User talk:Cinemaniac86

Welcome to my talk page! Hello! Please leave a new message. I will respond to your message as soon as possible. Thanks and happy editing! Also take care of the following points: If I left you a message; please answer on your talk page, using {{ping|Username}}, {{reply to|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in your response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to my talk page. And if you leave me a message; I will answer on my talk page, using {{ping|Username}} or {{u|Username}} in my response, or add {{talkback|Username}} or {{whisperback|Username}} to your talk page. Please post your new topic at the bottom of this page or at the bottom of the respective section, and use a new ==Descriptive heading== for new topics. Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ":" Sign and date your entry by inserting four tildes "~~~~" at the end of your message. I will generally respond here to comments that are posted here, rather than replying via your talk page (or the article talk page, if you are writing to me here about an article), so you may want to watch this page until you are responded to, or specifically let me know where you'd prefer the reply. Avoid personal attacks, do not troll or use this page as a chat room. Please, always assume good faith. If the topic is something personal, please email me and leave {{ygm}} on my talk page. And if you are impressed by my contributions, consider giving me some WikiLove. ⇒Start a new topic⇐

This is Cinemaniac86's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: 1, 2

This user doesn't care whether you use {{talkback}}, {{ping}}, or {{reply to}} when you reply to him on other pages. He just wants to be notified somehow.

Make-Up Artists & Hair Stylists Guild Awards 2024 moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Make-Up Artists & Hair Stylists Guild Awards 2024. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it has no sources. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit for review" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 01:27, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool! I got a bit exhausted, awards-page burnout working on the Golden Globes, a couple critics, and this one was of lesser interest to me by default. But how does this work? Because I've never dealt with a draft before. Finish the TV portion, then place the references, and contact you to publish it? Or just publish it on my own? Either way, I'll finish what I started sometime today for sure. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 15:20, 13 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PROD

Please do not use PROD for pages that you've created yourself, and instead use WP:G7. I added the G7 tag to 2024 film critics awards, and because of this, it was deleted immediately by an admin. CycloneYoris ^talk! 19:47, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay, sorry about that. I had this drop-down menu and just thought it was the only option. Glad to know about this method for self-made mishaps, should it ever occur again. @CycloneYoris Have a good one! --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 05:25, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol January 2025 Backlog drive

January 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 January 2025, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin in hopes of addressing the growing backlog. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Each article review will earn 1 point, while each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Streak awards will be given out based on consistently hitting point thresholds for each week of the drive. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 2025

Hello, I'm Rusty Cat. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Glossary of Generation Z slang, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Urban Dictionary is not a reliable source. ~ Rusty ^meow ~ 00:49, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently warned you (now struck) for introducing incorrect pronouns into 97th Academy Awards; this was a mistake. I has missed the intervening edit when reviewing pending changes, and so the diff I saw incorporated both your change and the offending IP's. Please accept my most sincere apologies. Iseult ^Δx talk to me 06:43, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol May 2025 Backlog drive

May 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 May 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Pages Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:25, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Make-Up Artists & Hair Stylists Guild Awards 2024

Hello, Cinemaniac86. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Make-Up Artists & Hair Stylists Guild Awards 2024, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 02:08, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could label

I could or may say this topic will be "ditto." It would be inconvenient for you though, because if I keep posting on one thread for weeks, months, etc. that could be a slight hassle. I understand you're trying to follow the MOS, I guess everyone here does that. It's open for interpretation on some things, could even be a matter of taste. As for the articles I create, one of which is Jamal Roberts. Yes, bewilderingly, someone tried to delete it. There will be news to add to that page soon. Spectacular01 (talk) 19:51, 27 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple

We have been editing on some of the same pages. It's not necessary to revert my edits. Let's discuss them as we have been.Spectacular01 (talk) 01:28, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well, tbh, you haven't answered on here though.Spectacular01 (talk) 01:29, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can discuss them. @Spectacular01 The reason I concur with @Aspects is the consistency argument. Consistency meaning every entry has CITY, STATE. Your version removes the state from several cities which is unnecessary. Just because the Wikipedia entries don’t have the state in the article title doesn’t mean they need to be listed without the state. The reason the articles exist that way is due to them being major cities. However, on our list, it’s about a consistent flow. Every person should see the city and state as they scroll down, IMO. Consistency is tantamount to entries like this for aesthetic and encyclopedic purposes. So what’s your take? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 04:38, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not even a bit, it's geographical awareness. Hopefully we're helping people get smarter. I really dislike people saying, especially from Texas. I am from Houston, Texas. Well, where else would you be from? There are 24 places in the world named Houston, four of those are overseas. Same thing for Atlanta. No need to say Atlanta, Georgia. There are about 20 other Atlantas, but those are the ones that should say the state name along with the city. Also your opinions are usually right. Sometimes, yes, I know rarely they aren't, however. It's a lot of work to go around and fix everything but the least we can do is try to improve. Keep in mind Jamal Roberts didn't even have a page on here.Spectacular01 (talk) 08:07, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We're probably not going to get most lists straightened out but Wikipedia may try to get to certain journalistic standards. It's kind of far away from there on many fronts.Spectacular01 (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia stopped making pages for finalists a while ago. They've only given the okay in the past to create pages for the winners after they've won. There are some finalists whom I know have done more than enough to warrant a page though, compared to some other 11th place losers from past seasons that still have a page just for appearing on the show but doing nothing else noteworthy. And quite frankly it irks me to see why a few randoms have gotten their pages deleted in the past, but nowadays all who are left have been defended to remain. (Which ultimately means those previously deleted could be recreated for consistency, and every finalist in essence. Though we don't quite have to go that far perhaps. Just the more notable ones. But I digress.)

