User talk:InfiniteNexus/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Relation Pixel 5a to Pixel 6

Hello InfiniteNexus, you reverted my edit which removed the Pixel 5a from the related section of the Pixel 6 for the reason "No reason to remove Pixel 5a either". The 5a is part of the Pixel 5 generation and is linked there as related device and I don't see a reason to link it in the Pixel 6 series. This brings the Pixel 6 page in line with the other pages since Pixel 3. I would like to remove it but don't want a back and forth so please explain your reasoning. RM12 (talk) 06:44, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

@RM12: I think it's reasonable to include the Pixel 5a, as they were released the same year (two months apart, actually). With that being said, you do make a good point regarding consistency, so I'll remove it. Your edit was reverted because you didn't provide a reason for removing it in the first place, not so much that I disagreed with it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Well I didn't think any reasoning would be necessary because the Pixel 5a belongs to the "5 series" when going by internal specifications and most notably by name. The Pixel 4a 5G and the Pixel 5 were released the same day and nevertheless I wouldn't consider them being the same generation either. RM12 (talk) 16:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

That's fair. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Okay nice to get along and thanks for making the change. Have a good day. RM12 (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, you too! InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election

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 03:30, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:She-Hulk: Attorney at Law episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:She-Hulk: Attorney at Law episode redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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!} 01:14, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I saw you've reviewed my article U-24 (association). Many thanks! I hope this initiative will materialize and help to avoid human deaths and war atrocities. Best wishes! Tsans2 (talk) 07:37, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

@Tsans2: You're very welcome. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:50, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Thedirect.com

Regarding this "unreliable source" tag, I am unaware of any discussion in which Thedirect.com has been determined to be unreliable (it is not listed as such at WP:RSP). As a source quoting what a producer of a fictional TV series said about the activities of characters on the show, I see no problem with it. BD2412 T 05:32, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@BD2412: There is consensus, at least for MCU-related topics, that The Direct is not a reliable source. If you wish, I can dig up past discussions and edit summaries which demonstrate this. With that being said, I didn't notice that that was an interview, so the correct tag should be {{Better source needed}}. I'll change it. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

What you should do in that case is add a line to WP:RSP linking to those discussions. In any case, I think the source is fine for the proposition being sourced. It is unlikely to be fabricated. BD2412 T 20:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, new sources are only added to the WP:RSP list when there have been numerous discussions over at their noticeboard. This is not the case for The Direct, but again, there is consensus over here on MCU-related articles that it generally isn't reliable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Also just to note, {{bsn}} does not mean a source is not reliable, just that it would be better if a more reliable source is used. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Unreliable Sources

Hello Infinite Nexus I hope you are doing well May I ask what makes a source unreliable (sources which deals with entertainment purposes). Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 14:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Seaweed Brain1993: A source is only reliable if it is widely cited by other reliable sources and it does not have a track record of reporting unsubstantiated rumors or egregiously false statements. InfiniteNexus (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok thanks. If the company confirms something but it is not reported by any reliable sources, is it acceptable?

Say, Marvel Studios revealed that Actor X is playing character Y in the movie Z. However, the announcement was not covered by reliable sources. Should we add it or ignore it? Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That sounds highly improbable. InfiniteNexus (talk) 13:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok 👌 thanks agains Seaweed Brain1993 (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

On consistent terminology between articles.

(This is about a revertion by you of my edit on New World Order (The Falcon and the Winter Soldier))

Is there a policy or guideline? A quick search doesn't bring up anything relevant. And I couldn't find anything on wikiproject television or under MCU taskforce.

Given that there is a clear difference between the ways traditional television and streaming television are marketed, broadcast and consumed, I thought it would be more fitting to use the latter term.

Given that there is a clear difference between the ways tradition television and streaming television are marketed, broadcast and consumed, I thought it would be more fitting to use the letter term. If any discussion on this has already happened can you point me towards it?

