User talk:Darkknight2149

Wikipedia ads	file info – show another – #90

Remember

If I don't respond immediately, I am probably busy. If that is the case, I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Regards, DarkKnight2149

Getting Back into the Swing of Things: Announcements and Questions

Hello DarkKnight2149, Just wanted to let you know of a couple of things before I forget. I'm now on my winter break and so I will try getting back into working on the Leatherface project. I have been looking over it a couple of times and realized that we need to add information on the character's development in the new prequel to the development section since there is none of that information in that section. I will be working on the remake timeline stuff so if you come across any information pertaining to that during your search for information on the other timelines feel free to send them my way. I've also been working on several other articles in my spare time such as trying to get my already GA status article on The Hideous Sun Demon ready for FA status (that might take some time though). I am also working on rewriting and expanding the article on The Gill-Man via a separate userspace. I had a couple of questions pertaining to that, such as whether or not I should add the character's appearance in The Monster Squad, the reason I'm hesitant to do this is since it's not a part of the Universal Monster series and more of a homage to the character so I don't know if it should go there or in the popular culture section. Again thanks for all the help with the Leatherface article, you and several others have made invaluable contributions to its expansion and I can't wait to get it approved for FA status.take that Jason!--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: If the Leatherface draft does reach FA status, that would be awesome. Work has been moving slowly there, but I intend on adding the rest of Texas Chainsaw 3D to the Characterisation in the near future. I'll take a look at the development sections for the draft and add information from the prequel there. In the case of The Monster Squad, do we know if the Universal Monsters in the film are officially licensed by Universal Pictures? If it isn't officially licensed, my instinct would be to list it in Popular culture. Leatherface (2017 film) is nearly complete and the Blu-Ray comes out in a few days. When I obtain a copy, I'll probably add any applicable information from the Special Features (casting information, filming, removed/deleted scenes, ETC). I know you mentioned wanting to adjust a few things before the eventual peer review. I also plan on doing some work on a Professor Pyg draft, the Begotten draft, Victor Crowley (film), Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation (two in-depth interviews have surfaced), and finishing Hellraiser: Judgment when news starts dropping. It was supposed to be released this year, but appears to be in a similar situation to Leatherface (2017) in that news mysteriously stopped and the film missed its release window. Hopefully it comes out by Halloween 2018; director Gary Tunnicliffe has mentioned that a theatrical release is a possibility and that Bob Weinstein was impressed with it. DarkKnight2149 00:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Speaking of "getting back into the swing of things", I haven't been editing much since December. I'll try to get back on that as soon as possible. Leatherface (2017 film) is already awaiting GA review, Hellraiser: Judgment be released next month (I'll need to complete that). Are there any major updates on the Begotten draft? I recently rewatched the film to assist with it. DarkKnight2149 22:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I really don't know. College started up again for me and I made the mistake of taking two massive film-making classes back to back so I've been understandably busy and probably will be for a while. I will still continue to make edits whenever I can but major edits may not be immediately forthcoming. I will take a look at the article again and get back to you as soon as I can.--Paleface Jack 03:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I can understand that, not having much time on Wikipedia recently myself. DarkKnight2149 03:06, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

It is a bummer though, exhaustion and the fact that I need to finish my film degree have been leaving me with less free time than I would want (sighs) oh well. All work and no play makes (insert name) a dull boy...--Paleface Jack 03:14, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Here I am again. Unfortunately I am going have to take a hiatus so that I can work more on some projects of mune. I will do only very minor edits since I've been spending more time than I should on this site. Just thought I'd let you know. Also I accidentally clicked on your home page and I say that link that says that it contains your real name... Not sure if it's a joke or what but it sent be to a music video by Rick Astley. I'm a bit confused about that, are you a Youtuber posting videos on Astley?--Paleface Jack 20:32, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: That's understandable, especially since I also haven't been able to edit as much since moving (besides cleaning, unpacking, and real life work, I have mainly been using my phone and public WiFi to edit; probably going to buy my own soon). As for the real name link, it was indeed a joke, albeit a cheap and easy one. I also think the video itself falls into the "so cheesy, it's funny" variety, even if the joke itself is admittedly several years stale. DarkKnight2149 22:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

