User talk:Adamstom.97

@Favre1fan93, Trailblazer101, and Alex 21: hi all, I have been thinking about whether there is a better way to summarise streaming viewership data at a season/series level than the current prose approach. We obviously can't use the existing TV ratings tables and graphs since streaming data is quite different, but in my sandbox I have put together some ideas for similar tables that could be used to convey some of the data we get for streaming shows. The most annoying things with the data is that the companies don't all use the same definition of a week, so direct comparisons can quite easily become misleading, and the reporting weeks do not necessarily line up with episode releases so we have to be careful about relating specific data to a given episode. I think I have come up with some decent ideas of how we could handle these issues, or at least how we could handle data where the reporting weeks do align. This is very much a brainstorm situation which is why I thought I would get a couple opinions before potentially doing something for real or going to the WP:TV. Currently I am not 100% behind any of these ideas, but potentially with some feedback and tweaks we could have something worthwhile, even if we were to combine some of the ideas. Or maybe there isn't anything here and we should stick with the current approach. Either way, let me know what you think! - adamstom97 (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

From a quick glance, this looks snd sounds promising, and is definitely a good markup of how to present the data to readers. I am not sure the week-to-week data needs to be split up into a long width table as in Table B, but that is more direct than A's intermediate data. I like the prospect of attaching the data to specific episodes when applicable (probably most suited for limited series), while long-form series may benefit from something closer to the graph or table C. Also courtesy pinging @InfiniteNexus. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 21:26, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

I agree, this is a great idea, and something I'd happily help template/module up if if becomes an official television template. I understand the layout of Table B, and how/why different companies report over different periods, but we want to make sure we're not collecting excess statistics just because they're available. I'm more inclined to look towards Table D - the more weeks of data we have for a series, the table grows downwards rather than rightwards, matching (as Adam as labelled it) our usage of {{Television episode ratings}}, plus it includes a nice summary of Nielsen data alongside a few other comparisons. Definitely follow through with this, though! Great job, Adam. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:13, 9 January 2026 (UTC)

This may need to be a larger discussion that stems from this, but determining which of these companies we should be considering data from and perhaps codifying it as "X, Y, Z are all good to state viewership data from, but A, B are not." Also, if any graph is used, I think that should just be limited to Nielsen's data, because to my understanding, that's the only one that the studios still collaborate with "formally"? The others use their own metrics but Nielsen has the "blessings" of the studios/streamers. Is that correct? Additionally, when do we stop including data after seasons premiere? Sometimes these series linger in the rankings after new episodes premiere, or even get a resurgence later on. Should this data be included when we're reporting this? Should it just be restricted to the premiere dates and X amount of time after (1 reporting week? 2? A month?). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:58, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy to have a wider discussion about these specifics, just wanted to get a sense of whether it was worth pursuing before moving forward. - adamstom97 (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2026 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote up a blurb for the eventual nomination of the Phase Three GT on one of my subpages and wanted to get another opinion on it. For the most part I did it in the same format as the first two phases, but obviously this phase has more films, plus two Avengers, Civil War, and Guardians 2, so films with larger casts. I kept it to only including title characters where I could, but maybe for example Mark Ruffalo should be included with Ragnarok? Or other cast additions/subtractions somewhere? -- ZooBlazer 22:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I would probably simplify it since there are so many films and characters, just mention the lead actor(s) like we do in the lead of Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Three. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:21, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

How does it look now? I kept the main Guardians members since it didn't make sense to only include Pratt like the Phase 3 article does in the lead. -- ZooBlazer 22:39, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

That looks fine to me, you could also probably add ... and Endgame became the highest-grossing film at the time. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:47, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I tagged you on the Phase three GAN but lately it also seems tagging doesn't always give notifications so I figured I'd mention it too. Also if you disagree with any changes I have made so far, feel free to revert. -- ZooBlazer 21:52, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I am working through a few things now to help get the GAN over the line. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

Would you like the DYK honors since you did the heavy lifting on the review? -- ZooBlazer 18:12, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

You go ahead, I can help with ideas for wording if needed. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Think something regarding the Sony hack revealing the Spidey deal or something about the new fanfare debuting would work? These phase articles always are a little more challenging for me for DYK ideas because I don't want to do something too specific to one movie. -- ZooBlazer 18:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

Some ideas:

• that Marvel Studios announced its initial slate of films for Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe at a special event in October 2014 that drew comparisons to Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference?
• that a new Marvel Studios logo, with a musical fanfare by Michael Giacchino, was introduced during Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe after a corporate change meant the studio no longer reported to Marvel Entertainment?
• that directors Anthony and Joe Russo and writers Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely collaborated with all the filmmakers for Phase Three of the Marvel Cinematic Universe to build up to the franchise's culmination in the films Avengers: Infinity War and Avengers: Endgame?

- adamstom97 (talk) 19:36, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

I guess I'll wait to do it once the user scripts are re-enabled. A lot easier than doing it manually. -- ZooBlazer 19:55, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 Do you have any alternate hook ideas for the DYK? -- ZooBlazer 00:54, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer: I'm fine with the main one Adam used. We just have to get the character limits down. ALT 1 feels like the focus is on the fanfare, not the Phase. And ALT2 we'd just need to fully rewrite to convey that if the reviewer wants to use it to get under the character limit. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:58, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Something like(?) ...that the Russo brothers and writers Markus & McFeely teamed with Phase Three filmmakers to build toward the MCU's culmination in Avengers: Infinity War and Endgame?

