User talk:Indagate: Difference between revisions

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Cardei012597 (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "User 86 10 25 197", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it resembles an IP address. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username by completing the form at Special:GlobalRenameRequest, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. Nardog (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Young Justice (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Pavlov2 (talk) 14:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/User 86 10 25 197. Pavlov2 (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please explain why a sockpuppetry investigation is underway regarding you? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:04, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop doing reverting; you can be blocked from editing against policy even after one edit, and you're currently at two. You are new to Wikipedia, so I would urge you to self-revert and contribute to a discussion to build a consensus for the version you seem to think is perfectly acceptable. Reverting a policy-based removal because you personally feel something is not trivial is not a defense, and it almost always ends in either a block, a warning, or a loss of good faith with other editors because you won't talk things out on the talk page, as I've suggested to you twice. Don't be that contributor. Don't be the one who cannot edit collaboratively. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:38, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please change your username. English Wikipedia's username policy doesn't allow people to use names that resemble IP addresses. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 02:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been blocked from editing Wikipedia because your username, User 86 10 25 197, does not meet our

paid-contribution disclosure are relevant.

You are encouraged to choose a new account name that meets our username policy guidelines and create the account yourself. Alternatively, if you wish for your existing contributions to carry over under a new name, then you may request a change in username

by:

1. Adding {{unblock-un|your new username here}} below. You should be able to do this even though you are blocked. If not, you may wish to contact the blocking administrator by clicking on "Email this user" from their talk page.
2. At an administrator's discretion, you may be unblocked for 24 hours to file a change of name request.
3. Your requested new username cannot already be in use. Therefore, please check the list here to see if a name is taken prior to requesting a change of name.

Appeals: If, after reading the guide to appealing blocks you believe you were blocked in error, then you may appeal this block by adding {{unblock|Your reason here}} below this notice. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without a good reason (see the blocking policy). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Indagate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

Editor861025197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Decline reason:

No. Please pick a username that does not include a set of apparently random characters or digits. Yamla (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tried e-mailing for new username days ago but they rejected with reason "rejected until accusations are resolved" after it was closed

This user's request to be unblocked to request a change in username has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Indagate (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Requested username:

indagate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Accept reason:

Renamed so unblocked. Please be careful, your behaviour so far has been inappropriate and if it continues, you are likely to be blocked indefinitely. Please read

WP:EW before editing further. Yamla (talk) 13:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Please refrain from making edits on Wikipedia pages such as those you made to The Martian (film), without first discussing your changes on the article's talk page, Your edit(s) require discussion to establish consensus as this is considered a type of change that other editors should be allowed to comment on. Your edits do not appear to have been discussed and have been reverted. Thank you. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@FlightTime: Seems minor amend, just changing the numbers from raw numbers to pull from Wikidata so updated by a bot, same as other pages, not a big change that needed talk page discussion first I thought Indagate (talk) 21:23, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, it needs to be discussed first. - FlightTime (open channel) 21:25, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But why first? Minor amend, the viewer sees the same numbers, more likely to be up to date so accurate Indagate (talk) 21:26, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why first? Because that is the whole point of collaborative editing, Indagate. In Wikipedia, you must edit with others to find agreement or, at the very least, a middle ground. And the agreements must be based upon Reliable Sources.

For example, in the Young Justice article, I had removed examples of 'crossovers' because they seemed trivial - something we don't allow here in Wikipedia. Now, you may think they aren't trivial - that they are important in some way. When we disagree on a statement's triviality, we look to reliable sources as the deciding factor. Does a RS think this is important enough to mention? If so, then it is not trivial. If it cannot be found through RS sources, though, no amount of argument is going to be enough to warrant inclusion. Our personal opinions on the subject are immaterial; we follow the sources.

