User talk:Fortdj33/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Template:Jack

Could you please revisit Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Fictional_characters#Template:Jack.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 11:28, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Nestor

Helllo Fortdj33. I saw your move of Nestor (Tintin character) to Nestor (comics). I watch all the Tintin articles, wrote most of the Nestor article and the List of The Adventures of Tintin characters (you might take a quick look at it) and others in the Tintin universe. My question is not why did you do that, but when are you planning on cleaning up after such a move? —Prhartcom (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I see you did some cleanup. I see that apparently there is new naming convention for comics. I see also that we may need to move some other Tintin articles to keep things consistent. I am just a little annoyed because I am usually the one that has to cleanup changes other people make to the Tintin articles, and this one of yours is truly no exception. —Prhartcom (talk) 01:37, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I can appreciate where you're coming from, since I've had to clean up after someone else on my share of articles as well. Sorry if you got annoyed, because you assumed that I wouldn't clean up after moving an article, but all you had to do was ask... Fortdj33 (talk) 04:09, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Helllo again Fortdj33, thanks for telling me about WP:NCC. As for the articles Tintin (character) and Snowy (character), I am thinking we should just leave those. There is a "Category:Tintin" and a disambiguation page Tintin, so the title prefix "(comics)" does not really identify the Tintin article as well as its current name. You are more of an expert that me on this; what are your thoughts, can we leave it? —Prhartcom (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think it's probably OK to leave those two alone. Yes, WP:NCC states that "(character)" should be the last choice in disambiguation, but arguably Tintin (comics) and Snowy (comics) could apply to more than just the character. Those links could be redirected to the disambiguation pages, but otherwise I would just leave them alone for now. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

In answer to this edit;

if {{DE}} doesn't conform to MOS:DAB, could you alter it?--Launchballer 14:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like {{DE}} could work in some cases for disambiguation, but for all of the links on Underwater Love, it was adding unnecessary formatting. To be honest, I've never seen that template used before, and I'm not sure how or if the template could be modified, in order to conform to MOS:DAB. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:49, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's quite new, I created it with Technical 13 fairly recently.--Launchballer 15:13, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It is Launchballer's template, I just helped with the logic/coding... Let me know if there is anything I can do to help modify it. If you give me specifics, I'm pretty sure I can make it work. Technical 13 (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Basically, the titles for media such as albums, books, comics, films and television shows should be in italics. The names of media that are part of something, such as short stories, songs or TV episodes should be in "quotes". And when it comes to disambiguation pages, that formatting only applies to the article title and not the disambiguation, unless that too is also the name of a piece of media (e.g. "Some Enchanted Evening" (The Simpsons). Hope that helps. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:57, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Fortdj33 and Launchballer: Okay, after reading MOS:DAB, I'm confused as to how this doesn't conform to it. The only section I saw that even mentioned titles of literature or film is MOS:DABMENTION which doesn't seem to mention anything about which citation style is correct or incorrect. I did not see it say anything about italics or quotes or whatever... Can you clarify for me how this doesn't conform? Thanks. Technical 13 (talk) 11:22, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

See MOS:DAB#Where piping may be appropriate, where it states that piping is preferable to add italics or quotation marks to part of an article name, since templates are discouraged on disambiguation pages. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:12, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral request for comments regarding the use of cosplay images at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#cosplay pics.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:54, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Film biographies

Sorry about that. Thought I'd caught myself, but apparently I missed a couple. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 15:30, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Demigod

Hello, could I possibly persuade you to reassess the importance and quality of the article Demigod? I recently attempted a rewrite of much of it. At the moment the importance level is rated as "Top" but I consider it mid to low. Many thanks. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

G.I. Joe

While I started some improvements on G.I. Joe: Retaliation, don't think it can pass the GA review right away... but thankfully things are slow there. Better fix the bare urls on refs and expand some sections (searching for interviews with the director and writers can help). igordebraga ≠ 01:55, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Reverting the edits in G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Hi,
I recently changed something in G.I. Joe: Retaliation, but you told it was incorrect. I'm afraid the one you tell incorrect is actually correct. I know this is a tricky point. But I'll show you how and why. My edit was an M1911 pistol and yours a M1911 pistol. Although the word starts with a consonant, but you should use am, because as you know before a consonant we use a and before a vowel we use an, e.g. a cat, an apple. But this is not applicable with letters instead the sound an alphabet has, like you can't tell an university instead you must tell a university, because the pronunciation is yoo-nə-vur-sətee, and the pronunciation starts with y that is a consonant. Likewise, you must tell an HTML, an MP3 and so is an M1911 pistol. Click here for more information. That's why I'm reverting the edit.
— ITeachThem (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, I realize that rule applies if the following word starts with a vowel sound. Neither "M1911" nor "pistol" fits that description, so the article "a" is appropriate, and not "an". Fortdj33 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I can understand you, but the word M1911 is pronounced as em-waan-nain-..., so the pronunciation starts with a vowel sound (m). As I've mention before, the letter doesn't matter rather the pronunciation. So it should be an M1911 pistol. — ITeachThem (talk) 16:10, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

ITeachThem is absolutely right. The name of the letter "M" is pronounced "em", beginning with a vowel sound, and it is the sound that matters. Normal English usage is "an M", not "a M". JamesBWatson (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Wish this explanation had come before all of the reversions were made on the article. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I also edited that in G.I. Joe: Retaliation as the one ITeachThem did. But Fortdj33 reverted it. I'm glad that he understood the reason. — Armun Alam (talk) 08:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Chuck cunningham syndrome

Just so you know, an IP pulled your PROD from Chuck cunningham syndrome, in case you want to AfD it. Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Canada-documentary-film-stub

Thank you so much for creating Template:Canada-documentary-film-stub. I'm not sure why you decided to start with Canada, but it's going to be quite helpful -- to me, anyway, as well as others, I'm sure -- in improving Canadian doc articles. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I started with Canada, only because I was in the middle of cleaning up Canadian film stubs, and saw a need for the more specific stub tag. I plan on populating the category with existing stubs in Category:Documentary film stubs, Category:Canadian documentary films and Category:Canadian film stubs, but if you see any stub articles that fit, feel free to add/update the stub tag as well! Fortdj33 (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I shall, although your AWB work seems to be quite thorough. This stub tag has already led me to three articles that I didn't know existed, which I've been able to tweak and in one case, correct. Your work is most appreciated. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Please restore the parent category of Category:Canadian films to all the articles you removed it from with your lazy AWB edits. Per the category, - "For convenience, all Canadian films are included in this category. This includes all Canadian film genres ..." etc, which is standard for all parent categories for films by country. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I apologize, it just seemed redundant for a film such as Maxime, McDuff & McDo to be in Category:Canadian films, when it is already included in the sub-categories Category:Canadian documentary films and Category:Quebec films. I will not remove the parent category by country from anymore of the documentary stubs that I tag, but next time you come to my talk page because you want me to correct a problem, I would appreciate some civility. Calling me lazy is unwarranted, when those edits were made in good faith. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:17, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably best you read the rules of use for AWB then. The first three rules make my point. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:34, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand your point. My point is that when you want someone to correct a mistake, being condescending on their talk page is not the way to do it. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Monica Z

Hello, please have a look at Monica Z. I am looking forward to the film release. Currently the available material is only enough for a stub. I trust the film will be better than the German bio pic about German singer Hildegard Knef ("Hilde", 2009) where the acting was impressive but the plethora of intertwined flashbacks ruined the film for me. Nordhorner II (talk)I am not a number! I am a Nordhorner. 03:29, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

What is going on, please?

