User talk:Favre1fan93/Archive 6

Invasion! GAN
Hi Favre, Happy New Year! I know you've been less active on wiki lately but just wanted to check if you were planning on addressing the points for the Invasion! GAN. - Brojam (talk) 18:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize there had been new comments. I'll look at them when I can. Also, you are free to address them as well. A GAN doesn't have to be answered by one person or the person who nominates. All active/top editors for the article are welcome to answer the comments by the reviewer(s). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:52, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm currently away, but will look at it when I'm back home. - Brojam (talk) 18:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Hopefully between my availability and yours we can get it done. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Question
How is listing season appearances "against WP:TVCAST"? That deprecates "episode counts", which are difficult to verify. But which season a main cast actor is credited in easily verifiable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:12, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Given the depreciating of cast tables, and episode counts, I wrapped that together in doing "(season x)" listing. I personally don't like that notation, because that info should be covered more "elegantly" in the cast section (such as prose wording ie "X was a main cast member for season 1[ref] and became a recurring guest in season 2[ref]."), or better yet, in a casting section. In the limited time I have on here now as of late, I'm going to try to craft a casting section for "The Crown", where this edit in question was. Sorry for confusion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I absolutely get not liking "(seasons 1–2)"-type designations – you're definitely not alone on that. I'm just checking to make sure that they aren't "disallowed by guideline" – I checked TVCAST to make sure, and I didn't see anything in there that "disallowed" them. It looks to me like it's a "local consensus"-type issue... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Iron Man (Marvel Cinematic Universe)
What do you think so far? bd2412 T 20:33, 2 January 2018 (UTC)


 * The plot information needs to be trimmed way back. It should probably be the shortest part of the article. It also needs a reception section and perhaps a section on the character's influence/legacy. And there's nothing about the design / effects used in the character's creation. The focus should always be on the real-world aspects as opposed to the in-universe aspects.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:06, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The plot information is substantially shorter than that of the comic book character. As for the other aspects, please feel free to add anything that merits inclusion. bd2412  T 23:21, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That’s not saying much, the comic book article is a poor example.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:44, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I have trimmed back some of the plot information, and I think it is good enough for mainspace. Other issues can be worked out there. bd2412  T 20:35, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Invasion! (Arrowverse)
The article Invasion! (Arrowverse) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Invasion! (Arrowverse) 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 Esprit15d -- Esprit15d (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Inhumans
Thanks for nominating that, I'm also going to give it a quick look over now and see if there is anything else we can do. Just on the title, which I think I brought up at the end of last year, I was wondering if you wanted to mention the debate to the nominator (when we get one)? I am now of the mind that The First Chapter is probably appropriate to use, and I feel like it would be better than what we currently have. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:18, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I think we can get the quotes down some more in the reception section. I don't know if there is more content to add, because I think we got all of it as it came out, but yes, see if you can find anything else. I'm still iffy on the title, only because I don't remember how the title screen appeared in IMAX, and we weren't able to find reliable sources to confirm. I'm more than happy to mention it to whoever reviews the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther
I don't know if you have stop watching the article but I saw this and thought it should be mentioned in the article, if its not already.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm holding out as long as I can (surprisingly still no plot info has been added yet), so I'll add this in real quick. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Added in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:45, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Marketing
I helped write the guidelines, and believe me, it was never intended to put things out of order. It also says the "Marketing" section can be stand-alone. If it were to be a sub-section, it would be something like: ...or... Not to tuck away the actual release info before the marketing info. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 23:37, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Release
 * Marketing
 * Box office
 * Release
 * Marketing
 * Theatrical run
 * That's all well and good, but that's not how the wording in the section currently reads. As I, and others have been interpreting it, is how it read. Which is:
 * Details may be contained in a "Release" section
 * Release
 * Here is some release info. Here is some marketing info.
 * a "Marketing" subsection within it
 * Release
 * Here is some release info
 * Marketing
 * Here is some marketing info.
 * or a stand-alone "Marketing" section
 * Marketing
 * Here is some marketing info.
 * No where in this section, nor the "Release" section earlier in the MOS, does it say what you are saying should be done. To me, this seems like you are adding your intended interpretation to the wording of the section that doesn't actually state that. Additionally, the MOS is just that, a guideline. There shouldn't be hard and fast "this is how things should be" wording, or expectations. Yes, we aren't moving the Marketing section to the beginning of the article as the second level 2 heading. But the wording currently supports my interpretation. Also that interpretation is the WP:STATUSQUO of the article, being like that since April 2017. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, I see you made a talk discussion at Talk:Black Panther (film) and MOS:FILM. I've replied at the Black Panther talk as well, and let's keep our discussion to one location, at the MOS talk page. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

phsycloner
hi im soheilbahrami im new memeber of wikipedia and idont know about editing yet please make an article biography about phsycloner he is a musician from iran all of the sourcce are available in google he is verified in spotify and shazam and instagram and twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.236.113.51 (talk) 19:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I don't really work on biographical articles on Wikipedia. It doesn't appear this person would pass general notability guidelines anyways as I can't see any reliable info on them in a quick Google search. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks
Just saying thanks for your catch at my sandbox (and for what you tried to do first, which made me laugh). I was wondering whether you could still use the normal thanks function for edits, or if it is missing for you too, and if so do you know why? - adamstom97 (talk) 19:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's gone for me too. However, the last thanks was only ten minutes ago. --  Alex TW 19:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah no worries! The Thanks function is gone for me too. The Village pump has a discussion about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Haha, I just went to thank you for providing that link! Hopefully it's sorted out soon, I use it quite a bit. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It does appear that it has been fixed. Yeah, I didn't realize how much I used the function too until it was gone ha. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Fashionista
For some reason I keep getting a malicious warning about this site.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm. That's strange. When I visit it, it is coming up with an "https" so it is a secure connection. I'm also using a browser with an ad blocker and tracker blocker. So maybe one of those going into my blocks is causing that for you. Can you access the site through the archive link? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, It appears to have something to do with my firewall and the website running outdated script which makes me wonder about its reliability.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * This is from their "About us" page: Fashionista is a trusted source of fashion news, criticism and career advice with a monthly readership of more than 2.5 million. As one of the most influential voices covering fashion, Fashionista is an agenda-setter for the industry as well as influential fashion-focused consumers. Fashionista is published by Breaking Media. They do have editorial oversight. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:24, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well then.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

MCU-ranking
Source is great. The ranking, however, is dynamic and subject to change (by tonight BP will most likely be eighth MCU entry). As it stands now, stating BP is (still) 10th is just plain misinformation. Is it really a problem that static source reads 10th while in fact it's not much of a stretch to realize that the film is still climbing?SassyCollins (talk) 21:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I totally understand. All of the ranks should be sourced, yes. So if what the most recent round of third-party sources (from last weekend) states is out of date, then we should find a new one to support the new ranking. I haven't seen any new third party sources comment on it (ie Deadline), as those are the sources we'd prefer to use. As I don't go to Box Office Mojo that often, if there is a tab/page that can support its global MCU ranking, let's add that in for now. And once new articles come out this weekend, if we can change it out, let's do that. Also, I just want to add too, thanks for all the good work you do of keeping the box office numbers up to date across all the MCU articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:29, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Here's a link: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=avengers.htm SassyCollins (talk) 21:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

File mover permission granted
Hello Favre1fan93. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AFavre1fan93 granted] the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:49, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Your revert to Black Panther (film)
You made this revert with edit summary "all of this is from unreliable sources. if these arguments are made by others from reliable sources, those should be used. but both "Boston Review" and "Africas A Country" do not appear to be reliable".

