User talk:Musdan77/Archive 3

File:NCIS television prop (19 September 2008) 15.jpg Hello! This message is to inform you that Wikipedia:WikiProject NCIS needs your input! Please, join this discussion on this talk page!

You may add yourself to our member list below by clicking here!

Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 19:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For join us! :) Miss Bono ^[zootalk] 13:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Musdan77! There's a discussion regarding Owl City on the article's talk page. I was wondering if you could possibly comment on it? Thanks! Chihciboy (talk) 03:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Musdan77; I appreciate your feedback upon recent edits upon the America's Got Talent (Season 8) page, but I did feel as if, originally, that the 'W' in 'Week' should have been capitalized, until I looked into the older history of the AGT Season 8 page, which explains why I reverted back to your previous edits before. (I do apologize for said edits before)

However, I am challenging your edits upon the US Nielsen Ratings on the AGT Season 8 page, as titles of episodes should have some form of capitalization. Now I'm aware that you're a senior editor, and I appreciate that fact. However, I truly feel as if the episode titles should have some other form of capitalization, as in "Quarterfinals Week 1, Performances" (an example). This format was followed on older America's Got Talent season pages, such as America's Got Talent (Season 7) and America's Got Talent (Season 6). I was only following a similar format style that was previous used on the said pages.

DavidTwo2012 (talk) 00:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, I'm glad you're finally communicating with me (though I don't know why you didn't just keep it on your talk page). Okay, after going to the official website ([1]), I see that evidently these are the episode titles. So, you can change them back -- or I can, if you want. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your posts here. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:32, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looking over the passage, and comparing it to the actual source material, it appears to me that the entire passage was unclear in its meaning, and not just the time element, as the portions of the source that were directly quoted were chosen rather poorly. I clarified the passage with what I hope is a more clear explanation, adding more contextual details from the source. As for the TV movie, I changed that portion of the passage from "With the production of" to "Prior to the premiere of". Let me know what you think of that entire paragraph now. Nightscream (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your wish is my command. ;-) Nightscream (talk) 21:46, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Musdan77, I guess I didn't feel as though I needed an edit summary because it wasn't a reversion of any sort and it also wasn't a controversial or drastic edit of any sort. However since you feel as though the edit needs explanation, the show Paternity Court premiered yesterday. On the tabloid talk show article, it was listed in a section entitled "upcoming shows." I removed the show into the section called "current shows." Hope this helps. Happy editing. =) AmericanDad86 (talk)

Generally, most all edits should have some kind of reason given in the edit summary (WP:FIES), but such a huge deletion (-1,248) definitely deserves a explanation for it. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are a contributor to the Nontrinitarianism page, please share your thoughts regarding renaming the page in order to try to reach consensus. You can find the discussion here: Talk:Nontrinitarianism#nontrinitarianism_or_non-Trinitarianism.3F

Many thanks in advance... Dontreader (talk) 02:00, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Musdan. I know you are an expert editor, and I do trust that you know what you are doing. That is why I come here, asking for your potential help in finishing up this "Round Chart" for the recent season of America's Got Talent. If you have the time, I was wondering if you could help me complete it, and eventually post it on the Season 8 page.

You can find the roundchart on my Sandbox page.  »»»DavidTwo2012«««  22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just wanted to ask you something about this edit you did. When you are saying not "head" judge on this show are you referring to Len Goodman? Because if it's for Goodman, the host of the show Tom Bergeron but also the other judges are calling him the head judge of the show in (almost) every episode of the show. I know it's just a detail but I was just wondering. TeamGale 08:56, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TeamGale, before I made that edit, I checked Dancing with the Stars (U.S. TV series), Len Goodman, and most importantly the official DwtS website and none says he's "head" judge. And I hadn't heard anyone say that. Not that I'm doubting you, but we can't go by what we just hear. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:24, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining. To be honest I never searched for it since I took it for granted after watching the show the last 3.5 years and I always hear others referring to him as "head" judge. That's an example from the current season but it's OK, it's a detail. I was more curious (and surprised) when I saw the not "head" judge on this show and that's why I asked :) TeamGale 18:39, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question so I understand. Why were 3 short films in his filmography removed from Sean Harris' Wiki page?

