Talk:Megamind/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move

its written Megamind not MegaMind See at official site...—Preceding unsigned comment added by CennoxX (talk • contribs)

I requested it as uncontroversial. BOVINEBOY2008 11:26, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Guys never added anything to wiki before so not sure of the rules, but I notice in the article the villan is referred to as "tighten", im pretty sure its meant to be Titan. hope this helps —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.214.17.11 (talk) 04:19, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

plot information

why isn't their any plot infomation? Breawycker (talk) 13:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

The plot that had been added was found to be a copyright violation. Feel free to add one if you wish, just don't copy-paste another synopsis. Remember, for unreleased films, the plot does need to be sourced. BOVINEBOY2008 14:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
Did the plot description come from the studio? If so, why not ask their permission to use it?173.58.64.64 (talk) 18:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
For come up movies such as this I think the best thing to do is a small plot synopsis of what it's about. Not the entire plot of it yet. Jhenderson777 (talk) 20:31, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I wish the entire plot wasnt here before the movie came out, it spoiled me at a time where spoilers shouldnt have existed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.24.18 (talk) 04:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

tighten or titan?

this looks weird to me:

"into Metro City's next big superhero, the fiery-headed Tighten[2]. Unfortunately, Titan decides to utilize his new power "

which one is the right name? I suppose once the movie actually comes out somebody will fix that, but just thought I'd point it out202.53.199.23 (talk) 03:11, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It's spelled Tighten in the credits. 66.143.164.234 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC).
It's spelled 'Tighten' in the credits as a joke. His name is Titan, that's how Megamind spells it in Roxanne's notes. The only one who calls him 'Tighten' is Titan, because he's an idiot. 59.167.168.102 (talk) 09:27, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
As bizarre as this is, everywhere I can find (including the official site) spells the supervillain's name "Tighten." You'd think that it would, in fact, be "Titan," but it isn't. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to assume, at least, that this idiotic spelling decision is because they let the "character" spell his own nickname however he wanted to; it'll help me sleep better. Jsharpminor (talk) 04:11, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I have no idea about the credits, but the official website spells it Tighten. I suspect his name is actually Titan, but lordy will people freak out on wikipedia if you deviate from that. IMDB lists it as Titan.
IMDB lists it as Titan and the subtitles also list him as Titan not Tighten —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.197.135 (talk) 21:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Google results: megamind titan - 925,000. megamind tighten - 68,600.
Jabberwockgee (talk) 22:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Megamind calls him Titan. [1]
But Hal calls himself Tighten because he is an idiot or a dyslexic or whatever. [2]
So Tighten became is official name including in the credits. [3]
Simple as that. --Bothary (talk) 23:34, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Or read the screenplay: [4]
There are differences to the movie but you can clearly read that the Titan/Tighten thing is a misspelling gag. Megamind named him Titan but Hal misspelled it to Tighten. --Bothary (talk) 00:59, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
The film's own credits should be the final word on the matter. There's no need for speculation, counting Google hits, refering to IMDB, or trying to explain the humor behind it. According to the credits the character's name is Tighten. Period. Yes, it's a misspelling of Titan. It's intentional, it's a joke, it's his official name. Druff (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
In the movie, where the montage is revealed to be a drawing of the hero, the word "Titan" clearly appears above his image. Both spellings should be used in the article. -- JeffBillman (talk) 00:55, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree. Both names officially appear in the movie ([5], [6]) and should be used in the article. The screenplay gives an official explanation ([7]). ----Koifkoi (talk) 20:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

I suspect the synopsis to be plagiarized in whole or part

For example: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Aided+by+his+childhood%2C+fish-like+sidekick+Minion

This needs a cleanup I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MadKingChucky (talk • contribs) 03:41, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Funny how the very first link in that Google search mentions this Wikipedia article as its source... -- Imladros (talk) 04:06, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

blue extended head type figures

There seems to be a meme of this planet about blue extended/high/cone headed beings, ranging from dipictions of Hindu/Egyptian gods to animated film, i think there is enough info out there for a article on this. Text mdnp (talk) 01:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree, but go ahead and write that article. Also, Megamind effin' looks like Neil Patrick Harris and everyone who disagrees is an idiot! (And, yes, I know I'm incoherent in my argumentation). 217.93.210.247 (talk) 04:31, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Carrots

...

