User talk:Scarce/Archive 5
- August 2009: Scarce
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Scarce. 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 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
.jpeg){kind=small} | Beware! This user's talk page is patrolled by talk page stalkers. |
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
| Beware! This user is a known talk page stalker. |
'If you are seeking to leave me a message, You're in the wrong place! Click here to leave me a New Message'
DO NOT EDIT THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE!
- DO NOT LEAVE NEW MESSAGES HERE!
August 2009's Discussions
WP:FILMS July 2009 Newsletter
--Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 00:37, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Displaying template links.
Hi Scarce. Following this I just thought I'd point out that both of the following:
<nowiki>{{</nowiki>[[Template:trivia|trivia]]<nowiki>}}</nowiki>
{{tl|nowiki}}
produce this:
{{nowiki}},
which may be useful to know. Now I just have to pray no-one comes to tell me a more efficient way of producing the second line of this post than the gargantuan tangle of tags I use above, lest we end up in some sort of infinite regress... Olaf Davis (talk) 12:57, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Nightmare
As far as this goes, that's how the language is written. There are a lot of languages that are not written from left to right (like English). Some are written right to left, and even up to down. Regarding other language links that actually go to the original film. If they truly only cover the first film, then they need to be removed. If they go to a franchise page that is using the first film's poster as their "lead" photo, then that's ok. Just make sure it's only discussing the first film, and then remove it. They should already be linked on the film's page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
RE:Archiving
I presume this is in reference to Shakira? I was just passing through and saw the rather lamentable state of the talkpage, so I though I would be useful and archive it. In terms of Miszabot I have thought about it and I don't want to impose it on articles that I don't regularly edit. Even then I generally prefer manually archiving as then I can see what is being archived, whether I have missed something or whether I need to follow something up. Bots can't do that. It is personal opinion though and I don't feel strongly enough to remove it from articles once it has been introduced. Regards, Woody (talk) 17:57, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Watchmen GA
Hi there! This is just to let you know that the good article review for the Watchmen film has finally begun, in case you were not already aware. :) BOZ (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
RE: Immediate commons deletion
No problem. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Request for Rollback
Hi. I've added the rollback flag to your account. Any questions please ask me. Full information is at WP:ROLLBACK Pedro : Chat 08:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thank you!
• S • C • A • R • C • E • 19:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
File:External link.PNG listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:External link.PNG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. GraYoshi2x►talk 20:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Re: Robert Pattinson
Ah yes, now I see the difference. I thought you had simply used a different word so as not to sound repetitive. Is this better? Andrea (talk) 03:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- True enough. However, saying something along the lines of "currently unpublished" implies that it will be published but just hasn't come out yet, which isn't correct either. Andrea (talk) 04:13, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, I'm the one who changed it from "the film adaptation" to "a film adaptation". ;) I re-linked Pattinson because although it is linked once prior in the lead, it is done so when no mention is even made of who he is. I thought that when listing the main stars, which is probably one of the most important lines in the lead that most people will read, all of the actors should be linked. I wouldn't object to you removing it, though. Maybe that line should be moved up, actually, to right after the first sentence. Andrea (talk) 16:06, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
- No worries! Also, I made some changes to the cast article, partly to deal with that Pattinson linking issue. Andrea (talk) 03:25, 31 August 2009 (UTC)