No, I get what you are saying about the cities. Yes, it's implied. All of that is obvious. Nevertheless, I am going to open the topic for discussion on the article page for consensus. People on Wikipedia tend to be finicky about consistency, so I'm not sure you'll find much support, but perhaps you might! Let's see. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:24, 4 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If I must I shall try to debate you on each edit. You're not listening. You are too wordy. You don't need 30 words to say something you can say in 17.Spectacular01 (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What are you referring to? The Jelly Roll edit, you said the same words only in reverse order. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 07:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first round of songs were chosen by [Jelly Roll (singer)|Jelly Roll]], based off of a list of each contestants' favorite songs (according to host [[Ryan Seacrest]] during the telecast). The second round songs were selected by the contestants as dedications to their hometowns, shown after their hometown visits. After Nix had been eliminated in third place, the remaining two performed their intended winner's singles in the final round, Roberts was announced as the winner.

Even that is incorrect. It's not grammatically correct to say Nix had been eliminated in third place. It must be 3rd not third and you can't be eliminated in third place. It should say received, etc. Yes, even this version is not right. Based off a list of each contestants' favorite songs probably could be condensed. You occasionally seem to phrase things incorrectly, which is why I originally reversed the order of the words.Spectacular01 (talk) 08:12, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it be "3rd, not third"? That's incorrect. Don't know where these bizarre concepts of yours derive from, but that is not how we have done things on Wikipedia. When writing in prose, you write the full word, not the ordinal. The ordinals are permitted on the elimination chart or the song title tables.

And yes, she can and was eliminated from the competition, thereby placing third by default. So "After Nix was eliminated from the competition" would probably suffice, because third place is implied. Come to think of it, that is how I recall it being written in the past.

But I don't agree that I phrased the "favorite songs" incorrectly. If it's that important to you, by all means condense it though, haha. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 09:11, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Second and third is right. It's when expressing time as in am and pm that you use ordinals not cardinal numbers.Spectacular01 (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Atlas directions are helpful, useful, even necessary or imperative. This is something that could be hotly debated but it's kind of basic. People don't know these places, it's good to include direction points and no, wikilinking doesn't suffice.Spectacular01 (talk) 17:46, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Parentheses are used in that fashion at times. It's not misuse.Spectacular01 (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Feetham moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Alice Feetham. Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 09:42, 18 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Colin Farrell Sidebar

I think a sidebar for a handful of links related to mentions of Colin Farrell is overkill. Don't you think? All the links, already appear in the article in the appropriate places. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:04, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Escape Orbit It functions the same way a bottom navigation box does, only more aesthetically pleasing with an image. Always room for improvement. The other factor is the navigation between pages, by clicking on filmography then directly to awards then over to gallery, back to main, over to Penguin, etc., It's been approved for a number of other actors and been accepted on their pages. I thought Colin Farrell was a solid choice, my own fandom aside, because he had a lot of characters that had their own links (be they real people or fictional), which is why I chose him. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 13:08, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've started a discussion on Talk:Colin Farrell. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 15:05, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

To follow up on your category edits at Susan Sarandon -- with the depth of the category tree, it would get a bit ridiculous if we listed every step down the category tree rather than just the most precise category. For example, the category "Actresses from Middlesex County, New Jersey" is a subcategory of "Actresses from New Jersey by county", which is a subcategory of both "Actresses from New Jersey" and "American actresses by county", and the first of those is a subcategory of "Actors from New Jersey", "American actresses by state", "Women in New Jersey", and the first of those is a subcategory of "American actors by state" and "Entertainers from New Jersey", and the first of those is a subcategory of "American actors", "American entertainers by state", and "Actors by first-level administrative country subdivision", and, well, I'll save my time but there's still a few layers to go. So by just putting her in the most precise category, the search tools will find her in all those other categories as well.

WP:DIFFUSE will give you more of an official explanation on how this works (and note the section below it, which indicates certain exceptions.) -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that detailed summary! That's why I thanked your edit, obviously. It's nice to have some clarity when learning new things from edits and reversions, rather than just the usual "per WP:YADDABLAH" w/o any words of advice. Much appreciated. I had it in my head they were distinct standalone lists, but now that you mention it, that explains when I look at a category list, and those subcategories are up top with their own subcats beneath them and so forth. So the editor who is going around and specifying counties is really just being more precise than Wikipedia itself probably was before the categories were expanded. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 16:24, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you understand. The category system is a very old-tech approach, and I often believe that it probably has the most effort put in for the least effect of any major aspect of Wikipedia, but such is life. But yes, the person adding the county is adding a depth that was once not there... but is also not the depth we want. If you look at Category:Actresses from Middlesex County, New Jersey, you'll see it's a "container" category; we don't want it to include anything but subcategories, those being for actresses from individual towns in the county.