I hope that explains matters better. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 05:49, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jack FlightTime, I believe you are engaging in a

BRD cycle. Nardog (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC) I misidentified who I was referring to. Apologies. Nardog (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Those situations are different as Flighttime was saying I should've discussed, then edited rather than editing, then discussing ilke you and I did. They seemed to revert for the sole reason of not dicussing before editing Indagate (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which runs directly counter to some of the longest-established policies and how things get done on Wikipedia. I've nominated the warning for deletion. Nardog (talk) 08:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please stop changing stable Rotten Tomatoes numbers to a templated version of it? This makes it harder to watch for vandalism, without ading any value to enwiki. There is consensus that Wikidata should only be used for infoboxes (sparingly) and some external links templates, but not in the body of articles like you are doing here. The above discussion should perhaps have indicated that this was controversial, but you continued anyway.

If there had been such consensus RottenBot wouldn't have been allowed to run. Nardog (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rottenbot changed the contents of the articles directly, it didn't add a Wikidata template? The consensus I talk about is not "RT data are immutable and may never be updated", but "Wikidata should not be used directly in the body of articles".

Fram (talk) 08:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes it did. There are thousands of articles currently using {{

RT data}} in prose, added by the bot, which I'm sure would have all been removed by now if there had been consensus against it. But, as you point out below, the bot at least updated the scores on Wikidata as it added them. Nardog (talk) 09:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ah, I looked at the first trial edits, where it didn't: apparently it changed later on. Anyway, as BRFA always says: they only look if the bot is technically correct, not if their edits actually have consensus. It is very easy for bot edits to stay under the radar, that doesn't mean that their edits should have been made.

Fram (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

But where is the consensus you've been referring to? You need to at least provide a link if you're mass reverting. Nardog (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fram (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

There's a current discussion regarding its use at WP:FILM, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Rotten_Tomatoes_Wikidata_and_current_releases, plus previous discussions which established consensus for its use. Timing is disputed but don't think I amended any articles from last couple years yesterday. Indagate (talk) 10:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link not relevant, seems to be regarding linking to Wikidata like wikilinks and external links, not using them as part of template. What is relevant is the discussions at WP:FILM, and bot approval which has consensus part of. Indagate (talk) 13:16, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is explicitly also about using Wikidata as a method of getting data in the body, the running text, of an article. And bot approval only looks at the technical aspects, it is up to the bot owner to get consensus for the actual edit though. Getting a bot approved does not mean that the changes that bot does have any consensus at all (though obviously clearly vandalistic bots would get turned down, but not this type of thing). And at

Fram (talk) 13:23, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Doesn't see like it, talks about linking to Wikidata, not using in template. One of the requirements for getting approval is consensus so it wouldn't be approved without it, WP:BOTREQUIRE. Discussions have ended, current one has no consensus regarding time after release but seems to be consensus regarding use overall. Indagate (talk) 13:32, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

" not appropriate to use Wikidata in article text on English Wikipedia" (bolded in original). A later RfC also excluded linking to Wikidata, in addition to the above.

Fram (talk) 14:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The current version of the bot doesn't seem to update scores, only add entries to Wikidata if doesn't already exist. Not sure how to make bot update scores, @Notacardoor can advise further on that hopefully Indagate (talk) 10:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An example: on

That is one example, there are many others if you look,[1] I've seen multiple instances of this already. The regressions have to stop. If Indagate is not willing to check and update the Wikidata first before adding {{Rotten Tomatoes data}} templates then they should stop adding the template. The supposed benefit of this template was less churn, not more. Despite the good faith efforts to use newer templates these regressions are disruptive and it is not the responsibility of other editors to fix the regressions that Indagate has repeatedly and carelessly introduced. -- 109.78.210.152 (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have moved your article to draftspace as it appears to be used as a space for editing tests. Please use

Thought it was ok to create sandbox for that page to edit part of extended protected page so edit request is clear, will use user sandbox next time Indagate (talk) 14:57, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You're continuing to introduce mass edits and edit war when you're not getting your way, the number of warnings above should have been a learning experience not an incentive to double down. These are featured articles, the references should be consistent and publisher is not used. THe fact that there is a "publisher_hide" option is alone enough evidence that your way is not the only way. Also the cinemascore ref you are brute forcing into articles does not work consistently when archived, it just re-loads the initial page so you're replacing good refs with broken ones. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:03, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:OWN, you seem to revert most edits on a few pages. The archive link works for me, the search shows same as live page, so not broken. References should be consistent across articles regardless of whether they're featured or not. Please be civil. Indagate (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That directly contradicts

