Jump to content

User talk:Facu-el Millo/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Matt Murdock draft

Happy New Year, El Millo! Other than that, I've fully cleaned up Draft:Matt Murdock (Marvel Cinematic Universe) to satisfy notability. Is there any issues that need to be fixed before potentially moving it to the mainspace? Thanks, SirDot (talk) 21:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, BD2412 thankfully moved the draft. — SirDot (talk) 21:56, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year to you too, SirDot! —El Millo (talk) 04:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

backstory/back story

please explain your position NeuralWarp (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Backstory is a specific term that may not be the same as "back story" in every context. Using "backstory" is definitely not a typo. —El Millo (talk) 00:30, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
In which situation are they not the same?.Nerguy (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
There's no need to provide a specific example, but the term backstory exists and isn't a typo, so the edit isn't correct. Even if I was wrong and "back story" and "backstory" were exactly the same, the edit still wouldn't be correct as there wasn't a typo to fix. —El Millo (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
According to our own Wiktionary, wikt:back story is an alternative form of wikt:backstory. Still, no typo to fix. The word "backstory" is also included in the Merriam-Webster Dictionary. —El Millo (talk) 03:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Now I understand. I agree with User:Facu-el Millo that there is no need for a fix.Nerguy (talk) 03:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Chamber of Secrets Edit

Moved to Talk:Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (film) § Improvised dialogue

Can you kindly explain why you consider the improvised dialogue in Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, featured prominently in trailer, is not worthy of inclusion on the page? There is a lot of precedence of film pages containing similar information. (see: Midnight Cowboy, The Empire Strikes Back, The Warriors, Dr. Strangelove, The Third Man, El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, Ghostbusters, Gladiator, Jaws, You Only Move Twice, Airplane!, Iron Man, Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Aladdin, Tombstone.) - Count3D (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