Hi again. Are you edit warring with Lugnuts over stub tags such as {{2000s-Canada-film-stub}}? I sure hope not. I see you're now mass removing such stub templates, again using AWB, but I don't see any evidence that you've attempted to communicate with him about this. Perhaps there's a consensus decision about such templates that I (and Lugnuts) is unaware of? As an uninvolved third party, let me just ask: what is going on here, please? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hello Shawn. To my knowledge, there is no consensus regarding these stub tags. It appears that Lugnuts created several new tags, in order to further sort Category:Canadian film stubs by decade. I think that they are great, and I plan on using them myself from here on out. But, he has added them to articles that are already tagged as Canadian film stubs, and in several cases, those articles already have a second tag that is more descriptive. I am only removing those tags from articles where the Canadian tag by decade is redundant. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:53, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, okay, but for example this edit leaves the article only with "your" stub tag for a Canadian doc film, while "his" stub for a 1990s Canadian film has been removed. It seems to me both are equally valid, even if I personally have found your doc tags to be of much more use. Either Lugnuts finds your edits to be uncontroversial, or he simply hasn't noticed yet. At any rate, I'll leave the matter alone unless there is a need for further discussion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

More AWB abuse that hasn't gone un-noticed. I recommend you restore those tags, unless there's a very good reason not to have a documentary tag and a decade tage, for example. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, this is not something personal against Lugnuts, despite how he may feel. As I stated, I am glad that stub tags were created by decade for Canadian films. However, it is not necessary to add them to articles that already have Canadian film stub tags on them. In this case, it is simply redundant to add a stub tag to an article, when it is already tagged as a Canadian film and/or already tagged as a film from a specific decade. And again Lugnuts, I do not appreciate your lack of civility on my talk page. You have removed stub tags yourself because of overstubbing, and it is in poor taste to assume that I am automatically wrong, just because you disagree with me. I am open to discussion as to why multiple Canadian stub tags would be necessary on an article, but please do not blindly revery my edits before this discussion has been resolved. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

But I don't think you're right: two complimentary non-diffusing Canadian stub tags do not cancel each other out. A Canadian doc film stub does not cease to be a Canadian film stub from the 1980s in need of expansion. Three is generally considered the limit for stub tags, I believe, and unless we're past that, it's rather bad form to use AWB to delete another person's stub tag in favour of your own. So I think you are misusing AWB, both here and in the first instance Lugnuts pointed out, regardless of how you feel about the way he raised it. This is becoming more and more like an edit war, I'm sorry to say. As I third party here I am of no particular side. I would recommend you consider using AWB to restore the deleted Canadian films by decade stubs, as Lugnuts does not appear to use automated tools, and it would take you rather less time? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Breaking down Category:Canadian film stubs by decade is admirable, and I agree that it needed to be done. But I don't see why is it necessary to add a second (and in some cases a third) stub tag, just to show what decade a film was made, when it already has a stub tag in the same category that is more specific? Adding the decade tags to documentary articles simply adds the article to multiple sub-categories of Category:Canadian film stubs, which is redundant and unnecessary. This is not about "my" tag versus "his" tag, it is simply about making sure that Canadian film stubs are tagged accurately and concisely. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:33, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

But surely you can see that it's entirely subjective here for you to say that the doc film sub scheme, created by you, is "more specific," and that you alone are working more "accurately and concisely"? I do value this doc film stub tag, as I've told you. But there may be other editors who are particularly interested in improving articles on Canadian films of the 70s and 80s, who would find the other, by-decade scheme to be immensely helpful. We have to work through consensus and respect the work of others, and that's particularly vital if you want to continue to have access to AWB as a powerful editing tool. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Shawn, I don't know why you keep trying to make this out to be something personal between me and Lugnuts, but I have never claimed ownership of the stub tags that I have created. Anyone is free to use them, just as I plan on using the tags that Lugnuts has created too. I think that you are not looking at this objectively, because you are specifically focusing on these Canadian films, while I am looking at these articles in relation to {{WikiProject Film}} in general. And of course I can see how my argument could be subjective, but just because I use AWB to edit, does not make anyone else's edits more valid than mine. I am open to moving this discussion to a broader forum, so that a consensus can be reached, but I continue to stand by all the edits that I have made. Fortdj33 (talk) 00:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Decades and documentaries are different tags in their own right. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As of now, he seems to be using AWB to add by-decades stub tags and is no longer (from what I see) removing doc stub tags, so hopefully this matter is resolved. Then again, Fortdj33 "stands by all the edits he has made," including his use of AWB to remove Category:Canadian films despite the clear instructions on the template not to do so, then we may still have a problem. Editors can discuss this where they like, but if I see more problematic edits that don't reflect consensus and repeated requests to stop, then I'd consider it disruptive editing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Shawn, I don't know why you are now stalking my edits, but just because I decided to hold off on cleaning up Canadian film stubs until we reached a consensus, does not mean that I have changed my mind about some of them being redundant. I do see the difference in sorting by genre and sorting by decade, and had Lugnuts added the decade tags first, I probably wouldn't have added as many tags as I did. But I still feel that it is redundant to add more than one tag from the same category to an article, and I may post this elsewhere, in order to solicit other opinions that are unbiased. In the meantime, I will only remove tags from those articles where Lugnuts and I have both added tags to documentaries that were already tagged as such. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Please do feel free to solicit other opinions. I think that's an excellent idea. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Response to edit summary: it's not personal. Seeing your Can film stub tag was a wonderful thing. But you, me and Lugnuts are three editors working in this area and I happen to agree with Lugnuts that there have been cases where you're using AWB to make mass changes outside of consensus, or even against stated policy. Again, since you seem to strongly feel that you're right and we are both wrong, by all means solicit other points of view. But AWB user rights carry responsibilities as stated at WP:AWB. 18:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You are making this personal, because you are stalking my edits, and then reverting them because of your opinion on a completely different issue! I admit that I've made my share of mistakes, but just because I use AWB as an editing tool, does not mean that I am automatically wrong. And I don't know what consensus you are referring to, in your reversion of my edits on UK documentaries, but it is hardly disruptive editing. I am not deliberately trying to sabotage Wikipedia, and you are not assuming good faith. Please stop editing Wikipedia to make a point, and try collaborating with me instead of making personal attacks. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I will concede that there is no harm in having multiple stub tags on an article, if one of them is sorting by decade, and the other is sorting by genre. But I still maintain that adding a third stub tag to an article, repeating information already covered by the other stub tags, is completely redundant and unnecessary because it serves no positive function. Since Lugnuts added the decade tags to the same articles that I added documentary tags to, I will only remove the tags that I added, and only where there is already a decade tag and a documentary tag with the same information. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That's too bad. An entirely useful tag, removed from some articles for no practical reason whatsoever, from what I can see. Well, whatever. 13:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

