This is an archive of past discussions with User:InfiniteNexus. 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.
Peggy Carter on Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe
Ok so that overview didn't work but shouldn't Peggy Carter be on the brief description before the subsections like all the other central characters since she is on there now? If so I just improvised. Jhenderson77706:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Jhenderson777: This isn't necessarily a requirement, but yes, she could be in there. However, I don't think she should be introduced in the Phase Four paragraph, especially not in the context of What If, which just seems overly specific. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:16, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
I feel like there should be a Franchises section. Clearly there are several franchises stemming from the Walt Disney Studios. ZX2006XZ (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello Infinite Nexus.I saw that you been editing for quite a while now and i needed your help. I actually wanted to create a page about a hip hop artist. Spiderman007786 (talk) 09:16, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
Hi InfiniteNexus. Sorry but I've had to undo you edit at Tenet (film). ProveIt appears to have had an issue with refnames that contained a ', as in O'Connell. This meant that a lot of references in the reflist no longer had unique names. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 13:06, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
The current logo, reminiscent to the very first logo from 1917 to 1967, was made after Paramount Global had taken its current name to avoid confusion between the studios. The logo can be seen at the very bottom of the studio's official site[1] and on the recent posters to Sonic the Hedgehog 2 (2022).[2][3] The logo will replace the 1967 logo on future Paramount Home Entertainment home releases, starting on June 7, 2022.[4][5][6][7][8]
Thank you for moving it back to Draft:Adrian Toomes (MCU), I was just about to open an RM because I don't have the permission to do so :) – SirDot (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
@SirDot: No prob. I'm not sure why you weren't able to move it back, I don't have page mover rights either. Regardless, FYI, in the future you can use WP:RM/T for uncontroversial technical requests. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
Hi InfiniteNexus. Thanks for all your contributions to pages about Google TV. I'm the product marketing manager for both Android TV and Google TV. Per wikipedia:conflict of interest, we don't make any direct changes, but I did want to request a small change to Google TV (OS) for accuracy. Our Wikipedia team suggested I reach out to a contributing user.
Text to be added or removed: Remove "discontinued" from first sentence. Google TV is a discontinued smart TV operating system from Google co-developed by Intel, Sony and Logitech.
Reason for the change: While no longer sold, some devices are still in use. The third paragraph of the article better describes the fate of the OS being succeeded by Android TV, and ending -future- software development. This third paragraph provides more accurate wording and sources.
@Krcuthbert: Hi. While it is true that some devices are still in use, it is my understanding that the original Google TV is no longer supported and there have not been further software updates since 2014. If a service is no longer maintained by their creator and it is not found in any new products, then that service has been discontinued. OSs with similar fates such as Palm OS and Windows Phone are also labeled as "discontinued" in the first sentence. As for your final comment, feel free to make COI edit requests if you have suggestions to improve those articles, I am aware that some need to be cleaned up, updated, and expanded. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: Thanks for your response. Concerning the wikipedia entries for Google TV (disambiguation), before I suggest specific edits, wanted to get your thoughts on feasibility/accuracy. The current setup with 3 pages referring to different form factors, while not incorrect, seems overcomplicated and could generate confusion - in part the fault of the product strategy. That said, we see Google TV and Android TV as two separate brand/product histories. What if there were just two pages: One covering Android TV and its history (referencing the Google TV interface and pointing back to the Google TV page). And one covering Google TV and its history (including the prior OS, and the new interface and mobile app - including the rebrand of Play Movies & TV)? Krcuthbert (talk) 23:10, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. I personally don't see how a merge will make things less complicated, I think it'll just add to the confusion when readers try to figure out what exactly Google TV is. The resulting article will likely be WP:TOOLONG and too complex, and there's the question of how to describe Google TV in the opening sentence. I will also point out that Apple TV, the Apple TV app, and Apple TV+ have separate articles as well, so there is a precedent. I'll ping @The Grid here in case they have something to add. InfiniteNexus (talk) 05:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
Please note that not all edits to the list have to be sourced. there are multiple easter eggs that have no given source. do not revert an edit simply because no source was given unless you find evidence that the edit was false. Idontknowwhattouseasmyusername300 (talk) 18:10, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for the excellent Takeover of Twitter by Elon Musk. I looked around for drafts related to the takeover but didn't check that word order. I still think it is important to have an article for Elon Musk and Twitter to detail his long history with the platform before the sale. It is a bit of a mess, but I'll be working on it further today. Any help would be welcome! Thriley (talk) 22:07, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
Hello, InfiniteNexus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Google Tensor, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, InfiniteNexus. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.
Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving a redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.
