User talk:InfiniteNexus/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

X-Men in other media template

I do not know how to get consensus on a change. Since you reverted the page and claim that consensus should be reached, could you add such an option on the talk page? I do not want to have a back and forth revert affair on the template with you, so I kindly ask you to add such a poll to the talk page of the article. Thanks. NunyaBeeness (talk) 18:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@NunyaBeeness: You can get WP:CONSENSUS on your changes by starting a discussion on the template's talk page, asking editors whether they support or oppose such changes. I personally take issue with the overhaul because some of the links seemed to have been removed, some of the sections got way too big, and there are several formatting errors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:24, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus I will do the WP:CONSENSUS later as time allows it. I hear you on the issues you have and the changes I'm proposing is not the do all, end all. It's more in line with what we see with other major franchise templates (i.e. Spider-Man, Batman). X-Men in film template should have the more detailed links for the movies. X-Men in television template should have the more detailed links for TV. Those were the links that were removed. X-Men in other media should have a high level view of every Media the X-Men IP has been made, maybe still breaking it down some (i.e. Animated vs Live Action). Not sure what formatting errors you saw and have an issue with but that's semantics and easily fixable. The content should be the focus. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:23, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

​And there was also no consensus to split {{X-Men media}} to {{X-Men in film}} and {{X-Men in TV}}. This feels like it should have been discussed first. I'm holding off from redirecting those two navboxes only because I see you've already added them to many articles. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

That's par for the course with every major franchise. It's not really splitting as much as it is providing more in depth data and high level view of data accordingly. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:31, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

It sure is a split. Or perhaps even a WP:FORK as well. InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I disagree that it's a split. A split implies that one entity (i.e. X-Men in Media) ceases to exist and its content is split between the other two templates. That's simply not the case. For one there's plenty of other media that wouldn't fit the other two templates and would be better served in the "Other Media" template. Secondly the assets for movies and tv would still be in the "Other Media" template albeit not as detailed. If you work with data analytics that's the best way to display large sets of data. NunyaBeeness (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The original entity does not have to cease to exist in a split. A split just means some of the content is extracted from one place and moved over to another. In this case, this is also a fork because many of the links overlap across multiple templates. Again, please start a discussion on the original template's talk page. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

As you can see, I've WP:BOLDly restored the redirects for both templates. Please participate in the discussion at Template talk:X-Men media, and if later there is consensus for a split/fork, the navboxes can be restored. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Also I think a better title for {{X-Men in TV}} would be {{X-Men in television}}. Do you want me to move that? InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@NunyaBeeness: And now you've reverted all of my edits without an explanation. Okay. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:08, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I would like to know what makes you think you are a King? I don't owe you an explanation. You reverted my edits with no explanation. If people vote AGAINST it. I have no problem with getting rid of all of it. But wait for the vote before taking action.

As far as changing the title, sure. X-Men in TV, X-Men in television. Whatever works best. NunyaBeeness (talk) 23:10, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

First of all, please remain WP:CALM and WP:CIVIL during discussions. Per WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO, the policy when there is a content dispute is to restore everything to their original condition. But for the sake of not WP:EDITWARRING I'll leave these be until the discussion (WP:NOTVOTE, by the way) concludes. InfiniteNexus (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I am extremely calm. You are the one who seemed upset, but I digress. And I'll be honest, dude, as someone who seems to be on wikipedia for as long as you seem to have been, your resistance to inarguably better data visualization is flabbergasting. You either hate change even if it's for the better, or are extremely stubborn. Maybe both. By the way I'm extremely calm and civil. NunyaBeeness (talk) 00:04, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I didn't undo all your reverts. I left the one you want to question and leave it as is, i.e. X-Men in Other Media, intact. Even though I vehemently disagree with you and that one has a Dr. Strange 2 reference simply because of a 2 minute cameo which makes no sense. NunyaBeeness (talk) 00:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I was iffy on the inclusion of Doctor Strange 2, which was added in by another user just a few days ago. InfiniteNexus (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't even be iffy. X-Men have made appearances in animated media from almost every other Marvel super hero show. For consistency purposes if Dr. Strange 2 is there, then so should all cartoon appearances. There's no plausible reason for that to be on the template as is. Of course you could mitigate that by having a whole other section (i.e. cameos and other appearances) where you could list all of that. And again that would be easier to maintain and visualize if you divvy up the data being displayed like I am suggesting. NunyaBeeness (talk) 00:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Then go ahead and remove it, I won't stop you. We'll just see if it sits well with other editors. InfiniteNexus (talk) 01:01, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I won't remove or do any other edits unless it's a complete overhaul which you are against. Not worth my effort to do so for a complete messy data display box. Information there is already messy as is and unless I can make significant changes I won't bother. I don't think there's too many other editors though as the last edit besides yours or mine on the talk page of template: X-Men in other media was in 2020. NunyaBeeness (talk) 01:40, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

And before that it was in 2016. I don't think too many people will bother and I think you and I should come to a consensus. NunyaBeeness (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Ten Rings (Ta-Lo)