WP: OWN, not reverting your technical vandalism on Featured Articles where standards are actually high. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:21, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:OTHERSTUFF concerns deletion discussions of articles, not citations. Don't know why it doesn't work for you when it does for me on multiple browsers and devices. Again, please be civil, saying edits that are in good-faith and designed to be constructive even if you disagree should not be referred to as vandalism. Standards being high should be a reason to have more information in citations and references of a later date Indagate (talk) 10:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Other stuff is a general "what about x" policy, such as saying "I've added publisher to other articles so all articles should do it". And Metacritic, for example, has been owned by a group of friends, Cnet, CBS Corporation, and now Red Ventures. What is the reader getting from knowing the owner of these things? And if you apply publisher to say 250+ references, what do they gain when that info is outdated as websites and businesses are constantly purchased, absorbed, merged, split, etc and someone isn't going around to ten thousand articles to change it? Nothing is gained by adding publisher, but absolutely publisher should not be added when the other 300 references do not have it, and the other 300 references do not have it because it is not pertinent or useful information for 1, and is directly against the cite web template guidelines for 2.

As for the cinemascore archive, this link does not work. If you type in a name of a film it just reloads the start page, it doesn't bring up the film. It. Does. Not. Work. And this is on Microsoft Edge, so if it doesn't work for me it probably isn't working for others either, which makes it useless in a Featured Article as a reliable source should the original company/site die.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 11:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a policy, essay, important distinction. The point of having a Cite Metacritic template is partly just that issue you describe, if the publisher changes then it can be changed across many articles with one edit to the template rather than having to edit the articles with references to Metacritic at all. Cite web says using website and publisher is redundent in many cases, I'd say that's because can be the same so would be repeated, examples in edit were not the same or similar, the example they give is for Metacritic which was part of my edit so not a combination they think is redundant. Information from a reference shouldn't be removed just because other references don't have string. The publisher string helps add context about the reference. Indagate (talk) 11:28, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You were right on Free Guy; good revert. I forgot that things in the summary aren't always cited in the summary, if they are cited later. Thanks. 73.127.147.187 (talk) 10:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've already been warned about disruptive editing, so consider this your final warning. Moving articles that have existed in mainspace by experienced editors for months and are already reviewed should not be moved to draft space. If you think it's inappropriate, take it to

Moving an article to draft using Twinkle so correct process is not disruptive, please be civil and assume good faith.

All news articles I've seen about the show are saying it's announced, a fact already in mainspace at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HBO_Max_original_programming#Reality_2, don't need an article that just says same thing regardless of number of sources

WP:NFF is for films but says article shouldn't be created unless principal photography has started Indagate (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

That is not correct. You should only move recently created articles from main space to Draft space. The general rule of thumb is articles that were created 6 months or earlier. Articles that have existed in main space for years should not be Draftified. Also, Twinkle isn't generally used for moving articles to Draft space, there are scripts that exist that are most commonly used by page patrollers. If you want to know more about them, please ask at

the Teahouse. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:57, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Ok, didn't realise that but article existed just under 6 months. I just draftified article that looked nowhere near ready for mainspace, like wouldn't pass draft review process Indagate (talk) 05:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite CinemaScore has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that there is a persistent vandal with a poor grasp of English grammar. You encountered this person recently[2] and reverted them. They've been at this for years and the admins play whack-a-mole and revert all their edits from their ever changing locations. They frequently replace good references with worse ones as you have seen. They quite often remove any mention of PostTrak while doing so. They have never responded to any comments or edit summaries to my knowledge.