I thought as much. Although it would be really funny and (sort of) cool if there were any editors out there that were actual celebrities or famous Youtubers (I don't count);).--Paleface Jack 22:35, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You probably don't know this but I am also an (unfortunately inactive) member of WikiProject Cryptozoology. I've been seeing a lot of that looks like vandalism by Bloodoffox, removing cryptozoology categories and rewording things to appear as though article topics are on mythological creatures. I believe this is an attempt to get his merger proposal for List of Cryptids merged with List of mythological creatures although I cannot be sure. I'd like your thought on this.--Paleface Jack 01:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I'll look into it right now. DarkKnight2149 15:58, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: I took a look at Bloodofox's contributions. Although I haven't found anything to suggest deliberate vandalism, there does appear to be a lot of persistent changes to his preferred revisions without discussion. DarkKnight2149 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

To @Bloodofox: It doesn't look good when you mass-replace a category in multiple articles without discussion, especially after your attempts to merge the respective list articles throughout the years have failed on more than one occasion. It also doesn't look good when you resort to opening a merger discussion after such without notifying anyone involved in the article and then edit war to keep those changes in place. If you believe in your P.O.V. this much, it would probably be better to notify both WikiProjects and open a larger discussion on this topic. Wikipedia is consensus based, after all. DarkKnight2149 16:53, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

On the topic of humor, have you ever seen RocketMan? It's by far one of the most underappreciated comedy of all time. Surprisingly it was released by Disney but, unfortunately, they haven't released any worth while DVD or Blue-Ray with special features and the like. It's kind of sad. Anyways if you haven't seen it you owe it to yourself to check it out.--Paleface Jack 15:27, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

You might want to post your message to BloodofFox at the FRINGE THEORIES noticeboard. I reverted one of his edits and told him to cease and desist from undiscussed edits to cryptid categories or he would be reported (probably shouldn't have done that) and now he's ranting about me on the "fringe theories" discussion. Hopefully this doesn't escalate but I'm afraid it might.:P--Paleface Jack 00:45, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

... Yepppp, I seem to have made it worse. :O--Paleface Jack 02:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if we should be reporting this user or not. I still don't understand how that works. Sorry I brought you into this mess I made.:P--Paleface Jack 15:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Continued business

Hello DK2149, Although I'm still very busy at the moment, I was thinking that we should transfer what we have currently on the article on the Leatherface character. My thoughts on that is this: Even though there is still some work that needs to be done to the article with more information needed to be added, I think the best bet in getting some more help with it is to transfer what we have so far and see if anyone else can help. I just wanted your thoughts on the idea before going ahead and implementing it.--Paleface Jack 16:47, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: Greetings, and sorry for the late reply. My personal opinion is that we should wait until it's a bit closer to completion before moving it, because it might attract the wrong types of editors. You can see the edit history of the current Leatherface article to get an idea of what I'm talking about. I myself have had to deal with a lot of that from inexperienced IP editors and redlink accounts at Jigsaw (2017 film), Halloween (2018 film), and Hellraiser: Judgment (the vandal Its judgment day is one I think you yourself reverted). It might be a better idea to alert WP:FILM, since Leatherface is a popular film character and that WikiProject seems active. Of course, it's your draft, so the final decision is in your hands.

In terms of the work on it, I actually have several sources related to Texas Chainsaw 3D bookmarked on my computer that I've been meaning to update it with for a while now. Hopefully I'll get to that soon. I know you mentioned that some of the development regarding the 2017 film should be added to the draft. Might I ask which information do you have in mind? I added the information regarding Sam Strike's preparation for the role to Men Behind the Mask and I added the info on how he was portrayed/written to Characterization. If you still believe that there's other information for that film that is pertinent to the draft, please let me know.

Hellraiser: Judgment is pretty much finished. Like Leatherface (2017 film), I'm pretty much just playing the waiting game with those articles. Judgment is awaiting Peer Review, though it doesn't look like anyone is going to respond (If archived with no reply, I'm thinking about seeking advise from an FA mentor on how close it is to reaching FA quality; if it doesn't have a chance at that, I'm convinced it's ripe enough for a GA nomination). Meanwhile, Leatherface (2017) is collecting dust at WP:GAN#FILM. Just got to wait those out, which gives me time to work on the Leatherface and Professor Pyg drafts.