First, just because they're included somewhere else it doesn't mean it should be included in this case, whether the other cases are right or wrong in including the information. For example, Iron Man talks about how much of the film's dialogue was improvised, which seems to be a very defining aspect of the film. The Empire Strikes Back talks about the "I know" line by Ford, which, according to the article and based on multiple sources, became one of the more famous lines of improvised dialogue in cinema. Aladdin also talks broadly and succinctly about Robin Williams improvising many lines and characters. In comparison, your edit included one dialogue which isn't particularly famous, its inclusion in the trailer isn't relevant, and you even included the lines in their entirety, which is very much WP:UNDUEWEIGHT and overly detailed. This improvised couple of lines doesn't merit a mention. —El Millo (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: Will grant it overuses the full quotes. No issue trimming that. Your assessment of "right", "relevant" and "defining" are too subjective. Opinion of merit aside, it does not change that it is true, accurate and unique and offers more insight and context into its content. It is both sourceable and factual, a piece of verifiable information offering insight into the creative process making the movie. Jason Isaacs' thought it was worth mentioning in his interview because, in his own words, it demonstrated the maturation of Daniel Radcliffe as a young performer, growth in his abilities and his character, in his most well-known role. It is notable that a creative decision, made up on spur of the moment, on the day of filming, ended up being used as the finale moment in the principal marketing of the movie. Similar use cases appear in the articles of Gladiator, Airplane!, Ferris Bueller's Day Off and Tombstone. - Count3D (talk) 02:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
It is trivia, every film has improvised lines, so it's not unique. As I said, something being in another article doesn't mean it should be in this one, either because that other article is wrong or because it's different from this one. Gladiator talks extensively about various different problems different people had with the script, changing and rewriting lines. Airplane! talks somewhat about a line that was features in AFI's top 100 iconic lines in #Reception, and in #Casting it addresses concerns one of the actors had with one of their lines, which in my opinion is also being given WP:UNDUEWEIGHT here. Ferris Bueller's Day Off refers to a line that a First Lady of the United States paraphrased in a speech. Tombstone mentions a scene being ad-libbed by an actor. The first three of these are clearly notable for different reasons, the first being a whole bunch of disagreements and problems with the script, the second being a recognition by AFI, and the third being its paraphrasing by the president's wife. The fourth one is similar to this one, a bit of trivia which probably shouldn't be included, but at least that bit of trivia adds to the notion of its paragraph that the director was striving for as much realism as possible, so its inclusion could be justified. This thing you are trying to add is just isolated trivia, just a small detail for one scene, which isn't a defining characteristic of this film or its production nor something that this film has been particularly recognised for. —El Millo (talk) 03:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: It is unique enough to this film and adds meaningful depth to the readers understanding of both filming of this movie and its most significant cast member. Mere trivia wouldn't have elicited a pointed acknowledgment by an important co-star. Judging an accurate and verified fact subjectively isn't excuseworthy when there's approximate cross-examples in many movie wikis. - Count3D (talk) 04:01, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
The fact that it was mentioned by Isaacs doesn't automatically mean it's worthy of inclusion, just that it's a fact available to the public. If it hadn't been mentioned by him it wouldn't even by an available piece of information in the first place. So no, a mention doesn't make it important. It doesn't add to the understanding of the filming because it's not a particular quality of this film, as it was the case with Iron Man. You're just assuming trivia wouldn't have been mentioned by an actor, but most anecdotes from the film set are trivia, which doesn't mean it isn't interesting or that it's worthless, just that it isn't important for the whole picture. Two of the examples you provided are close to what you're trying to do here, and both have more justification to be in their respective articles than this one. —El Millo (talk) 04:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: Your definition of "trivia" is too broad. It doesn't have to be "a particular quality of this film" to add understanding. Not every article does. If every film article applied that standard, they would look very different and be less informative because they are losing context. Subjectively judging what facts should be available to the reader still robs the reader. In removing this fact, you are robbing the article, of, as you put it, part of "the whole picture" as it pertains to the making of this movie, its lead character/star and the insight of one its principal antagonists. - Count3D (talk) 04:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
You're not adding context for anything and this isn't helping understand anything about this film or its production. We as Wikipedians always judge what seems important, otherwise we'd include any fact about anything there is, but Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information. There is so much information, especially about films, that is not relevant to a Wikipedia article, actors' favorite lines, for example. They are known facts, but not relevant for a Wikipedia article. Pieces from the set the actors kept, known facts but not relevant. So no, just because it is known doesn't mean it should be included. You keep insisting on the info as related to Radcliffe, but you didn't include anything about Radcliffe in your edit. You're talking about a brief ad-libbed bit between two characters and two lines of dialogue. Look at these articles: [1], [2]. See how many little moments where improvised, and how barely if any of them are relevant. This happens in films. Actors improvise, some things are kept, some things are not. How does this particular moment stand above all those other improvised moments? —El Millo (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
@Facu-el Millo: You're stating an opinion as fact while removing actual facts. You removed insight into an organically developed scene which featured two prominent characters, including the most important character in the whole Harry Potter franchise, played by a successful actor in the onset of his career, a scene that ended up being featured in the film's primary marketing. Your linking to those article about the scene only bolsters its notability. It doesn't have to stand above, it stands all the same, each of those moments could be added to their respective pages. - Count3D (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Cheers! Surge_Elec (talk) 20:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Poster quality

I found the poster with better quality and less saturated, if you want to update: https://www.the-numbers.com/images/movies/opusdata/Batman-The-(2021).jpg Espantalho de Oz (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Espantalho de Oz:  Done —El Millo (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Timeline corrections

Marvel Cinematic Universe Timeline:

The Disney+ timeline is unreliable. I contribute to the Marvel fan wiki where we decipher exactly where each project takes place in the timeline. Ive also been talking to Disney+ tech support to correct the timeline mistakes they have made. This is ongoing.

Spider-Man Far From Home: 8 months after Endgame. It's the last day of school so this would be around June 26 2024. This puts Endgame in Oct 2023.

Wandavision: 3 weeks after Endgame. Episode 7, the opening credits finishes with a Nov 2023 calendar with the number 10 circled. This denotes the last day. Thus when the time frame is worked out its November 5 - 10 2023.

Falcon & Winter Soldier: 6 month after Endgame. This would put the first episode in mid April 2024. The second episode jumps 2 weeks to May and continues on to approx start of June at the end of episode 6.

Shang-Chi: takes place around Qingming (Chinese day of the dead). This is April 4/5 every year. The final battle of the film takes place on the day of Qingming which in 2024 is April 4. With the film giving clear time frames we can actually date it March 27 - April 10 2024.

