman: Endgame. I'd love to go to a comic con some day, how was it? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Really fun! And tiring. The DC panels were only "eh", as they didn't reveal anything that was not already know. The best though, were the Agents of SHIELD and Daredevil ones. They showed some really great material at both. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:35, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

What makes Night of the Owls, Death of the Family, and Zero Year so special while Endgame isn't. Cococrash11 (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Night of the Owls, Death of the Family and Zero Year all encompassed multiple titles (ie most of the "Batman" family of titles). Endgame is only taking place in Batman. Same goes for the others linked, such as Superman Doomed, which occurred across multiple titles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:05, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Roger Craig Smith's roles in the Skylanders series
Shouldn't Roger Craig Smith's Skylanders roles be seen. Wikimaster 3 (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source? No source, no inclusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice
Hi, I am confused. in Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, which version is made up? It does not seem like your "shared universe" is properly sourced. Can you explain to me? --Tony Tan 98 (talk) 01:34, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Apologies. "DC Cinematic Universe" is the made up term, done so by fans and the media. It has been done so because they are looking to Marvel (also a comic book company) and their film universe (the Marvel Cinematic Universe) and have thus coined "DC Cinematic Universe". No one affiliated with DC or Warner Bros. have mentioned any name in relation to these films, outside of they are connected. Thus, "DC shared film universe" is the correct term at this time. If there is source one the page regarding the "DC Cinematic Universe" term, I will look into that. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:41, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I have minimal knowledge in this area and was confused yesterday. Have a nice day. --Tony Tan 98 (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I was also hasty in my editing and should have been more clear to prevent confusion. Same to you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

'Oscorp', not 'OsCorp'.
I'm struggling to see how this is still an issue. Do you have access to either DVD where you can see the subtitles are very clearly 'Oscorp', the special features section in the first movie is titled 'The Oscorp Archives', and the Bing News search scenes where 'Oscorp Industries' is visible on-screen?

I know Marc Webb and the Facebook page have come out with both 'OsCorp' and 'Oscorp' before, but 'OsCorp' is not seen once within either The Amazing Spider-Man movie so it can't be 'OsCorp' — Preceding unsigned comment added by CaolMcHugh (talk • contribs) 10:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thor: The Dark World critical reception
Hello. I have recently discovered that the Wikipedia page for Thor: The Dark World states that the films received mixed reviews. I noticed this minor error and corrected it, however this was quickly changed back to the original. You have stated that you used two reliable sources to draw your conclusion from, however you failed to mention these alleged sources. Therefore, I will be editing the page again, saying the film received mixed to positive reviews. This is based on the reliable sources of rottentomatoes.com (65%) and the IMDB rating (7.2/10). I think it is is clear that these sources indicate mixed to positive reviews. On a side note, the Wikipedia page for Iron Man 2 states it received critical acclaim which is simply not true as a lot of people hated that film and would probably agree Thor: The Dark World was better, therefore I don't think it is fair to say that it received mixed reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluggg (talk • contribs) 13:19, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll answer all of your points with counterpoints to explain the various actions here. This is not an error at all. A 66% on Rotten Tomatoes, while positive, is not based on actual scores, just positive/negative. Usually, we base the consensus off of the Metacritic score, unless other reliable sources exist. The sources are now included (CBS and Indiewire), but they shouldn't have to be as they are in the lead—hence why they weren't there earlier. It had already been established that "mixed" was the correct terminology per consensus. Also, IMDb is not a critics' website, it's a fan website, where fans can vote on a film regardless of if they've seen it. It is not a reliable source at all, although IMDbPro is. As for Iron Man 2, it says it was released "to critical and commercial success", which is in no way synonymous with "critical acclaim". Iron Man 2 probably should be labelled mixed as well, due to its 57/100 on Metacritic and this roundup or this one, but that's an issue for that article, not this one. Other stuff exists. To the point, Thor: TDW got mixed reviews, and that's that. Please do not revert a disagreed point without talking about it first, or you're at risk of edit warring. Thank you. Sock   ( tock talk)  13:47, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Metacritic is not a reliable source as it tends to overrate bad movies and underrate good movies. Rotten Tomatoes is the most widely used and well-known review website on the Internet and a 65% (Fresh) rating indicates mixed to positive so there. Other films that have received similar ratings is the first Hobbit film and World War Z yet it doesn't say they have received mixed reviews. Therefore, Thor: The Dark World received mixed to positive reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluggg (talk • contribs) 13:55, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's your opinion of the scores. We should not be imprinting personal opinion on the article, whereas we have two reliable sources stating a reception level. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Guardians of the Galaxy - Box office
First of all, I'm sure we can reach some sort of understanding between us. Considering that Wikipedia cannot contain all the information surrounding the box office performance of a film, one of the reasons we use references is so that readers can visit these sites to find out more about a topic of interest. Therefore weekend-by-weekend analysis is not necessary, and I would say it is rather overwhelming, since we can supply the readers with a single link to the Box Office Mojo page for Guardians, where all the weekend grosses, weekend drops, theaters counts, cume-to-dates etc can be found. Converting them into prose just makes the subject a lot more complicated than it is. Of course opening-weekend information must be provided and I also mentioned all the weekends during which it was number one, including some of the records/achievements of the film. The weekend-by-weekend analysis is also not necessary for the overseas section. Furthermore, it is impossible to metntion the opening weekend for every single territory and again, a table of that can be found at Box Office Mojo. Of course, some of the biggest territories can be mentioned, along with countries in which it broke records.