inre Talk:Jimmy Neutron (character)

While I appreciate your reversion, please know three things: 1) The projects and discussions were removed automatically by the closing process, and 2) because we do not list projects on the talk pages of redirects, and 3) returning it as you did returned a talk page now-based upon a non-existent (redirected) article.

It will now likely be speedied under WP:CSD#G8. I have sought clarification at Wikipedia talk:Redirect#Talk page reversion. Your input is welcome. Cheers, Schmidt, ^{Michael Q.} 18:13, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Jolt (Transformers)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Jolt (Transformers), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. TTN (talk) 21:51, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of G.I. Joe: Retaliation

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article G.I. Joe: Retaliation 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 Rusted AutoParts -- Rusted AutoParts (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of G.I. Joe: Retaliation

The article G.I. Joe: Retaliation you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:G.I. Joe: Retaliation for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Rusted AutoParts -- Rusted AutoParts (talk) 00:52, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

The Science Fiction Barnstar!

		The Science Fiction Barnstar
		Thanks Fortdj33 for helping to bring G.I. Joe: Retaliation to Good Article status. I hereby present you the Science Fiction Barnstar; please accept this little sign of appreciation from me. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 12:05, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Sharkticon article backup

Here: [1] Mathewignash (talk) 21:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Darkhawk

in-house ad's are not considered first appearances but multiple page preview's are for in house book's. Look up first appearance's for Spawn (comics) and Invincible (comics). Smallclone10 (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Those examples are not the same thing, since they are full-size comic books. Marvel Age is a fan magazine, which included numerous previews of upcoming books. It is not considered to be in continuity, and therefore does not count as a first appearance. Please join the discussion at Talk:Darkhawk#First appearance? instead of edit warring on the article. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

TV films

Hi Fortdj33, it appears per WP:NC-TV that TV films should be labeled as such when a disambiguator is necessary. We don't have an article on another film called The Rats one way or another, so The Rats (TV film) will be sufficient for that one, but A Real American Hero (TV film) is apparently correct by the relevant guideline. Sound ok? --BDD (talk) 17:10, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, the basic rule of disambiguation is that "titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that". Therefore, if there are no other films with that same title, the disambiguation "TV" film is unnecessary. Other members of {{WikiProject Film}} have been following this rule, and it appears that even WP:NC-TV defers to the naming convention for films. I was just trying to clean up a few articles that appeared to have unnecessary disambiguation, but I'm fine with leaving those films at the titles you propose, if you think it will be otherwise controversial. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for titles no longer than they need to be, but I know how protective WikiProjects can get of their guidelines. I'll see what WPTV thinks of this. --BDD (talk) 17:43, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Will you be able to close the discussion there? --George Ho (talk) 06:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Infobox photo consensus discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion on which photo would be better for the Rebecca Housel Infobox in this discussion? If you are unable to, I understand; you don't have to reply to this message. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 03:36, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup 2014

Hi, if you haven't already, you should consider signing up for WikiCup 2014. Cheers, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

RfC

This is a neutral request for comments at Talk:Ms. Marvel#Requested move 2. All participants in the first request are receiving the same notification.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

The Fast and the Furious

I see no reason why the set index tag can not exist on a page that is also a stub (albeit unmarked as a stub). bd2412 T 21:34, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Assessment

While importance parameter assessment is mostly deprecated, I'm quite curious why you chose to give Paul Conrad a low assessment for the comics project when he is considered one of the most important 20th century political cartoonists.[2] Viriditas (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, I was just cleaning up the unassessed articles in {{WikiProject Comics}}, and I tend to err on the side of caution, so I always start off with a "low" assessment for importance. Of course, it's all completely arbitrary, and any article can be reassessed, in the scope of the projects it pertains to. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Winnie The Pooh And The Piglet On Wuthering Adventures (film)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Winnie The Pooh And The Piglet On Wuthering Adventures (film), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Tournesol (talk) 18:45, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

The Carpet from Bagdad

First, thanks for hitting up The Carpet from Bagdad with a WP:FILM assessment. I've found myself working on several of these silent film topics lately, and I'm trying to talk myself into a bigger, more organized project for them. If I could impose on your time for a moment, was there anything specific you felt was lacking for this article to earn its WP:FILM B? Obviously, it's going to be short on some of the material that modern film topics get; information like production costs and box office returns simply don't exist for 1915 films! But if there's anything you feel is missing that's actually extant, I'd love to try to hunt it down and get it in there. Thanks again, Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link fixing one-day contest

I have decided to put on a mini-contest within the November 2013 monthly disambiguation contest, on Saturday, November 23 (UTC). I will personally give a $20 Amazon.com gift card to the disambiguator who fixes the most links on that server-day (see the project page for details on scoring points). Since we are not geared up to do an automated count for that day, at 00:00, 23 November 2013 (UTC) (which is 7:00 PM on November 22, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the project page leaderboard. I will presume that anyone who is not already listed on the leaderboard has precisely nine edits. At 01:00, 24 November 2013 (UTC) (8:00 PM on November 23, EST), I'll take a screenshot of the leaderboard at that time (the extra hour is to give the board time to update), and I will determine from that who our winner is. I will credit links fixed by turning a WP:DABCONCEPT page into an article, but you'll have to let me know me that you did so. Here's to a fun contest. Note that according to the Daily Disambig, we currently have under 256,000 disambiguation links to be fixed. If everyone in the disambiguation link fixers category were to fix 500 links, we would have them all done - so aim high! Cheers! bd2412 T 02:23, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Batwing

Do you feel that Batwing (Marvel Comics) should be merged rather than deleted outright? 129.33.19.254 (talk) 16:07, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I think that there's enough in the article for it to be expanded, rather than merged or deleted. But if those are the only two choices, I would vote for merge. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The War of the Worlds

Hello Fortdj33, the discussion taking place at Talk:Tripod (The War of the Worlds) would appreciate your input regarding the restated proposal. Prhartcom (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Proposal for the Creation of an Animation Barnstar

Hi, Fortdj33. I noticed that you are a member of the Animation WikiProject and wanted to share a proposal with you. There have been several times that I have wanted to award an Animation Barnstar to a fellow editor, only to be disappointed that one still doesn't exist. The closest thing that we have right now is the Film Barnstar, but this is only applicable in certain situations, since animation can be found in both film and television. I would like to see an Animation Barnstar become a reality; especially since one already exists for the sub-topic of Anime and Manga. In order for this to become official though, a consensus will have to be reached.