The theatrical release poster is, currently, a picture of carrots despite a description to the contrary. This surely needs amending?

--94.173.159.77 (talk) 22:42, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Release Date in Japan "Postponed Indefinitely" is Incorrect

Although this English page says the movie was postponed indefinitely in Japan, the Japanese page directly linked to on the left says the movie was released on Aug. 6th, 2011. 117.109.58.180 (talk) 08:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

According to Box Office Mojo and IMDb Megamind wasn't released in Japan. And there does not seem to be any source that would claim otherwise.--Carniolus (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
According to the Japanese Wikipedia and IMDb, It will be released in Japan in 2020.72.211.239.152 (talk) 01:05, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megamind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:54, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Megamind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Megamind. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:36, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Ben Stiller / Bernard / Larry Daley

Is it possible that Ben Stiller voicing Bernard -- the museum curator -- is some type of reference/homage to Stiller's Night at the Museum character of Larry Daley -- a museum night watchman -- that he'd played twice before doing Megamind?

Just a thought. 2600:8800:786:A300:C23F:D5FF:FEC4:D51D (talk) 00:07, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

nietzsche

both heroes in the movie go through some sort of philosophical questioning of life meaning. anyone knows if this is at all inspired by perspectivism, nihilism or something else? i'd like to see a link on the plot, there when it talks about all the meaningless reality. :) --cregox (T | C) 16:20, Saturday 2018-08-11 (UTC) 

16:14, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism

I believe this page has been vandalised - for instance, the gross box office and reference to it winning 70 oscars. Could someone in the know take a look?--2A00:23C5:4991:2400:7917:205A:848B:2B28 (talk) 23:10, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Guillermo del Toro?

Why is there a Guillermo del Toro template at the bottom of the page? --ElLutzo (talk) 20:56, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

He was an executive producer on the film. Koala15 (talk) 23:51, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Nope. A story consultant on the film. Ben Stiller was the executive producer of the project. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Is Tighten a Supervillian?

Well, I admit that he meets the Supervillian article criteria, being a super-powered villian, but the context used in the film is different. Rather than being based on powers and abilities, the film uses the term to reflect character and behaviour, and given that Megamind himself declares Tighten not to be a supervillian we should follow that statement - after all, he probably knows what he's talking about. Chaheel Riens (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible that the megamind comic books megamind : bad blue brilliant can be on wikipedia as part of the franchise?

Megamind has his own comic book series that not many people actually know about 72.135.229.177 (talk) 00:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Fey & Ferrell ad libs?

The "Cinema Therapy" men recently reviewed "Megamind" on the topic of 'nice guy syndrome'. They wondered aloud whether Tina Fey and Will Ferrell ad-libbed any of their dialogue. They thought that the duo probably did. Is they any intelligence on this in cinema literature? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OjpxlBRbhXs&t=82s
Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 01:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Should the popularity of the film having a resurgence on the internet through its praise on the by youtubers and memes it has had be mentioned on the article in a page along with the one on the front?