Eternals: The weather in London is clearly late fall and the people are in cold weather clothing. There are a number of posters in the background that reference November and December dates and Kingo's movie studio has a poster for his new film dated to come out on Diwali which is Nov 12-16 in 2023. There was a full moon in Endgame dated to Oct 28; the next full moon after is Nov 27 2023 which is clearly shown in present dat London. Also Ajax states that Thanos wiped out half of all life "5 years ago" which puts the film late 2023 after Endgame. If it was 2024 the 5 years ago would be 2019 which is one year after Infinity War. So Eternals is Nov 27 - Dec 4 (2 weeks later Dec 18) 2023.

Hawkeye: easy Dec 2024

Spider-Man No Way Home: starts in July same day as Far From Home, 2 month jump to September, 2 month jump to mid November and then a few weeks later in early December 2024

Moon Knight: the lunar calendar helps with this one. Episode 1 has defined days; starts on Thursday, Steven thinks he's dreaming and wakes up on Sunday and then the episode finishes on Monday. Episode 2 starts the next day on Tuesday. Both Monday and Tuesday have waxing crescent moons and the Museum Exhibit has the dates "April 22 - July 29". Thus giving us a window to find its exact placement. When we look at the Lunar calendars for 2024/2025 between the dates given only 3 sets of dates match the days and moon cycle. June 10/11 2024, July 8/9 2024 and July 28/29 2025. There is a school girl at the museum in episode 1 so the 2025 dates cancel out as that would be within UK schools summer break. The weather is quite mild in episode 1 and July is when the temp especially in London gets very hot. With this evidence we can place Moon Knight from June 6 - June 21 2024. The production team clearly followed the June Lunar calendar and June 21 is when the full Moon will be present.

Ms. Marvel: set photos showed stark drones on set which clearly ties it with the opening of No Way Home.

When analysed correctly the correct timeline post Endgame is thus:

Avengers Endgame: Oct 2023 Wandvision: Nov 2023 Eternals: Nov-Dec 2023 Shang-chi: Mar-Apr 2024 The Falcon and the Winter Soldier: Apr-Jun 2024 Moon Knight: Jun 2024 Spider-Man Far From Home: Jun-Jul 2024 Ms. Marvel: Around Sept 2024 Spider-Man No Way Home: Jul-Sept-Nov-Dec 2024 Hawkeye: Dec 2024 Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness: 2024-2025 Jazz-meister01 (talk) 17:37, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

This is all original research and therefore not usable. —El Millo (talk) 19:33, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

its research that's right, disney+ is a mess and very wrong. I analyse every segment of these films/series and if you care to look these findings are correct Jazz-meister01 (talk) 22:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

and its not original research its stating facts that are present within the films/series themselves Jazz-meister01 (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

The Disney+ timeline is wrong and the majority of fans acknowledge this. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 22:52, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

check the marvel fan wiki as that is the most accurate timeline Jazz-meister01 (talk) 22:53, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

and that timeline HAS been used for reference by marvel studios staff. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

https:// marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/wiki/ Timeline Jazz-meister01 (talk) 23:23, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

original research would be making it up! Ive only stated what marvel studios actually put into their projects!! Jazz-meister01 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

No, original research is connecting the dots yourself instead of citing a reliable source that does it. —El Millo (talk) 16:34, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

well I know that I'm right and that the other fans who work hard deciphering the timeline on the marvel wiki are RIGHT ASWELL. KEEP MAKING WIKIPEDIA WRONG Jazz-meister01 (talk) 18:06, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Marvel studios out those dots in their projects for fans to decipher. they are put there on purpose for us to work it out! Jazz-meister01 (talk) 18:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

and I did give you a reliable source which was the marvel fan wiki. A source I might add that Marvel Studios staff have actually used to make sure they get the timeline correct. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

one of the writers on What If used that site and stated so on her twitter feed. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 18:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