They were: The Hare, Two Halftimes to Hell and Wet Work. If the objection to Wet Work is the title -- the title comes from a prison term meaning a killing or to draw blood. They are credited to him by his Managers, Troika Agency, and I put those up because I can find them on the 'net, but did not use links (though I did add a link/source to his Troika filmography page). There are many, many more credits that I did not add because the credit or film is so obscure that I could not find the film. The three that I added are viewable. Thank you.

Legaleze (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Are you saying that I removed them? I didn't recall doing any work on that page, so I looked at the history to make sure. I didn't. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:38, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your edits to the Phil Collins page. Can I draw your attention to several other pages which have leads of more than four paragraphs and would benefit from your attention: Madonna, Michael Jackson, David Bowie and Elton John. Thanks.

First, please remember to sign talk posts (WP:SIGN). Thanks for your last edit. I was hoping someone would trim the lead down. And thanks for the above. --Musdan77 (talk) 04:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Danny,

With all due respect, my intention with the review was bring to the attention the fact that there seems to be a bit of lack of consistency in the phrase "The question regarding the genre of Acts is complicated by the fact that it was written [my emphasis] by the same author as the Gospel of Luke", compared with prior assertions such as '"However, there is no consensus, and according to Raymond E. Brown, the current opinion concerning Lukan authorship is "about evenly divided."[4]"'as well as the whole context of the introduction, where is contemplated the deep study of the scholars and the controversial matter of authorship, as the rest, permeates with questions subjects such old scriptures as may be our case. Thank you.

In that sense I wonder if you couldn't make some adjustment in this part of the content in order to align the ideas?

Seen from that stand, I would like to apologize for my questioning about this last paragraph phrase: "As such, its literary type is influenced by the relationship to that book as well." Yes, it is consistent with the assumption that the genre may assume variable forms (literary forms) varying among the many possible relationships that one could establish with the text of the Gospel entitled to him, Luke.

Please take into consideration that, as a religious aspiring myself, if I humbly can consider me that, I am just trying to help the reader to achieve logical consistency in his reading in a way he can trust and better absorb its context. Best luck and congratulations for the contributions. Hope I could be of any assistance. Thank you very much. Joaopradof --Joaopradof (talk) 11:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Joaopradof, please post your concerns on the Acts of the Apostles talk page. Or you can try to make the edits yourself. You make a good point, but I don't have time right now to make any changes. Maybe someone else will. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused, I changed it to say 175 episodes, there's been 175 episodes that have aired? Besides the specials that is. F!ERCE (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I just added them up again and came up with 153 (minus the 2 that haven't aired yet). So, something's not right. Once again I'm asking "where did you get your count?" --Musdan77 (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from the episode listing. I redid it a few weeks ago using the TLC DVD listings and the Zap2It listings for the current season. On the page for the episodes, it has all 177 episodes, plus the specials, thus far. F!ERCE (talk) 01:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thought you should know about this discussion going on. I feel like you could provide some much-needed discussion to it. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 15:39, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is the new person you just welcomed here in Wikipedia! Although, I haven't been new here...this is my second account because I lost my first one.

Thanks again! LennyMitch (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome! :)