If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! ~Swarm~{sting}08:54, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I do not know how to get consensus on a change. Since you reverted the page and claim that consensus should be reached, could you add such an option on the talk page? I do not want to have a back and forth revert affair on the template with you, so I kindly ask you to add such a poll to the talk page of the article. Thanks. NunyaBeeness (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@NunyaBeeness: You can get WP:CONSENSUS on your changes by starting a discussion on the template's talk page, asking editors whether they support or oppose such changes. I personally take issue with the overhaul because some of the links seemed to have been removed, some of the sections got way too big, and there are several formatting errors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus I will do the WP:CONSENSUS later as time allows it. I hear you on the issues you have and the changes I'm proposing is not the do all, end all. It's more in line with what we see with other major franchise templates (i.e. Spider-Man, Batman). X-Men in film template should have the more detailed links for the movies. X-Men in television template should have the more detailed links for TV. Those were the links that were removed. X-Men in other media should have a high level view of every Media the X-Men IP has been made, maybe still breaking it down some (i.e. Animated vs Live Action). Not sure what formatting errors you saw and have an issue with but that's semantics and easily fixable. The content should be the focus. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
And there was also no consensus to split {{X-Men media}} to {{X-Men in film}} and {{X-Men in TV}}. This feels like it should have been discussed first. I'm holding off from redirecting those two navboxes only because I see you've already added them to many articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
That's par for the course with every major franchise. It's not really splitting as much as it is providing more in depth data and high level view of data accordingly. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that it's a split. A split implies that one entity (i.e. X-Men in Media) ceases to exist and its content is split between the other two templates. That's simply not the case. For one there's plenty of other media that wouldn't fit the other two templates and would be better served in the "Other Media" template. Secondly the assets for movies and tv would still be in the "Other Media" template albeit not as detailed. If you work with data analytics that's the best way to display large sets of data. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
The original entity does not have to cease to exist in a split. A split just means some of the content is extracted from one place and moved over to another. In this case, this is also a fork because many of the links overlap across multiple templates. Again, please start a discussion on the original template's talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
I would like to know what makes you think you are a King? I don't owe you an explanation. You reverted my edits with no explanation. If people vote AGAINST it. I have no problem with getting rid of all of it. But wait for the vote before taking action.
I am extremely calm. You are the one who seemed upset, but I digress. And I'll be honest, dude, as someone who seems to be on wikipedia for as long as you seem to have been, your resistance to inarguably better data visualization is flabbergasting. You either hate change even if it's for the better, or are extremely stubborn. Maybe both. By the way I'm extremely calm and civil. NunyaBeeness (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Btw, I didn't undo all your reverts. I left the one you want to question and leave it as is, i.e. X-Men in Other Media, intact. Even though I vehemently disagree with you and that one has a Dr. Strange 2 reference simply because of a 2 minute cameo which makes no sense. NunyaBeeness (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
It shouldn't even be iffy. X-Men have made appearances in animated media from almost every other Marvel super hero show. For consistency purposes if Dr. Strange 2 is there, then so should all cartoon appearances. There's no plausible reason for that to be on the template as is. Of course you could mitigate that by having a whole other section (i.e. cameos and other appearances) where you could list all of that. And again that would be easier to maintain and visualize if you divvy up the data being displayed like I am suggesting. NunyaBeeness (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I won't remove or do any other edits unless it's a complete overhaul which you are against. Not worth my effort to do so for a complete messy data display box. Information there is already messy as is and unless I can make significant changes I won't bother. I don't think there's too many other editors though as the last edit besides yours or mine on the talk page of template: X-Men in other media was in 2020. NunyaBeeness (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
And before that it was in 2016. I don't think too many people will bother and I think you and I should come to a consensus. NunyaBeeness (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
Ten Rings (Ta-Lo)
If the main article is Mandarin's rings, it makes no sense to have a part about Ta-Lo's rings, as they are not associated with the Mandarin, although inspired by the iron rings in the movie. Hyju (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps it is better that Ta-Lo's rings are in the entry for Ta-Lo, citing Ta-Lo's weapons, which have not yet been explained, but which served as inspiration for the Five Weapons Society.Hyju (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The rings were never called the "Ten Rings" in the comics until Shang-Chi came out, so the article title is correct. It is fairly common for characters and objects in the comics to have their names changed from time to time. I see no problem with this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
To phrase it more clearly, the Ten Rings (MCU) is an adaptation of the Mandarin's rings (comics). The new Ten Rings (comics) is an adaptation of the Ten Rings (MCU). Therefore, the new Ten Rings (comics) is also an adaptation of the Mandarin's rings (comics). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
After reading more about this, I think I'm more likely to agree with InfiniteNexus. It's a complicated situation, wherin the Mandarin's rings inspired the MCU Ten Rings, which ended up getting adapted into the comics with a slightly different backstory but still distinctive from the ten rings of the Mandarin. Plus, there's also the Ten Rings martial arts techniques from Master of Kung Fu: Battleworld that were inspired by the Mandarin's rings. I think that whole concept of reinterpreting the Marlukian rings as martial arts moves might have had a role in how they were portrayed in the MCU. Lipshiz (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
We can note the alternate spelling in the article, but the article title is still correct as Ta-Lo was the original spelling in the comics until Shang-Chi came out. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Yang must have had access to the film's information, in issue 4, released on September 8, his mother appears is called Jiang Li (in the final version, she became Ying Li), just as it had been announced, as the film was released on the 2nd and 3rd (depends on the country) and the story should have been ready a few months ago, he worked with what he had, in the next issue she mentions that she came from another dimension, but only in issue 7, the dimension is named Ta Lo, I also noticed that the Ten Rings seem to have been an afterthought, in issue 4 of the miniseries, Brother Saber has a vision of the possessed Shang-Chi and with his father's clothes, this vision reappears in issue 10 of the series, but already in issue 12, which closes the series, we see him possessed and with his father's clothes, but now with the rings.Hyju (talk)
I added some things to the entry, I saw that in Chinese (Taiwan and Hong Kong), Ta Lo was called as Daluo, which was already one of the names of the place (Daluo Tian), I added the ideograms of the name.Hyju (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
Archiving
Per WP:TALKCOND, archiving can also be done when there are multiple resolved or stale conversations, which there are for Love and Thunder. Plus with the movie releasing in a little over a month, the talk page is gonna start getting more active. -- Zoo (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
It's really not necessary at the moment. There is WP:NORUSH to set up auto-archiving. Like you said, after the movie comes out the talk page will likely blow up, so that will be the appropriate time to start archiving old discussions. But why do so now, when it is still early? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
The MoM archive was set up way back in December with not much more at the time than Love and Thunder has now. Most of the time I've noticed archives are set up a month or a little sooner before the movie releases to prep for the influx of new topics leading up to and after the release. -- Zoo (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC
Jurassic World Dominion
I see that you have been repeatedly reverting at Jurassic World Dominion, and have indicated that you regard the editing you have been reverting as vandalism. It seems to me that the editor in question may be acting in the good faith belief that their change is an improvement, whether you and I agree or not. Bear in mind that the exemption from the edit-warring policy for reverting vandalism applies only for vandalism which is obvious and unambiguous. JBW (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@JBW: Thanks for the note. The IP ignored my explanation and repeatedly reinstated their edit without an explanation (with canned and misleading edit summaries), which is why I began to regard their edits as bad-faith vandalism. But I'll bear this in mind the next time I come across a similar situation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, I confess I hadn't thought much about the edit summaries, but now you've drawn them to my attention I agree, they do suggest editing done in bad-faith. JBW (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Preferences
Hi, InfiniteNexus, How do you do?