I asked and an admin he explained it a bit[3] but she's been at it since 2017 and you can safely revert those edits on sight. Unfortunately if you cannot cleanly revert those edits you may need to check the article history and try to find the edit (because of the Cinemascore reference vandalism and PostTrak vandalism) but I understand it is a hassle we would all prefer not to have to deal with. -- 109.78.199.198 (talk) 02:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, thought there edits were strange the other day, couldn't see reason for deleting and rephrasing ontent Indagate (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your claim here, there was no "consensus" on the passage in question. If you read the section of the discussion on that passage, two editors, Facu-el Millo and Adamstom.97, objected to it, and two others, myself and Argento Surfer, had no problem with it. One of Adam's arguments was that it was "difficult to support with sources". At one point he asked me, "Do you have a source or sources that state that this connection is not explicitly stated in any MCU film or television series?" Although I believed at the time that this ignored the fact that the sources cited for Watts, Feige and and Holland's comments already alluded to the fact that it had not been explicitly established, I let the matter go. But now, I've gone and found two sources to cite for it, which means that status of that passage with regard to sources has changed. Yet you're not only ignoring this, you're falsely claiming that there was "consensus" for keeping it out. There wasn't. Two editors saying it's okay and two editors saying it's not is not what "consensus" is. Please reconsider. The sources support the passage, and removing source-supported passages is neither considered constructive nor part of the practice of including releavant information on Wikipedia. Please reconsider. Nightscream (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to your edit summary here: the, "Use of this parameter is discouraged, "lastn" to "firstn" are preferable." you mentioned is regarding 'Authors list' which is supported by the parameters 'authors', 'people', and 'host'. Please note that 'authors' and 'author' are two entirely different things.

The parameter being used can be viewed at Template:Cite web#Authors where it says, "author: this parameter is used to hold the complete name of a single author (first and last) or to hold the name of a corporate author. This parameter should never hold the names of more than one author. Do not wikilink—use author-link instead." Yes, it is perfectly fine to use- 'authors' is the one that is discouraged from being used. Thank you. Magitroopa (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your change to the colour of

I am sorry about my irritable response here: [4]. You are right of course, that the numbers should match the sources, but this ongoing issue with Box Office Mojo is driving us box-office editors slowly insane.It has been going for two years now: [5]. For some reason, when a film is re-released BOM keeps adding the foreign box office to the original release gross. As an example, compare the initial release gross for Jurassic Park from the entry as it is now to how it was last year. Obviously editors update the gross thinking they are correcting it, but in reality they are making it incorrect. It is usually best to leave it alone and after a few weeks the corrections seem to filter through the correction process. Box Office Mojo probably should be ditched but there are very few alternatives that are as comprehensive. Betty Logan (talk) 14:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's understandable. Seems like a good thing collecting the inaccuracies, and hopefully BOM fixes them. The Numbers seems like a good alternative, seem to be updated at different times and slightly different figures for some films post-box office run. Indagate (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. During your edits to {{Rotten Tomatoes prose}}, you've put in some code thats gone wrong, and pages are complaining about Category:Pages with template loops. (See Hexed for an example). Ive gone ahead and reverted your edits. If you'd like to try again, please ensure to double check these articles work fine, using the template's sandbox if you didnt already.

If it at all helps with your bug solving, after doing some safesubst:ing, the final output the function given for hexed was On the [[review aggregator]] website [[Rotten Tomatoes]], 9% of 11 critics' reviews are positive, with an average rating of 2.7/10.<ref name="Rotten Tomatoes">{{cite web |title=''Hexed'' |url=https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/hexed |website=[[Rotten Tomatoes]] |publisher=[[Fandango Media]] |access-date={{#if: | | {{RT data|access-date}}}} |archive-url= |archive-date= |language=en }}{{#if: | | {{RT data|edit}}}}</ref>. Note that the repeat calling of {{

Ah thanks @Aidan9382, I checked a few pages with preview page with this template function but guess there's difference with that one. Issue trying to fix was RT data|prose|ref=yes results in the prose without automatic access date and edit button, so trying to say if access-date is blank then use RT data|access-date so can use wikidata with this template rather than other way round, will have a look and try to fix. Indagate (talk) 17:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dont worry, template fixing barely goes great the first time (I've done much worse myself). I may take a look at the template and associated module myself and see if i can help, cause just having a quick look at it it seems like this isnt gonna be the easiest to fix. Aidan9382 _(talk) 18:06, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it seems might have to use a module to get the Wikidata values as not clear if possible with template so use the module.