However I think you're mistaken. For example we actually have coverage in its own article of the Boston Review, which is longstanding and has won press awards.

AfricasACountry is harder to check reliability, but it's accepted for cite purposes on many other articles: Think Africa Press, List of countries by natural gas proven reserves, Saharonim Prison, Sport in Africa.. I gave up checking at that point.

Additionally these are cites to convey the extent of views on the film. The thrust of WP:RS for these, is mainly that for facts about opinions, we must be sure it accurately represents the fact of the writer's opinion, and avoid fringey selfpubs, which it surely does (WP:RSOPINION - clearly these are not selfpub sources).

As the text seems to meet RS, would you be agreeable to self-reverting? Otherwise can we discuss any unresolved concerns. FT2 (Talk 14:20, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm looked more into each of the 2 sources, and they do seem more reliable than I gave them credit. I will examine again the content you added, and probably give it a copy-edit, as I did with much of the other content before adding it all back in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:07, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've added back in the 2 sources. But as I said in my edit summary, much of your original content added seemed duplicate to what was already there, or hard to attribute as some of the quoted material was not in either source. So if you feel there were larger points missed in either, both sources are on the article to add back in if you wish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:54, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. To explain and answer your last point - the main point I took from those columns, was the authors' views that the film artificially and unacceptably positioned Africans against African Americans, giving the former many positive traits and the latter most negative ones, a view underlined by the fact as one source stated, that even a white government agent is shown more heroically than a black American, and when Wakanda fights, its enemy is a black American. I felt those were powerful critiques and should not be overlooked or "dumbed down" to maintain a harmonious view of the film. The reality seems to be that some, writing in respected media, actually said they saw the film as racist. That aspect of criticism - stated bluntly by the authors - was what I felt was omitted from the section (if that helps as to my thinking).FT2 (Talk 18:58, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Filenames
Hi. You do not need to add "poster" to filenames that don't have the word in. Any filename changes that are unnecessary should not be done. Cheers. —  Film Fan  20:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't "need to" but in some cases, it may be beneficial for clarity, and to have uniformity across a set of similar file names. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * No. Unnecessary changes to filenames should not be done. —  Film Fan  11:47, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If I may chime in, clarification of image names is an accepted practice, as in differentiating between posters or DVD covers. There is no prohibition on changing filenames because the change is not life-or-death necessary.— TAnthonyTalk 15:17, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If the filename says "cover" and it is in fact a poster, then yes, great. But adding words that don't need to be there should not be done. WP:FMNN. —  Film Fan  16:48, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Renaming is allowed not just for corrections of typos or incorrect facts, it is also to disambiguate and harmonize. You suggest that the clarification that an image is a poster and not something else is "unnecessary", and at least two editors disagree. I'm sure Favre1fan93 appreciates the reminder not to make frivolous file name changes, but he is obviously acting in good faith and not abusing the privilege.— TAnthonyTalk 17:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm fully aware of what file moves should and should not be done. All of the changes I have done so far were either per WP:FNC or WP:FNC. None were unnecessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:49, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

AWB
Hey there, I saw your redacted message. Obviously the Deadline change is controversial and needs discussion. But please let me know if you ever have any AWB tasks, and I'd be happy to help you out.— TAnthonyTalk 05:21, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it seemed like a larger issue so I didn't want to leave the message. But thanks. Should this outcome happen one way or the other, and the formatting of Deadline in sources change, if you could run through the MCU-related articles to adjust, that'd be great, because they all use Deadline extensively. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:50, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Neutral notice
A move request regarding Deadline.com / Deadline Hollywood, an article whose talk page you have edited, is taking place at Talk:Deadline Hollywood. It is scheduled to end in seven days.--Tenebrae (talk) 19:27, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Luke Cage
Hey, just wondering if there was a reason why we aren't following the usual criteria for showing the episode table at Luke Cage season 2? A director and a date would be enough any other time. Also, I am not going to be as active for the next while as I am focusing on watching Jessica Jones season 2. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually it's two pieces of info not including the date, correct? I felt that was the case, because it's essentially the same situation we've been in until we got the specific date, where we knew 2018. I may be wrong, but I felt I was correct. No problem. I've unwatched the JJS2 article until I get through it, but will still be active on the other MCU articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:57, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Hope you don't mind my two cents, but I thought we went with Adam's suggestion as well, especially since we actually have the date for LC season 2. If we didn't, and it was still just "2018", then I'd agree that it was only one piece of information. --  Alex TW 05:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * See I got myself all turned around apparently. I have no problem with it being restored. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:20, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm getting confused now as well. I'll go ahead and restore the table as I'm pretty sure Alex and I are right on what we generally do. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:26, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Captain Marvel (film)
Gatoclass (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

GOTG Vol 2
I see you have nominated the article for GA. Would you like me to review it? I see it didn't make it past its first GAN. I do hope you have resolved SNUGGUMS's comments by now. — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:19, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
 * You are more than welcome to review it. Myself and the other active contributors to the article do believe all of the outstanding comments from SNUGGUMS have been addressed. The first review failed in part because it occurred during a point when I was off-Wiki a lot and could not address the issues in the time permitted. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Taken it up. I'll start providing comments by this Saturday if that's alright.  —  Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 10:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 10:41, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
The article Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 17:21, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits
I just undid a couple of your reverts. I know this goes without saying but I am not trying to edit war with you just thought it would be quicker. However, feel free to revert once again and I’ll be happy to continue the discussion here or on the article’s talk page. Always a pleasure.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 09:32, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. I did however restore my placement of the sentence on the Infinity War influences, as I think that is a better location for it as I mentioned in my original edit summary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Very well, but I don’t see them as the same thing (far from it actually). The 90s heist film influenced the tone of the film whereas the comics are the source material without which the film wouldn’t exist. It should be placed much more predominantly than just as an “also” mention behind a lengthier quote about the tone.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm going to try swapping some things around. Let me know how you feel about it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Since Marvel doesn't really directly adapt the comics, and having a different universe has led to the closest of adaptations differ in significant ways, I feel that the specific comics they mention in these situations are really just inspirations, and so are likely not much more important than films the directors were trying to emulate during production. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:38, 2 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody said they are direct adaptions. The comics mentioned are very different distinct stories so they couldn’t be melded without significant changes. But the concepts introduced in the comics are very much present, the whole notion of the guanlet was created by Starlin.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Marvel One-Shots
Per this revert, "each" is a singular pronoun. In the phrase "each of the films," "of the films" is a prepositional phrase that further describes the subject, but does not factor into the subject-verb agreement. The verb must agree with the subject, and therefore is also singular. Here's a link to explain in more detail, along with an explanation that in informal spoken English, we often lapse into using the plural form; however, the singular is the grammatically correct, preferred usage. Grandpallama (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Thor Ragnarok
I see you have nominated the article for GA. I watched the film just a week ago and really loved it. Would you like me to review this one too? — Ssven2  Looking at you, kid 08:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you are open to it and no one else begins it before you can, then sure! Depending on when that may be, I have a busy personal life coming up, so I will do my best to respond in a timely manner to comments. But hopefully my other colleagues who are top contributors to the article can step in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I’ll happy to help respond to any comments that you may have.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I am also around to help, so please feel free ! - adamstom97 (talk) 00:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thor: Ragnarok
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Thor: Ragnarok 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 09:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thor: Ragnarok
The article Thor: Ragnarok you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thor: Ragnarok 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 Ssven2 -- Ssven2 (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Avengers: Infinity War, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages PSA and Chevron ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Avengers:_Infinity_War check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Avengers:_Infinity_War?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