Secondly, you can find guidelines here suggesting we should approach the box office in a retrospective way. I understand this in the following sense: After the run of a film has finished we find all the records it has broken. For example, Guardians is the highest-grossing film of 2014. Before it achieved this, it was the highest-grossing film of the summer. However, now, since we know that it is the highest-grossing film of the year, it is implied that it is also the biggest summer film, so we don't need to mention that. Saying: "On [date], it became the biggest summer film" and then, "on [other date], it became the biggest film of the year" results in a historical rather than a retrospective approach that fills the articles with useless dates and out-dated records (does it really matter WHEN it broke the record or should we just state it?) I mean, for big achievements, like reaching $1 billion, we could use a date, but I don't think a date is necessary for anything else besides opening day/weekend.

Thirdly, one thing about records and rankings. In my opinion, when we rank films we apply criteria: 2014 films, film genre, opening weekends of films, films from a particular studio, IMAX grosses for films etc. The reasonable thing to do is apply one criterion at a time, because if we apply many criteria simultaneously, the records could go on forever. For example, if a film scores the biggest IMAX gross, that is OK, but the biggest IMAX gross for a Disney film applies two criteria (IMAX and studio). That implies that we should mention all the records a film broke among Disney films (opening weekend among Disney films, biggest Disney film in 2014, biggest superhero-based Disney film, biggest Disney film in August etc) You can see that the list can go on forever. So applying two criteria at a time just overcomplicates things without adding any notable/interesting information.

The last thing I'd like to say is that most box office section editors just find records mentioned in media articles (like Deadline, THR etc) but many of these websites use the word "record" to draw attention although there is nothing record-ish about what happened. Box Office Mojo tries to provide a more neutral perspective in most cases. Even so, box office websites can only report what they know as of today. So of course they will say that a film is the biggest summer film and praise the film for its achievement, because they don't know if the film will become the biggest film of the year yet. But Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we must provide readers with a concise and accurate text without minutiae. We can look back now that we know more things and decide which records are out-dated or insignificant in the face of more recent records that have emerged (e.g. biggest film of the year vs biggest film of the summer).

I'd like to know which of the above principles you disagree with, while trying to detach yourself emotionally from the film (believe me, I'm a big fan of Guardians too). Try to put yourself in the readers position. Think: if I was reading this for the first time would I find it overcomplicated and filled with factoids arranged in an arbitrary fashion, or is this a concise meaningful approach to the films box office performance?

