User talk:MichaelMaggs: Difference between revisions

 

Line 114: Line 114:

:They all look correct, I think. Generally a date is included in the SD for films, ”except” where the title already includes the date – in which case it’s not repeated per [[WP:SDDUPLICATE]], 5th bullet point. It’s fine, and common, for several films to have the same SD. Where film titles already include a date, the SD only needs to disambiguate the original story, not between the films. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|talk]]) 10:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

:They all look correct, I think. Generally a date is included in the SD for films, ”except” where the title already includes the date – in which case it’s not repeated per [[WP:SDDUPLICATE]], 5th bullet point. It’s fine, and common, for several films to have the same SD. Where film titles already include a date, the SD only needs to disambiguate the original story, not between the films. [[User:MichaelMaggs|MichaelMaggs]] ([[User talk:MichaelMaggs#top|talk]]) 10:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)

== WWE short ==

Hello. I have seen you changed some short descriptions, changing WWE to World Wrestling Entertainment. Are you sure? Maybe, you don’t know, but since 2011, the promotion the name to World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE, an [[orphan initialism]]. [[User:HHH Pedrigree|HHH Pedrigree]] ([[User talk:HHH Pedrigree|talk]]) 09:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)

This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any sections older than 120 days are automatically archived.

I will respond here to any messages left for me on this page. If you would like me to respond on your own talk page as well, just let me know.

Subscriptions are at User talk:MichaelMaggs/Subscriptions

I see you reverted my addition the the Popular Culture section on Unity Mitford’s page, when I added details of her frequent appearances in the novel Munich Wolf, on the basis that the book is insufficiently notable. I would suggest this might be revisited. The book may not be high literature, but it is at least as notable in its way as, say, Outrageous, the TV series which is included. The author, Rory Clements, has sold more than one million books to date, published by major publishers such as Penguin, making him one of the UK’s most popular current authors. Some of his books are currently being adapted for TV and the author himself has appeared on the Sunday Times bestselling list and has twice won the CWA Ellis Peters Historical Fiction Award. Munich Wolf itself is available via every major bookseller and, on Amazon, its reviews are in the thousands. Wikipedia itself states that ‘Self-published content, books almost no-one has heard of’ should not be included, but ‘Popular television shows and best-selling books’ should be considered. Clements, and Munich Wolf, are clearly much closer to the latter category than the first. On that basis, I think the entry should be included. If you still disagree, perhaps the question should be placed on the discussion page for a wider range of views? Neilinabbey (talk) 12:01, 23 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, MOS:POPCULT makes it clear that Cultural references about the article’s subject should not be included merely because they exist. Cultural aspects of the subject should be included only if they are supported by reliable secondary or tertiary sources that discuss the subject’s cultural impact in some depth. The mere appearance of the subject in a film, song, video game, television show, or the like is insufficient. In order to include the book in the Unity Mitford article, you’d need to find some reliable source focused on Unity Mitford that discusses the importance of the book to an understanding of Unity. That’s what’s crucial, not the other way round: the importance of Unity to the topic of the book doesn’t matter here.

The fact that some of the entries in the list may be bad isn’t an argument for adding more. I haven’t looked at existing entries, but some others may need to be cleared out as well.

You’ve argued that the book itself should be considered notable. That’s not crucial here, as we’re not creating a new book article. If we were, we’d need to consider WP:NBOOK, requiring significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Volume of sales, reader reviews, popularity, or the notability of the author aren’t in themselves enough; the requirements are much more specific than that. MichaelMaggs (talk) 12:47, 24 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m not sure if it notifies you when I responded on my talk page so I decided to put it on your talk page, too, to make sure you see it. I’m very sorry for violating the rules. I’m not well-versed in them so, to be on the safe side, I’ll stop adding birth years altogether. I genuinely appreciate the warning and reversions. GamerKlim9716 (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a notoification when you replied on your talk page, but thanks anyway for your reply here, too. All the best, MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:41, 7 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you MichealMaggs, for thanking me my edit from The Forsyte Saga (2002 TV series). 🍀🍀🍀 Eru719 (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Micheal: Thanks for your correction on the plot summary;