Robfulton (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation is required as this discussion. Thank you for your attention and look forward to your participation! livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:19, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I guess I shouldn't have undone the whole thing. But the real issue about which I'm still wondering is the citation regarding the players competing against their loved ones. Is that citation really still necessary, even though the show is currently airing? I know it might seem like a dumb question to ask, but you don't have to cite the episode summaries on the individual season articles unless they haven't aired yet. So I just assumed that this situation wouldn't be any different (i.e. the statement needed to be cited before the season aired, but not afterward). Do you see what I'm saying? I might be wrong (and please correct me if I am), but that's just my personal opinion based on the way other users construct the articles about the individual seasons. Sorry about the other stuff though. I should have known better than to revert large amounts of content and leaving an edit summary like the one I did. But please message me regarding that citation. Thanks for your time! Survivorfan1995 (talk) 01:25, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Survivorfan1995, thanks for the message. It's a common misconception that reference citations for episodes that have aired can (or should) be removed. This is an encyclopedia, and TV shows follow Wikipedia's policy on verifiability like anything else. And removing a valid citation should at least be discussed first. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, do you think that all the individual episode summaries should be cited as well? I could do that, as many entertainment journalists post recaps of each episode on sites such as Entertainment Weekly. But, understandably, doing such a thing would be extremely time consuming, since there are more than 400 individual episodes. Survivorfan1995 (talk) 06:13, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't go though that much trouble, but if you have the inclination (and time)... --Musdan77 (talk) 20:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 15:29, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Musdan77. Thanks for your work and edits on the Monk franchise. I notice you've reverted twice some heading changes I made some time ago. I think redundancy is not an altogether bad thing--when it helps clarity. For casual readers, when they read "season no." IMO and at least for me, it sounds AT FIRST GLANCE like season numbers and not season episode numbers are being referred to. It seems a little confusing. I'd like to propose a compromise, WP being after all at least supposedly/in principle a collaborative effort. The last time you reverted this at least on one or more of the episode list articles, you wrote "No. in season." The proposed compromise is to add the season number to the most recent format you chose, at least in some of the season articles. In the alternative, one could do a survey of e.g., 20 or 30 people at random. I really think at least a signficant minority of readers with only limited interest in the subject matter are going to find it clearer at first glance the proposed way. Another IMO helpful heading which would be even shorter is "Season X<break>No. Y." Although redundant, it IMO is a very helpful redundancy to include. Regards, Paavo273 (talk) 20:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, don't change things back before discussion and consensus is made (WP:BRD). I had/have no problem with "No. in season". The problem was that it wasn't consistent with the series heading. If you change one you would have to change the other. (So, it would be "No. in series".) As far as "Season X<break>No. Y.".., not only is it unnecessarily redundant, it goes against Wikipedia acceptable standards. Just go to the list of featured TV season articles and you'll see that none of them is like that (for good reason). So, please change them to the acceptable way. Thanks, --Musdan77 (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert my edits to the Gabrielle Union article? Why should a table contain duplicate contents when there's a quick and easy method one can apply to reduce redundancy? versace1608 (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Versace, I gave the reason -- with the link (WP:FILMOGRAPHY) that explains it. It's an accessibility issue. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I got it. Thanks for correcting me and clarifying things. versace1608 (talk) 05:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you intend to work on creating the page for the film? I'm thinking about working on it, but don't want to duplicate efforts. Please feel free to reply here, I'll be watching. :-) —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 17:38, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, you go ahead. I was just disambiguating - thinking that someone would likely create it. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:48, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recently edited a page and forgot to add a signature. I received a message that the page has reverted back to the original page. I believe my edit was constructive and I reported it as a false positive. How do I remove the message from my talk page?

Thanks for the help in advance. Ptebwwong (talk) 20:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's false. Just click on "edit this page" and remove it. (you can also remove the Talk back.) No problem. --Musdan77 (talk) 20:32, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, according to WP:MOS, bullet points for lists are supposed to be treated the same way for the entire list. Since the first half of the list is composed of points with multiple sentences, the remaining points (complete sentences or not) should end with a period, IMO.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I didn't notice that the first part was different. I have corrected it. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if this is the wrong place, I have to say I am not too familiar with Wikipedia's talk pages. However, you are accusing me of an edit war when it fact it was you who deleted the same comment three times. How is this any different from me adding the comment? Aren't we both involved in this edit war? And if you suggest to take this to the talk page (which I don't know how to do), why don't you do this? -- sunpoint (PS: How do I add my signature to this?)