Thank you in advance.Spinc5 (talk) 09:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe I have addressed your concerns with the North American box office section, getting that more acceptable. However, the international section can use some cut back as well, but not as much in my opinion as you removed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * On what grounds is your opinion based? Could you give me a detailed explanation for why these are necessary:
 * 1.Guardians of the Galaxy became the fourteenth movie of 2014 to gross over $300 million, which it did in 10 days.
 * 2.By October 16, 2014, the film had grossed over $700 million, becoming the third Walt Disney Studios release of 2014 to do so, and the fourth Marvel Studios film to do so, behind The Avengers, Iron Man 3 and Captain America: The Winter Soldier.
 * These two are completely arbitrary. Why not mention the date on which it crossed $500M and $600M as well. Why is $700M such a notable milestone that it needs a whole sentence. As I said, media websites publish such things to attract the readers, but in Wikipedia, these are minutiae.
 * 3.which was the biggest August pre-release in IMAX format, as well as the second best pre-release showing for a Disney or Marvel film, behind Iron Man 3. This is applying two criteria at once. If you believe that we should rank Guardians IMAX gross among Disney films, why not rank its opening day among Disney films, its opening weekend among Disney films, its total gross among Disney films, its Labor Day gross among Disney films etc.?
 * 4.passing Transformers: Age of Extinction as the top grossing film of summer (May–August) 2014. Again, this record is obvious since the film is also the biggest film of the year.
 * 5.In the fifth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was number one once again,[202][203] becoming the first film of the summer to be the number one film in three weekends. Why add a whole sentence for each and every weekend that the film was number one, instead of saying: "The film was in first place on its fourth, fifth and sixth weekends." Also, "the first film of the summer to be #1 in 3 weekends"? The smaller thhe sampling period, the more trivial the record becomes. If it was the first film in the last ten years to be #1 in 3 weekends, that would be notable. Why is a period of four months for this record notable? We could just say "The film was #1 for 3 consecutive weekends". Period. There are many that have done that in the past so even a ranking would be trivial (it is #45 )
 * 6. Guardians of the Galaxy in its sixth weekend was number one for a fourth time,[205] becoming the first Marvel film to be the top film for four weeks, surpassing Captain America: The Winter Soldier and The Avengers, both of which were number one for three weeks, Instead of ranking it among all films that were #1 for 4 weekends, you choose to rank it among Marvel films. Not even superhero films as a whole. Why not rank its opening day among Marvel films as well. We should also rank its opening weekend among Marvel films. The list can go on forever. And ranking the "opening weekend" with all these criteria (studio, year of release, genre) may be justified, but "number of weekends in first place" shouldn't be combined with any other criteria because it is too trivial.
 * 7.On September 12, 2014, the film passed $300 million for its domestic gross, becoming the first film of 2014 to do so. Are we really gonna celebrate the fact that it was the only one to do so in 2014, when there are already about 50 other films that have achieved this in the past? Maybe I can say yes to this, but this uniqueness won't last because Mockingjay is coming in November ($300M is guaranteed).


 * As for the overseas region, I've already told you: the weekend-by-weekend analysis and the arbitrary mention of random countries is not a standardised approach. Choose the biggest countries (the three biggest... the five biggest... I don't know... it has to be a reasonable amount) and talk about them. With a mere $2.3M, for example, Japan is totally insignificant, because that gross is not a record in any way. As I've already said, I've noticed you keep mentioning specific information for the box office performance that were highlighted in the media just because at the time, there was nothing more notable to report. Wikipedia is not like that. It does not choose the most notable things that happened to a film each week and add them to the article. It looks back at the whole run of a film and decides what is notable and what isn't.