I wish to ask how do I access preferences page in my mobile.
On 12 June 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Google Wallet, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the recently-announced Google Wallet app revives the brand name previously used by a similar service of the same name from 2011 to 2018? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Google Wallet. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Google Wallet), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi, can I ask why you restored this? The comment hadnt been responded to so simply removing it was the best way of enforcing WP:BMB and WP:BRV. Is there a reason you think the comment should be retained? nableezy - 17:13, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@Nableezy: That was a valid comment/vote in a RM discussion. If sockpuppet votes had to be removed from XfD and RM discussions, I would think {{Csp}} would have been deleted by now. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
No, it is not a valid comment/vote, it is a comment by a user banned from commenting. I am going to remove it again, you cannot take responsibility for a banned user's talk page comment as opposed to their mainspace contribution. That template is useful for discussions where the socks comments have already been responded to, making it impractical to delete, in which strike throughs would be appropriate. Here there is no such issue. I get that is a vote in support of your position, but really, its unanimous anyway, and b, do you actually think maintaining Icewhiz's commentary adds to your position's validity? nableezy - 17:23, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
It's almost done. I just need to fill in the In other media section (Venom 2, Morbius), plus I have a few more sources saved that I want to put in before moving it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I know character articles often use bullet points for these, but I think paragraph format works fine here to be consistent with the rest of the article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
You think this image is good enough for the Multiverse page's infobox? Also fixed MoM's year on your DYK nomination (was listed as 2021), my Green Goblin one has been approved and I guess is sitting on queue until appearing on the Main Page on July 22 (in honor of Willem Dafoe's birthday). — SirDot (talk) 23:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd usually be wary of using the same image as the fan wiki (because it gives the impression that we're lazy copycats), but in this case I genuinely can't think of an alternate shot we could use that shows the multiverse in full. So yes, I think that's good enough. Thanks for spotting that error on the DYK nom, I wish we had a date for What If...? season 2 (the next multiversal property), but alas we don't. I did see the Goblin nom be approved, good job on getting that page to GA status! InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, that one Loki shot is really the only full-Multiverse shot. Thanks! I'm planning to do DYKs for Peter-One, Peter-Two, and Peter-Three once I get those to GAs, hopefully by the end of the summer. — SirDot (talk) 03:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Looks like the DYK set that features my Goblin nom isn't going to be updated to the Main Page until 12:13 UTC. Weird. — SirDot (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the note. If you want any chance of that article being saved, I would suggest finding reliable sources discussing real-world aspects ASAP. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Dear InfiniteNexus, if you revert someone's edits, please provide a reason. My edit wasn't any experiment, I just spotted a mistake and wanted someone to fix it because the page is blocked. If you unblock the page, I'd be able to edit and fix it by myself. In the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Translate#Supported_languages there is listed Sepedi, but in the History section, 49th stage (launched May 2022), Nothern Sotho is listed as added language, but it's the same language. 83.30.149.11 (talk) 20:19, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I was confused by the wording of your post and mistook it for vandalism (as you can see from the page history, that page is a frequent target for vandals). I will reply over there, thanks for the note. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:44, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Possible negotiations for a new live-action Wolverine
I know you disagreed with me about the Henry Cavill thing and Captain Britain but what about this? According to DeadlineTaron Edgerton has been in talks with Marvel Studios executives about taking on the role of Wolverine. Because this is admitting negotiations by the actor on a reliable source should this be noted in Wolverine in other media? Article is here. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 14:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@0Detail-Attention215: To be honest I'm not sure. This definitely carries more weight than Cavill's comments, but I personally have not seen cases like this be mentioned on comic character articles. There's also no indication that Marvel Studios is planning to recast Wolverine, or that a new Wolverine film is in development. Possibly, possibly, it could be included at Logan (film character)#Future, but I would suggest posting on that talk page first. InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Just because they haven’t openly talked about doesn’t mean they aren’t. Look I understand your policies and I’m trying as hard as I can to follow and respect them without causing problems. But it clashes frequently with my more open minded approach to things. I just wanted to hear what you think about the article. I wasn’t saying anything about a new Wolverine or movie at the time I just was saying if this was something that valid enough to maybe include somewhere. Like how John Krasinski stated he was willing to do Mr. Fantastic. That’s all. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 15:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for adding the cited portion of this material to the ClanDestine article. However, I removed the portion of it that was uncited. I tried adding details and added another cite for the other material, but please do not add uncited material to articles. You're a veteran editor now, and so I assume you know about the various policies requiring citations for material. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 19:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nightscream: Actually, citations are not required for plot descriptions per WP:PLOTCITE. This is why it is acceptable for the Fictional history section of that article to have so few citations. In regards to the part about the Destines vs. the ClanDestine, I am not familiar with the group's comic background and was merely paraphrasing the text found at Destined (Ms. Marvel)#Writing. Since you appear to be more knowledgeable in this area than me, please let me know if the aforementioned page also contains errors. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
The fictional history section of which article? The ClanDestine article? It does not have "few" citations, it's filled with them. I know because I'm the one who added them. Or did you mean another article?
