User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2019

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year, Alex 21!

Happy New Year!

Alex 21,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Hhkohh (talk) 02:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Multi-camera setup/Single-camera setup over at Homecoming

Hey Alex,

Hoping you might take a look at another little instance of an editor raising hell over a non-issue. For the last two days there has been an editor over at Homecoming that has been debating whether the series is single-camera or multi-camera. I would understand one's insistence in having a source for such information before a series is released, when it might be possible to not know one way or the other, but once a series has premiered it is generally clear which set-up is used and such is information is covered by WP:PRIMARY, being the series itself. I think the editor is confused and is under the impression that single-camera setup implies that only one camera is ever used to film any given scene. Obviously that is not the case, as anyone with a cursory knowledge of film knows that in many situations in film and television more than one camera is utilized to increase the "coverage" in a scene. "Multi-camera" vs "Single-camera" rather refers to the specific setup of cameras and the construction of sets. In a multi-camera sitcom, you'll have a set with three walls and there will be three cameras setup in a specific formation all pointing at the same thing. In a single-camera, you will usually have a full four-walled set and the camera setup generally involves one camera situated somewhere in the set. Though, in single-camera you may also have other cameras utilized for close-ups or wide shots but the basic "setup" of the series is still single-camera as it is defined in film and television production. Anyways, myself and Drovethrughosts have reverted the editor a few times and I am concerned at this point of passing the threshold into edit warring. Hope you might take a look at the situation and intervene if necessary. Of all the big hullabaloos around here in the last few weeks this one seems to be the most cut and dry. Hoping your new year is good thus far, BoogerD (talk) 21:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Pointing out this rather large conversation that transpired over at the talk page for the article. The conclusions that other editors were drawing would seem to effect numerous, numerous television series articles. I'd truly appreciate if you'd take a look at the one comment I left on the page: Talk:Homecoming (TV series)#Infobox sourcing. – BoogerD (talk) 01:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

24 Hours (again)

Hello again, here asking for a bit more help on Gordon Ramsay's 24 Hours to Hell and Back. Season 2 premiere just finished airing tonight, but I am trying to add a new part for the column. With there now being two seasons, I would love to format it like Lip Sync Battle Shorties where it lists the number episode for the season, as well as overall. Been struggling trying to figure it out for the 24 Hours page, so if you could help out, that would be great. Thanks again in advance, and thanks for how you've helped so far. Magitroopa (talk) 02:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Olive branch

Hi Alex, I courteously invite you to take a breath and to reconsider the comment you just made at Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present), and again remind you of the policy at WP:CIVIL. We share the aim of improving the Doctor Who WikiProject. Have a great day, U-Mos (talk) 01:03, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting. I'm thinking about starting an RFC here for whether I should or not... -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:04, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Alex, I do have to agree with U-Mos that your comments about RfCs are uncivil and serve no purpose in resolving your disputes with U-Mos. --Ted Edwards 01:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps it's true. I'll be happy to revise them once the editor is happy to actually discuss the content, instead of automatically taking it to RFC or RM in poor faith of all other editors. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

My Spy

Hey Alex,

I know you're swamped with a million other Wiki things at the moment, however I was hoping you might take a look at something for me. I'm messaging you though to take a look at a film article I was editing today: My Spy. Currently in a dispute with another editor over content in the article. I had included writing in the article regarding various producers on the film sourced to Deadline and Hollywood Reporter articles. However, the other editor removed the content as they said the information was "irrelevant". When I objected and pointed out that that was a more opinion-based reasoning rather than anything based in WP or MOS policy they responded by saying, "Relevant according to you. I conceded on some aspects of your edit but Wikipedia is a collaboration. I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you. Additionally, i express the film’s titled because, before that date it was unknown. What is your reason for not noting it?" I'm trying to proceed with caution here and avoid an edit war. Perhaps, you'll take a look at the article. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) As I noticed this message BoogerD, I thought I might chip in. A discussion should be started at Talk:My Spy with TheMovieGuy to avoid the edit war. In regard to my opinion, I think it's ridiculous to say that naming the executive producers is "irrelevant"; it's info relevant to the film is it meets WP:Verifiability. However, saying this, I notice that TMG said I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone unless someone else agrees with you., and then YoungForever agreed with you, so is that an end to the dispute? There does seem to be a WP:OWN stance coming for TMG., evidenced by their quote I quoted above. And TMG, just because something isn't in a infobox doesn't mean it can't be stated in the rest of the article; that's a ridculous idea. --Ted Edwards 00:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Agreed with Ted. Discuss this with TMG on the article's talk page. But per their statement (which does indeed smack of WP:OWNBEHAVIOR) (also, Wikipedia is a collaboration, and then I don’t agree that it belongs and so it’s gone? Wow!), it seems that there should be no further edit-warring in the article, given WP:EDITCONSENSUS from another editor. If the discussion can't come to an agreement, then WP:3O is also an option. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:10, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