The film was somewhat obscure up until a youtuber by the name of schaffrillas productions made a video dubbed "Why megamind is a subversive masterpiece." Praising the film for its quality and a few more have also praised it. With also various internet memes helping the popularity aswell. There have been examples of internet popularity being there with that of a films such as "Minions the rise of gru." And "Morbius." 72.135.248.71 (talk) 03:43, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We need reliable sources that have identified this aspect. Masem (t) 03:50, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Sources that can maybe be used can probably (once again probably.) Be on YouTube with several content creators praising it. As for the internet memes most likely "Know your meme." Or maybe even the original videos on YouTube itself or "lessons in meme culture." 72.135.248.71 (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
We can't use the videos of user praising it, that primary sourcing. KYM is user-generated content, so we can't use that. We need reliable ones. Masem (t) 13:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
potential sources have been found https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/05/megamind-memes-dominate-the-internet-12-years-after-films-release/ https://youtube/c-2Tjm2M2cg?si=FiZ_XljhOe4WdOro 72.135.248.71 (talk) 05:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
https://youtube.com/c-2Tjm2M2cg?si=FiZ_XljhOe4WdOro typo error mistake. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 05:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe if a page of its own on here gets added referencing the cult following it has received via praise and the memes it has had it could state it while not directly saying the names and maybe just having it be in the reference links. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 23:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I spent literally 2 hours trying to edit the page for the film at one point and yet they didn't accept. I plead with the people there to to try and help me fix issues that I've made during the edit however they literally did nothing about it expect change it back. They claimed Know your meme and YouTube cannot be used for sources. How? I have 2 examples of this firstly is on the article that lists the various characters from the nintendo video game "Punch-out!!" Where they mention super macho man it has a piece of information on there that acknowledges the characters meme status. And guess where it comes from? Know your meme. That reversion was made on November 4th 2022 a full 9 months of it being on there. (Link of the edit here : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1119960880) The second example is Youtuber "Coryxkenshin." Where he talks about things that happened in his personal life and there are 2 videos from YouTube on that page. The edit was made a literal month ago on July 21th. (Edit link here : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1166428627) both of these edits are still on the page which have been on there for months. So if I can't include know your meme and yotube as sources why can they do so? It has baffled me. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 13:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I've literally edited a page for around maybe 2 hours but editors took it off when i literally gave links. Admittedly the YouTube links didn't work as they didn't go to the video but I suggested they fish that out themselves as I don't know how to make it work. Seriously. There's proof of the film being more popular after the video was made due to more videos related to the film being talked about. There are instances of YouTube videos being put in place for articles such as in markiplier's early life there is literal videos from YouTube on that page from the channel "WIRED". There is also instances of films bringing up memes to match its popularity as I've already tried pointing out beforehand minions the rise of gru morbius and shrek. (Admittedly I didn't mention shrek the first time around but you know what I mean.) And on the FRONT PAGE there is literally a mention of its popularity on the internet.