I also have relatively fresh interviews bookmarked that should help expand the Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III and Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation articles. Cheers. DarkKnight2149 03:47, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, might as well do whatever's best to finish it. Why are you editing a draft on Professor Pyg?--Paleface Jack 03:53, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I also have a bunch of information on Leatherface all in a file on one of my many flash drives if that helps. I still think we need to get more people working on this article since its only us two at the moment (well I haven't done a lot in the past several months, me being burned out with film projects and stuff). Any other insights from someone else who might bring something fresh that we might be missing is always accepted. I was thinking DarkWarriorBlade considering his work on expanding the article on The Thing, which I also want to make an article on the character and possibly have him help me with that one two. At the moment I'm chilling at the moment "recovering" from this term so it might take me a while to implement all of this... Sighs... Oh well.--Paleface Jack 04:05, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I'll go ahead and leave a message at WP:FILM to see if we can attract some attention to it. I have actually worked with Darkwarriorblake on occasion in the past (probably the most recent one being in a discussion regarding Joker (character) last year). If he helped on the article, that would be great. He's already helped an impressive number of articles reach Good Article and Featured Article status. Tagging: @Darkwarriorblake: Would you be interested in helping us develop the Leatherface draft?

I would suggest Paul730 for his work on Michael Myers (Halloween) and Jason Voorhees, but he seems to be inactive in recent years. His userpage lists Bignole (who has worked on the draft before) and Zythe as honourary collaborators. I have interacted with Zythe on various occasions in the past (particularly on comic book related articles), but they don't seem to edit many horror articles. Still, it wouldn't hurt to ask. DarkKnight2149 20:01, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Go ahead. I sent a message to DarkWarriorBlade to see if he would like to come onboard, we shall see what that brings.--Paleface Jack 20:37, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Paleface Jack: @Darkwarriorblake: I have notified the WikiProject. I plan on getting those Texas Chainsaw 3D sources in the draft within the week. DarkKnight2149 21:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Good work.--Paleface Jack 21:04, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi guys! I like the original TCSM but I'm no expert on the franchise, so don't think I'll be much help here. Do bear me in mind for other stuff (I'm more au fait with Scream and Nightmare if you're ever working on those shows).Zythe (talk) 15:40, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

@Paleface Jack: I moved to a new house over the weekend, so I unfortunately got nothing done (Irritating, I realise). I am going to try and catch up on my planned work, especially some additions to articles that I've been meaning to do for a while (Texas Chainsaw 3D at the Leatherface draft, additions to Jason Goes to Hell: The Final Friday, Halloween (2018 film), Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Next Generation, Leatherface: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre III, the Professor Pyg draft, ETC). DarkKnight2149 17:32, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologize. I understand.--Paleface Jack 19:24, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

He's at it again....

Hello DarkKnight, just though I'd let you know that BloodofFox is at it again. On top of the usual stuff, he's now trying to get redirects on cryptid related articles that don't make any sense whatsoever to me including a redirect of Mythical being to Cryptozoology. I'm sorry for bringing you into this but I think we might need to report him to the admins around here. I'm not even going to attempt to deal with this guy since it was so frustrating the last time I had to where I nearly got my head bitten off by him in a matter of speaking. (sighs)--Paleface Jack 23:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I seriously hate this dude... He reverts all my edits on cryptid articles, giving the usual lame excuses. (sighs)--Paleface Jack 01:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Sighs...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#BloodofFox_and_the_Cryptid_Debacle--Paleface Jack (talk) 21:59, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Finally Back...

Hello Darkknight2149, Tis been a while since I last posted something here. After my "hiatus" and the start of summer, I'm finally back to making some more edits for articles now. Just wanted to check up and see if we should continue our collaboration?--Paleface Jack (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Did a little more work on the revision draft for Begotten. Let me know what you think.--Paleface Jack (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Reply

Hello Darkknight2149, Just wanted to let you know that I got your message and sent a reply to it on my talk page. If you have any more questions or need any help finding information please let me know.--Paleface Jack (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

I saw it, thanks! I'm going to take a look at the drafts pretty soon, to see what else needs to be done. DarkKnight2149 19:28, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks.--Paleface Jack (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

False information on the Hannibal Lecter article.

Hello! I’m sorry if this is the wrong way to contact someone - I’m new to Wikipedia and don’t know what to do with the interface.