If somebody else agreed that it belongs as you say, then, in this user’s opinion, it belongs. I cede. TheMovieGuy

Bandersnatch infobox

Hi. I noticed you changed the infobox to that for a film. It would be helpful if you could comment at Talk:Black_Mirror: Bandersnatch#What is Bandersnatch?, where the third point I opened for discussion is what infobox to use. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 03:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Critics' year-end lists

Hey Alex,

Hoping to get your opinion on something. What do you make of these "Critics' year-end lists" subsections found here: Sharp Objects and here: Crazy Ex-Girlfriend? I haven't been able to find any other sections like them in other television series articles. Do you think it's notable enough for inclusion? Does it need its own subsection? Should it be removed or maybe reformatted? I just ran across it during the last hour and was hoping to get someone else's opinion on it. Message me back as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 07:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Considering both lists seem to backed up by reliable sources, they seem notable enough; it's quite a good indication of how good the critics thought the shows were. The fact that these lists aren't on many other articles isn't a reason to remove; Wikipedia needs new ideas, which tend to start off on one article, and also other stuff exists. --Ted Edwards 16:03, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Good points. I hadn't/haven't formed an opinion just yet so it was good to hear someone else's thoughts on the matter. I will say that I'm not sure that the lists belong on the main article for Crazy Ex-Girlfriend though seeing as the series has separate articles for each season. It would seem to make the most sense for them to exist on the article's for each specific season. – BoogerD (talk) 16:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox television season/fullname expensive parser function

Hey Alex, I was looking over the code at Template:Infobox television season/fullname and its connection the infobox. That template is called 8 times as a parameter of {{Ifexist check redirect/if}}, which itself uses {{Ifexist check redirect}}, which uses #ifexist, which according to MW:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#ifexist limits should is limited in the amount of calls that can be used in a page. We could cut this in half if we remove the section_redirect check. What do you think? --Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'm working on something which gives an answer whether it is an article or redirect with the same check so that lowers it to 4 and still retains the same functions. --Gonnym (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, I just saw your recent edits; can you please restore the check for making sure that the article is a section redirect, not an article redirect? The next/previous links are only meant to be linked if an article article exists; in the case that it does not, then a link to a section regarding specifically that seasons (for example, on a "List of episodes" article, where a section for the new season exists without a table) is acceptable. A redirect to just a regular article (e.g. You (season 2)) does not count, and thus should not be linked. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:56, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Should be fixed now. --Gonnym (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Cheers for that. Thanks for improving the template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Template:Infobox music genre help

Could you please update Template:Infobox music genre, so that colour of the text is automatically determined by Template:Greater color contrast ratio. Doing so would result in numerous pages being removed from Category:Articles using Template:Infobox music genre with invalid colour combination. Grapesoda22 (✉) 22:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Grapesoda22,

Done. The category should begin to clear out if the articles use an acceptable colour. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Grapesoda22,

Empty Only had to update Samba rock. Wondering if I should go through with AWB to remove the now-deprecated |color= parameter... -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Thank you Alex! Grapesoda22 (✉) 02:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Possible improvement with User:Alex 21/script-plotlength.js

I've been using your script, and it is very useful. As a possible improvement, could it be designed to ignore templates such as {{long plot}} or other template at the top of plot sections? --Ted Edwards 00:14, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