So if the Marvel Fan Wiki is a good enough source for Marvel Studios Writers, its good enough for wikipedia writers too. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Wow this is so much WP:OR. Please provide reliable third party sources confirming any of this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:31, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Heres the original post on the marvel wiki that reported the tweet by What If? writer A C Bradley. She used the fan wiki for its timeline information. So What If? was written with reference to the fans work on this site!
https://marvelcinematicuniverse.fandom.com/f/p/4400000000002032134/r/4400000000007339396 Jazz-meister01 (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Alright, listen. Per WP:FANDOM, using Fandom fan wikis as a source is not allowed on Wikipedia, period. All that analysis is WP:OR. Please familiarize yourself with WP:V. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:03, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

whatever Jazz-meister01 (talk) 23:26, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The fan wikis MCU timeline is correct and yours is wrong end of. Thats why MCU fans use the fan wiki and not wikipedia. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep to the fan wiki then, if you aren't interested in learning how Wikipedia works. —El Millo (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll also say that this analysis conflicts with many reliable sources that, for example, say Eternals happens around the same time as Far from Home. —El Millo (talk) 02:17, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

that statement was generalisation for eternals placement!! the producer was an idiot to say what he did. Ajax states the snap was "5 years" ago!!. the snap was May 2018. use your brain and take 5 years from 2023 you get 2018. if you take 5 from 2024 where you've put it it would be 2019 which is wrong!! Eternals was filmed in winter and far from home was filmed in summer. Analyse the films properly and you can see where they're set. Eternals has ads in the background in London with November and December dates and the characters are wearing scarves and jumpers not shorts and t-shirts. I'm talking to Disney+ tech support to help them put the timeline correct which they have messed up. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 09:31, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

what the producer said and what the Eternals film says actually contradict each other. You say you base things on credible sources yet you take one source from the producer and didn't even bother to weigh it against the best evidence which is actually stated in the film itself. you've obviously never even watched it! Jazz-meister01 (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Also not every statement by cast or crew can be taken at face value. With Hawkeye the director stated it was "2 years after Endgame" in 2025. The producer stated it was "1 year after Endgame" in 2024. Two statements that contradict each other. The director then retracted his statement saying it was actually "1 year after" and apologised for the confusion. It's the same with Eternals; the film says one thing and the producer said another. Both contradict each other. The best source is what is stated and shown in the film/series itself. This info from the crew should be weighed against this always.

Eternals Film evidence: shows late fall weather and winter clothing being worn. 5 years is stated to have passed since Thanos snap in 2018 by Ajax. background ads show Nov/Dec dates on posters. Dane states that half the population returned recently.

Producer statement. "Eternals takes place around Far From Home". Far From Home takes place "8 Months after Endgame" as stated in film by Betty Brant. It is Summer and End of the school year and people are wearing shorts and t-shirt.

The evidence in film and the producers statement totally contradict each other when weighed up. What is stated in film or series is the evidence you go by. If crew statements line up with this then it that's great but if it goes against what the in universe story states its false. Jazz-meister01 (talk) 12:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red

Hi there, Facu-el Millo, and welcome to Women in Red. It's good to see you intend to write about women in films by translating articles from the Spanish wiki. As you have not yet created any biographies, I suggest you first look carefully through our Primer for creating women's biographies. As you may know, rules for acceptance of articles on the EN wiki are stricter than those for Spanish. You should therefore make sure that those you create have at least three reliable secondary sources which provide useful details. In general, it's easier to write about women who are no longer with us that those who are living. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing and good luck in the contest.--Ipigott (talk) 09:49, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Cite RT MC Title

Hey, why do these templates have title of the media for their title parameter but cite web has "title of the source page on the website" for its title parameter? Seems like they should be aligned Indagate (talk) 16:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

@Indagate: because these two templates are for films an TV series exclusively. Cite web is for practically every web page. They shouldn't be aligned. —El Millo (talk) 16:16, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
True but cite web has previously been used for RT MC, and can't see why it would use title as title of media, seems logical to me that the title of a reference to a page should be the title of that webpage. Indagate (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2022 (UTC)
That's the way the RT and MC templates were conceived, which to me makes sense because whatever is accompanying the film's title in the webpage title is always unnecessary, like the year in parentheses for RT or "Reviews" after it for MC. Different templates are conceived for different purposes, even if they're all for references. {{Cite book}} also has a |title= parameter that's only for the book's title, and there's no problem with it. —El Millo (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:ANEW