JJ S3
I felt that the Deadline article (and the Marvel one, which also listed the cast and showrunner) were speaking in terms of the whole series not just the past seasons. I may have been misreading that, but I felt like it was enough to say that those four were returning for season 3. Especially for the draft article, even if we are just going to update the reference when we get better confirmation. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I see the Marvel one now (hadn't before) and I see what you mean. So I guess we can restore the cast where I removed them. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be too worried if you were still not keen on it, but I do think this is the sort of confirmation that we generally take advantage of. - adamstom97 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I'll undo my edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

KH3 - Monster's Inc.
Seriously, all because of what MIZUKAS made when he said that Tweets and Additional voices aren't allowed and making that policy permanent in February?!?!? Where else was I supposed to look aside from the tweet I put in before YOU removed it. NONE of the articles I looked mentioned about the Monster's Inc. world that was revealed being "original story" as the majority of them go back and forth about saying "it follows the movie's plot" or "it's an original story" it's very frustrating. Also, certain real figures, be it people that do certain job or work for a company found on Twitter also DON'T have a blue check mark. Besides that doesn't mean they should be removed.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2018 (UTC)
 * See WP:NOTTRUTH and WP:Twitter-EL on the matter. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Avengers Infinity War Budget
Sorry, my edit meant to say they didn't primarily film in the UK. Most of it was done in Atlanta, Georgia. But the company filings in the UK are for the global spend of the production company, like the cases of The Force Awakens, Rogue One or Jungle Book. Foodles42 (talk) 20:59, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * The Telegraph article explicitly states this is the amount spent in the UK: Accounts for the production show that £248m was spent in the UK on staff and services. (bolding mine). If it was the total budget, the part I bolded would not have been worded as such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or Sylt is mistaken, as reporters often are. Common sense dictates he is, as I layout on the talk page. The company filings in the UK are for all activity, not just UK spending.  That's why the filings for Avengers notes much of the spending was in the United States.  Perhaps we should link to the filings, if you prefer.  Think about it, a film that was produced mainly in Atlanta spent in excess of most reported budgets for the Scotland shoot alone??  This doesn't pass the smell test on its face, but it really fails when news outlets in Scotland, from last month, note the film spend 11 million pounds during the entire shoot. Foodles42 (talk) 19:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTTRUTH would apply here. The source states it as such. We'd need another, equally reliable source contradicting and providing better info. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:10, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, common sense failed. I added another source for Scotland clearly stating they spent, from the actual budget, about 10 million pounds. Now try the common sense approach again.  If they only spend 10 million GBP while in the UK and produced most of the film in Atlanta, are you really going to cling to the idea that they spent over $350 million in the UK??  How about the actual source, which shows a verifiable amount spent, which is far more accurate than any budget estimate you'll find in most papers: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/document-api-images-prod/docs/XifWO2jngSZWKy1abHghHUliVi15NLa2d9v3iRBGTSs/application-pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=ASIAJS6JFFQF2K5YHQZA&Expires=1524163021&Signature=MTPPGc%2FAhmRp3ZI21iP4dwhZyuU%3D&x-amz-security-token=FQoDYXdzENj%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2F%2FwEaDIkSLxbjKFjJvD5SpSK3A%2FaKajj5vzG6RKaBdO3Isfc5i0ha6Up%2FSdrkTzIdn8K3heV031DV%2BVFwDM30WINbBD7TCh85dnj%2FSZpDO%2Fn1TcwZsGIYcGmFZdoGmSaSu9ufxhE%2F8za29sUMwJUhbirUP8GyJan605v9pyTWZVwOmRy7hCzMXPQj9Iex%2FKS2jUcExWNQ1QczTp9IfVQfH8h9sqMZ18fYad4To9eV0IY3otqTxFpiWLj894CROw7Sfog5w6MF3jukgIyIPsfHtKz1o51OWQWy38ldqdOk0Qa0qiBb8Y55fSZrc34IbfJG8LYX5M1hqKvheDgXpWqdpRKec1sJPhEX8UaeeRQRzPkGPtS8texImVB5rFBvj3hF3W5TW7qlzPjn7PxPZx9crZhQ5I4PqCqiXml2tCW%2FalcvF5DVUFWxUK95yd2hogjTtOEDM0jYQJzRqwgg4l8rMLUSv68zYw8rAXk3WgRuAyUt7CIf83%2BqCcH380hZN7XUdJAtcGiJc9RrosT8s3ecXQ1TseuifmZPI8I8%2FKfWCLPyYlQt7FfipiaqALwwX7EjhgYfco%2Bv2RNPeGq6E0hPl7DeucoIN4%2BcTF4oxuXi1gU%3D  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foodles42 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Punisher edit re: Castle's military service
Hi,

You undid my edit correcting Castle's military service. I'm curious what the sourcing is for your edit - it is repeatedly stated that Castle is a Marine, and he is shown in USMC uniform. The link supplied for USSF points to a *US Army* branch, correctly, but that is both incongruous with Castle being a Marine and not where he served. "Special Forces" is never, ever, anything but Army in the US armed forces. Could you point me to the sourcing for the undo?