You don't have to add a citation for a synopsis in the article on the work in question. But you added mention of plot material from one article in a different article. For that, you do need a cite, whether it's a cite of the episode in question (a primary source), or a secondary source (which is preferred).
This is because the point of WP:V is so that readers know where the information in question came from. When a reader reads plot info in an article on a film, book, etc., it is presumed to come from that work. But a reader coming across the passage in question that you added would not know what episode that info came from. In addition, that section you linked me to was not a synopsis, but analytical or evaluative commentary on the adaptation from a critic, which is a secondary source, and that source is cited for that paragraph.
And you did not merely "paraphrase" that info. The "Noor" dimension and the fact that the Clandestines are trying to get home is not mentioned anywhere at that cited source. Nightscream (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nightscream: I disagree with your reading of WP:PLOTCITE. Nowhere there does it state that plot descriptions need to be sourced for articles not about the work itself, and if what you're saying is true many articles that I know of need to be tagged with {{More citations needed}}, including this GA and this GA (to name a couple). I will also note that the text I added specifically references the Ms. Marvel series, so technically readers do know where the information came from.
I think you may be misunderstanding me about the paraphrasing bit. You wrote here that That is not the name of the group in the comics, nor does the cited source say so. The name of the comics group is simply the Destine family. "ClanDestine" is just a play on words used as the name of the series. So, I was trying to explain above that the text I added (The 2022 Disney+ series Ms. Marvel feature a group known as the Clandestines, which shares the name of the ClanDestine from the comics.) was paraphrased from Destined (Ms. Marvel)#Writing (The episodes introduces the antagonists of the series, the Clandestines, Djinns trying return to their home Noor dimension after being exiled on Earth. This group shares the name of an "obscure family of enhanced people" from the comics, the ClanDestine.). If this information is inaccurate, please correct the error on the aforementioned episode article as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:45, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus: I wasn't referencing PLOTCITE specifically. I was talking about the rationale behind WP:V, WP:CS, et al on a general level. The reason we add citations is so that readers know where info comes from. A reader would have no way of knowing where the info you added came from. They would have no way of knowing if it came from the show itself (and if so, which episode), or a secondary source.
This is not the case for a synopsis or plot summary in the article on that work, because, as I stated above, a reader can presume that it comes from the work itself. Per WP:TVPLOT, WP:FILMPLOT, WP:BOOKPLOT, a narrative work can serve as its own primary source for the purpose of its content and credits. But that info was not in the plot summary of the Ms. Marvel article, but a subsection on the writing on the series --- and WP:PLOTCITE does indeed specify the plot summary. In any event, we need to keep in mind the essential reason or rationale for a given policy or guideline.
Moreover, you added analytical/evaluative material that assesses the manner in which the given work adapted elements from the source material, which per WP:SYNTH, does indeed require a secondary source.
Lastly, the citation for that material in the Ms. Marvel article does not make any mention of the Noor dimension or the Clandestines imperative to return home. Since that does not appear in the plot summary of an episode, it needs a cite, even if it's just an episode cite. Since that series is airing, there must be lots of review articles on its, so why not just find one or two and accompany them with that material you wish to add/retain to articles? Hell, here are some. (The CBR one mentions the Noor dimension, but not their desire to return home):
I apologize for misunderstanding your comment about paraphrasing. But yes, I did remove the uncited info from the Ms. Marvel article. Nightscream (talk) 12:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) This material on the Ms. Marvel article The episodes introduces the antagonists of the series, the Clandestines, Djinns trying return to their home Noor dimension after being exiled on Earth. was not unsupported by the existing Collider source. In that source, it stated: The Djinns have been wandering Earth for centuries, trying to find a way back home. And the key for the Djinns' “Nooro”/Light dimension... That supported that material in my views. Regardless, I've added to the article and the ClanDestine article, this source from Screen Rant which says: Ms. Marvel season 1, episode 3, "Destined" introduces the ClanDestine, a group of powerful ancient Djinn. In the series, the Clandestine have been stuck on Earth for over a hundred years, with their only desire being to get back to their home dimension. As it turns out, Kamala's bangle is the key to the Noor Dimension, causing the Clandestines to seek her help. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Nightscream: I stand by my statement that a source is not necessary for the sentence In the series, they are depicted as Djinn exiled from the Noor dimension who are connected to Kamala Khan. on the ClanDestine article, per WP:PLOTCITE and the GA examples I linked above. That being said, of course it is perfectly fine to cite a source nonetheless, and I thank Favre for doing so on both the ClanDestine and Ms. Marvel article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:44, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
You're wrong. It is indeed necessary because the reader needs to know where that information comes from (the same reason most other pieces of information needs a cite), and because the statement constitutes a interpretative claim about how material in one medium or work was adapted into another, which is not explicitly found in the cited source. You go on and on about PLOTCITE, but you don't address any of the things I've said about WP:SYNTH, about WP:V, etc, and without falsifying any of the statements I've made, whereas I have directly responded to your points about PLOTCITE. Can you falsify or refute any of my arguments, yes or no? Nightscream (talk) 03:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Again, I am not referring to the sentence about them being adapted from the comics to TV, I am referring to the sentence that summarizes their role in the series (In the series, they are depicted as Djinn exiled from the Noor dimension who are connected to Kamala Khan.). That sentence describes the plot of the Ms. Marvel show, so it should be clear to readers that the source is the Ms. Marvel show. This is not analytical or evaluative in any way, so WP:SYNTH does not apply here. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hi InfiniteNexus. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at WP:PERM in case your user right is time limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:
Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Arbitrarily0(talk)13:41, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
@Polluks: It is unnecessary to note non-existent features unless they are highly unusual/noteworthy. This is not the case here, as phones without an SD card slot is fairly common (not to mention the fact that Pixels have never had one). InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:05, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
July 2022
Thank you for making a report at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, it appears that the editor you reported may not have engaged in vandalism, or the user was not sufficiently or appropriately warned. Please note there is a difference between vandalism and unhelpful or misguided edits made in good faith. If the user continues to vandalise after a recent final warning, please re-report it. Thank you. IanDBeacon (talk) 17:23, 15 July 2022 (UTC)