come on. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 09:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I've amended the article to remove mention of the internet, as it wasn't backed up by the supplied source. Barry Wom (talk) 10:01, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I spent literally 2 hours trying to edit the page for the film at one point and yet they didn't accept. I plead with the people there to to try and help me fix issues that I've made during the edit however they literally did nothing about it expect change it back. They claimed Know your meme and YouTube cannot be used for sources. How? I have 2 examples of this firstly is on the article that lists the various characters from the nintendo video game "Punch-out!!" Where they mention super macho man it has a piece of information on there that acknowledges the characters meme status. And guess where it comes from? Know your meme. That reversion was made on November 4th 2022 a full 9 months of it being on there. (Link of the edit here : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1119960880) The second example is Youtuber "Coryxkenshin." Where he talks about things that happened in his personal life and there are 2 videos from YouTube on that page. The edit was made a literal month ago on July 21th. (Edit link here : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1166428627) both of these edits are still on the page which have been on there for months. So if I can't include know your meme and yotube as sources why can they do so? It has baffled me. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 13:48, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
"Know Your Meme entries, including "confirmed" entries, are user-generated and generally unreliable." [8]
"Most videos on YouTube are anonymous, self-published, and unverifiable, and should not be used at all." [9]
It's likely the other articles to which you refer shouldn't have used these sites as sources either, but in any case it is irrelevant to this discussion. Barry Wom (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
How? If it is irrelevant and "Shouldn't have been used" Why have they been on there for months? 72.135.248.71 (talk) 17:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
These are clearly relevant due to the fact that there are sources that you said couldn't be used. Yet they are on other articles. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 17:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Both of those edits are still up there I mind you. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 18:00, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Another thing I recently found out is the youtuber I brought up is literally mentioned on a article. (He's been on there since March of this year I mind you.) So if he can be mentioned here : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1146067207 That means he can qualify being mentioned on here. There is a level of notability to him aswell as evidented by his channel having 1 million subscribers aswell as the video of him praising the film having 16 million views. https://m.youtube.com/@SchaffrillasProductions 72.135.248.71 (talk) 10:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I've edited two of the articles you mentioned to remove material which relied on KnowYourMeme and YouTube sources [10], [11].
As for CoryxKenshin, he has his own Wiki page as a prominent YouTuber. I guess different rules apply in these cases (i.e. it would be difficult to provide non-YouTube sources).
I think it's probably time you gave up on this; WP:DROPTHESTICK. You're unlikely to gain consensus for the inclusion of your material. Barry Wom (talk) 11:42, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Actually I got one more card to play regarding YouTube. I can tell you edited the pages I brought up to make your argument seem more reasonable despite the fact nobody tried to edit those back nor had any issues with them. (They where on there for months I mind you.) You see youtuber Markiplier has several youtube videos on his wikipedia page that discuss his life. Also you didn't even acknowledge the fact that James (The youtuber I'm bringing up who made the video praising the film.) Was literally mentioned on a page thus being able to qualify being on this page. If your baffled about the source where it's at on mark's page it's the first source mentioned on his early life. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
all you did about James's article was you went back and changed it not saying anything else about it. That's proof you know I'm right in this situation and you do not want to admit it. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
you also did not mention the fact I brought up that the articles where on there for months. And no one cared or did anything to edit them until I told you about them. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 14:27, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bitch_Lasagna&oldid=862827374 this one right here. the video itself has stayed on there for YEARS. Not months years if this isn't enough proof then I don't understand what is. I keep finding more and more. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure the only reason you've got off scot-free is because your registered on this site. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 15:50, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not registered, and 99% of my edits stick because I follow policy. There are a lot of YouTube videos with millions of views. There are a lot of Wikipedia articles that have things wrong with them. Markiplier is notable because third party sources talk about him, and once that is established, his own videos can be used as sources about himself. 70.163.208.142 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I have found more examples of YouTube videos being used as examples. Come on just let me put know your meme and YouTube on the page. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:F158:686:49FA:F50F (talk) 00:45, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
You can just tell me how to write it and help me out in fixing errors. Please dude. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:F158:686:49FA:F50F (talk) 00:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
You simply cannot use random youtube videos for sourcing something like this. We are looking for published works in reliable sources. Masem (t) 04:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