Thanks,

-Sandy

Harrison Wells
Since you seem to have taken a break from editing Infinity War (but are a frequent on Arrowverse-related articles), could you please help expand this draft, particularly the "Portrayal" and "Character development" sections? Because it seems quite hard for me, and Brojam is busy with exams. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  17:36, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Netflix films and documentaries
Template:Netflix films and documentaries has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Eddie891 Talk Work 23:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Not true
Redirects can be categorized, but I'm not going to bother fighting with you because as usual you'll just force your will with your friends anyway like you always do on MCU related things.★Trekker (talk) 17:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes they can be, but not with the categories you had added. Please see WP:RCAT. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:28, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Thor: Ragnarok
Gatoclass (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Avengers
I wasn't even aware. I don't redirect very often. Thanks!  Callmemirela 🍁  talk 21:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yup! Extended-confirmed editors have the ability to move mainspace articles to the draft space (and vice versa), as long as an existing article does not have the same space. If it does, you can request an admin or user with page mover rights (like myself) to perform the move. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Inhumans
Hey, wasn't sure if you noticed but it looks like Draft:Inhumans (film) has been deleted and by my memory it was something that we wanted to keep. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:20, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm seeing this now. Yes we did want to hold on to it. I'll investigate. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 12:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've made a talk page discussion on the deleting admin's talk User talk:RHaworth. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * And a discussion at Requests for undeletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:10, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Matter's been resolved. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to sign your post
Just a quick note that you forgot to sign your post in categories for discussion. JDDJS (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add it in. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:53, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Infobox photo discussion
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies
Hey sorry if I was becoming a pain with the Deadpool 2 pinging. Triiiple messages me to say he hadn’t seen the film yet and I realized that was probably the reason I wasn’t hearing from you guys. Sorry again. Rusted AutoParts 19:23, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I also have not seen the film yet. I'm hoping to on Friday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Repeat after me
A season does not encompass an entire year. You are contradicting common knowledge, and thus I must request you stop edit warring per Wikipedia rules--Harmony944 (talk) 18:45, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You were the one edit warring, changing the established content. I've started a talk discussion on Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. since you failed to do so per WP:BRD. Join there and discuss. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:48, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It takes two to combat. The only one who failed to do anything was you, failing to comply with facts and standards--Harmony944 (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * , you are the one in violation of Wikipedia's rules in this instance. I read the talk page discussion linked by Favre, and as you were the one making a controversial edit, you need to follow WP:BRD (as Favre mentioned). You made a Bold change and were Reverted, so now you would Discuss the change. The reverting between the two of you should not have gone as long as it did, but the burden to start a discussion falls on you. Sock   ( tock talk)  16:49, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I started the discussion, and he kept reverting without any proper reason. There is not a single rule I violated. I made an edit that I sourced, and yet because words have somehow stopped having meaning, I'm wrong? That's not how it works.--Harmony944 (talk) 16:52, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
 * You started this discussion? The one that was started by Favre? Edit summaries are not for discussion (see WP:SUMMARYNO), if that's what you're meaning. Sock   ( tock talk)  17:25, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding the Spider-Man Homecoming page
I saw you had changed my edit, and to be fair it was more of a secondary source than anything. Hopefully my different source is more reliable, though if you see something that discredits it please let me know so I'm not left in the dark. Thank you and cheers! --NowIsntItTime (talk • contribs) 21:12, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither of the sources you provided were the original source. In future, you should try to see where an article you are reading got their information from, and keep following that back until you get to the actual source. Then, you can check to see whether that one is reliable or not. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see the point, I will attempt to trace the OG source one last time, and if it's not reliable I won't use it. NowIsntItTime (talk) 01:20, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello! Regarding the Ant-Man and the Wasp page
Since the release date has passed... shouldn't the plot be written? Iago PUC (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Ant-Man and the Wasp is set for release on July 6 (next month), not June 6. --  Alex TW 13:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Harrison Wells
I finally brought the draft to the mainspace, after expanding it with great difficulty. What do you think of it? Please do me a favour by not tagging it for deletion/redirection or voting for such. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:39, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I glanced over it quickly and thought it looked good. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:27, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther Box Office
Hi, I am unsure if BP still has "best single-day grosses to date" in the regions (ie UK) that are now listed as such. I imagine IW might have surpassed one/some of these, but can't seem to find a source as to such myself (which might just mean BP does still hold these records). Would you mind looking into this? Thanks! SassyCollins (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Contextually, yes they still had those records even if they were surpassed (same for any other record that IW may have surpassed). So it might be more of how we present the info, rather than finding sources to refute they did get surpassed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Sara Lance
Just wanted to thank you for the infobox edit on Sara Lance - was so busy cleaning up other aspects, missed the fact those details had been changed. Many thanks. AutumnKing (talk) 19:12, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
 * No worries. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Black Panther soundtrack
You'll see that I went ahead and made the move of my expanded/re-structured version of the article from my sandbox to the mainspace. Once you've had a look over it, I was wondering whether you thought we should push for GA. We haven't nominated one of our music articles before, and I don't know how familiar you are with music articles in general anyway, but I personally feel that it can't be far off. - adamstom97 (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah I'll take a look. I don't have any knowledge about music article, but I can look over their MOS to see if it appears we are missing anything. But I definitely think it should be a good for a GA nom. I want to look over Inhumans too, because that's really close for a nom. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Draft:John Diggle (character)
After Harrison Wells, this is another draft I intend to move to the mainspace once it has all essential details. The only problem is, I'm not good at finding sources for articles (are you?), but I can try expanding the draft using existing ones. Right now, I'll need mainly those sources reviewing Ramsey's performance as Diggle. Can you help? -- Kailash29792 (talk)  05:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any places for sources off hand, but what appears to be there seems to be a good start. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:05, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?
Hi Favre1fan93,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  21:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Netflix original series
Template:Netflix original series has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. -- wooden superman  14:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

John Diggle
Yet another Arrowverse creation joins the mainspace. There is a move discussion there, would you be willing to participate? -- Kailash29792 (talk)  11:45, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

 * No problem! If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a message! Also is really good at some of the more complex editing the site provides, especially with templates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Cheers! SassyCollins (talk) 19:16, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Request for comments on an FAC
The Infinity Gauntlet is currently a candidate as a Featured Article. If you have time, I'd appreciate any comments you may have. Thanks! Argento Surfer (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I might come by and drop some comments if I have the time. But just curious, why are you bypassing a GA nomination, and going straight to Featured article? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It's already as comprehensive as I can make it, so I didn't see much point in a GA nom just to turn around and FA nom without any significant improvement. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Panther (film)
The article Black Panther (film) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Panther (film) 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 JohnWickTwo -- JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

List of Avengers (MCU) members
I just found this article. Do you have any thoughts on what should be done with it?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Deleted, or merged to the actors list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I've redirected it and put it on my watchlist. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Confederate (TV series)
Unpicked TV series should not have mainspace articles, no matter how notable, right? This is one of them, and I'd like it if you participated in the ongoing move discussion. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  03:40, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Infinity War
We will need to be getting Infinity War ready for GA soon, and I was wondering what your thoughts were on how to approach the production section. I was thinking of trying to add as much information to the production article as we usually would / can find, and then we could adjust our summary at the film article where needed. Other than that, I think Cast, Release, and Reception can do with a c/e and we could perhaps add some sort of cultural impact section for that Reddit stuff we talked about on the talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree. I think all the info we have in the film article production section is basically done. If anything, maybe one or two more bits, but really, we want that to be broad overview points. A lot of sources are talking about things said in the commentary of the film, because of the digital release, so I have a bunch of articles to go through once I'm back on more next week that might add some to the Cast section. I do agree some sort of cultural impact section would be great, especially with the Reddit info anchoring it, and seeing what else we can find for it. Maybe things about the Spider-Man disappearing memes? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