 * Please respond to this using a more systematic approach, as I believe it will make our discussion more constructive. Thank you.Spinc5 (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

SHIELD episode refs format
Hey, there is currently a minor dispute at some of the SHIELD episode pages, including The Well (Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), and I was wondering if you have any thoughts on it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:41, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * If we only have a handful of sources, we don't need to use the "30em" until more are added. Even on Face My Enemy, that is borderline for using it or not. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

DYK for List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  00:03, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

"Future" headings
We are not soothsayers. We can't tell the future. That's not what an encyclopedia does. And I know that's not what these sections are really about -- so that makes the heading (of Future) inaccurate for more reasons than one. Maybe "Further developments" isn't the best way to put it, but I couldn't think of anything better. But it's better than "Future". --Musdan77 (talk) 23:38, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I know we can't tell the future. But we can tell the "Future" plans of a film/franchise, which is what those sections are doing. I don't see the issue with "Future", but I agree "Further developments" isn't a better way of stating it. Maybe "Continuation" or "Series continuation"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:44, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, "future plans" isn't quite the same as "plans for the future". The "plans of a film/franchise" is typically called "in development", so that why I used "Further developments". But, I guess I could make the change(s) to "Continuation". I'll wait for a response from you. --Musdan77 (talk) 02:14, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That's just my opinion. I have a feeling though, that the film project has generally accepted the wording of "Future", so before anything changes, I'd suggest bringing this to WT:FILM for more input/discussion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Why not just retitle the sections "Sequel(s)", depending if there is more than one? These sections should be limited to direct sequels anyway. Other further information regarding the universe should be directed to the main universe/franchise article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm. I think that could work. Because when a reader goes to the section, they will see that a sequel does not exist yet, only the information that has come out regarding possible ones. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I definitely agree with you're last sentence. These sections contain info that goes beyond the scope, and I thought about going through the work of separating/removing those things but decided not to (and I didn't want to press my luck - and have it reverted). I don't know if you saw but... on The Incredible Hulk (film), the section was titled "Possible sequel", then on October 8, it was changed to "Future", and that's what got me started on this. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the Iron Man 3 page currently has info on any future Iron Man related stuff, rather than future Iron Man films. Perhaps some of that info should just be moved to the Iron Man page, in the film section. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:19, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Friendly heads up
Hey guys. Friendly heads up that there appears to be some sort of Marvel Studios announcement event next Tuesday in the AM (probably 10 or 11 Pacific time). Just wanted you to be aware if you didn't see this, to know we may have a busy day Tuesday. No idea what could be announced, beyond the suspects of Cap 3 and Dr. Strange casting, but I think over the past couple of months, we've safe guarded ourselves for possible left field announcements. I should be available during that time frame as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Anyway we can get these pages protected?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:30, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Just got on. List em for me, and I'll get the request over to either HJ Mitchell or Mark Arsten. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:40, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Most importantly: List of Marvel Cinematic Universe films and List of Marvel Cinematic Universe film actors. But others might need it as well.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll start there, ask them to be alert too, if they can for others. Any attempted page creations? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:47, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankfully, not yet.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all you've done as well. Glad to have a great colleague like you to work this out with. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:50, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * No problem and same goes for you. Unfortunately, it looks like we have our first page creation attempt.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:06, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm on quickly now, but may not be able to be for the rest of the evening. If you can, can you make sure we have enough main space redirects, and work on creating Editnotice templates? You can copy paste the ones I have already done, such as at Captain America 3, and just change the draft article link and where the film info is. Thanks in advance if you can start on this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:31, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Great work
Just wanted to pop in and tell you that you're doing great work on all the Marvel pages. Cheers -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:38, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I couldn't do it without the continued work of Triiiple and Richie too. I hope you have the ability or desire to return to editing these pages too. Your experience has been missed. And thank you as well. The couple of sandbox articles you created turned out to be quite useful to have starting points for draft articles, given the announcements. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help here and there when I can, but you guys are doing a great job :) -Fandraltastic (talk) 19:45, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 30 October
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/RBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/RBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=ReferenceBot%20–%20&section=new report it to my operator]. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:50, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * On the Draft:Captain Marvel (film) page, [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=631796234 your edit] caused a broken reference name (help) and a cite error (help) . ([ Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:ReferenceBot/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F631796234%7CDraft:Captain Marvel (film)%5D%5D Ask for help])

