User talk:SnapSnap

Archives

Revert of edit on The Royal Hotel - "the fact that they were pretending to be Canadians is not relevant to the overall plot".

=> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Royal_Hotel_(film)&oldid=prev&diff=1200691256

I would disagree on the irrelevance of Hanna and Liv's only pretending to be Canadian, without actually being Canadians - throughout the film there are numerous references to Canada and attributes commonly associated with Canada and Canadians (like grizzly bears, for example), Hanna bakes a cake for Liv with Canadian flag on the top which Liv drops on being presented with as her birthday present - all those things which of course would make sense and have more meaning to Canadians rather than to two Americans girls only pretending to be Canadians (due to perceived goodwill towards the Canucks and possible antipathy towards Americans), and all that could be very easily missed on if the watcher misses that short exchange between Liv, Torsten and Hanna in the first minutes of the film (very easy to miss because of the noisy music in the background)... Hence that need to make this little but important fact obvious, in my opinion. But I'm not going to kick up a fuss about that.

BTW, "outback" is usually not capitalised when used as adjective - yes, it is often capitalised as noun ("The Outback"), but not in phrases like "little outback town" : => https://www.dictionary.com/browse/outback

Cheers mate, Szagory (talk) 17:52, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Szagory: Hi. Yes, there are a few references to the girls' in-joke throughout the film, but it's a very minor subplot that adds no real significance to the overall plot (i.e., two young women in a foreign country experiencing misogyny), and its omission from the plot section will not affect the reader's understanding of the plot. Per MOS:FILMPLOT, we're supposed to avoid trivial, minor details such as individual jokes. Thank you for your explanation regarding the capitalization of "outback", though – I'll correct this in the article. snapsnap ^(talk) 19:47, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SnapSnap,

Just as a suggestion: what about using an EFN (explanatory footnote, => EFN) there to say something like "but pretending to be Canadian, as is apparent from dialogue in the film's opening scene", i.e. stating that inline comment in WP:Plot unobtrusively? Saw it used in another film-related page and thought it looked nice and helpful (=> Fallen Leaves (film)#Plot). 😉

Have a nice Sunday,

Szagory (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted edit on Now That You Got It

Hey SnapSnap,

I noticed you reverted my edit on Now That You Got It that I had just reinstated. While I agree that the song is not visible in Gwen's Billboard chart history link, which I think is an error on their part since the credited artist for the song is "Gwen Stefani Featuring Damian 'Jr. Gong' Marley" instead of just "Gwen Stefani", it does appear at #13 during the week of September 29, 2007. This Billboard link is behind a paywall, but it does reveal the information. I also linked a JPEG of it here on an image-hosting site if you are unable to reach the paid link. I reverted the edit on the page again because of this, thank you. Carbrera (talk) 00:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Duran Duran Astronaut wiki page.

Hello! Your info of my edit of Duran Duran album astronaut edit is 100% incorrect. I will be changing it back. The album came out on Oct 11 in the UK and 12 in the US. https://web.archive.org/web/20040922211040/http://duranduranmusic.com/newindex.php?page=pages/astronaut_presale Askkaty2write (talk) 14:59, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Askkaty2write: Not incorrect at all. The album was first released on LP in the US on 28 September 2004, as stated under the "Release history" section (I've added a source to the section). On Wikipedia, the earliest known release date is the one listed in infoboxes and opening paragraphs, while subsequent release dates are included later on in the article, preferably in a table. snapsnap ^(talk) 17:02, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I work for the band, it is incorrect, and the release date is referred to, correctly, by band member Roger Taylor in a reference I linked to. It is also listed correctly on several commercial websites that list the original date of release. If you/Wiki want to continue to have erroneous information on the page, that’s a sad statement on Wiki’s policy. The correct date is 100% Oct 11/12, 2004. Askkaty2write (talk) 05:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Askkaty2write: You clearly misunderstood what I said. I never said that the 11/12 October release dates were incorrect. I simply said that the album was first released on LP in the US on 28 September (for which I provided a source in the "Release history" section), and that an album's earliest known release date is the one listed in the infobox and opening paragraph. The album was then released on CD on 11 October in the UK and on 12 October in the US. Did you even bother to check the article's "Release history" section? The album doesn't have only one release date, as it was released on several formats in multiple territories. Finally, the fact that you work for the band is completely irrelevant to Wikipedia. snapsnap ^(talk) 06:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your information is incorrect, which should be relevant. Perhaps an original release date of 28 Sept was at one point released, but the actual release date was Oct 11/12. It is possible that the label moved the release date by one week after an initial announce. All I can confirm - with links - is that ASTRONAUT came out on Oct 11/12 and your refusal to accept that change, which was initiated at the band’s behest, is both frustrating and erroneous. They’d like the correct release date of their album to be reflected on wiki, which is why me working for them is, indeed, relevant. I won’t bother any more , so if you think continuing to stand by an incorrect fact is a win for you (after a providing links to show you are not correct), well then I guess you’ve won. Askkaty2write (talk) 12:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Entertainment Weekly Oct 8 , 2004 issue: https://ew.com/article/2004/10/08/duran-duran-pop-musics-original-fab-five-return/ Askkaty2write (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Askkaty2write: My information is not incorrect at all, regardless of how many times you say that. As I said a million times, there's not only one "actual" release date, there are multiple official release dates due to differing formats and territories (again, see the "Release history" section – the one you're continously ignoring). I'm not sure why you continue to act like I'm trying to invalidate the 11/12 October release dates – I'm not, and I never did. But whether you like it or not, the album was first released on vinyl LP in the US on 28 September, then on CD in October. Obviously the mainstream media would report the album's CD release since it was a much popular format back in 2004, but that doesn't make the preceding vinyl LP release "incorrect" or unofficial. There's obviously no point in arguing with you since all you do is ignore and/or misunderstand what I'm saying. And I honestly don't care about "winning." snapsnap ^(talk) 16:41, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shock Value II