I think it is still over 200 but do full names have to be used or can we cut the first names? -- ZooBlazer 01:07, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

We can probably cut some names. That's a good option, but again, let's wait to see what the reviewer says. If they want to use ALT 2 (I think the main is great), then we can discuss with them alternate wording. But I just wanted to flag the character counts. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:22, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Just want to note to you both that the Phase One and Two articles do not have citations for the music or home media info. We should probably eventually add those in (but I will say I think in the past it was unsourced because they spoke for themselves). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, I just copied over the sources for those sections in the Phase 3 article to get the review over the line, we should do something similar for the other phases. We could probably look into having the music details sourced on the music page and transclude from there rather than repeating the whole tables. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:30, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello. Why did you revert my page. I deleted the box of box office mojo link because the Numbers seemed more accurate. Iacowriter (talk) 15:10, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

If you have a concern, you should explain it clearly at the article's talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:06, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

It's the second time they made the edit. I also told them after the first time to say something on the talk page. -- ZooBlazer 18:50, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I know I'm a little late, but BOM is typically more accurately updated than The Numbers is, even if NUM posts figure changes earlier. Typically, we do not need to cite both when one already verifies the figures needed. Something appearing more accurate is not a valid rationale to remove an entire citation, Iacowriter. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:48, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Actually, looking into this a little further, there are several discrepancies between the BOM and Numbers listings. They both reported a total gross of $863 million since at least 2019 (BOM, NUM). BOM does include the 2020 re-release gross ($8,163) in the total $863 million figure, but subtracting that from the total still does not balance them out. The Numbers has listed the total as $869 million since at least February 2020, before the pandemic re-release, but that has since been slightly reduced for its international earnings. A quick skim shows there are discrepancies with the gross in South Korea and the Netherlands, among others. I'm trying to put together a side-by-side comparison to see if any other discrepancies may offset the current gross totals. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:14, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the discrepancy arises from the international 2020 re-release earnings not all being reported. The Numbers accounts for an ambiguous "rest of world" total of $77,153,331 and notes some figures were reported after the 2020 re-release, but does not specify the earnings of those versus the original, unlike BOM which notes the 52 market original release and the international 2020 re-release's markets. Ukraine notably had two releases but its figures are absent from NUM. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:24, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, Adamstom.97. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Star Trek: Starfleet Academy season 2, a page you created, has not been edited in at least five 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) 15:08, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thanks for reverting my edit of the actress and explaining why it wasn't valid. I added the tweet as a source because I've seen this kind of thing added (not only for this situation) as a source numerous times in other articles (not from Marvel) and no one ever reverted it. Thanks again and best regards. Marco camino 10 (talk) 18:44, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

We can use tweets if the poster is reliable, but we can't just use any random post. A better source will show up soon. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:47, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi - curious what was "misleading" about my edit summary here? Adding the year makes it clear what November is being mentioned (and that's more useful info than whether the beginning, middle, or end of the month), and separating it out as a paragraph helps a reader who is scanning the section to understand the a new direction is being taken. --ZimZalaBim^talk 21:55, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Edit summaries are meant to describe what you changed, "make this clearer" does not explain why an unnecessary paragraph break was inserted. The whole section is about a new direction being taken, we don't need a separate paragraph for two short sentences. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:02, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Hello, I wanted to add Academy to the list of Discovery spin-offs but you undid this specific change, using the rationale "Only direct spin-offs are listed here, others are covered by the general TV link, otherwise you could realistically add all or most of the Star Trek shows here". I don't understand how this rationale applies, i.e.: how Academy would not count as a direct Discovery spin-off? It was not just produced after Discovery, it literally follows up on the original world-building of Discovery's seasons 3-5 (the 32nd Century, post-Burn federation). It brings back regular Discovery characters like Vance, Reno, Tilly, and there even was an episode for Academy in Discovery ("Kobayashi Maru", with Tilly supervising Starfleet cadets in a training exercise accident). It also makes efforts to narratively explain why the Discovery does not appear "as deus ex machina" because in-universe plot logic would suggest it. Imho, Academy is as close to a Discovery spin-off as it can get, certainly comparable to Strange New Worlds. Tartigradesinspace (talk) 22:04, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

We need reliable sources telling us that it was developed as a direct spin-off from Discovery, which we have for Short Treks, Strange New Worlds, and Section 31 but not for Starfleet Academy. While I agree that it is very closely connected to Discovery, more so than Picard or Lower Decks, for example, we don't get to decide that it is a direct spin-off. That would be WP:OR. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:08, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks. I see. (Admittedly, I just now looked into the Discovery article's section on spinoffs, which is fairly structured, with coherent citations from Deadline Hollywood, Hollywood Reporter and Variety.) I put my further questions into the article's talk page. Tartigradesinspace (talk) 23:38, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that up. I read it as 1 year when I archived it. Time for new glasses perhaps. TarnishedPath^talk 09:27, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

No worries! - adamstom97 (talk) 09:28, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

Your good article nomination of the article The Eye (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power) has passed; congratulations! See the review page for more information. If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Please also consider reviewing somebody else's nomination to help keep the backlog down. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Vestrian24Bio -- Vestrian24Bio (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2026 (UTC)