Ruffalo in Avengers 3
Is what you're referencing for Ruffalo's inclusion Feige's quote, "Mark Ruffalo is on board for all those films"? If so, I think we need to wait for something a bit more specific.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:33, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. From what I read/inferred, it seemed definite to me, but I could be wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP Violation Warning
If you restore rumor information like you did on the Doctor Strange film page, then you will be put at WP:ANI for a BLP violation. BLP makes it very clear that we are not to use rumors about real people, avoid anonymous sources, and blogs, which Deadspin declares itself as one, cannot be used for BLP information. This is your only warning. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 19:19, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll say the same thing I did when I reverted you: It's not Deadspin, it's Deadline. Deadline is a reliable source. Favre hasn't violated anything. Deadline is an online magazine, not a blog. Sock   ( tock talk)  19:34, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Reported
You have been brought up for your BLP violation. 173.153.8.43 (talk) 19:56, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Draft:Avengers
Hello Favre1fan93! Actually it isn't right thing, I was doing research and created the draft since October 3, and have a encyclopedic information as much as I get. Your should had move my draft to the new title, but now these two needs to be merged. My draft has information about splitting the third film which producer said it couldn't be because of actors contract and later they have split the film. Isn't that encyclopedic information? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Here's how your info check out: First ref from the AoU page, fine and later added to current draft; second ref is a rumor from an unreliable source, would not be added to an article; third source, not really anything earth shattering or encyclopedic to include in the first part w/ the Downey quote. This is then followed by WP:OR; third source, VERY unencyclopedic statement; final source is the confirmation. So most of that was unencyclopedic and warranted the redirect to the proper draft location and information. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

DC Comics' shared universe films
Do you support the article DC Comics' shared universe films staying? Because it is only a list of announced films, none of which (except Dawn of Justice) have begun filming. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Pokemon Z listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokemon Z. Since you had some involvement with the Pokemon Z redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Protonk (talk) 00:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

dc comics shared universe
Hi, well I'm the creator of the page DC Comics' shared universe films and I created that page based on a draft that I saw over there. seeing other attempts to make similar pages like; DC Cinematic Universe, I expected that the  page was deleted Immediately for not meeting the requirements wikipedia had, but my surprise was immense to find that there only not eliminated, but the the  page was growing thanks to contributors and editors thought things like Wow !, I just created an article and look it now.

I wanted to thank you and other users to improve this site and who knows? perhaps to become competitive with MCU should change the name of the pagine to The shared filmic universe of DC Comics or The DC Comics' filmic shared universe, beacause, are we talking about the universe or the films? what do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericflechas (talk • contribs) 11:23, November 18, 2014


 * Well, do you still support the article staying? Because it is only a list of announced films, none of which (except Dawn of Justice) have begun filming. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:15, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Chadwick Boseman interviews
This source has links to several interviews that may be useful somewhere here. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:14, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Episode tables
I just noticed that Firefly (TV series) has the episode table in the broadcast section, and was thinking that that seems like a good place for them for a series page, which already has a separate plot section at the top to give context. I'm thinking having the episode table in the broadcast section, and then splitting it off to its own page when another season is ordered, or something like that. Do you have any thoughts on this? I am thinking in terms of Agent Carter and Daredevil, but also any other series page where the location of the episode table has been debated. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I think because of the nature of that series, and the fact that it only went for one season with a big following, that works. But in general, this should not be a sweeping change. Only a case-by-case situation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