If this is something that you would be interested in supporting, then please let me know on my talk page, as I am sending this message to all of the members of the Animation WikiProject and will not be adding each editor's talk page to my watchlist.

I am also looking for someone who would be able to provide a design for the barnstar. If you have any ideas for this, then please do not hesitate to share them with me. :) --Jpcase (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for this edit and especially for the editsummary. I never knew this, but Wikipedia:FILM#Scope indeed says to tag articles about actor with WP:BIO instead of WP:FILM. Debresser (talk) 14:35, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

By the way, that template also has a </nowiki>|needs-photo = yes</nowiki> option. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

IP Editor

Hi. I pinged you for a warning you left for an IP editor and his unconstructive edits. You might take a look at the message MarnetteD left on my talkpage regarding the edits of this IP. It's a persistent troublemaker who is evading a block placed by Drmies. Grandpallama (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that this IP was probably the same person who was blocked for the same edits on the same articles. I see that editor has already been blocked again, but let me know if you need me to add anything to the SPI. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

		Holiday Cheer
		Victuallers talkback is wishing Fortdj' Season's Greetings! Thanks, this is just to celebrate the holiday season and promote WikiLove, and hopefully makes your day a little better. Spread the seasonal good cheer by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone with whom you had disagreements in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Share the good feelings. - Vic/Roger inspired by this - you could do the same

Re: Merry Christmas

TriiipleThreat (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. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Re:Merry Christmas!

Thanks! Same to you. Merry Christmas! Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Thanks for sprucing up Retroactive (film). Paradoctor (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

BOZ (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 {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'm wishing you a Merry Christmas, because that is what I celebrate. If you don't like Christmas or just don't celebrate it in any of its forms, then please accept a generic "Happy Holidays". If you celebrate no holidays at this time of year, then hopefully you will be satisfied with an even more generic "Season's Greetings".  :)

Yo Ho Ho

Prhartcom (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec13}} to your friends' talk pages.

Talk:Van Wilder: The Rise of Taj

Can you close the move request? --George Ho (talk) 19:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, people tend to frown on non-admin requested move closures. To be honest, I moved the article to the current title before I knew that a move request had been made, because the other two Van Wilder movies had already been moved. If you really want me to, I can attempt to close the move request, after the required 7 days have passed, and there is a clear consensus in support of the move. Fortdj33 (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

To close, here are WP:RMCI and {{subst:nac}}. --George Ho (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm sure that you can close it well. There won't be opposition to your closure, as far as I'm concerned. Why hesitation? George Ho (talk) 03:39, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Film

Hello Fortdj33, hope you are well. Why is it important to keep The Crab with the Golden Claws in this project? No other Tintin book is. Prhartcom (talk) 14:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, any article that contains info about the film should have the film banner on its talk page, but I re-added The Crab with the Golden Claws before I realized that an article for The Crab with the Golden Claws (film) existed. I'll revert my edit on the former, but if the two are ever merged, the banner should be reinstated. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:48, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Stub???

Why on earth do you keep adding a stub tag to Hemulen? By no stretch of the imagination is it a stub. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Likewise at Moominmamma. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:06, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• When I wrote the message above about Hemulen, I thought that you just had some reason for regarding that one article as a stub. However, I now see that the problem goes way beyond that. You have been adding stub tags to numerous articles which are not stubs, in some cases edit warring to keep the inappropriate tags in place. For example, there is no reasonable way of regarding Devlin O'Ryan as a stub. Adding unsuitable template to articles is disruptive, and doing it on as large a scale as you have been doing is extremely disruptive. Please do not continue to do so. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason I keep adding stub tags back to those articles, is because they remain classified as Stub-Class on their talk pages. If you think that they are better classified as Start-Class, feel free to update them, but given their size in comparison to the thousands of articles in {{WikiProject Comics}} and {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}, it is not a "stretch of the imagination" to say that those articles could stand to be expanded. The line between Stub-Class and and Start-Class is completely arbitrary, and I do not appreciate being accused of disruptive editing, when those edits were made in good faith. Fortdj33 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

1. If an article is not a stub, then it should not be tagged as a stub. If it is wrongly tagged on the talk page, then that is a reason for correcting the tag on the talk page, not for adding a wrong tag to the article too.
2. Saying that an article "could stand to be expanded" is not at all the same as saying that it is a stub.
3. Being done in good faith does not prevent editing from being disruptive.
4. I see that you have continued to add stub tags to articles that cannot reasonably be described as stubs after I posted my message about it, and indeed after you replied to that message. If you still continue in the same way, you may be blocked from editing.
5. I see that you have been making huge numbers of edits very rapidly, using AutoWikiBrowser, at times at at a rate of significantly more than one edit per minute. You are clearly not giving yourself time to assess each one properly, and your comment above suggests that you may be following an automatic approach of "Stub-Class on a talk page = use AWB to add stub tag to article", without spending the necessary time to assess each case individually to decide whether such an edit is justified. An automated tool such as AWB is useful to save time in the physical process of making edits, but it does not in any way reduce the amount of time that is needed for intelligent consideration of what edits should be made. At the very top of the page Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser there is a prominent notice which says "Warning: You take full responsibility for any action you perform using AutoWikiBrowser. You must understand Wikipedia policies and use this tool within these policies, or risk losing access to the tool or being blocked from editing." Please take heed of that: the way you have been using the tool recently must stop, or you will lose access to it.
6. This issue came to my attention because of one edit to a page which is on my watch list. Looking further, I found that there is a significant problem with your stub tagging. I have not checked any of your other AWB edits, apart from those that add stub tags, but please think carefully about your use of the tool in other areas too, in case there may be further problems. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe JamesBWatson is correct about the responsibility you undoubtedly already take when using WP:AWB, Fortdj33, but I don't think adding or removing stub tags when they should or shouldn't be there is a particularly egregious offence. WP:STUB is of little help deciding if an article really is one or not. I appreciate your efforts trying to make Wikipedia consistent; I do the same thing. AWB's "auto tag" algorithm doesn't seem to look at the talk page classification, by the way, as I checked and mine is still recommending the stub tag be removed from the article space of La Proie et l'ombre, which does have a stub class on the talk page. (My AWB had removed the tag from that article and your AWB had added it. Be ready for someone else's AWB to come along someday and remove it again.) At least you and I are taking the advice of WP:STUB and are WP:BOLD about adding or removing it. Prhartcom (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps JamesBWatson can change the talk page classes of Hemulen and Moominmamma to Start class and then remove their article stub tags ... after adding some references; they both need some WP:RS to be a complete article. Cheers. Prhartcom (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