Thinking of adding the articles that currently have "RT data|prose" to a category, change that to just "RT prose", reinstate edit you reverted, and should be no error and those pages should have access-date and edit buttons they don't have now. Does that sound good please? Not expecting too many articles with "RT data|prose" but not sure. Issue was RT data template using RT prose which I added RT data to, but this idea removed the existing first link.

Tried creating category https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Module%3ARotten_Tomatoes_data&type=revision&diff=1087826965&oldid=1079982074, but doesn't seem to have worked Indagate (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not expecting too many articles with "RT data: About 17 pages or so ended up getting put into the loop tracking category, so itll be about 17 pages.

About the category approach, ive not personally worked with categories yet, and I think there may be a better approach. First of all, I must confirm - you are trying to get the access-date for the RT Prose output reference, right? If so, I may have a different idea in mind, but ill need to test. Id like to avoid doing a bit of a bandage fix. Aidan9382 _(talk) 19:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok thanks, 17's not too bad

Category is just temporary to get the list of articles, those 17, can be deleted once converted

Yeah, currently Hexed has {{RT data|prose|ref=yes}}, think if replace that with {{RT prose|ref=yes}} after changing the RT prose template to use RT data if no entry, then there should be automatic access-date and edit button. Automatic reference generated should then look like this [6].

Think the title and qid parameters are just used at articles other than their own to change the Wikidata page of function from default of page itself, fine to ignore for this I think Indagate (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok i see what you want it to look like. I think thats doable, give me some time. Also, would you like me to fix the category addition? Aidan9382 _(talk) 19:58, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, no rush, yes please if you don't mind, guessing the if function has to be split from that list Indagate (talk) 20:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Extra note: Ive noticed the title and qid parameters also dont get passed over to the prose writing. Are you aware if this is intentional or not? This feels wrong, but im not sure. Aidan9382 _(talk) 19:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and your attempted category addition didnt work because of how you set up the IF statement. If needed, ill fix it, but for now ill just revert it. Aidan9382 _(talk) 19:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok, thanks, thought hidden category wouldn't show in preview so just checked few pages for breakages before implementing Indagate (talk) 19:59, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Conversation was getting a bit messy so ive OD'd. Ive gone ahead and fixed the category, so you can go ahead and get your list of RT Data|prose uses. (May take a bit of time to fully show). Meanwhile, ill see what i can do to fix RT Prose issues. Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:05, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ive done what i think you wanted (An access-date is now shown, I believe it is the correct one as i see no reason it wouldnt be). I have a (frankly quite hacky) idea to also get the edit icon there. This should be done soon. Can you confirm this all looks good? (See either Hexed or What If... (2010 film)) Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:26, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That looks good, thanks. My idea was editing RT prose to use RT data if nothing entered and changing the 17 uses but your changes to RT data look good.

My idea for the edit icon was adding the RT data template to end of ref within the RT prose, similar to some articles, [7] Indagate (talk) 20:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently working on it. Just need to get the ID with some method and ill be done in no time (hopefully). Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:33, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think im done with the making. Check Hexed and What If... (2010 film) and tell me if they seem to work fine. If so, ill remove the category addition. If you are at all curious, here are the main edits that actually implemented these: Module:Rotton Tomato data Template:Rotten Tomato prose. Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:41, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those articles look good. Is there a way to make the icon dependent on RT data being used for the figures? Icon now appears at Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness#cite note-Rotten Tomatoes-194 which doesn't need it as doesn't use RT data Indagate (talk) 20:46, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Look alright now? Aidan9382 _(talk) 20:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oks good, thank youo Indagate (talk) 21:01, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention and helping me figure this out, working with templates is (nearly always) fun. Am I good to remove the category classification in the module for the RT Prose and mark the category for deletion as unused? I think we wont hopefully need it now. Aidan9382 _(talk) 21:04, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, agreed, templates can be confusing but usually interesting by the end and nice to get it worked out. I've tagged the category for speedy delete as author as the empty option mentions 7 days so thought author would be better, copied contents to a word doc in case useful in near future. Indagate (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, hello, i would like to make a complaint on a user messing with the page of List of DreamWorks Animation productions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_DreamWorks_Animation_productions&diff=1090208011&oldid=1090201462 Here is what he did so far. He has cause several parts to the list and i wanna keep it simple without messing it up. Can you block him for about a week or a month? Thanks. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 03:56, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @

WP:AN/EW, can also post a warning to their talk page using Twinkle and ping them to discussion on talk page of article, they have missed it. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 08:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

I’m seeing the same users try to force the “bomb” terminology using mostly the same outdated sources just when the film is about to break even. They’ve barely changed their argument so I had to get the page protected a second time. They’re so deep into their own confirmation bias I don’t know what else to do CreecregofLife (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, doesn't seem noteworthy long-term, the sources calling it a bomb can easily be out of date as they were from early on in the films box office run so not valid for here Indagate (talk) 15:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to need more support on the talkpage, it’s getting really frustrating to keep going back and seeing their weak arguments. It’s becoming too toxic CreecregofLife (talk) 17:01, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

about to break even That is not how the box office works, if you meant it literally. Tangentially, I loathe the highly misleading yet oft-used "grossed $x against a $y budget" for the same reason. Nardog (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Things like use of rowspan in tables like that absolutely is a

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl Drilnoth → AFigureOfBlue Bureaucrat changes Lee Vilenski

Interface administrator changes Nihiltres

Technical news

• user_global_editcount is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users. (T130439)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Can you fix

Is there a way to translate this page- (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accolades_received_by_Avengers:_Infinity_War) to other languages. I do not possess the knowledge nor the skill to translate an entire page. Is there a particular method of doing it? I really wanted to learn this. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks for reading.

Guess you can translate it manually if you know another language, and link it via Wikidata, but I'm not familiar with other language Wikipedia's. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How can i link it through wikidata?

Can edit the links at bottom of Wikidata page, can only add it there once created, is there are of the same article on other language Wikipedias? Thanks, Indagate (talk) 12:16, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2022).

Administrator changes

Valereee

Anthony Appleyard (deceased) • Capitalistroadster • Samsara

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC has been closed with consensus to add javascript that will show edit notices for editors editing via a mobile device. This only works for users using a mobile browser, so iOS app editors will still not be able to see edit notices.
• An RfC has been closed with the consensus that train stations are not inherently notable.

Technical news

• The Wikimania 2022 Hackathon will take place virtually from 11 August to 14 August.
• Administrators will now see links on user pages for "Change block" and "Unblock user" instead of just "Block user" if the user is already blocked. (T308570)

Arbitration

• The arbitration case request Geschichte has been automatically closed after a 3 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• You can vote for candidates in the 2022 Board of Trustees elections from 16 August to 30 August. Two community elected seats are up for election.
• Wikimania 2022 is taking place virtually from 11 August to 14 August. The schedule for wikimania is listed here. There are also a number of in-person events associated with Wikimania around the world.
• Tech tip: When revision-deleting on desktop, hold ⇧ Shift between clicking two checkboxes to select every box in that range.

Hi! The ratio wasn't original research, really; rather, it was a simply calculation of the box office divided by the budget. Also, I don't see how factoring in marketing is relevant. I look forward to your response regarding this, as I still think it's of interest. Electricmaster (talk) 13:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, making the connection seems original research. Studios would use marketing costs when deciding how profitable a film is, plus home media sales, streaming licencing, merchandise etc on the other side, so that calculation doesn't have much meaning. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:24, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Zxcvbnm was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject

independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid

when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

 The comment the reviewer left was:

Fails

WP:ALLPLOT

with no indication of coverage in reliable sources. It has some out-of-universe creation information, but without any reception this is frankly FANDOM material and should belong in a different Wiki.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bruce Wayne (Arkham series character) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Zxcvbnm:, thanks for reviewing but I haven't edited that article. Looks like @Blackknight1234567890: added submission template with my username [8]. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 10:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ferret: Pinging Ferret as it seems this "Blackknight" user has been making large amounts of disruptive edits over a long time with no response on their part, might merit a check for sockpuppet activity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know where socking would come in, but I've blocked for CIR, refusal to communicate, unsourced editing, harassment/disruption/C&P moves that continue despite numerous warnings. -- ferret (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2022).