TedEdwards, pretty sure it already does. From the comment that states "Remove any previous counts, tags, references" onward. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Strange. Because I've been using it on American Horror Story episode articles (a large majority of which have plot summaries which are way to long), and to give the episode "Home Invasion" as an example, at the moment when I use the script, it gives the number 699, but when I preview the summary without the long plot template (which I added last week), the word count is 663. Nonetheless, the script is definitely useful, and is what got me to finally tag the articles and begin to shorten them. --Ted Edwards 13:19, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Huh. Strange indeed. I'll take a look at the code tomorrow; thanks for the heads up! -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

List of Young Justice episodes

Hi Alex 21,

I have added back a short summary for Season 2 Episode 20 on the List of Young Justice episodes with some amendments. I am aware that Young Justice: Outsiders (Season 3) has its own article so the short summaries go there. Just wanted to check with you that it is okay to keep the short summaries for the first two seasons. I have been following the series and have started watching Season 3. Andykatib 09:12, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

@Andykatib: That's good, yeah! Keep up the good work. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:34, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries, happy to help keep Wikipedia great. Andykatib 09:51, January 14, 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Infobox television season/fullname

Template:Infobox television season/fullname has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Stranger Things

An article that you have been involved with (Stranger Things) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Stranger Things (season 1/2/3)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at Stranger Things. Thank you. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 16:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Les Miserables 2000

You changed back the length of the this mini series to 100 minutes instead of its full length of 360 saying the it should be an episode length. Can you provide the rules for this? A quick look up shows other mini series, like Roots (original and 2018), Shogun and The Count of Monte Cristo (1998 miniseries), from the same production team as Les Miserables, all showing the full mini series length. All TV mini series I checked have the full series length as it makes more sense. As I cannot immediately find it in MOS:TV, can you please show where you found the rule or guidelines for the length of a TV mini series?

Each episode is just shy of 90 minutes so I will for the moment change it to that (I have the VHS and DVD of this) bigar 23:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

@Bigar: Template:Infobox television: |runtime= Episode duration. Should not include commercials and should be approximated, e.g. "22–26 minutes" for most half-hour shows. Thanks for mentioning those other articles; I'll be sure to update them. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:26, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

File:Throne of Glass series.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Caution

With this edit you (accidentally) removed and broke one of the links. So please be careful next time. Thanks for implementing my editreq. ^{Babymissfortune} 09:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

@Babymissfortune: Apologies. Further requests should be implemented in the sandbox first, so this sort of issue does not occur. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:06, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Critics

Thanks very much for this – good point well made. Cheers DBaK-photo (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And the CE > EP thing - thanks for that too! Best wishes DBaK-photo (talk) 16:26, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Could you help please?

Hi Alex, someone split the FBI tv series article and created a rather messy list of episodes page here. [1] I would delete the information myself but I have no idea how to do redirects or anything like that. So if you could spend maybe a minute fixing this persons mistake and redirecting back to the main article it'd be appreciated. Thanks. Esuka (talk) 22:58, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Esuka, looks fixed. Cheers. Definitely too early to split - twelve episodes! -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:52, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode

Template:Infobox Arrowverse crossover episode has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox television episode. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hey Alex. Wanted to try to clear the air. I don't like how this discussion played out. Became far too adversarial and I would like to apologize for my role in that. I try my best to keep an even keel and AGF but at times I fail. This was a case where I got snarky when there was really no need for it. So for that, I sincerely apologize.

Regarding the template, I hope you understand I'm not suggesting a flat delete here. I'm also certainly not pointing fingers at you for creating it! I actually didn't realize you created it until I came to your page to post this message and saw the message I had posted above (WP:TWINKLE automatically posted that for me). I want to be clear, I'm NOT sitting here saying "What is wrong with you?! Why would you create such a useless fork!" NOT AT ALL my thinking... My only point was that it appears to me this is a fork that really isn't necessary and that the limited number of transclusions can easily be converted to use the more widely used and maintained {{Infobox television episode}}. A limited number of transclusions is not a criteria for deletion in and of itself... BUT, the fact that the template has so few transclusions is an indication to me that maybe a separate template it isn't really needed. So I guess just call it a refactor!

