Welcome to my talk page. Please note I take the right to answer your messages where I like at any given moment. Have a nice day.

I subscribe to the school of thought that considers all references welcome contributions to Wikipedia, including bare URL references. Complaining about them will only result in fewer contributions.

Archive

WP:CATT IP Contributions

Hi - thanks, but it would seem that again you’ve added the ending of the film into the wrong place / section? Justifying this by saying “see WP:SPOILER” is missing the point, and, respectfully, is a sort of straw man. Most are already aware of the Wikipedia policy on spoilers. Placing the ending of the film in the lead / lede area of the article (well, the second paragraph of the introductory section) ignores the fact that, A. this information is a repeat of the information already in the plot section, and B. Again, there’s already a plot section for, er, plot details. One wouldn’t place information about "Adaptations and remakes" in the introductory section because there'a already an "Adaptations and remakes" section further down the article.

Apologies, but it feels like a sort of abuse of the spoiler policy, a kind of shouting "fire" in a theatre thing, in that just because spoilers are allowed, it doesn't mean we should throw them all over the article. Most film articles at Wikipedia confine the endings and full plot details to the relevant section. There is a reason there are "plot" and "act" sections in film and theatre articles. As the talk page on spoilers illustrates, there was a huge debate regarding this, and a sort of compromise was reached.

In the absolutely vast majority of other Wikipedia articles on film, the short summary at the beginning doesn't explain the whole plot or the ending. Unless - rather like another user, "AmaryllisGardner" who wrote thousands of odd articles on the Scots language - you (or other editors) are planning to edit all film articles at Wikipedia by revealing the ending in the wrong section?

Oh, hang on, somebody has just fixed the article. But for how long? : ) Cheers 2A02:C7F:DCF3:3000:B169:CEF6:D268:AF47 (talk) 19:58, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue involving you, BusterD. Thank you. CapnZapp (talk) 17:24, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop reverting the edits that I have been adding per the page I was working on. All the names listed below have been historically cited same as confirmed in various interviews by the people made mention of themselves that they worked in that type of a field at the start of their careers. I would have never inserted them had that not been the case. I have re-added them and please don't touch them anymore, that is all I ask. I would not disturb you and your choice of topics and all I ask is that you respect me the same way.--Autistic Wonderboy 2023 (talk) 22:51, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for engaging on talk, Autistic Wonderboy 2023. However, this is the wrong talk page. Please explain your reasoning on the talk page for the article in question: Talk:Chorus_line. I even started a new discussion for this purpose: Talk:Chorus_line#Modern additions. CapnZapp (talk) 07:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did intend to do that, is there an error I'm unaware of? - FlightTime (open channel) 15:54, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see now. thanx, - FlightTime (open channel) 16:00, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a new requested move discussion in progress for the Charles III article. Since you participated in the previous discussion, I thought you might like to know about this one. Cheers. Rreagan007 (talk) 06:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Detectives Harry Bosch and Jerry Edgar.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) 02:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Copenhagen House Grounds, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Great Northern Railway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The article Dance of the Vampires (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:2DABS

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Boleyn (talk) 21:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You re-set the min threads left back to 4 with the edit summary of "spelling |minthreadsleft, also setting the number to 4 to ensure the bot doesn't eat the TOC (the TOC only appears with 4 or more subheaders)". That is not the case with this talk page. Back in 2018 I set the [[WP:MAGICWORD|magic word] of __TOC__. This particular behavior switch creates a Table of Contents even if the # of posts drops down under 4. Since the 4 posts/threads left is not needful with this code, I'd like to return the # of posts/threads to my previous iteration of 1 (lol, but having the correct spelling for "minthreadsleft").
Taking a look at the talk page's present state, there are threads sitting on the page that haven't had a response in over a year and a half... Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:37, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of archiving talk discussions is to prevent the talk page from getting cumbersome. There really is no reason to archive old sections if that is not the case, i.e. if the talk page still remains short. But I don't feel strongly about which way the TOC is preserved. CapnZapp (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While it is true that the first purpose of archiving talk pages is to pare down the bulk, the talk page guidelines also state

As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB in wikitext or [bolding mine] has numerous resolved or stale discussions – see Help:Archiving a talk page.

Keeping around stale discussions on main talk doesn't seem all that purposeful to me. People often will come along months or even sometimes years later and reply with the last or original editor having moved on or the issue having already been resolved sometime in the past. You want to retain those posts/thread...I disagree but ok. Cheers, Shearonink (talk) 23:14, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I stated I don't feel strongly either way as long as the TOC is preserved. It's not that I actively want to retain stale discussions. Instead, my view is that there's no harm in keeping them, especially since that, in general, automatically avoids eating the TOC. But as you pointed out, you are well within your rights to archive a stale discussion - especially if you have a compelling argument. Sometimes it is actively good to hide contentious discussions from view to prevent a resolved issue from flaring up again. Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 09:57, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Zite 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/2024 January 26 § Zite until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 15:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Professor Balthazar, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yugoslav.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]