For the record, when you use phrases such as "Why on earth" and "no reasonable way", that is not assuming good faith. In fact, it is incredibly uncivil, and I do not think it is fair for you to come here and attack me, just because we disagree on whether an article is a stub. As I stated, the classification of articles is completely arbitrary, and just because you don't think an article is a stub, does not justify you being hostile with me for trying to mark it for expansion.

As for AWB, I understand the responsibility that goes with such a powerful editing tool. I feel that I am very conservative with the criteria I use when setting up a search in AWB, and I always have Wikipedia open in a separate browser, so that I can double check any articles I have a question about before saving my edits. And I know that I have made some mistakes, but you are wrong in your assumption that I do not take time to assess each article properly. I agree that if an article is not a stub, then it should not be tagged as a stub, but conversely if an article is a stub, then it should be marked with an appropriate stub tag. And that's all I'm trying to do: make sure that all the Stub-Class articles in certain Wikiprojects are tagged as stubs, so that they are placed in the proper categories. I would appreciate the benefit of the doubt, that I am trying to help these articles be expanded, and I am not trying to be disruptive. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for those comments. I now understand your point of view much better. Thanks also to Prhartcom for some helpful comments. I have a number of thoughts arising out of what you have said, and I shall try to outline some of them.

I am sorry that I expressed myself in ways that came across as uncivil. I didn't intend to do so, but looking back at what I wrote, I do see that some of what I said would come across that way. It is also clear from what you say that you view some things as uncivil that don't strike me that way, but either way, I apologise.

Looking back now, I think it was a mistake to mention Moominmamma. It is a bit more than what I think of as a stub, but if I had just come across your edit to that article, I would at the most have thought "Hm. Here is someone with a different cut-off point for stubs than I have", and left it at that. However, having previously seen what I saw as problematic editing at Hemulen, I was perhaps predisposed to see a problem with another, similar, edit. Hemulen, on the other hand, is way beyond what I understand to be a stub, which I tend to interpret as an article with just a few sentences (probably not more than half a dozen or so at the most), and I was genuinely bewildered as to why anyone would see it as such. The wording "Why on earth" was meant to express that bewilderment, not, as you took it, as a way of questioning your good faith, much less as an "attack".

I am not sure what you mean by "completely arbitrary". Certainly, where the borderline between stubs and non-stubs is to be drawn is subjective, and there is no objective rule for deciding. If that is what you mean by "arbitrary", then of course you are right. However, it is not arbitrary in the sense that it doesn't matter at all, and the fact that there is no exact objective borderline does not belie the fact that there are some cases which are clearly way beyond any reasonable borderline.

I have now looked at a few more of your edits, and it is quite clear that you do not automatically tag articles as stubs whenever they are marked as stub-class on their talk pages. However, the reason that I thought you might be doing that is that you appeared to say so: that seemed to me to be what you were saying when you wrote "The reason I keep adding stub tags back to those articles, is because they remain classified as Stub-Class on their talk pages". What I was trying to convey was that it is wrong to put a stub tag on an article because the talk page says so, and that the only valid reason for doing so is that the article itself is a stub, irrespective of what the talk page says.

You ask for "the benefit of the doubt, that I am trying to help these articles be expanded, and I am not trying to be disruptive". I am sure that is true, and nothing I said was intended to suggest otherwise. However, as I have already said, the fact that an action is done in good faith, without any intention of disruption, is no guarantee that there is no disruption.

As I have already said, Hemulen is way beyond what I regard as a stub. However, what prompted me to comment here, and to look further at your editing history, was not the fact that you had tagged as a stub an article that I thought clearly wasn't one, but the fact that you had twice restored the tag after other editors had removed it. That is contrary to WP:BRD, and a step towards edit warring.

Both you and Prhartcom suggest that I change an article's talk page classification from "stub class" to "start class". Of all the hundreds of different tasks that can be done on Wikipedia, article classification is one of the many that I have never been involved in. There are many other tasks that I do work on, and none of us can do everything. I do not wish to spend time and trouble reading up the relevant guidelines of yet another area of Wikipedia work, just so that I can competently deal with one or two articles now. I also don't really see what doing so would achieve: the suggestion seems to be (Maybe it isn't, but it reads this way) that if the classification on a talk page is changed, then the class on the article itself can be changed too. However, that makes no sense to me at all, since, as I have already said, whether an article is tagged as a stub should depend only on whether the article is a stub, not on whether the talk page says it is.

Finally, I am very grateful to Prhartcom for the comment "I don't think adding or removing stub tags when they should or shouldn't be there is a particularly egregious offence." It encouraged me to think again about the whole business, and I realised that I undoubtedly got it totally out of proportion. Frankly, even if you do sometimes put a stub tag on an article which is undoubtedly above stub level by any reasonable standard, does it really do any significant harm? There are far better things for me to concern myself with. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I think the misunderstanding came from what you perceived as edit warring on Hemulen, when the real reason I kept re-adding the stub tag, is because the talk page was never updated. I routinely use AWB to check the Stub-Class articles of the Wikiprojects that I follow, and I don't blindly add stub tags to every article, but if a Stub-Class article does not have a stub tag, I either update the classification or add a tag to the article. And I realize that an article may not be a stub based solely on its length, but I have tried to follow the criteria at WP:STUB, which concentrates on the amount of text in the article, and considers things such as images and navigation templates as "add-ons". Therefore, what may seem to be a long article, may in fact be a one-paragraph stub, with extras there for the purposes of supporting the actual text of the article. That's what I mean by arbitrary, it's based on each editor's personal preference and judgement, and sometimes it's difficult to tell which side of that subjective line an article falls on. Articles such as Hemulen and Moominmamma do not have enough actual content for me to consider them more than stubs, so I chose to tag them again instead of changing the talk page. Again, I'm sorry for any misunderstanding. Fortdj33 (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A small request