ref for 700M domestic BP
Here's 2 refs stating 700M as a fact. I myself a not yet confident I can place this correctly. https://movieweb.com/black-panther-box-office-700-million-dollars-domestic/ and https://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=4423 SassyCollins (talk) 08:30, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Publisher field
As per Template:Cite web, "Do not use the publisher parameter for the name of a work (e.g. a website, book, encyclopedia, newspaper, magazine, journal, etc.)." That is why the "website" parameter exists. Please do not forget this, and do tell this to the other MCU editors; I see they continue to use the "publisher" parameter instead of "website". -- Kailash29792 (talk)  07:19, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The problem is “website” italicizes the name. In most cases unless the website has a offline component then it shouldn’t be italicized.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 07:42, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't know why it does that, possibly because web-exclusive news sites serve the same purpose as newspapers (which should be italicised here): provide news. But MOS:TITLE says, "Website titles may or may not be italicized depending on the type of site and what kind of content it features. Online magazines, newspapers, and news sites with original content should generally be italicized (Salon or HuffPost). Online encyclopedias and dictionaries should also be italicized (Scholarpedia or Merriam-Webster Online). Other types of websites should be decided on a case-by-case basis." This was discussed here. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  08:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — Æµ§œš¹ <span title="Representation in the International Phonetic Alphabet (IPA)" class="IPA"> [lɛts b̥iː pʰəˈlaɪˀt] 19:36, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Why ?
Cause that footage was never shown.. it's a hoax — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingArti (talk • contribs) 19:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source supporting that it wasn't? Because we have a pretty reliable one saying it was and what that footage was. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:37, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

IMAX release
Looking at the articles that you have added the new IMAX release to, it feels a little strange for me to have both the original release and a much later release together like that but without a heading, as the lack of a heading always suggested to me that we had reserved that bit for the original, standard release and so no heading is required. With the later release added in there, it feels like it would be appropriate to have some sort of "Theatrical" subheading for that first section. What do you think about that? - adamstom97 (talk) 07:50, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd be open to seeing what it looks like. I also don't have an issue with the current formatting, because there is enough context around the new info for one to know it was not part of the original release. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * See this test versus the current format here. Also note that consensus at MOS:FILM appears to be leaning towards widely encouraging a separate Marketing section from the release info. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:04, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't really have a strong opinion regarding it either way. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I also don't think this is a super big deal, just a thought really. I'll suggest the same where some more eyes can get a look at it. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:58, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Japanese episodes list is different.
Japanese shows include kanji and romaji in the episode titles aside from the English titles which is why the template is different in the first place. Your efforts in supporting the deletion of the template has caused the episodes list in a lot of articles became unreadable right now.

Some anime episodes also should be watched in release order OR chronological order which is why the sortable function in Japanese episodes list is important. Tsukishimastarrk (talk) 07:37, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Requested move discussion Oliver Queen (Arrow)
Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Oliver Queen (Arrow), regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, AutumnKing (talk) 08:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Lego DC Super-Villains help
Hi. Could you do me a solid and have the sources that are linked in the Lego DC Super-Villains page all organized? It'd be a massive help for me though. BigGreener (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Just a Friendly Hello
Hi ,

This may be out of the ordinary among editors but I thought I'd go ahead and write to you anyway. I have truly enjoyed editing with you lately. I know we have had our little debates and disagreements in the past but I truly appreciate and am grateful for the fact that we've always been respectful and polite to one another. It puts a huge smile on my face every time I see a thanks notification from you and I always try and return the gesture. I have those moments, like many, where the back and forth debates and the dealing with vandals can wear me down (sometimes to the point of feeling like "packing up my bags" and leaving the site). It's working with people like you that keeps pulling me back and reminds me that a lot of good people here are dedicated to a shared purpose. Keep up the good work and know that there is someone out there that notices and appreciates the good work you do. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 18:33, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the note. I try my best to edit positively even when disagreements come up. It has been good on my end as well working with you too. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:58, 24 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Haha. Hope I'm not coming across too weird here. It's just truly refreshing to have a good working relationship with someone on here. You've got to savor those positive moments; they're what keep you sane. – BoogerD (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey, what are your thoughts on the deletion discussion for the DC Universe template/navbox? We seem to be one entry short of the 5 show threshold that AlextheWhovian pointed out after he nominated it. It kind of seems silly now to delete it as another one of the shows will presumably enter production shortly and then an entire new template will end up being created. – BoogerD (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I have responded there already since I've moved the draft (if you haven't seen yet). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Doom Patrol Infobox
Can you elaborate on what you were saying in your most recent edit summary? I'm not sure I fully understood your reasoning in removing the text in question. – BoogerD (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Based on uses either Plainlist or Unbulleted list, I can't remember which. Regardless, per both of those template's documentation, each parameter is meant to be one list item, not including additional punctuation. Hence, when using "Based on", including the commas and & as you've been is incorrect formatting. In the most common uses, it's just supposed to be each writer's name in each field, and that's it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:44, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Gotcha. But what are you basing that off of exactly? I think I understand the point you are trying to make but I'm not seeing how it refutes what I said in the edit summary: "Per Template:Based on: The documentation says just not to include . It says nothing about not including ampersands but rather that "an arbitrary number of additional parameteres" can be implemented in the case of multiple writers." I don't mind being wrong about policy on here; I try and learn everyday and stay open to hearing other editors out. Its when it comes to issues of opinion that I feel inclined to speak out. Not trying to be difficult here just trying to understand. – BoogerD (talk) 21:07, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * What are you questioning with what are you basing that off of exactly? Do you mean the use of Plainlist or Unbulleted list? That implementation is from both of those template's documentation. And also, just by the nature of a list and items within it, they are usually singular definitions, without extra "adds". By that I mean, lists are "cat" "dog" "bird" etc. and not "cat," "dog," "& bird". - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Also, the documentation for "Based on" could probably be updated some to note how it uses Unbulleted list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:59, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Right. I wasn't saying you were wrong about it being implemented but rather that I couldn't seem to find that information in the template's documentation. So I guess I was asking where you getting that information because I wasn't seeing it. Also, I'm still not 100% understanding how what you're saying supersedes the fact that the documentation does actually state "Multiple writers can be specified with an arbitrary number of additional parameteres." – BoogerD (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The two documentations work in conjunction with one another. What "Based on" states is what the two list templates are stating for formatting. What this means Multiple writers can be specified with an arbitrary number of additional parameteres. is this: you can list X number of writers with X number of parameters. So if you have Writers 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the template can be formatted as title by writer 1. No other text/punctuation should be included within each parameter beside the writers name because it's not meant to be (per the list templates). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:39, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for humoring me . I intend to drop this issue. I don't enjoy this discussions of policy, documentation, etc. But I engage in them so that I understand what the site wide policy is (or should be if everyone followed it) and so that I can advocate for it with other less informed editors. I feel as though we have discussed this topic adequately, you have made your point, and it sounds quite sound to me at this point. I know you could've (and have) been spending your time on important work on here so I am especially grateful that you took time to talk to me. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 05:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Think of it this way too. The "Based on" template is like listing cast members in the infobox. One would not make a listing of cast as
 * Actor 1,

Actor 2,

Actor 3,

& Actor 4
 * It's the same principle and formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

Big Hero 6 a Marvel Property in KH3?
Look, you can continue arguing about Big Hero 6 being Marvel, but I'm going to respectfully disagree with you're statements on Big Hero 6 being a Marvel Property implemented in KH3. Yes Big Hero 6 started off as a Marvel Property, but the film adaptation was done by Walt Disney Animation Studios and is unrelated to the original Marvel comic. Secondly, there is no mention of Marvel anywhere on the articles when the film was announced as a world in the game.