I have tried to incorporate the key points int the Character list – does that have a similar limit on length.
otherwise I will see if I can rework the plot summary to remove the clear errors on the legal context. Which is important as one of the major themes of the boo – and which Emily Bronte took very considerable pains in getting right. TomHennell (talk) 23:35, 30 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Have now done so; wordcount is the same as before. TomHennell (talk) 14:17, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Looking good. (Many of Jane Austen’s books could do with something similar!) MichaelMaggs (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated; and yes, Jane Austen also has (from the force of her personal experience) a considerable expertise in Early Modern land law; as does George Eliot. Whereas the plot of Trollope’s ‘Orley Farm’ is reported to be catastrophically undermined by his legal sloppishness. TomHennell (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have the means to rescan this at a higher resolution? I’d like to restore it, and it would be easier to work with a higher-res version. Cheers! JayCubby 18:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t have a better copy myself, but I can certainly email the owner of the original photo to ask if he’ll do us a higher resolution scan. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve sent you a high resolution scan by email. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:11, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@MichaelMaggs, thank you! Could you please upload it to a file host like https://catbox.moe/ or similar? My associated email is my name. Thanks! JayCubby 18:19, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m actually going to re-check with the owner, as the size of the image I’ve received is still much smaller than I’d expect from a 600dpi scan. I suspect it’s somehow been compressed. MichaelMaggs (talk) MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:28, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Probably needs a setting tweaked on the scanner. The owner promises me he’ll have another go at this after Christmas. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:54, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wonderful! JayCubby 19:04, 15 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy New Year to you too! MichaelMaggs (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

Volten001 ^☎ 03:28, 1 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Winding Stair, AEW Mason, cover.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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. — Ирука¹³ 11:16, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the newly-uploaded image is better. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:17, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Father Christmas Packing 1931 by JRR Tolkien.jpg. However, there is a concern that the use of the file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. Details of this problem, and which specific criteria that the film may not meet, can be obtained by going to the file description page. If you feel that this image does meet those criteria, please place a note on the file description or talk page explaining why. Do not remove the {{di-fails NFCC}} tag itself.

An administrator will review this file within a few days, and having considered the opinions placed on the file page, may delete it in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion or remove the tag entirely. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 11:24, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to deletion, as other PD images covering that date period have since become available. MichaelMaggs (talk) 14:20, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr Maggs. I am not sure what source I can add to The Ton article when I was removing sections that several experts in the Talk section had agreed were misleading.

Thanks for your efforts. If you are able to find reliable sources that say something different the article can be changed. I’m afraid that no matter how knowledgeable our experts may be, we do always need cite reliable written sources as required by WP:RS. One of those mentioned on the talk page may perhaps be of help, if you have access to it. MichaelMaggs (talk) 17:42, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I notice you are amending short descriptions for British television films. Could you be consistent with including dates? For example, The Turn of the Screw (2009 film), The Dead Room (2018 film), Whistle and I’ll Come to You (1968 film) and Whistle and I’ll Come to You (2010 film) (these two now have the same description), etc. Thanks. Masato.harada (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

They all look correct, I think. Generally a date is included in the SD for films, except where the title already includes the date – in which case it’s not repeated per WP:SDDUPLICATE, 5th bullet point. It’s fine, and common, for several films to have the same SD. Where film titles already include a date, the SD only needs to disambiguate the original story, not between the films. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:42, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have seen you changed some short descriptions, changing WWE to World Wrestling Entertainment. Are you sure? Maybe, you don’t know, but since 2011, the promotion the name to World Wrestling Entertainment to WWE, an orphan initialism. HHH Pedrigree (talk) 09:20, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]