User talk:SnapSnap/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Happy New Year, SnapSnap!

Happy New Year!

SnapSnap,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 15:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, Moops! Wish you an excellent New Year as well. :) snapsnap ^(talk) 04:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Poster on Marlowe (2022 film)

When I went to edit there was no poster there (I guess I waited too long to actually post the edit). I didn't mean to kick yours out. :\ Mike Allen 16:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@MikeAllen: No problems! I figured it wasn't deliberate. :) snapsnap ^(talk) 17:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Ellie Goulding - Delirium

Hi Snap Snap,

How are you? KARANSUTTA (talk) 05:37, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

I am a little confused as to why we can't use the digital standard cover for Ellie's Delirium album on Wikipedia? Last time, when I made that change you mentioned that discogs is not a reliable source, but this time I made sure all the sources are reliable. KARANSUTTA (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@KARANSUTTA: Hello. I really don't see a reason why the physical cover should be replaced with the digital cover. The physical cover has been established in the article for years – why change now? You claimed that the "majority of the Wikipedia articles use the standard digital cover". Well, that's a rather far-fetched statement. I've seen all sorts of album covers used on Wikipedia – physical, digital, standard, deluxe... This is a case-by-case matter. And the fact that Brightest Blue uses the standard digital cover is whataboutism. Besides, the image you're trying to upload is of clearly inferior quality. snapsnap ^(talk) 07:09, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Haunted Mansion poster.

I did not mean to upload the poster at the same time as you. My apologies. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 19:45, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

@Obi-WanKenobi-2005: No biggie, it happens. snapsnap ^(talk) 20:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Young & Wild

It is not redundant. They are separate, since obviously not all Bisexual-related films will involve specifically women or girls, nor vice versa. Mcc1789 (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

@Mcc1789: Category:Female bisexuality in film is a subcategory of Category:Bisexuality-related films, so including both is definitely redundant. snapsnap ^(talk) 03:29, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, clearly a subcategory, but I disagree it's redundant. As stated above, they are different (e.g. a film about a bisexual man doesn't fit in both categories obviously). Regardless, this is pedantic I know.Mcc1789 (talk) 03:31, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Black Swan Movie Poster

Hi, unfortunately you are incorrect. That poster is NOT the Theatrical movie Poster for Black Swan. Here is a link to when Black Swan was premiering in movie theaters with many of the cast members. https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/env-black-swan-afi-premiere-pictures-photogallery.html You can see from the images in the above link (in the background) the poster that was used as the theatrical poster across the country when the movie was released and in the theaters. That picture you re labeled as the theatrical poster is something some fan designed and created, but it was not the "theatrical poster" of the film, so it is correct to label it like that on the wikipedia page. When the movie was originally released the wiki aprticle actually had the correct image of the poster and I have no idea why that was removed. If you or anyone else can post the correct and original poster for the Theater release as you can see in the above link I posted that would be great. But if anybody is going to continue to post that other poster it cannot be called the "Theatrical" poster, because it was not that. Fsm83 (talk) 00:32, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Fsm83: The link you provided refers to the film's premiere at AFI Fest, one month before the US theatrical release. The poster currently used in the article bears the MPAA rating and the release month. It was even used in several international markets. Do you have any evidence that this poster is fan-designed as you claim? Meanwhile, the previous poster (close-up of Natalie Portman) merely states "This fall". The one that says "December" is clearly the final theatrical poster. snapsnap ^(talk) 00:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

That is correct that the link I provided was from the AFI movie Premiere which was only a day before the film was originally released. It was also the poster that was at all theaters across the country when the movie was first released back in December 2010. I went to the film myself (not in Los Angeles) when it was released and that was the movie poster that was at the theater. Additionally, as I mentioned that original theater movie poster WAS the poster image that was on the wikipedia site for at least a year. Maybe longer. Again I have no idea why somebody took that poster image down and replaced it with soemthing that was not the actual poster when the film was in theaters. I know after a film has been released there can be other versions that get created as poster for a host of things, such as DVD releases at the time, or certain film websites. I saw that image that is on the wiki page some years ago in an article about how some person had created the image, but that was years ago and I don't have a link to that specific story. But the main point remains that this current poster was NOT the movie poster at all the theaters throughout the country. If you want to word it something differently then "Theatrical" that would probably be acceptable. I still think what would be ideal is to post the actual movie poster that was in all the theaters back in 2010 and 2011 when the film was in theaters. I am sure if you went back to the wiki article for Black Swan and reviewed what the page looked like back in something like January 2011 you would see they had that poster you saw in the LA Times article was there. Fsm83 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I gave this some more thought and I have reverted it back to your selection. I really don't want to go into an edit war on a technically minor infraction. I will still say again I did go to the film at the theater when it first came out and the movie poster I listed from the LA Times article WAS the poster at the theater. I liked the film and tracked it for months and I never saw that current poster at any time while the film was in theaters. I never saw that particular poster until months and months after the film premiered at the movie theaters. Nonetheless I can also say I cannot verify what poster may have been overseas. Many times a film that is originally released in North America may not premiere overseas (such as in Brazil, or somewhere in Eastern Asia) until 6 or 9 months later and I cannot say with certainty if it is possible that poster was used somewhere overseas. I do think the wording matters as a true representative of what an image represents a "Theatrical" release. But again after more thought I have just concluded this is not worth taking the issue any further. So your original edit has been put back. Fsm83 (talk) 03:26, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Talk:The Storm Before the Calm#Euro label