Thanks for the assist with this, I would have responded again myself if it wasn't for the time difference. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:42, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Let's hope they desist and don't take this to ANI, though you can take them if you'd like. —El Millo (talk) 22:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
I prefer not to spend what time I do have for Wikipedia on such things, but I can't control what they end up doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

May Women in Red events

Women in Red May 2022, Vol 8, Issue 5, Nos 214, 217, 227, 229, 230


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Inception plot summary

The summary is inaccurate without my most recent edit, as Eames didn't "suggest that Robert reconsider his fathers will", he only introduced the idea of the alternate will to set up the inception on the third level, and later on I didn't actually add that much new information; I only specified Browning as a projection based on Eames and that Robert entered the third level in what he thought to be a plan to stop Browning.

I would be perfectly fine with you or someone else wanting to par down or generalize a few specific phrases but Robert's inception was the entire crux of the film's plot and I believe the summary would be incomplete and confusing without explaining the importance of Eames's impersonation of Browning to the team's larger plan. Orchastrattor (talk) 19:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I've restored the first part of your changes, since it actually just simply corrects something. The other change you made clarifies minor details that are not relevant enough for the plot summary, all the intricacies of the plan are not necessary there. —El Millo (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, but I think it might still be a bit confusing if the fourth paragraph doesn't tie back to the alternate will, since it being the fake Browning's supposed motivation is what allows them to dupe Robert into the third level, so I'd suggest amending it with "...he has been kidnapped by Browning to stop the dissolution", otherwise bringing it up in the third paragraph would be kinda pointless. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done. —El Millo (talk) 22:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

June events from Women in Red

Women in Red June 2022, Vol 8, Issue 6, Nos 214, 217, 227, 231, 232, 233


Online events:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:20, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Letting you know

IP 201 reverted on The Flash film again. I trust your judgement (I haven't quite been able to parse what they did) but they did defy the final warning.--CreecregofLife (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@CreecregofLife:, thanks for the warning. The IP has been reported and blocked for 36 hours. —El Millo (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
And now it turns out they hopped. CreecregofLife (talk) 23:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Women in Red in July 2022

Women in Red July 2022, Vol 8, Issue 7, Nos 214, 217, 234, 235


Online events:


See also:


Other ways to participate:

Facebook | Instagram | Pinterest | Twitter

--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

On the Logan (film character) future section

I don’t know the full list of those who helped make that article and I don’t know how to expand on it. I left this on the talk page but no one has since responded. ”According to Deadline in this article here Taron Edgerton has apparently been meeting with Marvel Studios executives about taking in the role of Wolverine. Maybe that should be put in the future section?” As someone who I think worked on it I wanted you to directly look at this. And well hear what you think. 0Detail-Attention215 (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It's only been two hours since you posted there, please be patient in waiting for a reply. I'm sure someone will get to that sooner or later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InfiniteNexus (talk • contribs) 16:54, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@0Detail-Attention215: sure, it seems appropriate for that section. Remember there's no need to wait for others' approval for additions such as this one, backed-up by a reliable source, you can just add it and see what other editors do about it. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
FYI, El Millo, there seems to be some pushback at Talk:Logan (film character)#Future section. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Disney+

I am Just Saying That there is over 1 billion more people than in the US and it was already on Disney+ Star and they will try to correct it. best to avoid confusion. Just saying. 202.53.56.80 (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Disney+ Star and Disney+ aren't the same thing, and including "The US version of" every time Disney+ appears is too much. That would also mean we should do it for every other streaming service. As a default, the only relevant country for a film is its country of production, and other countries are only relevant if something particular related to them happened with that film. —El Millo (talk) 17:02, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Canadian monarch isn't Canadian?

Hello. My goodness, don't mention too much, that the Canadian monarch is British or English ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:15, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I honestly couldn't believe it when I first heard of it. —El Millo (talk) 02:17, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
More importantly. Never say the British monarch is Canada's monarch ;) GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) You'll find it's the same in other Commonwealth countries as well - adamstom97 (talk) 02:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Wow, that's fascinating. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
You'll have the Monarchist League of Canada in an uproar ;) GoodDay (talk) 03:30, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, your idea on moving the emblems in the royal awards infoboxes, was darn good. I'm conceding to using 'lower-case' & hope it'll be adopted to all the royal awards pages & not just the Canadian ones :) GoodDay (talk) 01:57, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I'm sure it'll be applied in all of them in time. —El Millo (talk) 02:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

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.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

InfiniteNexus (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas!