Anyway, once again, sorry for the way the discussion played out and hope we can move forward towards a constructive solution. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:04, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

The reply-link newsletter, issue 1

Hi! Welcome to the new reply-link newsletter, which I made because the ol' list on the reply-link talk page was unwieldy. In case you haven't been following development recently, I've sent out some new updates that should let it reply basically anywhere, even in transcluded pages or under hatted discussions (two locations people have been wanting for a while). Reliability has also gone way up, as I've implemented a couple of sanity checks that help prevent the script from responding to the wrong message. Unfortunately, that means the script fails a bit more often. Anyway, try it out if you haven't done so in a while, and let me know what you think! I always appreciate feature requests or bug reports on the talk page. Happy replying! (Signup list/Unsubscribe) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

A Discovery of Witches

WHY do you keep reverting my edit? To do it twice without explanation is RUDE, as well as irritating. Do you not believe AMC is showing the series? Because I PERSONALLY watched the first episode yesterday, since it is available free to entice subscribers. WHAT is your problem? Gil gosseyn (talk) 10:17, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn, point out to me where I reverted it. I moved the content it to the same paragraph, and removed your promotional "premier commercial-free subscription service" content. Actually check the edit before you make accusations. Coming to my talk page with your whining is is [rude], as well as irritating. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:42, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Since when is accurately describing something considered "promotional content"? I have absolutely nothing to do with AMC's promotions, business, or content. I am simply a viewer providing a factual edit, and don't appreciate your unfounded characterizations. Perhaps if you had given an explanation when you made the first reversion, this could have all been avoided. Gil gosseyn (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Gil gosseyn, then show me what I reverted in this edit. I'm waiting. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Affect/effect

I stand by my edit to Game of Thrones. Both affect and effect can be used as verbs; in the sentence in question, effect is better.

"... their past leaves them too broken to do anything but commit brutal acts in their own turn, and that their personal liberation does not affect the social change needed to protect others from suffering."

Let's leave aside all the tightening this sentence badly needs. Affect here isn't exactly wrong. "Their personal liberation does not alter the kinds of social changes which would be needed to protect others." That makes sense, of a clumsy sort (does not change the changes?). But effect, used as a verb, is just precisely the right word here; in fact, "to effect change" is almost the only phrase in which most people still encounter it. So: "Their personal liberation does not produce, or result in, the kinds of social changes which would be needed to protect others."

I'm going to change it back, because I think you reverted it for the wrong reason. It is true that "affect is the verb, effect is the noun" will serve you in the great majority of cases, but both words have distinct nominal and verbal senses. This case calls for effect.

I encourage you to look it up if you don't believe me.

Regulov (talk) 14:59, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Returning the Favor - Episode Section

Hi Alex,

Would you mind taking a look at this most recent edit ([2]) over at the article for Returning the Favor? I believe we had discussed the issue of sourcing for episode tables and whether the series itself provided sourcing for the episode table. I know on the numerous, numerous television series articles that we edit that it is common practice to remove sourcing (from websites like The Futon Critic for instance) after an episode or season has aired. I believe in the past that you and another editor had suggested that completely removing the information was disruptive and that if anything was to be done adding a tag might be appropriate (though I'm not sure that is true given the fact that literally every article I've contributed to on here does not source episodes once they've aired). Please get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you, I'd love to resolve this issue promptly. – BoogerD (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

BoogerD, the editor seems to be quite the long-term edit warrior on the article. If they have an issue with the table, then they should have tagged the article and taken it to the relevant project to discuss. Mass deletions are indeed quite disruptive, and can be considered vandalism, which is editing (or other behavior) deliberately intended to obstruct or defeat the project's purpose. Thankfully, Esuka has added supporting references, so the reason for their initial deletion is now mute. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Chio's School Road

Hello. You made an edit to the article's episode list table, and now the table displays incorrectly (i.e. in a "stretched" manner). Can you please fix this? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Narutolovehinata5,

Fixed -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:09, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Big Finish Productions

Hi Alex. We still need to cover general notability on all BFP series pages. It has been a few weeks since we last discussed this and wondered how you are progressing. I've made some headway but there is still a LONG way to go until the rest meet WP:N. We have already lost the page for Counter-Measures.