On 19 July 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article LaMDA, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an erroneous claim that the neural language modelLaMDA is sentient has generated conversations on the efficacy of the Turing test? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/LaMDA. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, LaMDA), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hi. We seem to be on the same page. The film never mentions Court Gentry or Avik San. My question is why are they in the end credits? Avik San is in the end credits while Court Gentry is in the other language end credits (in Netflix with 2:18 time left). DareshMohan (talk) 13:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
@DareshMohan: We don't usually do anything with non-English end credits. "Court Gentry" is not mentioned in the film nor in the English end credits (credits say "Six", but "Sierra Six" is explicitly stated in the film and supported by RS's). I don't know who this Avik San is, but if he's in the English end credits then it's OK to put that in the cast listing. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
But his character name is Lone Wolf. Clearly nobody knows who this Avik San is. The person who made the end credits made an error and that should not be reflected in wiki. DareshMohan (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Per WP:FILMCAST, All names should be referred to as credited, or by common name supported by a reliable source. Your initial comment seemed to indicate that "Avik San" is included in the end credits, and I found several sources which mention that name: [2], [3], [4], [5]. If you think this shouldn't be in the cast listing, I would advise discussing on the talk page with the active editors of that page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
Look I probably said this once you have rules and I understand that and I'm doing everything I can to try to follow the rules. But with the thing like Namor you didn't believe the promo art was valid but now you've seen the trailer and recent merchandise it turns out it was true all along. The thing with I hope you can understand and won't use this as an excuse ever but I'm just more open minded. And I've come to know and I don't always believe every article I see but I've come to know somethings can be more reliable and accurate than they seem. I'll always still try to run by things when I see them with you guys and not blindly try to put down everything in an article. But I'm more than willing to give them a little faith. I'm not trying to get you to accept my views or change yours I'm just hoping you understand. Is that acceptable? 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 18:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Pixel 6 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 Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 05:41, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The article Pixel 6 you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Pixel 6 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
The article Pixel 6 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Pixel 6 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 06:42, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
New Page Review queue August 2022
Hello InfiniteNexus,
Backlog status
After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators Buidhe and Zippybonzo, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to Dr vulpes who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.
Coordination
MB and Novem Linguae have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out. MPGuy2824 will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.
Open letter to the WMF
The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.
TIP - Reviewing by subject
Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.
New reviewers
The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.
If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing {{subst:NPR invite}} on their talk page.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Criteria for a fictional character to get their own Wikipedia Page
Hello InfiniteNexus, I hope you are doing well. I am interested to know what are the criterias needed for a fictional character to get their own Wiki page. Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Seaweed Brain1993: That depends on what kind of character you're talking about. For original characters, an article would be warranted if the character has received enough coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. That usually means a character isn't likely to receive an article unless they have main/recurring roles across multiple works of fiction, or in special cases if they have received significant attention and/or extensive analysis from reliable sources. If the character is an adaptation of another character, extensive coverage/info/analysis that isn't WP:ROTM would be needed in order to justify a WP:SPLIT of the source page, and for MCU characters specifically, see WP:MCUCHARACTERS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:11, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Wheely
Hello! On behalf of Wheely, I've submitted 4 edit requests to improve and update the company's Wikipedia article as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I've fully disclosed my conflict of interest at Talk:Wheely, where I've also identified specific issues with the current entry and proposed changes for editor review. Despite using Template:Request edit and seeking editor help at various WikiProjects, I've struggled to get feedback. You reviewed my requests for Waymo previously, so I was wondering if you might be willing to take a look at what I've proposed for Wheely. If you are not interested, I will continue to seek assistance at WikiProjects and other help pages. Thanks for your consideration, Inkian Jason (talk) 15:17, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Hello InfiniteNexus,
you reverted my edit which removed the Pixel 5a from the related section of the Pixel 6 for the reason "No reason to remove Pixel 5a either". The 5a is part of the Pixel 5 generation and is linked there as related device and I don't see a reason to link it in the Pixel 6 series. This brings the Pixel 6 page in line with the other pages since Pixel 3. I would like to remove it but don't want a back and forth so please explain your reasoning. RM12 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)
@RM12: I think it's reasonable to include the Pixel 5a, as they were released the same year (two months apart, actually). With that being said, you do make a good point regarding consistency, so I'll remove it. Your edit was reverted because you didn't provide a reason for removing it in the first place, not so much that I disagreed with it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Well I didn't think any reasoning would be necessary because the Pixel 5a belongs to the "5 series" when going by internal specifications and most notably by name. The Pixel 4a 5G and the Pixel 5 were released the same day and nevertheless I wouldn't consider them being the same generation either. RM12 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
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 "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. LizRead!Talk!01:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
Regarding this "unreliable source" tag, I am unaware of any discussion in which Thedirect.com has been determined to be unreliable (it is not listed as such at WP:RSP). As a source quoting what a producer of a fictional TV series said about the activities of characters on the show, I see no problem with it. BD2412T05:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
@BD2412: There is consensus, at least for MCU-related topics, that The Direct is not a reliable source. If you wish, I can dig up past discussions and edit summaries which demonstrate this. With that being said, I didn't notice that that was an interview, so the correct tag should be {{Better source needed}}. I'll change it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
What you should do in that case is add a line to WP:RSP linking to those discussions. In any case, I think the source is fine for the proposition being sourced. It is unlikely to be fabricated. BD2412T20:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
If my understanding is correct, new sources are only added to the WP:RSP list when there have been numerous discussions over at their noticeboard. This is not the case for The Direct, but again, there is consensus over here on MCU-related articles that it generally isn't reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Ok thanks. If the company confirms something but it is not reported by any reliable sources, is it acceptable?