 * D23 2015: Kingdom Hearts 3 adds Big Hero 6 world
 * KINGDOM HEARTS III TO INCLUDE BIG HERO 6

Finally, even if you don't consider this to be reliable, Nomura has his thoughts and saying regarding Marvel and Star Wars being implemented in KH in an interview back at E3 2018 in June: --AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:31, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Kingdom Hearts 3 Not Having Star Wars or Avengers Is Finally Explained.

Full names for characters
I made that edit on Phil Coulson because made an edit on Alex Danvers where he removed "Alex" from the lead section, stating: "MOS:NICKNAME: Alex is a common diminutive of Alexandra". I and he were not wrong to do so, were we? And should Oliver Queen mention Ollie's middle name Jonas? Because kept removing it (despite being reliably sourced), calling it trivial. -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  16:28, 4 September 2018 (UTC)


 * That stuff should be based on credit, not fictional universe information. The actress is credited as "Alex Danvers", not "Alexandra" regardless of what it is short for. It's why Lex is Lex and not "Alexander" for Smallville. These are not real people, so we shouldn't be treating them that way.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  17:04, 4 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The article title, infobox and use in the article should be based on credit name, but I don't see the harm of the opening lead sentence being full names (ie Alexandra "Alex" Danvers or Phillip "Phil" Coulson). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:18, 6 September 2018 (UTC)


 * To me, it's treating them as if they are real people. That's how WP:BIO does it, and these are just fictional characters. To me, the question, whether it's the infobox, lead, or article should always come to "is the in-universe information essential to understanding the character"? I cannot see how calling him "Phillip "Phil" Coulsen" is essential when he is only really known as "Phil Coulsen". Same for Alex and anyone else for that matter.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:42, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I think not, because it helps expand the article with details considered necessary. Sometimes middle/full names also help disambiguation. You wouldn't remove Harrison Wolfgang Wells or H. Lothario Wells from Harrison Wells would you? -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  06:32, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * You're actually providing an example of where it would be appropriate. In Harrison Well's case, you're talking about a fictional character that has multiple Earth personas that are all on one page. They all derive from Harrison Wells, but in this case middle names or variations on the name in the plot section make sense. You're differentiating from multiple characters (i.e., it's essential to understanding that particular character). Knowing that Alex is short for Alexandra in Supergirl, which it's not how she is credited, not her common name, and in no way enhances your understanding of the character is not something that should be on an encyclopedic page. It is pandering to fans that like to think that these character pages should look like a real person's biography on Wikipedia. "Phillip 'Phil' Coulsen" should just be "Phil". Knowing "Phil" is short for "Phillip" is not only irrelevant, but pretty much obvious.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  12:47, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

KH3 settings portion
''Restoring to more concise formatting for the worlds and films based on to avoid repeating the same terms over and over. removed unnecessary big hero 6 source.''

Okay I'm sorry, but I don't know why you are acting so shrewd in regards to the same terms on the Settings page. I mean have you looked at the other Kingdom Hearts Pages under the settings for ONCE on how they actually formatted?!?!? I don't see the reason to put the films in parenthesis when the others are perfectly.

1. Kingdom Hearts II#Settings

2. Birth By Sleep#Settings

3. Dream Drop Distance#Settings

Also explain this: "removed unnecessary big hero 6 source." Yes they were not as many sources that mention the other heroes when the trailer came out, but who was responsible for putting in the sources and info for the Big Hero 6 trailer when it came out ME. And to say that this from Gamespot was irrelevant but also include info on Baymax being in Sora's party you are just clearly throwing it under the bus and pretending that the source never happened, just learn to be flexible.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * A) WP:OSE regarding formatting. There's no reason every sentence to keep saying "based on X" "based on Y". Keep the language simple. B) WP:CITEOVERKILL. A bit of a stretch, but the given source supports what we need. Why bother adding another? All 100% irrelevant that you added the source. That has no matter in this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Over my head
Hi, I'm afraid I've gotten over my head with an edit to Avengers 4. The mention of Stormbreaker at Thor (cast) was taken out earlier today. To be honest, I kind of agree with the reasoning behind it. That being said, I then felt it should then be added to Avengers 4. So I did so. However, the ref I want to place with it (ref number 16 as of yesterday) was also removed with the removal of the Stormbreaker-mention at IW (live and learn). I now have no idea how to access this ref number 16. Would you be willing to help me out? Cheers! SassyCollins (talk) 11:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Fixed. But here's how you can do it moving forward. All the MCU articles use list-defined refs, meaning each reference gets a name (ie "DowneyEWInterview") so that reference tag can be used throughout the article, and the actual reference is listed at the end of the article. All references on Wikipedia, are "fluid" and not static, meaning they automatically readjust their reference numbers when content is added or removed. So with the Stormbreaker info, the reference tag was "EWBTS", if you just do a search of the edit page (Ctrl/Cmd+F) for that name, you'll come get to the actual reference at the bottom, and can copy that over as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Dude, awesome. Thank you for taking the time to explain (and for adding the ref!). I'll fidget around with this till I get it. SassyCollins (talk) 19:34, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I changed it due to the cite-error. EWIWBTS is apparently used more than once. SassyCollins (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh. It's actually the same ref, so that's why. Another user removed the new instance. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans) 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 AlexTheWhovian -- AlexTheWhovian (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

What I'm up to
Hey, it's been a pretty crazy couple of weeks for me both on- and off-wiki, but I think I may be starting to get it sorted now. I don't know how much free time I'll have for the next while, but I'll try have another look through what we have at IW before the end of next week (when we need to get it nominated for GA). Also, I won't be watching the IFS2 article until I've seen the show but I may not be watching it in any hurry, dependent on the quality of the early episodes. Other than that, I'll continue to try do what I can around the place. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Hey no worries. I've been pretty busy myself. I'm going to be doing about the same, trying to hit the IW article before the end of next week, avoiding IF S2 (also not rushing to watch it, mainly because I don't have the time), and helping elsewhere. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * As you saw, I went ahead and nominated IW for GA. I felt the article was actually pretty good. I didn't really touch the plot or critical reception, but nothing major stood out to me. I ran the copy vio checker before nominating, and the only high percentage ones were the Variety review article, and one Polygon article that was used for some of the lengthier quotes in Marketing. If you had any desire to make any pass on it, please feel free! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I'll try have a look if I can. If not, I'll be around to make any needed changes during the review anyway. Also, I haven't started watching the IFS2 article yet but I have finished the show so I'll probably be back on there soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! I still haven't had the time to watch IF yet, so I'm still way behind on that. Might be a little longer until I do get a chance to watch it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:23, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:PACKERS
Saw your user name pop up at WP:FLC on my wacthlist. If you weren't aware, there's a WikiProject focused on the WP:PACKERS. Would love to have you as a member if you are interested in working on Packers-related articles. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007  <font color="#2A2722;">(talk)  @ 19:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the info and offer, but I'm just a fan in real life and don't really have an interesting in working on any articles related to the team on here. Cheers. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem! Quite a game last week, hopefully it will be a better season than last year! « Gonzo fan2007   (talk)  @ 03:59, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Indeed! Had me on the edge of my seat! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:06, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans)
The article Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans) 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:Episodes 1 and 2 (Inhumans) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlexTheWhovian -- AlexTheWhovian (talk) 15:21, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Inhumans premiere
The article Inhumans premiere 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:Inhumans premiere for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AlexTheWhovian -- AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Hills Have Eyes
I can see that you are very interested in films and I was wondering if you would like to review an article I nominated for GA: Wes Craven's The Hills Have Eyes. Thanks for your consideration!MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:09, 5 October 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS

Hey.
Infinity War is actually an epic film per classification of BBFC. And if you cannot still judge, then please read carefully, it has required 3 years of film-making with more than 80+ MAIN CHARACTERS. It has been mad on a HUGE BIG BUDGET and has the Largest Musical Score. It also has tons of special effects and CGI and lot of work inside and shot at more than 150 locations. Thank You. Shayaan Raza (talk) 08:15, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Question
Hi. I see you reverted one of my edits. I'm not upset or anything, I was just wondering a bit more behind the why of it. Since the reversion states that my edits didn't make the article any better, I'd appreciate understanding why they don't make the article any better. For reference, the article and edits I'm mentioning is | here. Just to clarify, I'm not upset. I'm just a newer Wikipedia user and want to know how to improve (which includes learning from mistakes). Clovermoss (talk) 05:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
 * First, in your edit, you did not capitalize "Infinity Gems". They are proper nouns, so they need capitalization. For your sentences: fictional gemstones appearing across several different franchises published by Marvel Comics. this are not several different franchises to Marvel Comics, so that is incorrect. Each of the infinity gems allow the user possessing them to control or manipulate a specific trait or ability, but only within the Marvel Universe it was originally created in. Infinity gems are useless elsewhere in Marvel multiverse. This sounds like a lot of WP:OR and regardless if it isn't, is way too specific to note in the lead. Finally However, these infinity gems might have different names or purposes depending on the storyline involving them, such as when the Avengers and Guardians of the Galaxy attempt to stop Thanos from collecting all of them in Avengers: Infinity War. The infinity gems also have a more prominent role in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which refers to them collectively as the infinity stones instead of the infinity gems. This is all specific to the MCU, which again should not be noted in the lead, and the article is not about them. It is about the comics versions first. So all in all, these were not helpful or constructively positive edits. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay! Thank you for your clarification. Clovermoss (talk) 23:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Constantine arrowverse
you keep editing my edit of the Constantine show being part of the arrowvesre and keep referring me to this page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Arrowverse_cast_members which does not state anything about his show not being part of the arrowverse. if you are referring to the part where it says Introduced outside the Arrowverse that just means that when he was introduced it was outside of the arrowverse but with him being on arrow and Legends the show is now part of the arrowverse and i dont see how this is any different then when Supergirl was introduced into the arrowverse with her first being introduced outside the arrowverse and being brought into the arrowverse by have the flash show up on Supergirl. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheMBProject (talk • contribs) 18:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Please see this discussion, one of many regarding the fact that the character from the show is part of the Arrowverse, not the entire series. That is a big distinction. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for clearing that up.I have read over the page and can see where you are coming from though i feel like some of the statements are a little out dated with most of them just stating his appearance on arrow and not taking into account that he is now on legends,the more they involve Constantine in the arrowverse the more i think it legitimizes that his show is part of the arrowverse, i get him being on legends isn't proof enough, maybe this season will clear some stuff up. I can see both sides of the argument and can agree that there is no hard statement saying its part of the arrowverse but dont understand how people can make the argument that its the same version of the character but the show is not canon i just dont see how you can have one without the other. since at the moment it seems that its just you and me editing the page to say whether or not its part of the arrowverse do you think we could come to some kind of compromise and edit it to say related to arrowverse or something along those lines. I hope you can see where I am coming from.
 * Everything needs to be reliable sourced. Hence, there are not reliable sources confirming the Constantine series is part of the Arrowverse, only Constantine the character. Otherwise that is your interpretation. The article in question (List of DC TV series) does not need to go super indepth regarding this, just that it can't state this. Readers can get more info on it on the Constantine and Arrowverse articles. Also, please remember to sign all of your comments with ~ . - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yesterday it was believed Constantine: City of Demons would be a part of the Arrowverse (and simultaneously a continuation of the NBC Constantine) but it's neither. Now, the Constantine who appeared on Arrow and stars in Legends is the same as the NBC one say the makers, but tomorrow they may de-canonise the NBC show, making them two separate Constantines. Who the hell knows... -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  14:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * But at least for today, Constantine is not part of the Arrowverse. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films
If List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film) is part of Featured topics/Marvel Cinematic Universe films, than shouldn't List of accolades received by Black Panther (film), List of Black Panther box office achievements and List of box office records set by Avengers: Infinity War also be a part of it? Armbrust The Homunculus 21:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We are currently planning to remove List of accolades received by The Avengers (2012 film) from the good topic during our next nomination (once we get through the two pending GA reviews), which would restrict the topic to the film list and actors list as well as the article for each film. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avengers: Infinity War
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Avengers: Infinity War 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 DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 22:21, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avengers: Infinity War
The article Avengers: Infinity War you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Avengers: Infinity War 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 DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Can you offer your opinion in this discussion?
Hi. In the past you've offered your opinion in choosing photos for the Infobox. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion on a related topic? It may go toward a precedent regarding captions. Thanks, and Happy Holidays. Nightscream (talk) 19:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Avengers: Infinity War
The article Avengers: Infinity War 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:Avengers: Infinity War for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DannyS712 -- DannyS712 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