Thanks R2Mar (talk) 13:16, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Stranger Things

Good morning (from where I am anyways haha). Just wondering if we can get the ball rolling re: the Stranger Things draft. I'm curious as to whether or not you think more needs to be done, and if you do think so, I can try to get those things done today for completion later. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

First and foremost, I'm trying to reach a consensus on this discussion. Most agree, although you don't. I'm trying to ask you what your solution would entail, and you're not responding. How are we supposed to reach a consensus if Coram can't be maintained - if the dissenter won't try in good faith to describe their solution? Secondly, I have no personal conflict with the article - I'm merely just trying to move it into the mainspace. Your silence seemed to indicate an indifference. Thirdly, a number of uninvolved editors have all voiced their support for the move in the discussion. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SomethingToTellYou, discussions don't need to be closed for a consensus to be apparent. Who said I don't agree? I didn't. I agree with the split, I just believe further work needs to be put into the split main article than the two further edits you did. Please do not put words into my mouth again, it is extremely unappreciated. (Also, I said conflict of interest with the discussion, not with the article - again, words into my mouth...) -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, what is your definition of "more work?" I've completed edits, and I personally think the article is fine, but I'll complete more once you actually suggest some. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:09, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SomethingToTellYou, I see a lot of season-specific content when searching for "first season", "second season" and "third season". It's interesting how I did most of the heavy lifting for you on your userspace split article, and then you made two edits and deemed it complete. (Also, your apology for butchering my words and accusing me of saying multiple things I did not is accepted, if it were there.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, I apologize for the misstating of your words. I'm just trying to reach a consensus. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

SomethingToTellYou, a consensus is clearly reached. I have never denied that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 I did some more edits, specifically to try to remove most of the season-specific content. If you have a second, I would appreciate it if you took a look. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 14:50, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Article name in episode list

Ignore for a moment our layout conversation. I've asked this already twice and still did not recieve any clear answer, so I'm personally asking you here without any distractions.

Does {{Episode list}} ever need to use the |1= parameter?
Does {{Episode list/sublist}} always need to use the name of the page it is currently located at?

--Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Clear answer: 1, No. 2, Yes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Ok, so that means, and correct me if I'm wrong, that since I can retrieve the page name from args['1'] = mw.getCurrentFrame():getParent():getTitle(), I can remove |1= and just use it whenever {{Episode list/sublist}} is invoked. Right? --Gonnym (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, presumably. I recommend updating WT:TV/WT:MOSTV if you're planning to update the usage of the template. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll do that. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything. I'll wait for this first discussion to finish before doing any change. --Gonnym (talk) 14:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)

The Grand Tour

Please note, Episodes should be Titled as the source, ignoring Capital Letters, unless they are present. Until the Episode is Released please do not add Capitals. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 11:16, 4 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: Incorrect. The titles are titles of works, and thus should conform with MOS:TITLE; more specifically, MOS:TITLECAPS. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Please do not change unless full confirmation from Amazon that titles are MOS:TITLECAPS. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 09:53, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

@MichaelCorleone7: What do you mean by full confirmation from Amazon that titles are MOS:TITLECAPS? Wikipedia does not always abide by the same capitalization that Amazon uses - we are not Amazon, therefore we do not use Amazon's rules of grammar. Wikipedia uses the MOS:TITLECAPS guideline, and thus the titles must be updated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Your edits shall remain for now but please note - threatening another user is against Wikipedia:Harassment policy. If you repeat, you will be blocked from editing. MichaelCorleone7 (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2019 (GMT)

So is edit-warring, see WP:EW. Although, you do make me laugh: "don't threaten me, and if you do, here's a threat for you." What a joke. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:15, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. U-Mos (talk) 12:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Please remove photo in your user page.It is look like publish your greatness with actor

Wiki is not personal note book (183.83.107.223 (talk) 08:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC))

Pass, it's my personal user page. Thank you for your concern, though. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:33, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Teen Titans: Fear in Florida

Is that a real movie and if so, how did you find out about it? Joet51078 (talk) 14:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Joet51078: Apologies, but what are you talking about? -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:41, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

SVU: Season 2: Episode: Manhunt 2001

In the Begining, if Posibl why did [Daryl Kern] leave his Budy Marvin behind on Streets?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).

Sorry, but I've never seen the show, so I have no idea. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:18, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Your name was In the Revision History of SVU Season 2 Episodes becuz You edited something?(73.235.66.78 (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)).