Say, Marvel Studios revealed that Actor X is playing character Y in the movie Z. However, the announcement was not covered by reliable sources. Should we add it or ignore it? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Is there a policy or guideline? A quick search doesn't bring up anything relevant. And I couldn't find anything on wikiproject television or under MCU taskforce.
Given that there is a clear difference between the ways traditional television and streaming television are marketed, broadcast and consumed, I thought it would be more fitting to use the latter term.
Given that there is a clear difference between the ways tradition television and streaming television are marketed, broadcast and consumed, I thought it would be more fitting to use the letter term. If any discussion on this has already happened can you point me towards it?
@Squeezdakat: I don't think there's an actual guideline which says articles must have consistent formatting with one another, but this is just good practice in general. When there is an established formatting found across multiple articles, this also indicates WP:CONSENSUS, so if you believe something should be change please propose it on the talk page. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Hi man. Now, I haven't seen Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but season 6 does not involve time travel, despite what it says on the MCU multiverse page. That was seasons 5 & 7, which the majority occur in an alternate timelines (Destroyed Earth - 501 to 510, Chronicoms - 613 to 713). — SirDot (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I confess I've only seen a few episodes of that show, mostly in the early seasons (and that was a long time ago), but I looked at the time-travel source and it's actually referring to Season 7, so I'll move it to the correct section. Thanks for spotting the error. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
the problem with your last edit wasn't the change of primary topic as such. Before, it was completely clear how the works are related: "comic book", "-> film adaptation", "-> sequel". Now, it says "film", "comic book", "-> sequel". Both verbally and structurally, clarity is lost - surely you can find a way to avoid that?
That's not how disambiguation pages are structured. The primary topic, which in this case is the 2013 film, is linked at the top of the page per WP:DABSTYLE, followed by other topics of the same name. We give more weight to Wikipedia guidelines than what we think looks nicer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, I've seen quite a few Wikipedia disambiguation pages, and the current version of this one stands out as somewhat inept, if you'll forgive my saying so. Why would having the film as the primary topic and mentioning that the film adapts the comic be mutually exclusive?
I'm not sure what you mean. There are plenty of DAB pages structured in this way, i.e. with the primary topic singled out at the top. As for the "mutually exclusive" question, we can only include a link once, so it's either at the top if it's the primary topic, or as a bullet if it's not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I looked through a bunch of other disambiguation pages for comic book adaptations, but failed to find any other cases in which the adaptation was picked as primary. The closest I came across was for Wanted, which at least has the same ordering:
[...]
Wanted (2008 film), an American action film based on the comics series (see below)
[...]
Wanted (comics), a 2003–2005 comic book limited series by Mark Millar and J. G. Jones
[...]
Not great, but better than leaving it to the readers' inference, IMO. An alternative would be to mention the connection in the comic book line: "..., on which the film is based", that sort of thing?