all of the videos are not "random" they all have atleast over a million views. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:5D85:A65F:224D:E373 (talk) 04:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Youtube videos are user-created content, so even if they have a million views, that doesn't make them reliable. Masem (t) 05:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
How? If they can't be used then why are they used on other pages for specific purposes? I Have already pointed out the various pages that include those. And one of the users helped me out in correcting a error I have made when posting it on there so it proves some people do not mind it. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:5D85:A65F:224D:E373 (talk) 05:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As explained above, in the case of Markeplier, the only use of youtube are for claims made about himself, in line with WP:BLPSPS. That aspect doesn't apply to memes. Masem (t) 05:13, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
You did not mention penguinz0 or coryxkenshin. And also a YouTube video is a YouTube video. If one can be put on his page one can be put on here. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:5D85:A65F:224D:E373 (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
And of course a lock was put on. How wonderful. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:5D85:A65F:224D:E373 (talk) 05:34, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Also why did you allow the context of the "cult following" written yet not the actual sources? People are going to get confused when they read it and try to get to the sources from this site. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:5D85:A65F:224D:E373 (talk) 05:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Hey alright so this is probably going to be the last attempt to get this mentioned on the page (Unless for example a article gets published on AV club or something.) There is a 2 articles that mentions the video I'm trying to put in (If it appears black you have to scroll down.) https://chattymatters.com/9761/previous-articles-videos/the-rise-of-the-video-essay/ and another one https://thesciencesurvey.com/arts-entertainment/2020/06/19/bored-try-watching-some-youtube-video-essays/ Both mention the creator of the video. Now I understand TV tropes is user generated however I have found examples of it being used on other pages (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_and_TV_programs_containing_corporal_punishment_scenes The TV tropes source is on the third reference link.) And the cult following it has received is also mentioned here (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VindicatedByHistory/AnimatedFilms Click on "dreamworks animation." And it will show you it.) (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Trivia/SchaffrillasProductions When you find the words "Sleeper hit." It will mention the video.) The creator is mentioned on both IMDB and ironically av club (https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/schaffrillas-productions-2015) (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15028658/) 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
(Not a spam attempt just making sure I'm saying it to the right person.)
Hey alright so this is probably going to be the last attempt to get this mentioned on the page (Unless for example a article gets published on AV club or something.) There is a 2 articles that mentions the video I'm trying to put in (If it appears black you have to scroll down.) https://chattymatters.com/9761/previous-articles-videos/the-rise-of-the-video-essay/ and another one https://thesciencesurvey.com/arts-entertainment/2020/06/19/bored-try-watching-some-youtube-video-essays/ Both mention the creator of the video. Now I understand TV tropes is user generated however I have found examples of it being used on other pages (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_and_TV_programs_containing_corporal_punishment_scenes The TV tropes source is on the third reference link.) And the cult following it has received is also mentioned here (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/VindicatedByHistory/AnimatedFilms Click on "dreamworks animation." And it will show you it.) (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Trivia/SchaffrillasProductions When you find the words "Sleeper hit." It will mention the video.) The creator is mentioned on both IMDB and ironically av club (https://www.avclub.com/tv/reviews/schaffrillas-productions-2015) (https://m.imdb.com/title/tt15028658/) 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 22:22, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
my bad forgot to mention the memes it has received aswell https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Memes/Megamind 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 22:33, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
First, the same thing with TV Tropes as other videos on other pages is that "Other stuff exists" is not an argument to keep using it. The uses of TV Tropes on those other pages are completely inappropriate because they're still using the user-written parts of TV Tropes.
On the two sources you found, they are just pointing out that video , but that gives no reliability to the video itself to be used here. So that will not work either. Masem (t) 17:06, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
How? It's not being mentioned on YouTube nor any other places that the site doesn't allow. Besides you didn't mention the fact the creator was mentioned on both IMDB and AV club. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 17:14, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Just because a person is named on AV Club (IMDB is not a reliable source) does not make the person reliable. Masem (t) 17:31, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The original video has 16 million views. The channel itself has over 1 million. That is popular. How is it not reliable? 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Besides again here's what it says regarding sources for AV club : "The A.V. Club is considered generally reliable for film, music and TV reviews." And here is the amount of sources used for it https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22avclub.com%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 And IMDB has the same issue as TV tropes. There are multiple examples of it being used for sources yet in this case it "can't." 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 19:20, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's the list of the amount of Things IMDB and TV tropes are mentioned on aswell. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22imdb.com%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22tvtropes.org%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
