Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:52, 7 January 2018

• 2006 Archive
• 2007 Archive
• 2008 Archive
• 2009 Archive
• 2010-2016 Archive

Category:Ancient Germanic history and culture has been nominated for discussion

Category:Ancient Germanic history and culture, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Grand Theft Auto soundtracks

A tag has been placed on Template:Grand Theft Auto soundtracks requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

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. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Lordtobi (✉) 08:50, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, R9tgokunks. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Misplaced Pages 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Metropolitan Associatio of Upper Silesia

Wrong name (n).Xx236 (talk) 10:05, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks for alerting me User:Xx236, I was very tired when I made those edits. Thankfully the problem was resolved!-- Wilner (Speak to me) 02:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Misplaced Pages. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Misplaced Pages Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Justice League

I just wanted you to know that the information you wanted to insert was removed from the lead. First, the lead summarizes and shouldn't be a house for unique information not present elsewhere in the article. Second, the article wasn't identifying it as a "bomb" in the sense that you were using it when you linked to that page. It was using the term as a symbolic reference for the film not performing better, not that it didn't make money. They kind of go out of their way to point out that if it was any other franchise, it would be considered a success, but because it's Justice League it's considered a "bomb" simply because it didn't make a billion dollars. They weren't actually comparing direct costs to revenue ratios and we shouldn't be presenting the information as if they were.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:13, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi, User:Bignole, In modern times, the phrase 'box office bomb' is used liberally for any film that does not make what is expected, see "The Mummy", "Blade Runner 2049," "King Arthur", and "Justice League." -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The very page you link to says that it's more than just simply not making back what it costs. Again, the issue not about whether it lost money, the issue is two-fold: The lead is not the place to introduce unique information that isn't present in the rest of the article, and Forbes was talking about how Justice League compares to other franchises and because of its hype is considered a bomb, not because of actual money lost. That's my point, they go out of their way to point out how it's made as much as many other films that cost similar, but it is not living up to reputation. You cannot insert that into the lead for sensationalism when there isn't context to explain what Forbes is saying.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 21:20, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, User:Bignole. The fact is that Justice League is a box office bomb, and this is well reported as a simple Google search indicates. In 2017, the term has been used liberally for films that grossed more than their budgets but did not perform as expected. See Blade Runner 2049, King Arthur, The Mummy (2017 film), and Justice League. Here are many sources calling it a box office bomb, and the term 'box office flop', which links to the same wiki article:

1.The Atlantic calls it a 'flop.'

2.Uproxx calls it a 'bomb.'

3.Screenrant calls it a 'box office bomb disaster.'

4. Forbes does, as sourced before, and no it's not a "joke" as you claim: "Justice League is somewhat unique unto itself in terms of being able to make so much and still be considered a bomb."

5. Vulture calls it a 'flop.'

6. Business Insider calls it a 'flop.'

7. Observer calls it a 'flop.'

8. toofab calls it a 'flop.

9. Express calls it a 'flop.'

etc.

I notice you frequent your time on articles pertaining to DC products. Do you happen to work for DC or Warner Brothers? Perhaps you should take a break from editing DC related articles as you are letting personal interests get in the way of the mission of Misplaced Pages. It's quite a conflict of interest and goes against the rules of Misplaced Pages. See: WP:COI. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 21:42, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

First, don't presume to know me based on what I edit. It's unprofessional and uncouth to accuse me of having a COI because you think I work for something I don't simply based on my edits. I have also edited tons of Horror related articles, do you assume I work for those companies as well? Please don't try to distract the discussion with baseless accusations.

Second, you clearly keep missing my point. I never said the film was or was not a bomb. What I said was that (and I'll try to make this clearer for you):

1) The lead is for summarizing an article NOT for inserting unique information not present elsewhere. Please see WP:LEAD

2) The way Forbes is talking, you're presenting the information without context and Forbes is clearly talking about the film in relation to its performance and other franchises, not simply the Xs and Os of budgets. Yes, it has failed to make its money back. Not disputing that, nor disputing the actual label of "bomb". I'm telling you that you are misattributing what Forbes is saying by trying to make it seem as though they are specifically talking about cost and revenue. It's much more than that and you can see that from reading the whole and not title grabbing.

In conclusion, what you should surmise from this is that you need to develop the box office section more to reflect what you're trying to add instead of simply taking the shortcut approach and throwing it in the lead (where it doesn't belong, because the lead is for summarizing).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Very well, per this discussion, I will add that information via the sources i have amalgamated into the box office section, and then after I will reinsert it into the lede, as it is very notable, and currently isn't mentioned at all on the article, which i find sinister. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 22:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Max Landis

Your edit does not match your edit summary? --NeilN 04:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Shoot, I'm sorry User:NeilN ! I didn't know you already removed it. I assumed something went wrong with my editing. I was in the process of removing it when that happened. No malicious intent! I've also messaged that user on their talk page letting them know it goes against WP:BLP and WP:RS.-- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

It was actually EEng who removed it. Do you want to undo your edit? --NeilN 04:24, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Oh, whoops. I see that now. I don't think I can at this point because i've made a few more edits attempting to add past information, with good sources, such as Newsweek. -- Wilner (Speak to me) 04:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Hello, I'm SeraphWiki. I wanted to let you know that some of your recent contributions to Max Landis have been reverted or removed because they could seem to be defamatory or libellous. Take a look at our welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. SeraphWiki (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Explanation

The reason why I think this is better suited as a category is because it only has one column, and your reason might not apply because the template could be added to other articles. ToThAc (talk) 02:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

January 2018

Constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. SeraphWiki (talk) 02:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Template:Z33