Sunpoint, you started an edit war when you first re-added what was removed (and continued to re-add it) first by Mann jess, then by me. You were able to add a message here; it's no different on the article talk page. The burden is on the one wanting to add the reverted content to start the discussion. Sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). --Musdan77 (talk) 19:46, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. As I mentioned before, I am not too familiar with Wikipedia's rules. But I don't think this is exactly the way it should work. Otherwise I could go to any Wikipedia article now and start deleting things that I do not like (no matter if they are true or false) and any person who would want to re-add them would be accused of starting an edit-war? Sunpoint (talk) 05:18, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, not quite. It's when someone adds something -- depending on what it is (especially if it's a BLP) -- it can be reverted, if there's a valid reason. It might help to see WP:STATUSQUO. --Musdan77 (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On "List of Little House on the Prairie episodes", I noticed that you have pluralized 'Ingalls' as 'the Ingallses'. The website at http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/plurals.htm addresses this situation as follow: "When a family name (a proper noun) is pluralized, we almost always simply add an "s." [.......] When a proper noun ends in an "s" with a hard "z" sound, we don't add any ending to form the plural: "The Chambers are coming to dinner" (not the Chamberses); "The Hodges used to live here" (not the Hodgeses)." However, it does go on to say: "There are exceptions even to this: we say "The Joneses are coming over", [.....]". So it seems to come down to personal choice. For myself, I think 'Ingallses' just looks and sounds rather inelegant, and I've noticed that other editors have also preferred 'Ingalls', so I'd be interested to hear what you think. Blurryman (talk) 00:10, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going by "The Joneses" way -- but if you really want to change it (and you'd have to do it all that way), I won't go against it. But I think, when possible, "the Ingalls family" is best (but not every time of course). By the way, my last name ends with an 's' -- but not a 'z' sound. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:54, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I've made the changes (there weren't many) using your suggested guidelines. It occurred to me to listen out for how such usages are spoken in the programmes, and I have just come across an instance in "The Angry Heart" (Episode 13 in Season VI): when Albert is asked for directions by Tod Dortmunder, he says "It's near the Ingalls' place". Blurryman (talk) 00:05, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I've heard that on an episode (maybe that one), but I just assumed it was a grammatical error. I mean there are other things that they have said (on the show and back in those days) that today we would consider bad English. --Musdan77 (talk) 03:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the previous contributors to {{Infobox film}} or as one of the commenters on its talk page, I would like to inform you that there has been a RfC started on the talk page as to implementation of previously deprecated parameters. Your comments and thoughts on the matter would be welcomed. Happy editing!

This message was sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 18:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that you have deleted my 'Trivia Notes' in 'Little House on the Prairie' article. Can you please explain why? --Blurryman (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, trivia is frowned upon on Wikipedia, but in particular those that are non-encyclopedic and unhelpful (and unsourced) -- unlike other wikis (like wikia.com). To be included, it would be something that is relevant and notable -- and should refer to another article (wikilink) or have an external source (or preferably both). Thanks for understanding. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for explaining the Wikipedia policy on such matters. I had searched for guidance but couldn't find anything. --Blurryman (talk) 22:49, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason you undid my edit?LM2000 (talk) 05:00, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I guess you mean where you re-added the Golden Raspberry. That doesn't go in a filmography or Awards table (it can go in prose though) because: 1) It's not a real award; it's made up as a put-down (I don't think that anyone has ever shown up to receive this "award"). 2) It goes against WP consensus. The way to tell is to look at the featured articles (FA). You won't find one that contains it. Now, an article could have consensus for it on its own, but it's not likely, because the article would not be considered for FA (or even a Good article). Thanks for the message. --Musdan77 (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Where did this consensus form? The user who initially removed the information linked to a consensus relating only to templates, which is why I reverted him. Most actors who have won a razzie do have it linked in their awards section, however none of the FA articles for actors ever won the award (at least not from the quick glance I took). Madonna and Chris Brown are featured lists though and they feature the award (its covered extensively on Madonna's as she's won a record number of them). Also, as you can see here a number of "winners" have collected their awards.LM2000 (talk) 05:52, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I did not know about that list page. I was assuming that no one would accept one of those. As far as Madonna and Chris Brown's, I see that those became FAs years ago and recently someone added the Razzies. I don't have them on my watchlist, but I don't know why someone didn't revert the add. Like I said, you can try to find consensus for it on the article's talk page if you want. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:37, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I started a thread on WT:FILM but forgot to link you. Here it is if you're interested.LM2000 (talk) 08:52, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't what you're talking about. The only thing I did today was add two more episodes to season 8 of the Duggars. 74.58.112.66 (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 74.58.112.66, I didn't know what you were talking about. You must be talking about what I wrote on March 28. --Musdan77 (talk) 00:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