There was a bit of a foofraw a few years back when someone was moving people's entries from "novelists" to its subcategory "women novelists". Folks not generally involved with Wikipedia categories saw this as erasing women novelists by putting then in their own ghetto and not within novelists. They were not right in most ways; the "Novelist" category isn't supposed to directly have anyone, regardless of gender. Everyone should be moved into subcategories. But the well-intentioned move was having a genuine problematic effect, and that was that people looking to clear out "Novelists" wouldn't see an entry and say "oh, she goes in the 'Mystery novelist' and 'Science fiction novelist'" subcategories. So that's how we ended up with non-diffused categories.

Thank you for fixing Nicholson on your own! Be well, and have a fine bunch o' days. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hi Cinemaniac86. Thank you for your work on Alice Feetham. Another editor, Klbrain, has reviewed it as part of new pages patrol and left the following comment:

Thanks for creating this page. Feetham is likely to be notable given multiple named roles in notable TV series (WP:NACTOR). However, it would still be helpful to add more citations to definitively demonstrate this, such as sources that focus on Feetham as the primary topic.

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Klbrain}}. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Klbrain (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:31, 23 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Road Movie (1973 film) moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Road Movie (1973 film). Unfortunately, I do not think it is ready for publishing at this time because it needs more sources to establish notability. I have converted your article to a draft which you can improve, undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit the draft for review!" button at the top of the page OR move the page back. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 06:26, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portrayals of real-life people that won an actor an Academy Award has been nominated for deletion

Category:Portrayals of real-life people that won an actor an Academy Award has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ★Trekker (talk) 10:18, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Cinemaniac86, was just thinking a little more about this, and the suggestion to replace this category with a list article also makes sense to me. As noted, the category doesn't make sense to me as these articles are largely or entirely about the "real-life people" and not their movie presentations. That said, and while it wouldn't be an article that I would necessarily be personally interested in, I can certainly imagine cinephiles finding that list article interesting. If created, I could imagine the list article usefully including all of 1) the person who won the award, 2) the role it was won for, and 3) the movie in question. (Actually, the year that the award was won might be helpful too.) A sortable table for the list would probably be nice. To be honest, as I'm typing and thinking more about this, this does sound like kind of a nifty article. Something similar might also be worthwhile for notable fictional characters that won Academy Awards, rather than that category. I'd probably limit both lists to people and fictional characters that are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, if only to keep the lists from becoming so long as to be unwieldy. (I guess otherwise *every* acting Academy Award ever would fall into one of the two lists...) Cheers. CAVincent (talk) 04:54, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, List of actors that won as Academy Award portraying a real person (or some such name) could probably also be reasonably included in the "See also" sections of the actors' articles, giving some visibility for the list article to readers who are interested in such things. CAVincent (talk) 05:09, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for your interest in brainstorming. I'm glad you think so too! I guess I had a good conccept, just executed with the wrong method. I like that it sparked some positive feedback, and even intrigue for you, haha. You're even getting into it—you could be my page proofreader or first reviewer? =) I too enjoy a good, solid list article—And the Oscars have quite a few too.

That's what I was also picturing the table like, sortable. Omg of course the year! And film/actor/role/notes.

And thought of calling it "List of actors that won Academy Awards for portraying non-fictional/biographical roles/characters". @CAVincent Tell me which combo of words you like best? --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 05:39, 28 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for August 29

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Hollywood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Criterion.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 12

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited New Hollywood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mubi.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:56, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Great detective work on New Hollywood (be careful on the Letterboxd reviews next time) Espngeek (talk) 03:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Espngeek Thanks! We make a good team; happy to be of assistance, and appreciate you double-checking my discoveries. I guess a few of those Letterboxd reviews were too tenuous in mentioning "New Hollywood"—it's all about context?? I'll work on that. Hopefully, new reviews or different sources continue to arise that might substantiate any of the films removed.

I have a question too. TV movies don't count, right? I know we have a couple of short films on the list, so I wanted to get your input on that. Because The Jericho Mile and That Certain Summer have each shown up before. So I'm curious whether or not these can or should be included. --Cinemaniac86^Talk_Stalk 08:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

American Idol wiki page

Ngl, I thought I had the top of the page set to “for the upcoming season” and not most recent. Thanks for fixing that lol, do you think I should put the link for season 24 back up? TypicallyRyan (talk) 01:40, 10 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DAILYMAIL

Hi, regarding your edit to Angela Lansbury, the Daily Mail is a deprecated source. If you see it added to an article, please remove it (and new text cited to it) rather than tag it as "better source needed". Thanks! Schazjmd (talk) 12:26, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]