User talk:Doniago/Archive 26
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Doniago. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 24 | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | → | Archive 30 |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Edit on A NYCS service
What needs to be fixed, because I didn't see anything?
- The History section has unsourced information. Other sections have no sources at all. DonIago (talk) 19:28, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for April 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Swimmer (1968 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Joyland (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
Count of Monte Cristo 2002 Film
Hi there, Doniago. I'm a long time reader/donor to Wikipedia, and wanted to try my hand at editing pages. I recently read the Count of Monte Cristo and saw the 2002 movie again. I noticed that the fairly common "differences between the book and novel" section was absent from the 2002 film wikipedia page and was going to write one. I thought a good place to start would be to read the history of the page, and there I saw that this section previously existed but you excised it. Can you please explain to me why it was removed, and guide me to avoid the same mistakes so that if I were to add this section, you would not remove that one as well. Thanks and I appreciate the help. This is my first time! Amitku53 05:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Hiya. Sections like the one you're talking about need sourcing for any information added. This both establishes that the differences listed are not original research and that they are not trivial. Wikipedia is not IMDb; when we list such things, we should focus on the ones that are considered significant in some manner (i.e. every film based on a book will have differences), and we establish that by referencing a reliable source for the difference. Hope this clears it up! DonIago (talk) 06:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks this was very helpful, and it makes sense. I did have a clarification question though. Many pages don't seem to have references or just list things like "these characters are missing" etc. Would those pages be in violation of "original research" or the "trivia" requirements? Most of the legitimate sources I find just talk in broad terms about the book/movie differences and almost never provide an enumerated list. Amitku53 00:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.136.13 (talk)
- It's certainly possible, though I'm hesitant to make such a call without seeing specific examples. If you have concerns about the information listed, there are templates such as {{cn}}, {{unrefsect}}, {{or}}, {{section OR}}, {{in popular culture}} that can be used rather than simply removing the information, to give editors a chance to improve matters. If you're curious about any of those templates, you can look them up by searching for "template:(template name)". Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 02:08, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks this was very helpful, and it makes sense. I did have a clarification question though. Many pages don't seem to have references or just list things like "these characters are missing" etc. Would those pages be in violation of "original research" or the "trivia" requirements? Most of the legitimate sources I find just talk in broad terms about the book/movie differences and almost never provide an enumerated list. Amitku53 00:53, 25 March 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.197.136.13 (talk)
Hi there. The BLP prod policy doesn't require reliable sources, just sources, which can be formatted as external links. There are probably hundreds of thousands of articles supported only or primarily by IMDb, and the community has never come to a consensus to delete them. If you feel this article needs to be deleted then it's probably best to take it to AfD, as directors/writers of mainstream films would usually be considered to meet the bare minimum of notability guidelines for creative professionals via reviews in newspapers/magazines eg [1]. Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 14:59, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I'll give the matter some thought. Thank you for getting back to me so promptly! DonIago (talk) 15:03, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
- I'm happy to say that Joe Decker (talk · contribs) took it upon himself to make significant improvements to the article. I have rewarded him with brunch. :) Thanks again for your assistance. DonIago (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry!
Sorry Doniago, about my recent... rampage, I was just mad, I kind of have a short temper... on the internet. Hey Doniago, my recent editing was not disruptive, there are lots of sources that support my argument, and you just contradicted yourself by saying that your argument was supported by IMDB, yet you later said that it is not a reliable source. Note: I am talking about List of American Dad! Characters, not Family Guy.
Ibrahimsqureshi (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
- Apology accepted. Thanks. Happy editing. DonIago (talk) 03:58, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
- I rather wish you'd added a new comment instead of editing your existing one, since I initially couldn't tell how my Talk page had changed. In any case...IMDb supports the existing spelling of Heissler, though as I noted it wouldn't be appropriate for use in a citation. If you have lots of sources, you're welcome to provide one that is reliable instead of IMDb, but as far as I'm aware there's never been significant discussion of the name. I'm happy to be proven wrong. DonIago (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
IMDb
With reference to the above comment, I have noticed editors on the Help Desk frequently tell people the IMDb is not a reliable source of information. I concur with that 100%. I have noticed so many wrong facts and so much outdated information in IMDb biographies, for instance, that it has made me nervous of using it a reference "book" ever again. Do you think Wikipedia should perhaps make a bold general statement somewhere prominently in the Wiki Help pages to warn people off using the IMDb when compiling their articles? --P123cat1 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
- Well, it's discussed at WP:RS/IMDb. I never really went through all of the new editor resources...I wouldn't necessarily oppose something prominent discouraging the use of IMDb in citations, but I'd want the opinions of other editors as well. DonIago (talk) 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Betrayal at House on the Hill
Hi, I'm just an extremely amateur editor -- usually I just edit for grammar. However, since I designed the board game Betrayal at House on the Hill, I added my name as designer after the game's publisher in the article. I see that you reverted my edit because you said that it was insufficiently sourced.
Four of the six sources already listed include pictures of the game's box, upon which my name is visible. The linked review by Game Master Greg includes a blow-up of the box in which the name of the designer is extremely clear. There is also a link to Board Game Geek, where the designer and editors are also listed. My name is also listed as designer in the game's rules. What more needs to be done for this attribution to be properly sourced?
71.63.5.196 (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
- Hi there, thanks for getting in touch. I would re-add the information and include a specific source listing you as the publisher immediately following the information. Readers shouldn't have to look elsewhere in the article to find a source supporting the claim, it should be immediately apparent what source is being utilized. If you want to just reuse an existing reference, there's information on how you can do so at WP:REFNAME. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 15:52, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation, and please do get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Minas Morgal
You tagged Minas Morgal as having no 3rd party sources but there are a few third party sources. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- It looks to me like all of the sources provided are franchise-related. A third-party source would be something that isn't inherently linked to the franchise, such as a discussion in The New York Times. Also, you misspelled it. Minas Morgul :p DonIago (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- Also I would have preferred you'd given me the opportunity to respond before you unilaterally removed the notability tag; given my obvious disagreement I have reinstated it. You're welcome to discuss the matter at the article's Talk page; if we can't reach an agreement perhaps other editors will chime in, or we can pursue other avenues. DonIago (talk) 15:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Apologies
I do not mean to sound like an idiot. I have wikis best intentions at heart. GimliDotNet (Speak to me,Stuff I've done) 17:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- I don't doubt that; I just wish you'd been more willing to discuss the situation with me instead of reverting my edits and shown more willingness to respect the template documentation and my own requests to wait until there was a clear consensus. FWIW, I think letting the template remain on the article would have ultimately improved it; editors might have seen the template and gotten involved, and personally if an article has been templated I'm usually content to leave it alone for at least a few months before I do anything further (among other things, I think I have a stronger argument for action when I can say "article has been tagged for x months"). I would have preferred to see this not go to AFD, but I guess it's out there now. I'd be happy to see the article improved to a point where notability was more clearly established, though source research is unfortunately not among my strong suits. Anyway, thanks for getting in touch; I guess we'll see where it goes from here. DonIago (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
It's A Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World
What content did I add? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.184.33.158 (talk) 22:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
- You added a claim that all of the main cast members are deceased. That should be supported with a reliable source. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 05:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
Nicholas Hoult
My bad, I only meant to remove the In Development project, not the sourced material. LADY LOTUS • TALK 13:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
- Not a problem. Even when trying to clean it up I made a couple of goofs; I think it's okay now but another set of eyes wouldn't be the worst thing ever. I ended up removing the sourced info as well since it appeared to be pure speculation rather than "this will happen". DonIago (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)