While I appreciate your concerns regarding the edits I am making to the page, I must ask you to please stop automatically reverting them. The edits I made were to prune the run-on sentences and to clarify some of the information. I have told you this and have also said that if you have concerns other than the fact that it seems like you're only reverting because you don't agree with the same info being presented in a more concise and encyclopedic manner, feel free to share them. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 00:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ChrisP2K5, thanks for finally communicating like you're supposed to. The only way to really know the reason for your edits having been reverted is through discussion on talk page. Now, I guess we both didn't take a good enough look at the changes you made. When I first looked at it, it looked like a bunch of incomplete sentences. In the first sentence of the first paragraph, I thought the comma was a period (my mistake), but in the first sentence of the second paragraph, there is a period that doesn't belong. Anyway, what I thought was a botched job was actually something that I could have just made some miner changes on. However, there are two things that helped me think that your edit was nonconstructive: (1) No edit summary was given (especially when it was more than 500 bytes deleted) and (2) your user name is red. There's a reason why those things show up red in the revision history -- because they are red flags.

I will now restore your changes. I'm glad this was finally resolved. --Musdan77 (talk) 01:18, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What gives?67.171.222.203 (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

67.171.222.203, About what? Welcoming you? If you think that I removed your addition, I just moved it. Scroll down to the Personal life section. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your warm welcome. My first experience editing a section was a little intimidating. It was undone without any explanation. I'm new, so I will stick with simple editing tasks for now.

Thanks again! NancyJeanGF (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NancyJeanGF (talk), I'm sorry about your bad experience on your first edit. I know how it feels. That editor definitely should have given an explanation. --If you're a mother, happy Mother's Day. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why, no, I didn't add cn tags to something that I added. I didn't add the Series Overview information. Morfusmax (talk) 22:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Morfusmax, I was speaking to Rswallis10, thinking that that was who tagged it. I didn't look close enough. Sorry. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well as long as I know man I try most of my edits and I add the source accessdate , work , publishers all that so can you tell me more specifically where I edit has the copyrights or something cause copy paste yes but in order to edit that I must do that copy paste from that source in order to edit something I don't know if you're getting me . Thanks again .

Hi SlimJimmyBRabbit, first of all, please be sure to sign your posts. And, see how I rewrote it so it's not word for word. Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, like you, that something had happened which made the 'Notes' run on from the episode synopses, when previously they had been clearly separated, and all that was required was a keyboard linebreak. In your latest edit correcting this, I see that you have not put in a separating line which used to appear. Would you have any objection to my rendering the 'Notes' in italics to make them stand out? Blurryman (talk) 23:09, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Blurryman, I just found out that a paragraph space can be made by adding a double break -- as you can see from what I did in season 1. I think that would be better than all italics, don't you? --Musdan77 (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know. I'm happy with that. Blurryman (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Would you care to review my FA nomination for the article Of Human Feelings? The article is about a jazz album by Ornette Coleman, and the criteria for FA articles is at WP:FACR. If not, feel free to ignore this message. Cheers! Dan56 (talk) 03:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:48, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Hope you're well. I'm currently in the process of trying to get this to featured list. I want to make two changes which will change the article a lot so I thought I should ask someone before doing it.

• Change the filmography tables so that there is just one for films and one for television roles like how it is on this article:Shah Rukh Khan filmography. So all his producer roles would be included in one table alongside his acting roles.
• To remove the critical reception section. I don't think it adds much to the article apart from trivia.

Cowlibob (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cowlibob, Sounds fine. I generally agree. But, not just like that article -- omitting the directors column and the not-been-released key (I think you may be the one I talked to before about that). --Musdan77 (talk) 21:34, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll omit the directors column and the key. I'll also remove the Academy Awards from the notes as a separate article already exists and I'm planning to mention them in the lead anyway. Cowlibob (talk) 22:20, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]