You misunderstand, I didn't determine that the film is the primary topic arbitrarily. The 2013 film has no disambiguation, i.e. it's titled R.I.P.D. and not R.I.P.D. (film), which means previous consensus has established it as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on Wikipedia. WP:DABSTYLE states that disambiguation pages should have the primary topic page linked at the very top, which is what we're doing here. On the other hand, because "Wanted" has no primary topic, Wanted is a disambiguation page and does not have any article singled out at the top of the page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I already explained my reasoning in the edit summary, which is that it's an unnecessary disambiguation since no separate article called Voter impersonation exists. The article's lead doesn't make it clear that the article solely focuses on the U.S., so I had no way of discerning that without reading the article in its entirety. Secondly, I took a quick look at the article's talk page before making the WP:BOLD move, and found no evidence of past discussions/disputes/RMs, so I'm not sure why you find such a move controversial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello, InfiniteNexus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Google messaging apps, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
shouldn't we have sources that say it is a miniseries rather than assuming anything?[6] It is fairly recent change to the article, I am surprised you restored it. I wouldn't put it past Disney to classify the show in whatever category they thought might get them more chances of winning awards. -- 109.79.75.196 (talk) 22:39, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
We're being consistent with the other MCU Disney+ shows that have been released, all of which use "miniseries" with the exception of Loki and What If...?. To challenge this consensus, a larger discussion at WT:MCU would probably be needed. This issue was brought up once in the past, but nothing came out of that discussion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 03:53, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I was not familiar with the past discussions. It seemed like a recent change that hadn't been explained. I was ambivalent, and basically restoring what seemed to be the WP:STATUSQUO. I expected the production section to also say miniseries somewhere. I have no interest in challenging the consensus, it just doesn't look good when the lead section says things not reflected in the article body, so I would hope that editors would improve the article body to match but I dont plan to edit that article any further. -- 109.79.75.129 (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
This is the ONE exception I can find where the "The" actually DOES need to be capitalized. It's because it's a published work. See, for example: The Old Man and the Sea. WP:THE carves out a specific exception for the titles of published books. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)13:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Shibbolethink: Not quite. I'm not sure how this relates to The Old Man and the Sea or WP:THE. The former has the second "the" uncapitalized (the first "the" is the first word of the article title, so of course it's capitalizd), and the latter discusses whether to include "the" at the start of an article name. "The" appears in the middle of Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book). Additionally, see MOS:TITLECAPS. It has always been the case on Wikipedia that "the" is not capitalized in published works. There has never been any "exception". InfiniteNexus (talk) 14:50, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The former has the second "the" uncapitalized yes, because that is how it's written on the book itself: [7][8][9]It has always been the case on Wikipedia that "the" is not capitalized in published works This is not true. See: MOS:THECAPS, for example: The Lord of the Rings is how we do it, even mid-sentence. See also: The Hobbit, There and Back AgainWe don't capitalize "the" in the Odyssey, because "the" is not part of the title. The title is simply Odyssey. But we absolutely do for The Lord of the Rings and The Old Man and the Sea.You're right that it's not an "exception", the policy is explicitly that published works which by convention in our sources are capitalized "The", when it is part of that title of the work (at the beginning), is how we capitalize it everywhere on wikipedia, even mid-sentence use. I think the issue here is that it's a mid-work-title The, not just a mid-sentence one. In most english-language works, the convention is to not capitalize "the" in the middle of a book title. But I don't think it is explicitly said in our MOS that books etc would be treated this way. The Hague comes to mind. Books about The Hague probably keep the "The" mid-sentence. e.g. Treaty of The Hague. I get what you're saying about MOS:TITLECAPS. I think the discrepancy here is that it never covers a work where "The" is how it's used, mid-title, everywhere the work is described in our sources. Because every example given also has its title in title case. It gives explicit exemptions for books in other languages, or which have weird usage of normally non-capitalized words. But it never covers something like this.Now that I examine it, I don't think this is actually covered anywhere precisely in our MOS, given that so few other works would ever capitalize a mid-title "The" like this. It may be the case that an RM would be required. I'll move it back to the stable title until that happens. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)14:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Again, MOS:TITLECAPS. I implore you, please read MOS:TITLECAPS. It literally says right there that the word "the" is uncapitalized in the middle of a title of a published work. I don't understand why you're continuing to list examples of works that begin with "the", I am not contesting the capitalization of "the" at the start of a title (that doesn't make logical sense), I am not contesting whether to include "the" at the start of a title, and neither applies to Hymns of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (1985 book). No RM is needed because of MOS:TITLECAPS, and even if there was an RM there would be near-unanimous support per MOS:TITLECAPS. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I read the article you linked two comments ago, when I read the comment you made two comments ago. It definitely covers the many situations where definite articles are used in titles as part of usual title-case. But, as I said, it does not cover unusual situations like this. It explicitly does not cover situations like books written about The Hague, or books written about The Lord of the Rings which have the title in their titles. It only does so implicitly. I understand why you're frustrated, this is a weird situation and we are several layers of complexity down a rabbit hole of title case and capitalization convention. e.g. the confusion between MOS:TITLECAPS and MOS:THETITLE in dealing with The New York Times mid-sentence. For example: The New York Times#Podcasts describes: "Inside The Times" and "Inside The New York Times Book Review", or for a more specific example Not The New York Times. Are you suggesting all of those uses are wrong, and should be reversed?I want to make clear, I have no intention of starting an RM on this myself, I don't care. I truly, truly do not care, except to make sure I personally did the right thing when executing that RFC. At this point, I have done that, and I see there is a weird thing about this particular instance, and so I am going to now move on to do more important things with my life. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)15:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
MOS:TITLECAPS states (emphasis my own): In titles (including subtitles, if any) that are the English-language titles of works (books, poems, songs, etc.), every word except for definite and indefinite articles, short coordinating conjunctions, and short prepositions is capitalized. The only exception to this rule is publications and acronyms, per MOS:TMTHE. Institutions are not exempted, per MOS:THEINST and the RfQ you closed a while ago. So to answer your question, the NYT examples are correct, but the "the" in "The Hague" and "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints" should never be capitalized in the middle of a sentence. The Hague examples are thus titled incorrectly, but I have no interest in starting a discussion to move all of them. (I only got involved in this LDS Church debate after an editor contested a round-robin page move I made at WP:RM/T.) Secondly, MOS:THETITLE concerns work titles with "the" as its first word, not the middle, so that applies to Lord of the Rings but not the LDS Church. There is therefore no confusion, and I'm just going to keep going back to MOS:TITLECAPS since that's the only guideline that applies to this article. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
I am going to give you one piece of advice about wikipedia. Advice that everybody needs to hear at some point, including people with lots and lots of edits. It's that consensus is achieved by people who compromise and know when to have a discussion about something, and when to WP:DROPTHESTICK. My question was rhetorical. You didn't need to answer it. You can feel free to have the last word, I will not reply. Have a great day. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
In the future, I would recommend looking at an article's current title before you assume someone else hasn't done something they said they would do. — Shibbolethink(♔♕)16:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
My bad on that one, but regardless, what I hope you took away from this discussion is that from here on out, similar cases should also have the "the" uncapitalized when in the middle of a sentence. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:10, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, InfiniteNexus. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Avengers: Quantum Encounter, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Since you reverted my edit on android 18, I suggest that **you** tell me 5 years later, or whenever Google releases or starts development on Android 18, to redo my edit and add the not to the confused with. But if you fail upon that promise, you will be considered the singular biggest failure of an Wikipedian and will be shun forever in the history of Wikipedia. But if I fail to I will be considered the singular biggest failure of an Wikipedian, and will be shun forever in the history of Wikipedia. If we both fail we will share the title, and if neither one of us fails we will both be considered the totally greatest editors on Wikipedia. I swear I will make it-- Randomdudewithinternet (talk) 07:39, 10 December 2022 (UTC)
When you are correcting for a bad page move, please, please, please, leave a redirect when you move back the page. You can see here at User:AnomieBOT III/Broken redirects, that not leaving a redirect when you corrected the page move for What If...? (TV series) left 22 broken redirects that would otherwise be deleted by AnomieBOT III if some editor doesn't take the trouble to fix them manually. So, I created a new redirect from the bad page title to the correct page title and hopefully the Wikipedia bots will correct these double redirects.