Yeah, with this edit, which was an automated edit made seven months ago. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:25, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Supergirl episode list

Hi, i don't understand why you allways undo the edit that i make on the episode list. What i write there, is information taken directly from that same page. I would like it, if we could resolve this without continuing this edit war.

Sincerely, TheGamingMouse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheGamingMouse (talk • contribs) 22:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

TheGamingMouse, because the final episode listed in the episode table is not the final episode of the season. It's just the latest episode that we have information for. The season will likely have 22 or 23 episodes, we just simply don't have the information for episodes #16 through to #22 or #23. You have nothing to support that episode 15 will be the season finale. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:51, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

The Paternoster Gang (audio drama)

Please don't remove tag without improving the article. The second review in fact advised that I wait for some time before nominating. Nothing has changed in the article, there is no more sources added. It will be nominated agin if no more sources are found. Add more sources if you want to remove the tag. Hzh (talk) 10:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, the tag has been updated to correct the usage, which is to "add more references if [I] want to remove the tag". Hence, the correct tag is "more citations needed". The fact remains that you tried to have this article deleted twice, and it failed twice, so clearly notability is not an issue but your personal opinion. Gain a consensus for it, because at the moment, you do not have one. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The notability of the article is still under dispute. Nothing has changed. Hzh (talk) 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, where is it currently under dispute? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Per previous discussions. Please note that the review did not say that the article is notable, the advice by some contributors is that in fact I may nominate it for deletion again, but simply that I should wait some time first. Hzh (talk) 10:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, both of those discussions are over and closed with no consensus, and hence are no longer currently putting the article under dispute. Nominate it as you wish, but there is no current discussion disputing the article. Is there? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:32, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No consensus does not mean there is no dispute (in fact it does mean there is dispute). As I said, the advice is to wait before nominating. If you wish to participate in a meaningful manner, then add more sources. Removing tag without addressing the issue raised is disruptive. Hzh (talk) 10:36, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, sure, it can mean there is dispute. And there certainly was at the time of the discussions, but there is no current dispute at the current time. You can wait, but that still doesn't change that there is still no current discussion disputing the article. There is no issue to address. There is no consensus that the article has limited notability. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:40, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The tag reflects the state of the article at a time when there was concern about the issue. If nothing has changed with the sources provided, then the tag stays. This is true for any tag, even the more references tag you added. If no one adds any more sources or improves the article in any way, then the tag stays, however long it may take. It stays current because nothing has changed. Hzh (talk) 10:44, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, it does reflect the state at that time. And that time has passed with, again, no consensus to support it. There's no agreement that the article lacks notability. The article currently has limited citations, hence the citations tag. The article does not currently have a discussion disputing the article's notability, hence the lack of a notability tag. Yes, nothing has changed since the first deletion nomination - there is no agreement of a lack of notability, you cannot state that anything has been given support since that first deletion nomination. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:50, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

You did not read the discussions correctly, given that there was a clear majority in favour of deletion. The closer chose to considered it no consensus (a decision disputed in the review), but advise that I wait for some time before nominating it again. In any case if there is no consensus, then the tag should be kept. The tag should only be removed when there is consensus to keep. Hzh (talk) 10:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Can I ask you, do you actually intend to improve the sourcing of the many of these articles? Hzh (talk) 11:01, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, a possible majority, sure. An agreement that formed into a consensus, no. If there was, the article would have been deleted. The decision was disputed, but that too came to no agreement and no consensus. If there is no consensus, then the tag should be kept? Is that a policy, or just a personal opinion? And I do, especially after the first series is released. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:02, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