If there are many more of my stub tag removals that you are going to revert, would you mind doing it by going back to the version before my edit, clicking on "edit", and saving the page? That way, the reverts won't flood my "notifications" list, potentially making it harder for me to see notifications of other things. I know this is asking you to do a little more work, but only a very little. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it was just those few that you removed before we had our initial discussion, but if I come across any more, I will definitely take care of them that way! Fortdj33 (talk) 13:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Character pages

I got a question, since you seem to be reverting the different stub tag removals, those were done because of page length and size, but I wonder if it would not be better to just actually merge the articles in the first place. Many are without sources and are of questionable notability at the moment, often for minor and secondary figures. What do you think about that? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand why you removed the stub tags, but stub articles cannot be judged solely by length. Since those articles are still Stub-Class, and have not been expanded since the last time it was tagged, I chose to just re-add the stub tag. I would have no problem with those character articles being merged somewhere else, but I don't have any suggestions as to where. I'm just trying to make sure that all the Stub-Class articles in certain Wikiprojects are tagged as stubs, so that they are placed in the proper categories, and have a better chance at being expanded. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

But they are tagged as stubs. The stub tag on the article is different from the Wikiproject class stubs. I made sure not to change those, because HWY also has that system. It will not show up in your Wikiproject as a start unless you make it a start, I removed the stub tag out of length, but I did not update the project setting which classify it as a stub under your system. Does that help clarify it? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I understand that, but I think that for consistency, the article and the talk page should reflect the same status. Just because AWB removes the tag due to length, does not mean that the article is not still a stub. The line between Stub-Class and and Start-Class is completely arbitrary, and sometimes it's difficult to tell which side of that subjective line an article falls on. If an article is not a stub, it should not be tagged as a stub, but conversely if an article is a stub, then it should be marked with an appropriate stub tag. I know that your edits were made in good faith, and it's nothing personal against you, but IMO you should either update the talk pages when you remove stub tags, or if the article is on the borderline, leave the tags on the articles so that they have a chance to be expanded. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, I did that to thousands and thousands of articles, but I specifically avoided updating those particular parts of the project because they were still classified by the Wikiproject as a Stub for not meeting the exact criteria of a particular Wikiproject's start criteria. But due to length, the stub tag on the article should be removed. If you disagree, you disagree and I won't fight it. I just think that the majority of those should be merged, but I doubt I have the drive to make it happen. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree with all the edits you made, it just seems that way because you made so many. I routinely use AWB to check the Stub-Class articles of the Wikiprojects that I follow, and if a Stub-Class article does not have a stub tag, I either update the classification or add a tag to the article. But I don't blindly add stub tags to every article, if an article looks like it could pass for Start-class, I simply update the talk page [3], [4]. Again, I feel that the classification on the talk page should reflect the current status of the article, so if an article has enough content to no longer be considered a stub, then the talk page should be updated. But simply removing the stub tag, just because the length of the article falls in that grey area between Stub-Class and Start-Class, doesn't help the article to be merged or expanded. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

reply

You have a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film/Indian cinema task force. BollyJeff | talk 15:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Marvel Comics characters category removal?

I noticed you removed the "redundant" category of "Marvel Comics characters" from many Transformers articles. How exactly are they redundant? Mathewignash (talk) 13:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

At the time I made those edits, Category:Transformers characters and Category:Marvel Comics characters were both sub-categories of Category:Comics characters. I've fixed the parent category, and while it could be argued that some of the Transformers characters have appeared in the Marvel Universe, the latter category is designed for characters that are specifically Marvel characters, not for every character that has appeared in a comic book published by Marvel. Therefore, labeling certain Transformers as "Marvel" characters is not completely accurate. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Because not every Transformers character has appeared in Marvel Comics stories is the reason I only placed that label on the Transformers that did appear in Marvel Comics stories. Being a Transformers character does not inform a reader of Wikipedia that the character is a Marvel Comics character, therefore the category tag does add legitimate information to the article. The category is legitimate for the ones who appeared in Marvel Comics stories, so please do not remove them. Mathewignash (talk) 15:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

I started a topic on the wikiproject Comics talk page, please feel free to add your input, and I'll abide by the project's decision. Mathewignash (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos Torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it. To give a Dobos Torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:58, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! Fortdj33 (talk) 14:02, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Ashokan (film)

Hi, I see that you've reverted my edit on this page. The film was originally made in Malayalam and dubbed into Telugu and Hindi as well not just Tamil alone. I don't see any sources claiming that the film was a stupendous success (both critical and box-office wise) to warrant a separate article for the Tamil version. Care to explain? —Vensatry _(Ping) 15:54, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't propose to know much about the film specifically. I was just cleaning up Stub-Class Indian film articles, and found that the talk page for this one had not been redirected. Since the info in the article is not anything less that some of the other stubs that I've seen, I chose to restore the article and add a stub tag, in the hopes that it could be expanded instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:02, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

There are very few chances that it could be expanded as the article replicates stuff from Yodha. Hope you understand! —Vensatry _(Ping) 16:12, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Re: GI Joe

I just saw your reply on the talk page. I'll get back to you on that shortly. sixtynine ^{• spill it •} 02:15, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Crossed Swords (film)

Your redirect does not go to Crossed Swords (1977) film as it presumably should do RGCorris (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, it should point to the disambiguation page, because there is more than one film article titled "Crossed Swords". Any links to Crossed Swords (film), will need to be fixed to point to the appropriate film article instead. Fortdj33 (talk) 16:30, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Space Jam

Took it to the talk page. Now what?

Jdogno5 (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Define "disruptive"?

My talkpage is not the place for this discussion, and it is inappropriate to paste the entire revision of the article on the talk page for Space Jam, just to make a point. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Content change and trivia edition over at Space Jam for more information. Fortdj33 (talk) 04:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Coz Ov Moni

Hi Fort DJ 33, quick question, Coz Ov Moni is a musical, and it is a comedy film. So why remove the category Musical-Comedy when that it is exactly what it is? Or am I missing somthing? (Subzzee (talk) 20:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC))

Film biography stubs

Hi Fortdj33. OK, sorry for the inconveniences about film biography stubs. Understood! Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Aleksandr Drevin

The article has been rated as start-class, so that it does not need the stub template. If you think it requires expansion, please expand it. That would be the constructive way to proceed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Page moves

Can you STOP doing page moves such as this until there is a consensus at the ongoing discussion. - SchroCat (talk) 15:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Response:Animated films work group

In response to your question on how I created the soft redirect. I just created it as it is. The task force came to be by an editor who of WikiProject Film so we just let it stay there as part of the WikiProject Comics. But I created the soft redirect for it to be technically a part of that WikiProject too. Now as for that task force regarding animation...I took one glimpse of an animated movie's talk page. Aladdin...and how it's presented seems to be fine to me. I might need to further explanation on what you are wanting and then maybe I can help. You can show a link on what you mean. This whole parameter thing I am not that technical on understanding for the time being. ;) Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 15:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Fictional characters

