Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Pinging Geraldo Perez – this is more a reminder to myself than to you, Geraldo: but the WP:SCOPE of List of films based on television programs looks like it needs to be (massively?) narrowed. Right now it's including a bunch of what are basically TV movies in the list (including some TV movies that basically aired as episodes of these series – e.g. I just removed Shake It Up: Made In Japan which should not have been included under any circumstances!). That list should be narrowed to just theatrically-released films that are based on TV series. FWIW. (And, again, this is more a reminder to myself...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:15, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• See also: List of television spin-offs to do the same. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:27, 18 June 2017 (UTC) ‎[reply]
• And: Lists of actors by television series is another cleanup job... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:18, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've started an RfC on the talkpage of Ben Roberts-Smith that may be of interest to you. AlanS^talk 09:25, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Based on what you said in the revert, you are wrong. It is not another Columbia division. It is a merger. Have a look at what I found:

• First.
• Second.
• Third.

References of Columbia and TriStar Television merger:

• First.
• Second.

Therefore, Columbia TriStar took over production in 1994 after the merger. 71.68.129.162 (talk) 18:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Geraldo Perez, as I already left a message on his Talk page about this... But my contention is still the same – it's the same company, and a name change (post-merger) doesn't merit inclusion of that in the Infobox. It's OK to mention it in prose, though. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:50, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a merger of two companies it is a different entity from both after the merger and the name after the merger should be used for things that happened after the merger date. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But years should not be included in the infobox, regardless. That's from the template docs. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drop the dates but leave the named companies. Geraldo Perez (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.71.68.129.162 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I'll just note that I believe none of this is actually sourced at the article itself. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:31, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn't have edit warred like I did, sometimes I get defensive on the way Amaury does things, like explain it better than just stating "No" or saying the full reason behind it. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Genres should be sourced (and I mean good sources like Deadline). And cats must follow WP:CATVER. This should be hashed out on Talk pages, not edit warring between editors. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:29, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, If it was added in that it needed to be well sourced, I would have left it alone, but times I bring it up on talk page of a user it gets ignored with Amaury, but not so much with other users. Magical Golden Whip (talk) 19:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted my edit on Los Angeles Metro Rail regarding the table under history about the order in which system segments opened. Your rationale is that since the table was under the history section, the table should list the line at the time of that segment's opening. I have a couple of issues with this, however. My first issue is that going by this rationale, then pre-2020, the solid color name files should have already been used for those segments (they are on Commons as older, separate files). However, instead, the letter-based bullets were used before my edit. My second issue is that, for example, with the entries for "Blue Line To Financial District" and "Red Line MOS-1," etc., these list multiple lines cooperating on those segments when the E/Expo and D/Purple Lines did not exist at the times when those segments opened. While I understand why you reverted my edit, I am confused since those two issues are still in contention with a complete revert without any additional changes. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 03:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I said "Take it to the Talk page" – that means the L.A. Metro article talk page. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to do that, but with all due respect, you were not clear with which talk page you wanted me to take this discussion onto. Thank you for your response. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Please feel free to comment on it at any given time. --OrdinaryScarlett (talk) 04:39, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commented. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:43, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dang,I haven't found much, but maybe I can convince you one episode at a time, how about this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3UxiIBkmk8

I could site that as a source, true it isn't an offical statement by somebody who worked on the series or the comic, but it is a video of someone going through the entire episode comparing it to the comic, and I think you would agree that this video makes a good case for the episode being an adaptation of Spider-Man issue 6. What do you think?

~D-Man 2601:486:200:590:2D86:4D4F:6F3E:30CB (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:YOUTUBE applies – basically, almost any YouTube video is WP:NOTRS, esp. if it's just someone's opinion (WP:SELFPUBLISH). It would need to come from either a published book, or an article from a WP:RS print or media outlet. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:24, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now hold on a mintue, it's shows side by side comparisons, the plot is beat for beat a simlified retelling, there's lines of dialogue that are the same which are shown in the video, and also shown are visuals taken from the comic, like The Lizard hiding out in an abandoned fort explaining his plan to mind controlled crocadiles as Spider-Man watches on. How's that an opinion? Did you watch the video? Because it says "Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis", not that YouTube videoes should be disregarded outright. Right? ~D-Man 2601:486:200:590:C25:4038:2E60:9E2 (talk) 05:11, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question regarding the recently aired season finale, "Should I Stay or Should I Go". Based on some research, it was originally two separate episodes, but was combined as one double-length episode when aired. The credits within the show itself states: Part 1 written by Sean W. Cunningham & Marc Dworkin and Part 2 written by Dicky Murphy. I can't find any similar scenarios with other shows, but what should be done with how the credits are listed here?: Would this be fine, or would how it previously was be better?

And if it helps to see what exactly I'm referring to... [1] [2] Magitroopa (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: Based on the scenario you are describing, the former is the way I would handle this rather than how it was "previously" listed at the article.

Follow-up question: Has anyone checked how this finale is handled on the streamer (Paramount+, I guess?...)? – At the streamer is it also presented as a single episode, or is it two separate episodes? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:23, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, the only 'streamer' would be the Nickelodeon website, where it is also listed as a single double-length episode. Based on that, I believe that's how it will be listed if/when it is ever put on Paramount+ as well (AFAIK, season 2 of Side Hustle was only just recently added to P+, a little under a year since the series finale aired, which is actually one year ago today). Magitroopa (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sent by Zippybonzo using MediaWiki message delivery at 06:58, 1 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to see if the 2023 film should be the primary topic with the current redirect target becoming a hatnote.

Since no one had linked to the movie from the hatnote target, I didn't know, and even worse, I really messed up the date.

Maybe you can even move it without a discussion.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vchimpanzee: In regards to the Halston Sage article, please include a source that verifies her casting in the film if/when you readd that... As to the articles, I agree with you – I will go ahead and move these. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:39, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done – 2023 film moved to base title (with hatnote). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I added a source to all cast members with Wikipedia articles. Two cast members already had the film in their filmographies.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 17:50, 2 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you have constantly done on Portal:Current Events. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. These recent edits [3], [4], [5], [6] calling other editors "Incompetent" and "Lazy" are not acceptable Carter00000 (talk) 17:06, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]