And here's another one that directly mentions both the creator and the video itself. https://www.pluggedin.com/youtube-reviews/schaffrillas-productions/ 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 19:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
And here's examples of know your meme being used. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22knowyourmeme.com%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 and a full article of memes being popular of the film on the internet https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/05/megamind-memes-dominate-the-internet-12-years-after-films-release/ 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 19:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
1) It does not matter what other pages on Wikipedia use (like Know Your Meme or IMDB), those need to be fixed. That is not an argument you can use.
2) A source is not reliable just because it has millions of views.
3) A source is not reliable just because it is mentioned in another reliable source (as you are trying to argue with the AV Club mention).
You need to stop trying to argue the use of those videos and look for sources that directly talk about Megamind being a meme. Masem (t) 19:45, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
1 If it needs to be fixed why hasn't it been taken down? Don't give me the "Oh they can be on there for awhile unnoticed." No. Whenever I have tried to edit the page for this movie or any other page for that matter it gets taken down almost immediately. No one has cared about those being on there.
2 There are examples of YouTube videos in general with millions of views being included especially by popular youtubers. There is even a entire article on this site dedicated to a video that was uploaded to YouTube (Which the video itself was included as the 4th reference source and included in the external links.) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Morning_Watchmen And the AV club was also included on the 12th reference link.
3 As I've already stated the AV club has mentioned the video itself for the Saturday morning watchmen video and i have also stated that the AV club can be used for sources. (Granted initially it was a newgrounds video however it was uploaded to YouTube a day after it was posted on there and the YouTube video as I've stated is on there.)
Regarding the memes I've already sent you a link. https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/05/megamind-memes-dominate-the-internet-12-years-after-films-release/ 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
While it is true I am trying to mention the memes it has received I am also trying to mention the praise it has gotten through various youtubers via video essays. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The film pretty much has a cult following due to this reason with schaffrillas being the most popular and helping it out in why it has a cult following in the first place. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 20:38, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The memes have also had just as big of a role in its cult following aswell. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 20:42, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
To stress one last time - a random youtube video that makes the claim that Megamind has memes, where there is no evidence of the reliability of the youtube uploader (this is different from popularity or notability of the youtuber or the video , which is what you are trying to show with those sources) is not considered a reliable source.
Wikipedia is also created by volunteers, so that you might complain that other articles use KYM or IMDB, but there's no requirement that we must immediately fix it. Its just that those sources are simply not useable as reliable sources per WP:USERG Masem (t) 21:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I never claimed the video itself mentioned the memes. They are apart of the cult following the film has received however I have already told you. You didn't mention either of this. Talk about them.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_Morning_Watchmen
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/05/megamind-memes-dominate-the-internet-12-years-after-films-release/ 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:11, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The watchmen article proves youtube videos can be put on here and the article regarding the memes is proof that it is a source that can be used for a page on here. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Probably a final statement for now read this old edit. It will give you a idea of what I intended to make it like : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megamind&oldid=1180201171 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
(Not a spam attempt making sure I'm replying correctly.)
https://www.the-sun.com/tech/7729740/what-megamind-meme/ 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 20:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
You are bludgeoning the discussion which is against WP:TE.
Also, the Sun is a tabloid and not a reliable source. Masem (t) 20:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Jesus christ anything I put on here is not considered a "reliable source." Also there are more examples of the sun being used. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=insource%3A%22thesun.co.uk%22&title=Special:Search&ns0=1 And it seems like your dodging any mention of this link https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2022/10/05/megamind-memes-dominate-the-internet-12-years-after-films-release/ And once again you didn't mention a specific thing. That being the Saturday morning watchmen article. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:02, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
The Saturday Morning Watchmen article exists because there is multiple reliable sources that discussed the video. It doesn't mean that that video is suddenly reliable. And with only one weak source (the HITC one), its really hard to justify inclusion. Masem (t) 21:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