Fortdj33, I am flabbergasted. They are fictional, they are characters—they are fictional characters. Placing the article under that banner will have no effect on the requested move—nobody is using it as an argument, and nobody is arguing that they are not characters. Please revert. Curly Turkey (gobble) 23:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand your logic, but as I stated in my edit summary, the article Hydra (Marvel Comics) is about a fictional organization, not a specific fictional character. {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} would apply to any articles about specific characters who belong to Hydra, but just like Advanced Idea Mechanics, S.H.I.E.L.D., Avengers (comics), Fantastic Four, or any other group or organization in the Marvel Universe, an article about Hydra in general is just not in the scope of that project... Fortdj33 (talk) 01:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

A casual scan of Category:WikiProject Fictional characters articles turns up: Young Allies (DC Comics), Yancy Street Gang, Cobra Command, Cobra Troopers, Cognoscenti (comics), Combaticons, Elder Gods (Marvel Comics), Beagle Boys, Dreadnoks, Dragon deities, Dumbledore's Army, Drow deities, Koopalings, Huey, Dewey, and Louie, Hulkbusters, Hurricanegers, Justice League (Smallville), Terror Titans, Terrorcons, The Breezies, The Boston Teens, The Amoeba Boys, The Bulldaggers, The California Raisins, The Cavern Clan, The Diegos, The Elvises, The Fang Brothers, The Fat Slags, The Gruesomes (fictional characters), The Ha-Ha Brothers, The Katzenjammer Kids, The Littles, The Shmenge Brothers ... and on and on and on ...
Seriously, man, just put it back. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:57, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

And I agree that most of those articles are about fictional characters. But not all of the articles you give as examples are formatted the same way. Some of them should probably be List-Class (which is another matter altogether), but some of them are clearly not about specific characters, and therefore should not be included in {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. Feel free to start yet another argument on the project's talk page if you wish, and I will abide by any consensus. Until then, I stand by the edits that I've made. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted. Feel free to "start another argument" on the talk page if you're so concerned with your ownership. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:42, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I never claimed ownership of that article, I simply think that your criteria for including it in {{WikiProject Fictional characters}} is wrong. But since you finally started a discussion about it on the talk page of the article, I will re-present my case there. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

"Finally"---nice spin. Nothing prevented you from starting a discussion yourself. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Jesus fucking Christ---you haven't "presented your case"---you've WP:3RRed! After the discussion aws started! You'll be reported when I get in the morning. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:20, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I've only reverted you twice, and you've reverted me twice, so in this case we are equally at fault for edit warring. And yes, I could have started a discussion after the first reversion, but I thought that I had explained myself sufficiently in the edit summary. You were the one who brought it here to my talk page for discussion, and when you didn't get the answer that you wanted, you reverted the article again to your POV. Only then did you start a discussion on the talk page of the article. I'm sorry that you are taking this personally, but please try to remain civil. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, 1, 2, 3, the last of which was done after the discussion was opened. As for CIVIL, swearing in and of itself does not count as incivility. False accusations, however, do. Curly Turkey (gobble) 12:46, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL states that editors should "treat each other with consideration and respect" and "avoid directing offensive language at other users". You do not get to decide what I find offensive. But I have no desire to continue arguing with you about this on my talk page, when it's clear that you are trying to make this into something personal, rather than focusing on a simple content dispute. Good luck if you decide to make false accusations of your own. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:06, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Publicly accusing others of instigating disputes and POV-pushing that one is oneself actively engaged in is the very definition of "making this into something personal"---that is, being inCIVIL. What offends you and what is inCIVIL are two entirely different things. Your words and actions were inCIVIL, mine merely dirty. Curly Turkey (gobble) 13:21, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

If I might interject, your continuous use of "horseshit" to deride others' ideas is DECIDEDLY uncivil. It detracts from your arguments and makes others less likely to want to work with you to achieve consensus. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

You may not want to thank me now that I've put the banner back, but I appreciate it nonetheless. :-) --GentlemanGhost (converse) 20:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I thanked you for the comment about assuming good faith, and then you turn around and accuse me of ownership [5]. That's pretty hypocritical, and it's also arrogant for you to put the banner back, before a consensus has been reach in an ongoing discussion. But whatever. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:54, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

So you like me when I agree with you, but not when I don't? Well, for what it's worth, I'm sorry to have angered you. I didn't actually look to see who had been the editor who removed the banner, so I wasn't looking to blame you personally. But by definition, I consider removing another WikiProject's banner from a talk page to to be an act of ownership. I'm honestly surprised that you don't see it that way. If the roles were reversed, and Curly Turkey had removed the WikiProject Comics banner, would you not feel as if they were asserting ownership over the article? As for putting the banner back, I was being bold, just like you were in removing it. I have quoted Wikipedia's guidelines on competing project banners to the article's talk page. I'm not going to get into an edit war over it and I trust that you won't either. I'm sure we can work it out. So, again, sorry to have offended you, and additionally, I'd like to thank you for your contributions. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:15, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that, and I apologize too. It appeared that you were advocating good faith in reference to my edits on one page, and then accusing me of bad faith on another! I still don't see how adding or removing a WikiProject banner has anything to do with ownership, but I have no intention of getting into another edit war over this issue. I hope that a consensus can be reached soon on the true scope of {{WikiProject Fictional characters}}. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:27, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Believe it or not, I've been accused of ownership for adding the Comicsproj banner to a manga article before. In reality, it seemed to me to be the other way around. I think the trouble comes when people assume that because a WikiProject has tagged a page therefore they have more say about what happens there, which of course is not how Wikipedia works. --GentlemanGhost (converse) 21:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Wil Wheaton photo discussion

Hi. Can you offer your opinion in the consensus subthread of this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Removal of {{1980s-romance-film-stub}}

Why are you removing template {{1980s-romance-film-stub}} from several articles? Yes, I see that there is also a {{romantic-drama-film-stub}} on these articles. But these are two distinctly separate tags. {{1980s-romance-film-stub}} indicates that it is a romance film first released sometime between 1980-1989. There is no distinction here as to whether it is a drama or comedy. {{romantic-drama-film-stub}} indicates that the film is a romantic drama, without giving a hint as to when it was released. There is no current template for {{1980s-romantic-drama-film-stub}} or I would have switched to that one. Dawynn (talk) 12:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, with all due respect, your reasoning is flawed. Yes, sometimes stub categories are broken down by decade because of size. But as you state, those articles already have {{romantic-drama-film-stub}}. Adding another stub tag, just to indicate what decade it was released, when there is already a stub tag for genre that is more specific, is redundant and unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Jack Dalton (MacGyver).jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Jack Dalton (MacGyver).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 20:31, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Soviet vs Russian