So, before you move a page back after a bad page move, please check "What links here" and if there are redirects to the article, then leave a redirect with the page move OR you can correct all of the broken redirects so they point to the correct page. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!08:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@Liz: Thank you for letting me know. I did check for any incoming links to the bad title, but neglected to check for redirects because I didn't think Xqbot would get to them that quickly (and I had yet to reach said redirects on my watchlist). Evidently I was wrong, and for that I do apologize. I've now (semi-)manually fixed the broken redirects, so you may delete What If...? (animated TV series)What If...? (animated TV series) unless there is another reason why you believe it should be kept. Thanks again. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
Splitting DCEU characters page in similar fashion to MCU characters page
As the list of films and works in the DC Extended Universe grows, so will the list of characters, which I think even now has reached a length that is getting difficult to navigate. I think that will be the case regardless of whether or not James Gunn reboots the entire DCEU/DCU as some have theorized. In that case I think that it might be a good idea to split the article into several pages in the same or a similar manner to Characters of the Marvel Cinematic Universe being split into a central "directory" page, a couple of pages ordered in alphabetical order, and by TV series. Thoughts? - - WuTang94 (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@WuTang94: I certainly would not be opposed to a split per WP:SIZERULE, the readable prose size of 135 kB more than justifies a split and/or trim. But before you do anything, I would advise consulting additional editors (preferably established users) who edit "in-universe" DCEU articles, if possible; it strikes me as a little odd that you chose to post this here rather than on Talk:Characters of the DC Extended Universe, which I am also watching. I also notice that the DCEU characters page uses a Central/Supporting/Minor system similar to the one used by the MCU characters page before it was decided to split the page; from those discussions it was concluded that assigning characters to labels such as Central/Supporting/Minor is arbitrary and subjective, and "Antagonists" goes against WP:ANTAGONIST. All the more reason to restructure the page alphabetically, but again, that's just my opinion. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:02, 11 December 2022 (UTC)
@InfiniteNexus I reached out as I deeply value and respect your opinion and expertise, seeing that you've had a big hand in organizing and revamping not only the MCU pages, but also DCEU ones. I appreciate you getting back to me as well. With that being said, I do agree with a lot of what you said and will open up a discussion on the DCEU Characters talk page, if none currently exists, so that more editors can also voice their thoughts and opinions. WuTang94 (talk) 02:36, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. While I truly appreciate you reaching out specifically to me, for major article overhauls like this it's better to gather as many opinions as possible so we achieve a more accurate consensus that reflects the entire community of editors who edit in that area. I'll reply over there shortly. InfiniteNexus (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
@NakhlaMan: I wasn't ignoring you. As you can see from my contributions history, I have been away (offline) for the last 36 hours. I also have a {{Busy}} notice at the top of this page that says This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. It seems very rude of you to write I NEED TO KNOW DONT IGNORE! in all caps. I will respond over there shortly, thank you for your patience. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays!
—El Millo (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
Trailblazer101 (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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.
– The Grid (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! 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:Xmas5}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thanks for the WikiLove and returning it back as there's been great times editing and collaborating with you this past year, hope all is well and look forward to a positive 2023! – The Grid (talk) 17:22, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Avatar 3 and 4
I didn't ignore the hidden note, I was just stating that Avatar 3 and Avatar 4 will not be the final titles of the movies, just that they are placeholders used by the film's cast and crew. Advofspec (talk) 21:56, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
The purpose of hidden notes is to ask editors not to change something without good reason, for there is consensus for the current wording. As stated in the hidden notes on Avatar 3, Avatar 4 and Avatar 5, these are the titles that the studio is using officially to refer to these films at this time, so we should follow suit rather than falsely claim it is untitled (which means the studio has not given it a title). It does not matter that they are placeholder titles, film titles are subject to change at any time, so technically all titles are not "final" until the films are released and we are 100% certain there will be no further title changes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
.jpg)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