Administrator changes DanCherek • DatGuy • Femke • Z1720 Aldux • Graham Beards • Nyttend

Interface administrator changes Mr. Stradivarius

Guideline and policy news

• A discussion is open to define a process by which Vector 2022 can be made the default for all users.
• reliable
  for science and politics.

Technical news

• The impact report on the effects of disabling IP editing on the Persian (Farsi) Wikipedia has been released.
• The WMF is looking into making a Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) system to improve the reporting of harmful incidents through easier and safer reporting. You can leave comments on the talk page by answering the questions provided. Users who have faced harmful situations are also invited to join a PIRS interview to share the experience. To sign up please email Madalina Ana.

Arbitration

• An arbitration case regarding Conduct in deletion-related editing has been closed. The Arbitration Committee passed a remedy as part of the final decision to create a request for comment (RfC) on how to handle mass nominations at Articles for Deletion (AfD).
• The arbitration case request Jonathunder has been automatically closed after a 6 month suspension of the case.

Miscellaneous

• The new pages patrol (NPP) team has prepared an appeal to the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for assistance with addressing Page Curation bugs and requested features. You are encouraged to read the open letter before it is sent, and if you support it, consider signing it. It is not a discussion, just a signature will suffice.
• Voting for candidates for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees is open until 6 September.

The previous image is taken from a very akward position. It also looks very bland. I would still suggest changing the image to a better version. The second image had much more detail. Please discuss! Lord kai07 (talk) 21:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also the status quo image kinda looks ugly. Shouldn't we have an image, where Thor actually looks great? Lord kai07 (talk) 21:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep discussion to the article's talk page. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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. MB 03:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I know you don't like this but i can't put the producers and writers down unless that RT and Meta needs to be moves. Can't we just change it after Spellbound is out? i perfer we leave it like it was from Skydance Media. it's part of that. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 18:56, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This edit was not referring to you – it was referring to whichever (almost certainly IP) editor did that in the first place. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:46, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I still think it is clear from the hidden note that there should be no use of rowspan in the filmography tables in the 'Year' column either (who ever did that in the 'Year' column did not change or remove that hidden note, and it appears to be a clear

WP:STYLEVAR violation). Again, "allowed" ≠ "required", and the hidden note makes clear that the original version of that table had no rowspan, and so shouldn't have it now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

It may have been a stylevar issue when rowspan's were added, but they seem to be the status quo, so would be a stylevar issue to remove them now. Only oppose your removal of rowspans from the first column (year), others usually shouldn't be rowspan'd. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 18:01, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Last comment on this – but it is an issue because whoever did that in the first place ignored the note, did not discuss it, and didn't change or remove the note. So, the addition of rowspan to the 'Year' was a violation in the first place. It's like saying because the rowspans in the other columns remained, they were also "status quo", even though those clearly violate

WP:FILMOGRAPHY outright. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:12, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

To Indagate, i would like to report a user by the name of @DESERTSCHo0L20 who tried to put unsourced information about the producers of Skydance Animation's film Pookoo. I see no source around the producers besides the main producing trio from Luck, Lasseter, Ellion, and Goldberg, but no source about Cook from Star to produce it. He almost messed up how the film casting was releasing. i put based on in both story and screenplay and thinks it's from the story. Luck was based on a concept by three people from Ilion and they're both credited for story and screenplay for Murray and the duo behind Kung-Fu Panda. I recommend warning him about his vandalism before it gets worse. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person you should report people to, can't do anything you can't do. You can use Twinkle to add a warning template to their user talk page. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 19:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]