I’m trying to contact some sort of mod or admin about the user K.S.Morgan, and I saw that you had a previous exchange with them about the false information they’ve been repeatedly posting on the Hannibal Lecter article. I guess they’ve been doing this for years...

It really pains me to see false information in the article, and I want very much to fix it. The article was fine for a very long time, until K.S.Morgan put the false info in just a few days ago. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@VictimOfEntropy: Thanks for notifying me. After two years, Morgan is pretty much the only user asserting this and they apparently have been reverted by other users besides just me since 2018. If it continues, I'm reporting them for edit warring. Pretty much everyone (including those at Talk:Hannibal Lecter) has contested this, Morgan violated the three revert rule recently, and even the show's entry at List of dramatic television series with LGBT characters states that they aren't in a homosexual relationship. Insisting they are is like saying that Batman and the Joker are in a gay relationship, or that Mads Mikkelsen and Hideo Kojima are in a gay relationship... DarkKnight2149 01:03, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Morgan also doesn't seem to understand that this and this are (quite obviously) jokes... DarkKnight2149 01:22, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Halloween (2018)

Hi, I'm italian so I apologize if I make mistakes. Halloween movie has won Best CD for The Rondo Hatton Classic Horror Awards, here's the link, that's also what IMDb says, but I read that it has also won best film of 2018, right? --BincoBì (talk) 11:56, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hellraiser and Cenobites

I've commented at the FAC page. Incidentally, if you have come across any references that can be used in the Cenobite (Hellraiser), can you please add to there? I am not hugely familiar with the sources but this got redirected a year ago and refs would go a long way to that (or an AfD/PROD etc.) not happening in the future. Also a bunch of unreferenced material was removed before that. it may be that none of it is sourceable, but may be some is. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

False Information on the Hannibal Lecter article - Part 2.

Hello again! I hope you’re doing well :) It’s been quite a while since we last spoke, but the same issue from before seems to have resurfaced:

Someone (an *anonymous* someone, this time) is again trying to make a claim on the Hannibal Lecter article saying that Lecter and Will Graham were in a sexual relationship in the TV series, even though they most certainly were not.

I’ve had to revert them twice within the last 7 hours. The second time that they added the false information to the article, they also added something about Bryan Fuller’s Twitter account - I guess maybe that’s what’s gotten them confused?

What would you recommend that I do? As popular as that “ship” appears to be in FanFiction, the anonymous people who try to add things like that to Wikipedia normally give up after they’ve been reverted once; but this one seems a lot more determined, and I’m afraid that they’re going to try it again.

I’m really terrible with conflict, even just online stuff - it makes me feel sick, and causes me to lose sleep. I’ve been keeping an eye on these pages for quite some time now, because I care very much about the characters/story being accurately represented, but I’m afraid that I’m likely to just give it up to avoid conflict if this anonymous person keeps pushing...