Hello, not that this really matters much, but I noticed that you deleted my statement about “Shock Value II” being Timbaland’s most recent album. And I also did notice the past edits of others saying it’s his most recent. I mean, it is a fact that he hasn’t put out a new album in over a decade and I think it is interesting to point out. I’m just kinda curious as to why you don’t think so. Whitefishwine322 (talk) 05:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitefishwine322: Hi. These sorts of statements ("artist's most recent album", or "artist hasn't released an album in a decade") are merely trivia and have little to no encyclopedic value; not to mention that they are likely to become outdated, since most (if not all) of these artists are still alive and probably haven't retired. snapsnap ^(talk) 16:52, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a fair assessment. I can respect that. I’m a pretty trivial kind of person, like I said I find it interesting and not too important any way. But I’ll respect the page and leave it alone. Thanks. Whitefishwine322 (talk) 17:16, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Whitefishwine322: No problems. Sorry I forgot to provide an explanation in my edit summaries when reverting your edits. snapsnap ^(talk) 17:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Woman of the Hour category

Hi @SnapSnap, I'm @Spectrallights. I had a question about an edit you made on the Woman of the Hour page. You removed the film from the category Films about misogyny, citing redundancy of categories. I would like to add it back as I don’t think it’s redundant; the category Films about violence against women isn’t exactly the same thing as misogyny. The Rotten Tomatoes consensus itself on the page states: "Deftly directed by star Anna Kendrick, Woman of the Hour uses an incredible true story as the foundation for a powerful examination of the intersection between systemic misogyny and violence." Thus, the film isn’t just about violence against women, but it also examines systemic misogyny in society. Spectrallights (talk) 04:53, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Spectrallights: Hi. I mostly stick to WP:CATSPECIFIC/WP:SUBCAT since I don't see the point in including both a subcategory and its parent category to a page. But if you feel the Woman of the Hour page would benefit from including both categories, I won't oppose it. snapsnap ^(talk) 05:47, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks for explaining, I’ll add it back as I feel it falls under both categories.

Spectrallights (talk) 16:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

who/whom

Thanks for the correction over at The Other Woman (2014 film). Your rv led to a 20 minute conversation with a friend of mine who's an English major where we slowly realized we were both wrong and that "whom" was correct. It sounds strange in the context of those edits, but it ended up being a good learning experience. LaffyTaffer (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@LaffyTaffer: You're welcome, and I'm glad my edit ended up inspiring such conversation. :) While I'm not a native English speaker, I do consider myself fluent, and not long ago I actually was looking into the usage of "who" vs. "whom". snapsnap ^(talk) 03:05, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable non-free use File:Cinderella (1950 film) poster.png

Thanks for uploading File:Cinderella (1950 film) poster.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of non-free use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of non-free use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable non-free use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable non-free use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file's talk page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification, per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 02:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]