"Only one weak source" its still there however and no one has taken it down. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:51, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Besides I've pointed out there's multiple articles that mention the schaffrillas essay video. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I Accidentally confused the articles with each other. What I meant is the original video is still up there for the watchmen animation thus could justify one being on here and there are already more articles talking about the memes and the schaffrillas video. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
besides how is it a "weak" source? 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 21:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
For anyone reading this Here's a idea of what I tried to make the page like. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Megamind&oldid=1180201171 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 16:53, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
You appear to be evading your block AGAIN. Masem (t) 04:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Here is another one. https://www.the-sun.com/tech/7729740/what-megamind-meme/ 2603:6000:B800:EB4:7DEA:F575:1ACB:A534 (talk) 20:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
If the edits cannot be used because it's a quote unquote "sockpuppet edit" Then why are these edits allowed but the extended and objectively better version isn't? I'm the one who put both the "memes dominate the internet 12 years after the release." And "ahead of its time" source there in the first place. So why are you allowing those but not the other one? 2603:6000:B800:EB4:D508:179B:1BEF:736E (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
the edit war literally did not need to happen a few days back. All i asked for was help to correct errors I made as i will admit I'm not the best at editing. However as I've already stated literally nobody tried to help me. 72.135.248.71 (talk) 20:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The IP editor, you have been warned that this is not appropriate content without better sources. Yes , you reverted your addition, but if you add it again, that is still edit warring. --Masem (t) 22:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I am attempting to add sources right now. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:714F:D49E:47CC:7261 (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Are they new/different sources from all the ones you've repeatedly stated above? Unless they are, you are editing against policy. Masem (t) 23:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes. I am absolutely sure that all of them are new. Though regarding this article https://www.the-sun.com/tech/7729740/what-megamind-meme/ I am intending on putting it under "Better source needed." 2603:6000:B800:EB4:714F:D49E:47CC:7261 (talk) 23:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Alright now I was posting this here showing a illustration of what I intended to post but I cannot for the life of me figure out how to edit in certain articles. So here's the illustration with the pages I intended
This part was meant to be on the bottom of the front where it mentions the TV series being on peacock. : 2603:6000:B800:EB4:714F:D49E:47CC:7261 (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
And what I tried to say didn't go through.. Anyways I'll try editing again another time. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:714F:D49E:47CC:7261 (talk) 00:36, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
What you don't appear to realise is that you have been blocked for a year for disruptive editing. It's not just the original IP you used (72.135.248.71) that has been blocked, it's you personally. What you're doing by using different IPs to continue your disruption is called sockpuppetry and is disallowed. Barry Wom (talk) 02:45, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
What you don't seem to understand is I was blocked for a year straight. Pretty much forcing me to "sock puppet." 72.128.89.93 (talk) 20:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
You don't understand the reasons behind blocks. It's not intended to "force" one to resort to sockpuppetry. It's intended to halt disruptive editing. Panian513 21:01, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
this is not "disruptive editing." I have tried to improve every edit I have tried to add to this page but nobody is letting me do it. Not a single person. 72.128.89.93 (talk) 21:05, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
You have been blocked from previous IPs and editing from another one is a block evasion violation. You have been blocked AGAIN for this. Masem (t) 21:27, 12 November 2023 (UTC)
Regarding the cult following page I added that on there so more info regarding it can be learned about as to when it had received one and why it has a cult following in the first place. And I know I said this before but I'll say it again the TV show on peacock is also mentioned on the front page and has its own page aswell. 2603:6000:B803:2000:CC01:1471:1C00:4D44 (talk) 01:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
You just violated your block (you cannot use alternate accounts to edit while blocked). You will be blocked again. Masem (t) 02:05, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
The talk page can probably be removed now or something since it's genuinely a giant mess and the goal was achieved. 2603:6000:B800:EB4:D508:179B:1BEF:736E (talk) 19:39, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

March 2024

Is there anything directly wrong with the edit I put on there? I quite literally do not see anything wrong with it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6000:B800:EB4:E4D1:7F1F:141F:1EB3 (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:BLOCKEVASION says "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in violation of a ban or block", which you and I are both well aware. As for the edit itself, scanning it briefly, it looks like it's promoting some random Youtube channel and their opinions about the movie. I freely admit to not looking too much closer before reverting, since the aforementioned link doesn't require me to: "the presumption in ambiguous cases should be to revert". However, nothing I've seen when I've looked at it in a little more depth sways my opinion that this section is primarily to promote a random Youtube channel. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:58, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Megamind/Archive_1&oldid=1221254180"