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 Christmas cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas, Facu-el Millo! Have a quantumanic new year! InfiniteNexus (talk) 06:41, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Trailblazer101 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! 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) 16:48, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2023!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2023.
Happy editing,
JOEBRO64 14:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

JOEBRO64 14:14, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Create page

Hello, i saw that you undid what i wrote in Fantastic Beasts about the creation of the page of Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (Original Motion Picture Soundtrack) , if is not helpful, please create the page, the other soundtracks have pages: Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (soundtrack) and Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald (soundtrack) 191.113.204.86 (talk) 20:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hidden comment aren't used to ask for pages to be created in the way you were using them, that's why I reverted your edit. You are welcome to create the article yourself, and ask for help at Articles for creation. —El Millo (talk) 20:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Can your create it ,please? I am sorry, but i don't have a Wikipedia profile 191.113.204.86 (talk) 20:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
You can edit the Draft:Fantastic Beasts: The Secrets of Dumbledore (soundtrack) and submit it for it to become an article when it is ready. —El Millo (talk) 20:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Okay, i added a lot of information, but the image doesn't appear, can you see that? 191.113.204.86 (talk) 22:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Images must be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons or to Wikipedia in order to be used, they can't be added just by putting a link. See Wikipedia:Uploading images and Wikipedia:Non-free content on how to upload non-free images. —El Millo (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Anonymous users can't upload images, please do it yourself 191.113.204.86 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I highly recommend you to create an account, as you can see there are many, many limitations for IPs. —El Millo (talk) 23:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, Facu-el Millo. 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.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Salvio giuliano 20:13, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

List of highest-grossing films

Hi, box office Titanic and Avatar: the way of water Respectively $2,226,034,860 and $2,219,362,826. Source: https://www.boxofficemojo.com/chart/ww_top_lifetime_gross/?ref_=bo_lnav_hm_shrt. Please edit https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_films#Timeline_of_highest-grossing_films Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinmehr (talk • contribs) 12:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Likely due to Box Office Mojo's mistake, see the footnote on Titanic. —El Millo (talk) 16:45, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania

Box office collection is already available in the upper template. Then why do you want to provide repetitive information? Mr.sandippaul (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This is the most common practice in film articles. See any film article and it'll have the critical response and box office information. The WP:LEAD section exists precisely to summarize all the article. —El Millo (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Tenet movie and Ukraine

Average-citizen blog posts don't seem to impress very much, I guess. But the Globe and Mail is certainly reputable. So there shouldn't be a problem with my using that? 47.149.214.237 (talk) 07:24, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

In itself, no. But in order to include a section about that, there should be many reliable sources that make the comparison between Tenet and the real-life conflict. Otherwise, it constitutes undue weight. —El Millo (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I put something on the Tenet movie talk page recently, as I recently found my discussion of Ukraine parallels was removed. I haven't heard replies from you or others yet, so here I am. ...I see that Michael60634, who raised the complaint that got my discussion removed, has a six-month ban on editing the Crimea article, or something of the sort, but he didn't mention that when he tried to remove my Tenet discussion. Conflict of interest, or such? ...Also interesting to see the big Russian quote, "наша цель - счастье всего человечества", on his userpage. Too, see this discussion, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:In_Crimea, where it looks like he gets seriously criticized. ...When I wrote my thing on the Tenet movie talk page the other day, I didn't bother to look up the bios of Michael60634 or the other users when I said, "At least, and obviously, none of you are Russian plants (!!), thank goodness [...] I think Putin and his cronies actually would enjoy seeing the section removed -- just as there are many discussions they would like to see silenced--, though their motivations doubtlessly aren't your own motivations." But now that I'm writing this, and looking up bios of people in preparation for writing this paragraph, I'm not saying that anyone definitely has a pro-Russian bias, but I'm sort of wondering what's going on. I'm not the one who has
"Notice that you are now subject to an arbitration enforcement sanction ... The following sanction now applies to you:
Topic banned from Crimea for six months (expiring at 00:01, 15 July 2023 (UTC)). You are also warned that edit warring is not acceptable and that if you engage in further edit warring it is likely you will likely be blocked for an extended period of time." on my talk page, Michael60634 is. ...Thanks for thinking about this and getting back to me. I would say that his complaint shouldn't erase my discussion from the Tenet page, even if some other people aren't overly fond of what I have to say. Freedom of speech on important topics is important. 47.149.214.237 (talk) 03:33, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
I already answered on the article's talk page. Remember this isn't about freedom of speech, it's about whether the content is actually relevant for the article based on coverage by reliable sources and whether its inclusion is proportional to how relevant it is. —El Millo (talk) 15:44, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Have put longer reply on Tenet page. Be well. 47.149.214.237 (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk time setting