You were able to solve this before, and I’m very hopeful that you could do that again, if you aren’t too busy. I’m really grateful for the help you’ve given me in the past. Hopefully it won’t be necessary again this time, though. I’ll go ahead and post this to you just in case. VictimOfEntropy (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I requested page protection for the time being. This definitely appears to be a WP:SOCK issue and you may need to open an investigation if it persists. I would recommend notifying Bignole and other users associated with the page. DarkKnight2149 10:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that K.S.Morgan themselves appears to be an WP:SPA whose edits pertain exclusively to getting "Significant Other - Will Graham" into the article. Then as soon as Morgan's claims are discussed on the talk page, they stop editing and multiple anonymous users & redlink accounts suddenly surface in the coming months to pick up where they left off. Yeah, this is definitely fishy. DarkKnight2149 10:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't visited this page in ages, so the mention surprised me. I'm passionate about the show in particular and I'm tired of homophobia. According to the show, Will and Hannibal have romantic feelings for each other. As per the moderator's request, apart from just adding Will to the table of being Hannibal's SO, I added a whole section about their relationship with credible links to the show content and creator's words. Not to Twitter, to actual officiel interviews. So, if there is SO section on Hannibal Lecter's page, Will Graham must be present there. However, I lost interest in this senseless argument, so if the mention was once again deleted and someone is trying to restore it, I have nothing to do with it. I just wish mods did their job of protecting valid edits to avoid such situations. K.S.Morgan (talk) 10:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Please do not cast aspersions (I.E. "homophobic"). I just went through and double checked. Your account (a single-purpose account in itself) completely stopped editing in June 2019, when the matter was the discussed on the talk page. Every single account and IP address that has picked up where you left off since then was created (In the case of the IPs, starting editing) after June 2019 and every single one of them has zero edits anywhere else. This is definitely an WP:SPI issue. Even if it isn't you specifically (which I doubt), someone has been creating disposable accounts to edit war in your absence. That much is for certain. DarkKnight2149 11:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, the desire of so many people to delete the valid mention of the male person Hannibal is in love with is very strange, so I'm not sure how else to explain it. And yes, I made an account to watch over this page in particular. I'm not interested in much else and I'm not interested in still fighting over this topic either at this point. I don't use any other accounts - if I wanted to keep arguing, I woud have used this one. I haven't visited Hannibal's page since the last argument I had (and won). This show has many fans and the majority of them are aware of who Hannibal is in love with because it's a canon fact. So, maybe instead trying to determine who among them tries to re-establish this fact, you should focus on those who constantly deletes it. If you're a moderator, I think it's your job. As per request of another moderator, I spent time and added a section with everything you need to see that yes, Hannibal and Will have a romantic relationship and it's the core of the show that is officially confirmed. Any other words are redundant here. I feel like you're trying to blame me for something when I'm actually right and have been defending the valid edit for a while now. I left since then. If other people take over, you should consider why they do that and maybe direct your attention to those who try to delete it for whatever reason. K.S.Morgan (talk) 11:15, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There hasn't been any activity on the talk page since additional sources were provided that contradict an overtly homosexual relationship between Will and Hannibal. As soon as this occurred, all activity on your account ceased and disposable red link accounts & IP addresses started popping up and carrying on in your stead. You can see why the circumstances are suspicious. That's a pretty big coincidence if it isn't you. DarkKnight2149 11:30, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

1) I haven't seen those sources provided in a discussion thread. 2) The provided information proves that Hannibal and Will are not in a sexual relationship yet. However, they are in love with each other, which has also been confirmed many times, including in that interview, and Bryan Fuller confirmed right there that the sexual aspect might be added in the future. So, what is your point, exactly? People don't have to have sex right away to be in a relationship. Again, for romantic part, all you need to do is check the section I provided, "Relationship between Lecter and Graham". It has several sources, including to the show and to interviews. Since you don't consider Twitter a credible source, I haven't included anything from it, but here it is Bryan calling their relationship "definitely queer" https://twitter.com/bryanfuller/status/975781320814092288?lang=ru Here is also a bit from an official interview that should clarify it: "Then, of course, came Hannibal. “The fourth show I created homoeroticized the Hannibal Lecter character from the Thomas Harris novels,” he said, “but it didn’t exactly homosexualize him. But there was almost a kiss, before he fell into the sea with the man he loved. Close, but no cigar…" https://www.themarysue.com/bryan-fuller-outfest-award-speech/ So, the relationship is canonically romantic. Sexual part hasn't been addressed yet but it might happen. These facts (along with the ones mentioned in my section on Hannibal's page) justify Will's title as Hannibal's SO since these two men are in love and it's a huge part of the show. I hope there won't e issues with this again. K.S.Morgan (talk) 11:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources specifically state that Hannibal Lecter is omnisexual and Will Graham is a straight Male. This was covered in more detail at Talk:Hannibal Lecter. Likewise, there was no true relationship between the two, even if there was an attraction. At the end of the day, Will's true allegiance is with Jack Crawford and the FBI. The entire show was spent with them playing against one another. Will Graham certainly doesn't qualify as Will's "significant other". Bryan Fuller also didn't say that they weren't "ready to have sex yet", his point was that it isn't an overtly sexual relationship at all. Stating that it is is a blatant oversimplification. If we are going to say that Will is Hannibal's S.O, then we might as well say the same thing about Batman and the Joker. DarkKnight2149 12:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can see that you know the show badly. Will's allegiance is not with Jack at all. In the last episode alone, he sets him up, conspires with Francis, and gets innocent officers killed via his hands by leaking info to him, all to free Hannibal. Post-credits scene shows that Will and Hannibal are happily hunting together. Your definition of SO doesn't fit either general standards or those set by Wikipedia. According to Wikipedia: "Significant other (SO) is colloquially used as a gender-neutral term for a person's partner in an intimate relationship[1] without disclosing or presuming anything about marital status, relationship status, or sexual orientation." Sex is not required for people to be considered SO. Will and Hannibal are in love. It's stated in the text of the show many times in different ways. It's shown in many ways. Bryan Fuller said, "This is a love story. A love story between a full-fledged psychopath and someone who has nascent psychopathic abilities.' Actually, Hannibal Lecter is not a psychopath; he's something else entirely. But it's a love relationship between two men: one of them is a cannibal, and one of them understands those cannibalistic instincts all too well." He said, ""It felt like we had to shit or get off the pot, ultimately, because there had been so much going on between these two men that when Will asks, "Is Hannibal Lecter in love with me?" it is very much about death and the romance between these two men. There is a quality to connections that go above and beyond sexuality. You can have this intimate connection with somebody that then causes you to wonder where the lines of your own sexuality are. And we didn't quite broach the sexuality. It was certainly suggested, but the love is absolutely on the table." You can find the links in my section. Are you still saying they are not in love? WHen the creator himself directly says that they are and that the entire show is a love story? K.S.Morgan (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