The Incredible Hulk revert
Have you not been reading the discussion on the talk page? I'm challenging it. I'll quote what I said, "the lead section just says, "It is the second installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe", and that's not found in the main text, much less any mention of Iron Man being the first installment. So, either it should be removed, or something added to the main body, or it needs a reference." There can't be a "second" if there's no mention of a "first". --Musdan77 (talk) 04:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I have not really, no. However, how is this any different than saying, for example, that The Wolverine is "is the sixth installment in the X-Men film series"? Statements regarding placements in franchises are used all the time without the need for sources. May I ask why you are challenging it? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I thought I made it clear. This isn't about a film series. adamstom97 is saying that "Iron Man was the first installment in the MCU", and I would think that most readers would assume that the "first installment" would be the 2003 Hulk movie. So, there needs to be some clarification -- either in the main body or some kind of reference/note. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:47, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't believe the confusion would happen, because a reader taking the link to the Marvel Cinematic Universe would see Hulk is not part of it. Additionally, the second paragraph of the lead states the relationship this film has to 2003's Hulk. As well, if it was a direct sequel, the wording that is used across Wikipedia would be used, which would be something like this: "It is the sequel to 2003's Hulk and is the second installment in the Marvel Cinematic Universe." But since that bolded part is not there, seeing "second installment" does not connect the 2003 film is the first. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:02, 26 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll accept that reasoning. Thanks. I would add though that it's helpful to "ping" the editor so they know that there's a reply. Happy Thanksgiving Day. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Shared universe
Ultimately, that may be better, but the source says "may". At the end of the day, if they aren't then it's just going to be removed. Since it isn't definitive, we shouldn't include it as if it is. The implication is that it will share that universe by including it, but we're a long way away from knowing if it will or won't. Given that we're not supposed to keep a current events catalog, it's probably best to just hold the information until we have clearer direction on that the series is supposed to be and where it connects (or doesn't).  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  04:35, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * If you are referring to the inclusion of Supergirl at the Arrow page, I see no issue with saying that the series could be connected. If it turns out that it isn't, then I would still state the fact that there was a chance it connected. Another example is when it was first thought that the new Fantastic Four might be a part of the same universe as the X-Men films. Even though we have now been told that that is not the case, we still keep the info that it was originally intended to or rumoured to be, because that is part of the development of the universe, and will be interesting to those reading on the subject. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)