Squeezdakat (talk) 16:21, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

@Squeezdakat: I don't think there's an actual guideline which says articles must have consistent formatting with one another, but this is just good practice in general. When there is an established formatting found across multiple articles, this also indicates WP:CONSENSUS, so if you believe something should be change please propose it on the talk page. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus: Thank you for that. Squeezdakat (talk) 01:58, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. season 6

Hi man. Now, I haven't seen Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., but season 6 does not involve time travel, despite what it says on the MCU multiverse page. That was seasons 5 & 7, which the majority occur in an alternate timelines (Destroyed Earth - 501 to 510, Chronicoms - 613 to 713). — SirDot (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

I confess I've only seen a few episodes of that show, mostly in the early seasons (and that was a long time ago), but I looked at the time-travel source and it's actually referring to Season 7, so I'll move it to the correct section. Thanks for spotting the error. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:21, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Alright then! — SirDot (talk) 18:49, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

RIPD (disambiguation)

Hi,

the problem with your last edit wasn't the change of primary topic as such. Before, it was completely clear how the works are related: "comic book", "-> film adaptation", "-> sequel". Now, it says "film", "comic book", "-> sequel". Both verbally and structurally, clarity is lost - surely you can find a way to avoid that?

- 2A02:560:5882:1600:403C:112F:D9D9:5CA0 (talk) 20:00, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

That's not how disambiguation pages are structured. The primary topic, which in this case is the 2013 film, is linked at the top of the page per WP:DABSTYLE, followed by other topics of the same name. We give more weight to Wikipedia guidelines than what we think looks nicer. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:16, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, I've seen quite a few Wikipedia disambiguation pages, and the current version of this one stands out as somewhat inept, if you'll forgive my saying so. Why would having the film as the primary topic and mentioning that the film adapts the comic be mutually exclusive?

-2A02:560:5882:1600:403C:112F:D9D9:5CA0 (talk) 21:32, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. There are plenty of DAB pages structured in this way, i.e. with the primary topic singled out at the top. As for the "mutually exclusive" question, we can only include a link once, so it's either at the top if it's the primary topic, or as a bullet if it's not. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:45, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

I looked through a bunch of other disambiguation pages for comic book adaptations, but failed to find any other cases in which the adaptation was picked as primary. The closest I came across was for Wanted, which at least has the same ordering:

• [...]
• Wanted (2008 film), an American action film based on the comics series (see below)
• [...]
• Wanted (comics), a 2003–2005 comic book limited series by Mark Millar and J. G. Jones
• [...]

Not great, but better than leaving it to the readers' inference, IMO. An alternative would be to mention the connection in the comic book line: "..., on which the film is based", that sort of thing?

- 2A02:560:5882:1600:403C:112F:D9D9:5CA0 (talk) 22:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand, I didn't determine that the film is the primary topic arbitrarily. The 2013 film has no disambiguation, i.e. it's titled R.I.P.D. and not R.I.P.D. (film), which means previous consensus has established it as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC on Wikipedia. WP:DABSTYLE states that disambiguation pages should have the primary topic page linked at the very top, which is what we're doing here. On the other hand, because "Wanted" has no primary topic, Wanted is a disambiguation page and does not have any article singled out at the top of the page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Voter impersonation in the United States

Why did you move this article to Voter impersonation? The entire article is about the US. I've moved it back. Next time, please discuss moves of controversial pages before doing them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:57, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I already explained my reasoning in the edit summary, which is that it's an unnecessary disambiguation since no separate article called Voter impersonation exists. The article's lead doesn't make it clear that the article solely focuses on the U.S., so I had no way of discerning that without reading the article in its entirety. Secondly, I took a quick look at the article's talk page before making the WP:BOLD move, and found no evidence of past discussions/disputes/RMs, so I'm not sure why you find such a move controversial. InfiniteNexus (talk) 16:13, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Not the move, the subject. Beyond My Ken (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:43, 7 November 2022 (UTC)