Hi Snap. Share your thoughts regarding the album if you wish to. 183.171.121.205 (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Restored edit on Coco Chanel page

Hey @SnapSnap,

I saw you restored an edit I made on the Coco Chanel page, although it had multiple citations backing it.

Forgive me... I'm a somewhat new editor!🙈 But I was hoping you could explain why as I learn to be a better at this.

I know I need to figure out what the heck I'm doing to make the formatting all messed up!

But regarding restoring that specific edit: What was wrong with it? Was there a rule or stylistic standard that I violated?

Really appreciate any feedback you're willing to give me. 😊

Thank you so much! Brownbear52403 (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Brownbear52403: Hey. "Violate" is a strong word, but your edits could use a few pointers:

• Even if you provided references, the information you were trying to add was a bit too detailed for the lead section, which is supposed to be a summary of the article's most important contents (see MOS:LEAD and MOS:LEADBIO). Such detailed information is more suitable for the body of the article.
• Ref tags (<ref>...</ref>) are placed immediately after adjacent punctuation such as periods/full stops and commas. Not only did you place the ref tags before punctuation, you also added a space before the tags (see WP:CITEFOOT and MOS:CITEPUNCT).
• I'm not sure if English is your first language, but your edits did contain a few grammatical errors (e.g. She's did design).

My advise is to familiarize yourself with some of Wikipedia's most relevant guidelines and observe other similar articles. WP:PRIMER is an interesting starting point for newcomers. Happy editing. :) snapsnap ^(talk) 00:31, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Rounding and significant digits

Hi, rounded "1" with only one sig fig entails anything ranging from 0.5 to 1.4, which is a huge variation in relative terms from the unrounded amount (±50%). The second digit in "1.0" (as coming from the rounding of 1.007398) is not a trailing zero but an important significant figure, thus not completely pointless. Best regards.--Asqueladd (talk) 18:46, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: That's not how it works. A zero is still a zero, it doesn't matter if the full figure is $1,020,261 or a perfect $1,000,000. Decimal points are only necessary when the figure crosses $1,100,000 $1,050,000. snapsnap ^(talk) 23:50, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sorry to insist. That's precisely how rounding and significant digits work. The accuracy provided with only one significant digit is not generally desirable and it is certainly not in this particular case (should the single digit be a "9" the relative variation from 8.5 to 9.4 relative to 9 is much less than from 0.5 to 1.4 relative to 1). Please become familiar with such concepts (and pursue editorial practices conforming to them), instead of bringing ad-hoc baselines of money in absolute terms (wtflol?) which have nothing to do with maths.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

We are choosing to provide 1.0 to express a rounded value which may range from 0.95 to 1.049, which entails a more sensible (aka less prominent) relative uncertainty than if we chose a single significant digit, as increasing the number of digits allowed in a representation reduces the magnitude of possible roundoff errors. These are of course both editorial choices (in the cited source all the 6 digits of those integers are presumed to be significant digits). But the two significant digits is the more sensible one as the relative uncertainty of the one significant digit option is not acceptable. I intend to recover that version, sorry.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:32, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

"Decimal points are only necessary when the figure crosses $1,100,000" Simply put, this is not maths.--Asqueladd (talk) 00:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@Asqueladd: I do know how rounding works. However, nowhere at MOS:NUMERAL does it seem to state that .0 must be added just to indicate that the full figure is somewhere between 0.95 to 1.049. This isn't common practice when citing gross figures in film articles. I highly doubt the average reader will see the "$1.0 million" and automatically assume the film actually grossed between $1,000,000 and $1,049,000. What I originally meant was, when (or if) the film crosses $1,050,000, then we can add a decimal and change it to $1.1 million. snapsnap ^(talk) 01:17, 31 October 2023 (UTC)