 * That's not appropriate though. YOu don't hold onto a rumor, and then follow up with it by saying, "well, the rumor turned out not to be true". We're not a rumor mill. The fact that another page does it, does not mean that it is the right thing to do. Fanboys tend to add things and then get upset when they are removed because the casual reader is not necessarily a fanboy, and thus doesn't care. At the end of the day, you're posting a teasing statement that may be nothing more than a lie. Berlanti has backed away from comments that he has made about Arrow before. Right now, you're treating the article like a current events news sources, instead of from an historical perspective (which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be).   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  18:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hardly. It is confirmation from a reliable source stating that the series could be a part of the universe. That is pretty important information and something that somebody reading about the Arrow/Flash shared universe would want to know about. Even though we are in no rush we do not have to wait until we get official confirmation because then we are purposely forcing the Wiki to be out of date. If it was just a rumour that this could happen, I would agree that we should await more concrete evidence, but I believe that that is not the case in this situation, and if we get new information down the track, then the page simply needs to be edited. I have never seen a Wiki page that is not up to date simply because adding important info as it is announced would be too much like a news page or something. In fact, that is how articles grow over time. Right now the page says "In November 2014, Berlanti stated that the series Supergirl he is developing for CBS could also exist in the same universe as Arrow and The Flash." Later, if this is confirmed, a line can be added saying "This was later officially confirmed by ..." And if this is denied, a line can be added saying "However, this was later officially denied by ..." - adamstom97 (talk) 20:41, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmation of a possibility does not mean that it will happen, nor does it impart any sort of noteworthiness to include in an article. Wikipedia, again, is not a current events sources. Thus, it will always be "out of date". There is nothing important about the idea that something may be connected. If it is, then it has importance. If it isn't, then it's not important at all and thus should be removed. Berlanti has no control over the connected universe for a show on a different network. The network controls that. Yes, they own a piece of the CW, but that does not imply that it will be connected. You're still trying to treat Wikipedia like a current events source. It's not. It's an encyclopedia.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:51, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I never said that confirmation of a possibility means it will happen, I am saying that even confirmation of a possibility is noteworthy, especially in a section dedicated to connections between separate TV shows. It seems that you are being blinded by personal opinion, as you say "There is nothing important about the idea that something may be connected." That is your personal opinion, not a fact, and so whether the information is kept or not cannot be based on that sentiment. Also, though I agree that Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a current events source, I disagree that doing our best to keep the encyclopaedia up to date by adding reliable information when it is revealed makes the site a current events source. We don't add every little rumour like such sites do, but when it is reliable and significant we should not withhold it. If someone comes to read about the universe shared by these shows, and sees that there is a possibility (confirmed by a very knowledgeable and reliable source) then that will be significant information. If it isn't there, they potentially could never learn it, and that is what encyclopaedias are supposed to prevent. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Moving to my page. We're bogging Favre's down with needless debate.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  06:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Audience Ratings
I noticed you edited out the audience ratings for Constantine and said "we don't use audience ratings". When you say "we", what do you mean? Also I think it is a valid topic to include. Professional critics and the people who watch a show don't always agree on what to rate the show as, and I think leaving only the critic response in the article is very misleading to readers. Personally when I research whether or not to watch something, I ignore what the critics have to say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archasimos (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Audience ratings are not accurate representations, as they are (sometimes) geo-locked, thus you see something different than I would see. As well, they are generally skewed to one demographic (young males) and are no indication of someone actually seeing or liking something. Someone can go by and just vote positively for a variety of reasons without actually having seen the content. That is why "we" (Wikipedia) does not use audience ratings, only critics. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Pokemon Z listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Pokemon Z. Since you had some involvement with the Pokemon Z redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Captain America: Civil War
With the latest page creation attempt in spite of the edit notices, I think we ought have the page permanently protected.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Just got on for a bit. I'll look into it/take care of it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Requested at WP:RPP. If denied, will go to an admin friend. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:09, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Now You See Me (HISTMERGE)
Hello Favre1fan93! Would you please help me merging histories of Draft:Now You See Me: The Second Act into Now You See Me: The Second Act? I've been working on my draft since September 10, and the article was created on November 25. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will you please guide me? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:46, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hey Cap, in case you hadn't noticed, Favre has taken a wikibreak and wont really be active for a week or so. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I do not have those privileges. You have to contact an admin (which I am not). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I know your are not, I just wanted your help. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I can't do anything beyond telling you to contact an admin, which I did. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:40, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

The Jungle Book (2015 film)
Will you please help me getting the Draft:The Jungle Book (2015 film) back to mainspace, merging into The Jungle Book (2015 film)? Production is underway. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Will you please help me getting the draft back to the mainspace? -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 03:52, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * You gotta read the messages when things fail. In this case, it would've told you to go to requested moves or ask an administrator for help. Favre is not an admin, so he can't do any more to help the page move than you can. Sock   ( tock talk)  12:55, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, you know why I am asking Favre, because he was the one who moved the article from mainspace to draft and asked to merge the history of article into the draft. So I'm requesting him to help me getting the draft back to mainspace, because he has experience in these drafts things and he knows admins more than me. Hope you both understand me :). -- Captain Assassin!  «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:20, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * , why not just ask Mark yourself? Admins are there to help, and Favre's still on break if I'm not mistaken. Also, it appears that someone beat you to the punch but is getting reverted for not having a solid source that filming actually began. Regardless of the truth in that, if you have a reliable source that it's filming, just ask Mark and I'm sure he'll merge it for you. Sock   ( tock talk)  16:34, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I did already, but he is not replying too. And yes the filming's underway, it's confirmed in the ComingSoon.net source given in the article. -- Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 16:53, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