My first question is why is this discussion happening here and not at the Hannibal page? Regardless of sock puppetry, it's the most appropriate place for it. Second, part of the solution to this problem is that the infobox is not a family tree. The "significant other"/"relatives" list is unnecessary and not appropriate, because per guidelines in-universe information should only be used when it is essential to understanding the character. There isn't anyone that needs to be added to essentially understand Hannibal Lector. His iconic status is like Jason Voorhees or Freddy Kreuger, it transcends other characters in his fictional life. You say Hannibal Lector and the average reader knows who that is. You say Will Graham or Lady Muraska and most are likely not to know who you're talking about. Additionally, that goes for the "Gender" and "Nationality" options, because one is obvious and it was never in question and the other is irrelevant Now, as I said on the talk page before, there has never been confirmation of Will and Hannibal being a couple. Just because there may have been homoerotic subtext does not make Will a significant other. Additionally, most of those sources only talk about it from the perspective of how Hannibal saw Will, not Will to Hannibal. So, even if there was true intention to say that both men were in-love with each other, it never played out on the show, the books, or the films. Thus, Will wouldn't even be added to the infobox regardless of his essentialness of understanding Hannibal.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I have no idea why this discussion is happening here. I wasn't even participating until I was tagged in it on some baseless accusation. If SO box should be removed, great, but then Clarice shouldn't be mentioned as well as she is definitely not needed to understand Hannibal as a character. Unlike show!Will, who Hannibal's life revolves around in the show. Will is equally in love with Hannibal. I provided quotes from the interviews that cover the fact of reciprocity repeatedly. There are many more. The show itself has many points proving it as well, such as Hannibal being referred to as Will's "old flame", etc. The article is about Hannibal, though, so the focus lies on him. But regardless: as I said, I left and I don't intend to come back to this particular page. I prefer to have meaningful discussions, not one-sided ones where people evidently don't know the show and stubbornly ignore a million of facts proving them wrong. So, please don't tag me again in any talks, and don't be surprised that many people try to add Will into that box since Will and Hannibal are canonically in love with one another. I have nothing to do with these attempts, I've been gone for months. As a recommendation, removing the box altogether would be the best decision that would satisfy everyone, I think. K.S.Morgan (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

There is quite a bit to unpack, but the last I will say on it is go to the article talk page. I'd be happy to come there and discuss the infobox issues, the relationship between Will and Hannibal and the appropriate way to have it in the article, and anything else related to improving the article through reliable sources.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 15:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I presented quite a few sources that contradict the idea of an overtly romantic relationship between Hannibal and Will back in June, but despite all of this edit warring, no one has even used the talk page since then for whatever reason. I agree that any discussion regarding the article should be taking place there instead of here. DarkKnight2149 23:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Quarter Million Award for Hellraiser: Judgment

	The Quarter Million Award
	For your contributions to bring Hellraiser: Judgment (estimated annual readership: 455,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Quarter Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Reidgreg (talk) 19:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

TTN

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Episodes_and_characters_2/Evidence/by_White_Cat#Bot-like_%28automated_looking%29_edits_by_TTN --199.123.13.2 (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)