If the main article is Mandarin's rings, it makes no sense to have a part about Ta-Lo's rings, as they are not associated with the Mandarin, although inspired by the iron rings in the movie. Hyju (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is better that Ta-Lo's rings are in the entry for Ta-Lo, citing Ta-Lo's weapons, which have not yet been explained, but which served as inspiration for the Five Weapons Society.Hyju (talk) 17:15, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The rings were never called the "Ten Rings" in the comics until Shang-Chi came out, so the article title is correct. It is fairly common for characters and objects in the comics to have their names changed from time to time. I see no problem with this. InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:19, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but Ta-lo's rings and Mandarin's rings are not the same.Hyju (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

But they are still a version of the Mandarin's rings, no? InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:22, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

To phrase it more clearly, the Ten Rings (MCU) is an adaptation of the Mandarin's rings (comics). The new Ten Rings (comics) is an adaptation of the Ten Rings (MCU). Therefore, the new Ten Rings (comics) is also an adaptation of the Mandarin's rings (comics). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but Mandarin rings also appeared in the next few months.Hyju (talk) 17:30, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

And that's also an adaptation of the Mandarin's rings (comics). In a nutshell, anything related to the Mandarin's rings/Ten Rings in the comics should go on Mandarin's rings, and anything related to the Ten Rings in the MCU should go on Features of the Marvel Cinematic Universe or Ten Rings (organization). InfiniteNexus (talk) 17:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

After reading more about this, I think I'm more likely to agree with InfiniteNexus. It's a complicated situation, wherin the Mandarin's rings inspired the MCU Ten Rings, which ended up getting adapted into the comics with a slightly different backstory but still distinctive from the ten rings of the Mandarin. Plus, there's also the Ten Rings martial arts techniques from Master of Kung Fu: Battleworld that were inspired by the Mandarin's rings. I think that whole concept of reinterpreting the Marlukian rings as martial arts moves might have had a role in how they were portrayed in the MCU. Lipshiz (talk) 18:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Ta-Lo or Ta Lo

Gene Luen Yang is using the spelling "Ta Lo" in the comics as well as in the MCU, so I started the entry :"Ta-Lo or Ta Lo": Shang-Chi Gets Another Family Member (Shang-Chi #7 Spoilers).Hyju (talk) 20:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

We can note the alternate spelling in the article, but the article title is still correct as Ta-Lo was the original spelling in the comics until Shang-Chi came out. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:19, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Yang must have had access to the film's information, in issue 4, released on September 8, his mother appears is called Jiang Li (in the final version, she became Ying Li), just as it had been announced, as the film was released on the 2nd and 3rd (depends on the country) and the story should have been ready a few months ago, he worked with what he had, in the next issue she mentions that she came from another dimension, but only in issue 7, the dimension is named Ta Lo, I also noticed that the Ten Rings seem to have been an afterthought, in issue 4 of the miniseries, Brother Saber has a vision of the possessed Shang-Chi and with his father's clothes, this vision reappears in issue 10 of the series, but already in issue 12, which closes the series, we see him possessed and with his father's clothes, but now with the rings.Hyju (talk)

I added some things to the entry, I saw that in Chinese (Taiwan and Hong Kong), Ta Lo was called as Daluo, which was already one of the names of the place (Daluo Tian), I added the ideograms of the name.Hyju (talk) 11:03, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Archiving

Per WP:TALKCOND, archiving can also be done when there are multiple resolved or stale conversations, which there are for Love and Thunder. Plus with the movie releasing in a little over a month, the talk page is gonna start getting more active. -- Zoo (talk) 20:55, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

It's really not necessary at the moment. There is WP:NORUSH to set up auto-archiving. Like you said, after the movie comes out the talk page will likely blow up, so that will be the appropriate time to start archiving old discussions. But why do so now, when it is still early? InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:32, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The MoM archive was set up way back in December with not much more at the time than Love and Thunder has now. Most of the time I've noticed archives are set up a month or a little sooner before the movie releases to prep for the influx of new topics leading up to and after the release. -- Zoo (talk) 21:40, 26 May 2022 (UTC

Jurassic World Dominion

I see that you have been repeatedly reverting at Jurassic World Dominion, and have indicated that you regard the editing you have been reverting as vandalism. It seems to me that the editor in question may be acting in the good faith belief that their change is an improvement, whether you and I agree or not. Bear in mind that the exemption from the edit-warring policy for reverting vandalism applies only for vandalism which is obvious and unambiguous. JBW (talk) 07:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@JBW: Thanks for the note. The IP ignored my explanation and repeatedly reinstated their edit without an explanation (with canned and misleading edit summaries), which is why I began to regard their edits as bad-faith vandalism. But I'll bear this in mind the next time I come across a similar situation. InfiniteNexus (talk) 15:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I confess I hadn't thought much about the edit summaries, but now you've drawn them to my attention I agree, they do suggest editing done in bad-faith. JBW (talk) 16:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)