An apology for you
While I disagree with such a huge change of the box office while it was a recently-debated subject, I see that I was erroneous in reverting you for the reason I did. Sorry about that, man! Also good to have you back, I was surprised when I started coming around again and you were MIA. Sock  ( tock talk)  21:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I didn't like it at first, but I do know in the larger picture, a reduction was necessary. But as I said, my edit did NOT full revert back. I fixed up duplicate refs, phrasing and the like. I did add back in a bit of info I feel is justifiable for inclusion. But I don't see that being contentious. Also, I was concentrating on my finals. Finished them up yesterday, so today is "go through and catch up on the watch list" day. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:34, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, you did not, and that was my bad for reverting it without fully checking what you had changed. And that's what I was off doing as well, just with school in general. I wrapped up last Thursday, so I've had some free time to get back on here and do some work. Sock   ( tock talk)  21:36, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Viola Davis
Why did you remove my edit regarding Viola Davis' casting as Amanda Waller in Suicide Squad? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackDiesel86 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Latino Review is not a reliable source. It can NOT be used. Other articles reporting on a Latino Review report can also not be used. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Arrow Talk
Hello, there's a conversation happening over at the | List of Arrow Episodes Talk page. Thought you may be interested in weighing in. Thank you and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 18:29, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Avengers: Infinity War Part 1 and Part 2
Since these films are scheduled to share the same production, I think we should create a central article called Production of Avengers: Infinity War since most of the information will be the same for both films like Production of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, for example. We can then just include an overview of the production on the individual articles. What do you think?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes Triplethreat, I support that decision. We had Development of Star Wars Episode VII before, and this should be no different than that. Kailash29792 (talk) 16:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I also agree with you Triiiple, this is most likely the same case as Harry Potter, and if the films really are going to begin production next year, that will be a long period and potentially a lot of information, so I support this plan. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)


 * I like the idea. For execution, would we have a lead, the level 2 heading of "Production" and then our stand MCU subheadings within that? And what then would the film article production sections look like? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Looking at the Harry Potter page, I think the idea is to make what would be level 3 headings in a film page level 2 headings (development, pre-production, etc.). The actual film articles would then be more like summaries of the production page, using only info that is relevant to that film. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Basically what Adam said. The film articles will just have a summary of the production article, highlighting the key points without all the quotes, etc.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 10:13, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm not opposed to this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * So, what was the final agreement? To create or not to create? Kailash29792 (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we are going to move forward with the central article. Though, we don't have enough yet to warrant an article. As the info begins to come out, we can create that article, which will be a good way to have something until the individual articles are made. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:00, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!


TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message. 

adamstom97 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays to you


 BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Merry
To you and yours FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 15:28, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

GoTG
Here's some info for you to include in filming section from Ben Davis. Also the visual effects section is a heavy, I would paraphrase to cut down on the quotes and only talk about major items.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:02, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'll try and cut back some. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:38, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


 Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Happy Holidays!
A bit of a form letter from me to you (don't go poking around in my edit history or it'll get even more obvious how much of a form letter it is!) to wish you happy holidays, a Merry Christmas, a Happy Hanukkah, a Happy December, Happy Snow, Happy Sunshine, and an otherwise generally happy end to 2014. Thanks for all the constructive editing, support and civil discourse. Here's to another year of assuming good faith of one another. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The Avengers/Avengers Assemble
The problem being? "Avengers Assemble" is the onscreen title in the UK. Fact. Nick Cooper (talk) 22:55, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Working on a page
I know we talked about developing the Supergirl page and enhancing the Arrow comics, but I was wondering if you'd like to focus on creating an Oliver Queen (Arrow) page. I started the prep work in my sandbox. We have a decent amount to start from the main article (I have some websites saved on my computer), and we have a blueprint in Clark Kent (Smallville) to go by. I feel like we'll have an easier time developing that article than the others because of the abundance of info for the character than a tie-in comic or a show that hasn't even started filming yet. What do you say?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  20:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can give it a look over/help when I can. I have not done much with the comic page since I talked to you about it, beyond continuing to add some reviews. Supergirl will probably become more relevant in 6 months or so. But yeah, I'll help out. I still have to help you with that info in the TV MOS too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:05, 31 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Eeek..I totally forgot about the image stuff on the MOS. LOL.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  00:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 20:52, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").