FAC review
Hi Favre, I just wanted to ask if you'd be interested in reviewing The Death of Superman's FAC? I'd be willing to review anything for you in return. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  02:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Potentially. I've been very limited in my time on here of late and I'm not entirely sure if it will get any better in the short term. If I find the time, perhaps after the US Thanksgiving this week, and the review has not closed, I will try to give you my thoughts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Would you be willing to review Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot for me? Additionally, since that is a short article, if you'd be so inclined to then take a look at The Defenders (miniseries), that'd be wonderful as well. Great job with your work on Death of Superman! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem. I'll claim Slingshot right now and get to it by Wednesday. <small style="color:red">JOE BRO  64  03:13, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Awesome, thanks! And no worries if you can't get to The Defenders, just wanted to presented that as well. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi
Hi there, I added a extra content with source in Iron Man (2008) film. May I know the reason for its removal. Thanks Ashokkumar47 (talk) 04:08, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
 * The content is talking about 1 top 10 ranking from a reliable, but not really notable magazine. That is hardly worth inclusion in the lead of the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Discussion at Teahouse
You are invited to join the discussion at Teahouse. — <b style="color: #FF69B4;font-family:Georgia;">Lbtocth</b><sup style="color: #2D68C4F">talk  06:17, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Your 'Endgame' Confuses Me
Why can't we list when Avengers 4 finally got its official title? It'll show how long we had to wait to finally get that piece of information, especially since the retroactively-named "Avengers: Endgame Prelude #1" was released in comic book stores two days prior? -- Alakazam (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is listed, in the "Production" section. An exact date is not necessary for the lead since it is simply an overview of the article. Thus, general dates/months in the lead are fine, for us to get specific in the article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:56, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Avengers 4: Register to Vote

 * In page Draft:Avengers 4: Register to Vote, please insert the name of the page that you want to be moved to Draft:Avengers 4: Register to Vote. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think we're all set. I just wanted the draft deleted, because the title of the film was revealed today as Avengers: Endgame, so this was an unneeded redirect, especially being in the draft space. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Untitled Avengers: Infinity War sequel listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Untitled Avengers: Infinity War sequel. Since you had some involvement with the Untitled Avengers: Infinity War sequel redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Why the needless rollback?
Hi,

Recently you broadly reverted edits from several people, including mine: Here and Here. My edits were minor but were valid nonetheless. Please be more careful in your rollbacks. Rush922(talk) 05:32, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * On your continued adding of the year at the top of the page, that is only ever done when a film is released. Before it is released, we replace the year with the word "upcoming" or "planned". This is because we do not know if the film will actually come out in that year per WP:CRYSTALBALL. It is, however, fine to state what the current scheduled release date is, as we do know that, so you will find the release date elsewhere in the lead. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Hmm okay, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation and for understanding my intention. Rush922(talk) 08:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

‎Black Panther accolades - r
Hello there. Award nominations for Black Panther are rolling in constantly, so there's a few more that I haven't added onto the accolades page (yet). I've also added a few more notable awards/nominations onto the main film page (replaced Golden Trailer with the Grammys if that's ok). If nominated for any other main/notable awards such as the Oscars, SAGs, Critic Choice Awards, and/or Image Awards. I will add them onto the main page accordingly. Thanks. MsScorpioMoon (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No problem, apologies for the late reply. I will add Critics Choice and SAGs today. Thanks. MsScorpioMoon (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Venom
Hey, I don't know how much interest you have in Venom (2018 film), but I have been putting quite a bit of work into it lately and was thinking of nominating it for GA. I was wondering if you could take a quick look at it for me just to get another set of eyes on it, and let me know if you find any issue with it before I go ahead with the nom? - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure. I'll try to look ASAP. I've done a few edits on it here and there, but I haven't actually seen it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

some notes that I had, but didn't touch in my edit:
 * Move the ref out of the lead for the "in association with" text. Incorporate that in the article somewhere, be it Development or Marketing
 * I avoided the plot section, since I haven't seen the film as I said, and my general stance to generally steer clear of writing them since others do better there than myself
 * What are the parts for all those actors in the cast section paragraph?
 * You're pre-production information is so small, could you maybe make it and the writing info just one section?
 * The romantic comedy bit in home media, do you mean that's how Sony marketing the releases? Also I see the paragraph of info down in "Symbrock" shipping, I'm conflicted if it is better there or in Home media
 * "Symbrock" shipping -> I think this heading needs to be changed, because "shipping" is definitely not a conventional term

Let me know if you have any questions too with my edit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for doing this Favre! It can be hard to catch the small things when it is only you putting in all the effort, so it was good to have you go over it all and make the changes you did. I undid one of your changes (the change in wording for Hardy having left Triple Frontier) because the wording you had given just wasn't working for me and I couldn't come up with a way to make it read better. In response to your notes here:
 * The ref in the lead was added in response to some edit warring and controversy, otherwise it would be my preference to do as you say here. I don't know if there is a place where it would make sense to state it, since all it is sourcing is the specific wording of "in association with Marvel" rather than something like "in association with Marvel Entertainment".
 * No worries about the plot summary, I have had a few goes at it and others have made some fixes to it already.
 * After seeing the film, I never felt like most of those actors were noteworthy enough to actually go and find sources for their character names, but at the same time I did not feel like I had the grounds to outright delete them either, so I just haven't touched them. I guess I probably should sort through them before nominating for GA.
 * I just feel like the writing info is so specific that mixing through a couple other random things would be weird. I may be able to expand that small section somewhat to make this less egregious.
 * I do mention the romcom thing in both the home media and shipping sections. The former was mostly because the shipping section did not exist then, and it was a significant aspect of the reliable coverage. I could probably remove it from the home media section.
 * I also thought that about shipping, until I saw that we have a whole wiki article about it. I'm sure the GA reviewer will have an opinion.
 * Thanks again for doing this. I don't know if I will be able to keep on top of these Sony pages moving forward as much as I would like, but if I get off to a good start with this one then hopefully it will encourage others to join in and help. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot 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 TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 03:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Invitation to WP:TV discussion
You are invited to a WP:TV discussion about Pigsonthewing and his actions on the infoboxes. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:27, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot
The article Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.: Slingshot 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 TheJoebro64 -- TheJoebro64 (talk) 18:42, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Seasons Greetings
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Argento Surfer (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

DYK for Ant-Man and the Wasp
Gatoclass (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Avengers: Infinity War
Casliber 00:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

List of unproduced Marvel Comics projects
Hello,

I am sure you know me from previous edits and discussions on other Marvel-related lists. I would like to know the best way to help my page List of unproduced Marvel Comics projects, as you've suggested a split. I can add more section titles to the page, or group together abandoned film/tv projects of the same character. What do you think is the best action I can do for the page? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * First it isn't "[your] page", you don't own it. As I suggested, just split all the film info to a new article, as with the TV content. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I only meant "my" due to creating the page, I know I can't physically own a website on wiki. I can do that, split it with the television projects, I might also add the short section of abandoned Marvel video games to the new page. Thank you for noticing the awesome work I give to wiki.
 * Well the existing article should stay, and direct readers to the two new split articles. The video game info should stay on the existing article because it is so small. I can do the splits if you wish so you see what I mean. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

No, I got it done. You can check it, if you want.

I am debating which way I should split the film list, any suggestions? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:57, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

For the second split, the largest part of List of unproduced Marvel Comics projects is the live action films, but I don't have an immediate idea of what to split that section into. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 18:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

One idea I was thinking was to collect the abandoned adaptations of their imprint/subdivision comics and split it that way. One list for specifically Marvel, the other for their imprints. Thoughts? Cardei012597 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The films should split off like what you just did with the TV series. After that, I have no strong opinions to their formatting. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I finished splitting. I have a page for abandoned films based on Marvel imprints and a page for all abandoned Marvel television projects Cardei012597 (talk) 19:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)