• You should check the category's content before making edits. All films in the core Russian science fiction films category are made after the dissolution of Soviet Union, and should not be placed in "Soviet" category. At the same time, films in |Soviet science fiction films category]] are Russian by language and by creators, and are a part of history of Russian cinema. Soviet Russian SF films fit into Russian category, but modern Russian SF films don't fit into Soviet category. This makes Russian category the parent. Beaumain (talk) 09:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I will concede that all the films in Category:Russian science fiction films may not belong in the Soviet category, but you are wrong in assuming that all the films in Category:Soviet science fiction films are Russian. Regardless, Russia was just one of the many countries that made up the Soviet Union, so just as Russian and Ukrainian film stubs are sub-categories of Category:Soviet film stubs, the hierarchy would make the Soviet category the parent. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

• The category you are linking at is wrongly categorized as well and should be changed. Modern Russian and Ukrainian films do not belong to the Soviet category. Soviet Union was just a period in history, it does not stick to its former parts for eternity.

  You may notice that Category:Soviet films contains a number of categories like Soviet-era Moldovan films‎ and Soviet-era films from Georgia. It would be fair to create a Soviet Russian films category, which would become a sub-category of both.Beaumain (talk) 13:35, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to create a Category:Soviet-era Russian films if you wish, but it remains that Soviet film categories in general contain films from more that one country, which by default makes it the broader category. However, you may be correct about Category:Soviet film stubs, so thanks for making sure that was corrected. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Classification on Frozen (2013 film)

Thanks for your re-classification, which has given us approval for our effort. However, I notice that you forgot to fill in criterion b6 (here). Now it is in both B and C class. Please fix the checklist. Thanks!Forbidden User (talk) 14:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done Fortdj33 (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Project assessment

You asses WP projects with AWB? OccultZone (Talk) 10:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Coronation Street characters

Hi, you reverted my edits on Rita Sullivan, Fiz Brown, Gail Platt and Carla Connor. They were the original pages to begin with as that is what the characters are most commonly known as. On List of Coronation Street characters, since the characters have been married someone keeps changing the names on the list, and now have changed the name of the pages so that they match the list. This is wrong which is why I keep reverting them. Basically the original pages need to stay and the new ones - Rita Tanner (Rita Sullivan), Carla Barlow, Gail McIntyre (Gail Platt) and Fiona 'Fiz' Stape need to be deleted. Never has a character article name included their new name and their original name. It has only the name their joined the show with, or if that article is already taken then "Rita Sullivan (Coronation Street)" for example. The user also needs to banned from editing as he continues with disruptive editing and a number of different editors have warned him against this. ThisIsDanny (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

@Drmies: I tried to explain my edits at the WP:ANI page, and I marked the articles in question, so that the histories could be merged. Fortdj33 (talk) 21:31, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this being Saturday afternoon, we'll have to get Kelapstick to do it. Or Randykitty who, despite his advanced age, does not have admin seniority yet. Drmies (talk) 21:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
  • As a fan of Coronation Street, I am WP:INVOLVED (just kidding). I can have a look at what TRM did to see if it makes sense. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 22:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
    • I just took a look at all the moves that were in question at AN/I, and it looks like they have all been straightened out. There are two instances where the disambiguated name should be moved to the non-disambiguated name because the latter redirects to the former. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Captain America's real name

I notice you undid the edit to Captain America today to reinstate the Grant middle name. I re-edited the entry again with a citation to show why he doesn't have a middle name, which was swiftly undone by Spshu, as he didn't like the citation - he also undid the same edit made to the List of Avengers members. I've provided a different citation, but since I've checked the history of that page and discovered that Spshu apparently has a history of edit warring over the page. I'm at two edits on the pages now, and do not want to go to a third and so start an edit war. Please could you join the conversation? Judge the citations for yourself - I know the first citation I provided was to a forum, which I can understand is disallowed generally, but I used it because the post in question gives exact page and panel references and is written by a verified member of the Marvel handbook writing team, plus it now actually includes the relevant panel from the comic that states Captain America does not have a middle name of Grant. But even if that isn't acceptable, Spshu is claiming that the Marvel handbooks are not valid references, despite countless citations across Wikipedia to the contrary. 86.184.121.147 (talk) 22:05, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Film talk pages

RE: the importance scale - didn't realize y'all didn't use it, sorry.

Regarding biographies: I did try to weed those out with a prior sweep, and to catch anything that might not have gotten hit, but a few might have slipped through the cracks - I apologize for that.

What about redirects? I tried to avoid tagging those, if I could figure them out, because I know some people don't like 'em tagged. If you wish, I can go back and catch them as well. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 18:33, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ser Amantio di Nicolao: I only found a few biographies incorrectly tagged [6], [7], [8], but thanks for following up on that. Those edits led me to Category:Unassessed film articles, where I noticed the number of film articles that you've added. Clicking on the first one is how I noticed the importance thing, for example on Talk:08/15 (1954 film), you can see how the importance parameter doesn't show up, because it isn't used by that project. If you have time to clean those up, it would be appreciated. As for redirects, they have their purpose, but I agree they should not be tagged unless there is a chance of them being expanded. If you have already tagged some, I wouldn't bother going back and fixing them, but otherwise it's not necessary to add them to the project. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

OK. Removing the parameter shouldn't be too difficult - I'll try and get to it tonight, and hopefully it won't take long. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:07, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

That should take care of the lot - if I've missed any please let me know. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:12, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Blanking redirects

Hello. I've restored the redirects for the pages American Cinema Editors Awards 2006 and American Cinema Editors Awards 2013 because it looks like it was done in error. If this was done for a purpose, please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks. KJ ^{«Click Here»} 22:28, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaving Wikipedia

To my sorryness, I must leave Wikipedia myself in July, effective immediately. I will no longer be participating Comics, Star Wars, Film, Fictional characters and Animation WikiProjects myself, but my best that I will retire and do some blogging myself. No worries. JJ98 (Talk) 23:06, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Heaven Sent Gaming

I added it to that WikiProject due to the line, "even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons". You still may be correct, though I do believe my assessment was correct. Thank you for editing the article! DunDunDunt (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Move discussion for Disney Infinity: Marvel Super Heroes (2.0 Edition)

Please see Talk:Disney Infinity: Marvel Super Heroes (2.0 Edition)#Requested move 08 July 2014. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 14:18, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Rajinder Singh Bedi

Thanks for updating, I have removed the {{Advert}} for second time, I don't know why one user keeps adding it back. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 14:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4