Preview pages from Marvel Studios' The Marvel Cinematic Universe: An Official Timeline have been released, officially confirming that Iron Man is set in 2008 and The Incredible Hulk is set in 2010

https://www.dk.com/us/book/9780744090994-marvel-studios-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-an-official-timeline/

T.MilesMumbles (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Peter Parker (Sam Raimi film series)

Hi. I reverted your edit because I couldn't find anything about "polarized responses to Maguire's acting". As I've stated in edit summaries, one source states "Tobey Maguire's rendition of Peter Parker is brutally uncool, which already leads to a lot of fun moments for the character across three movies", in addition to Spider-Man being listed as one of the "Coolest Heroes" and the scene itself is "one of Spider-Man 3's smartest moments". I don't see something "polarized" from these three sources. ภץאคгöร 07:44, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

@Nyxaros: I've pulled from the reviews at Spider-Man 3 and searched a bit more on my own:
  • IGN review: That said, there are a handful of scenes that really don't work, including a dance number (yes, you read that right)
  • New Yorker review: One moment he is being eyed by girls in the street, and the next they are shying away from him, as he struts along like John Travolta at the start of “Saturday Night Fever.” You laugh, but the sound of it dies in your throat. Peter then dances in a night club, but unveiling a mean and moody Tobey Maguire is roughly as convincing as asking Norah Jones to rap.
  • GamesRadar: Sam Raimi has addressed that infamous dance scene in Spider-Man 3. In the movie, Tobey Maguire's Peter Parker becomes corrupted by the influence of the black Venom suit – and to show his new bad boy persona, he… dances in the street? "Well, we meant it to be funny, actually," Raimi told Fandom. "It was Peter Parker's version – this lame kid – of what it must be like to be his evil self. But he's so whipped. He's so out of it that that's his take on it. And that didn't go over well with the audience. But that's what we were trying to do. So I'm not surprised that people… I'm glad people find it funny! We wanted it to be fun."
  • JoBlo retrospective review: I think the dancing is stupid and my reaction to this every time I see it is very similar to these ladies right here (showing reaction shot from dance scene)
  • The Telegraph: "Strictly come Spidey: how Tobey Maguire's terrible dancing almost killed Spider-Man": Maguire’s spider-dance would gain instant notoriety – becoming a short-hand for everything wrong with director Sam Raimi’s sign-off from a super-hero trilogy that grossed billions and arguably cleared a path for the onward-rumbling Marvel juggernaut of the present day ... Yet it hasn't been forgotten to the point that the spider-dance can’t still be milked for nervous giggles, as it was in Sony’s animated feature Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse. ... How did the spider-dance come to be? Was it poor judgement, overweening ambition or merely an unfortunate alignment in the stars? ... The clip may be over in a flash, but it has lived on, retroactively tarnishing the previous two Raimi movies.
  • Into the Spider-Verse review: ... and the regrettable Spider-Man 3 dance sequence are all referenced
  • The Daily Beast: Too many villains, a longer runtime, a soapy amnesia plot, and a goofy dance sequence contributed to Spidey fatigue. ... There was disdain and confusion from the moment he brought out his finger guns and began thrusting those hips. Emo bangs, the appearance of eyeliner, and the confidence to dance in public are how Raimi showed the Venom symbiote’s influence over Peter. Audiences, however, overwhelmingly hated it.

These are just a few. As you see it's not "literally my own opinion". What I was saying is that you shouldn't just change "polarizing" to "positive" based on the sources already present especially when you don't have knowledge on the subject, as this is generally known to be an, at least, goofy and ridiculous scene, even though some may like it nonetheless. —El Millo (talk) 13:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

I've checked the sources already present and the Entertainment Weekly source already said LEAST HEROIC MOVE: That alien-goop-prompted emo strut he whips out in Spider-Man 3 when talking about the scene. So this was already present in the source, with one calling it "infamous" and then this, it was already enough. —El Millo (talk) 13:20, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
The already-present ScreenRant source also said While the Spider-Man fandom may be divided on whether or not the infamous scene is cringe-worthy or comedic, one theory suggests that the scene intentionally conveys a bit of both in order to call attention to Peter Parker’s evolution as a character. Also corroborating it's, at the very least, polarizing. —El Millo (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
If the sources you gathered above were in the article, such a situation would not have occurred, as I don't think "least heroic move" and "infamous" scene means "polarized responses to Maguire's acting" (they mention the scene being cringe and "brutally uncool, which already leads to a lot of fun moments"). You did well by adding more sources and improving the article. ภץאคгöร 15:47, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
@Nyxaros:I agree the target shouldn't be Maguire's acting, but the scene itself. —El Millo (talk) 18:12, 17 June 2023 (UTC)

"Michelle Jones-Watson(Marvel Cinematic Universe)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Michelle Jones-Watson(Marvel Cinematic Universe) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 June 25 § Michelle Jones-Watson(Marvel Cinematic Universe) until a consensus is reached. Gonnym (talk) 09:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Wonka 2023 film poster.jpg

Hello, Just a reminder to include the file extension in your move requests, ie. .jpg, .svg, .png and so on. Thank you. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 18:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Noted. Thank you for the move. —El Millo (talk) 18:32, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
No problem, anytime. Cheers, - FlightTime (open channel) 22:14, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Question

Helllo ! we can redirect a french user page to a english user page ? Project sekai (talk) 16:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC) And if we can , there is a code ? Project sekai (talk) 16:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you can. You can try putting #REDIRECT [[en:User:Project sekai]] on the French user page, but I'm not sure if it works. —El Millo (talk) 21:27, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Argentina, 1985

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Argentina, 1985 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 02:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Argentina, 1985

The article Argentina, 1985 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:Argentina, 1985 and Talk:Argentina, 1985/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 03:21, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Argentina, 1985

The article Argentina, 1985 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Argentina, 1985 for comments about the article, and Talk:Argentina, 1985/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sammi Brie -- Sammi Brie (talk) 18:23, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Facu-el Millo. Thank you for your work on The Eternaut (TV series). User:North8000, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

good start

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|North8000}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

North8000 (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Let's get things right

Hi. Korea belongs to the world. And a Korean premiere may be a world premiere unless that there is a earlier premiere elsewhere (which I don't know if there is, but we go along by evidence currently available in the article).--Asqueladd (talk) 19:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I reverted it too son, I mistakenly thought both releases were the same day. Until an actual world premiere or an even earlier release date than Korea appears, that release date will stay. —El Millo (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
No problem. I also want to ammend a rushed edit summary of mine. Where I wrote Unless you can cite an earlier release date elsewhere this is the world premiere up to this point I meant Unless you can cite an earlier release date elsewhere, the available public release date predating the domestic release date should be handled as if it were a world premiere date for infobox purposes. Regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 20:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wonka 2023 film poster.jpg

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wonka 2023 film poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:43, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Joyous Season

I wish that you may have a very Happy Holiday! Whether you celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, Hogmanay, Festivus or your hemisphere's Solstice, this is a special time of year for almost everyone! May the New Year provide you joy and fulfillment! Thanks for everything you do here. ★Trekker (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Coffee/Holidays}} to your fellow editors' talk pages. 

★Trekker (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!!!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
Jerium (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Jerium (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:08, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
JOEBRO64 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

JOEBRO64 15:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Apologies for just being able to share now. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Facu-el Millo, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024.
Happy editing,
adamstom97 (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Facu-el_Millo/Archive_6&oldid=1201115874"