A consensus is different from support, which is what you said - you cannot state that anything has been given support. There was indeed clear support, the closer chose to ignore that. I will repeat the question, do you in fact intend to improve the sourcing of this and other articles? Hzh (talk) 11:08, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, exactly. You cannot state that anything has been given support for deletion of the article, because the article is still there. What the closer decided to do is irrelevant; there is still no current discussion disputing the article, there is no agreement of a lack of notability. Already answered the question. Other articles, possibly. Do you intend to do the same, or are you just here to tag and delete (i.e. the opposite reason for Wikipedia's collaborative existence)? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure why I need to repeat this, it stays current because nothing has changed, and a no consensus do not change that, in fact it affirms it (otherwise it would have been deleted/redirected/merged/ or kept). There are millions of articles in Wikipedia, my job here is to assess whether something is notable enough to stay, it is not for me improve these articles I checked (although I actually do sometimes improve the articles I curated). In this case, there is nothing for me to improve because I cannot find the sources needed. It is for someone like you who claim that these articles are notable to demonstrate it because I cannot see it. I will just note that the tag was there, and is still there in many of the poorly-sourced articles, and that you are perfectly aware of the issue. If you don't improve them, that will be taken as something deliberate should the next deletion discussion come up for these articles. Hzh (talk) 11:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Hzh, I agree, nothing has changed. There is no difference in the status of the article's notability, no consensus that supports any difference, between the article's creation and now. Nobody here has a "job". Everyone's "job" is to edit collaboratively to expand and improve Wikipedia. Simply tagging and deleting articles without putting any effort into them, or even worse, deliberately not putting effort into them, is more disruptive and detrimental than anything else. It's not up to me to improve the article either, but I'm planning to do so because I want to. If you don't improve the article either, as you are just as perfectly aware, then I will quote this discussion as you not wanting to, and simply wanting to delete articles and not maintain Wikipedia's sole objective. Either way, this discussion is not going anywhere further, so no further comments are required from you here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Redlink remover edit request

Hi. Would you be willing to change else window.location = window.location.href.substr(0, window.location.href.indexOf('#'))+"?action=edit"; to use ?action=submit";? This ~should~ have no effect on editors using the legacy 2006 editor, but for those like me using the 2010 one submit brings them to the 2006 interface, where the script works. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, I'm confused as to the change does? The update in the window.location is to send the editor to the edit page, not the submit page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:07, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: for users with the 2010 editor, sending them to action=edit opens that editor, where the script doesn't work, but action=submit sends them to the 2006 interface, where it does. At least for me, when I tried it and got to action=edit, I manually set it to action=submit, and then the script worked fine. It did not automatically save the page, but rather just brought up the older editor where wpTextbox1 still works. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	You'd have cleared the whole TPE list if it weren't for the one outstanding which I'm dealing with. Sorry to mess with your perfect record there. Cabayi (talk) 13:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Cabayi: Ha, no problems. I had nothing better to do and noticed it had become backlogged. I saw that one and thought it'd be best to leave it. Good luck. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:30, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Infobox school district

Hello, I think you have made a mistake in a change you made on infobox school district. You changed an Infobox section title from "District Information" to "NCES District ID". Instead, you should have changed label22 from "District ID" to "NCES District ID". — Archer1234 (talk) 12:48, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Archer1234, fixed. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Template: Friendly Search Suggestions

I created this template a while back. I have been able to expand the template with more sources...until now. I don't have permission to edit a template I created? Can you help me get in to edit add other sources? Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 20:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), if it's been protected, then only administrators and template editors can make changes to it, regardless of who created it, as nobody owns their created templates. If you make the changes in the template sandbox (and also let me know which template it is), I can look into making the changes for you! -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:25, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Great! Will you try this: * [https://www.washingtonpost.com/newssearch/?datefilter=All%20Since%202005&query={{urlencode:{{{1|{{SUBPAGE}}}}}"}}&sort=Relevance&utm_term=.6fe6d3c7e7d1 Washington Post]

Thank you. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Can you make me a template editor? I only intend to work on search templates. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 23:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Barbara (WVS): Edit done. And I cannot; you can read about templates editors at WP:TPE, and request the flag at WP:RFP/TE. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Barbara (WVS): Alex 21 can't do that because he's not an admin. The proper venue to request Template Editor status would be Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/Template editor. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Yep, that's what I said. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:42, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much. If this gets slightly tedious, I will ask for the right. Best Regards, Barbara ✐✉ 17:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Barbara ✐ and /Alex/₂₁: FYI, there are some mistakes in the change that was made. See Template_talk:Friendly_search_suggestions for more information on the mistakes and a suggested correction. — Archer1234 (talk) 19:14, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Cite error

Hi, I tried to repair a cite error on "List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes", but I had a suspicion it was not quite correct. Strangely enough, I just had to work out a similar footnote on a different wiki, and I know what I did wrong. You reverted my attempt, but the cite error is back. It reads, "Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Futon" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page)." I will let you fix it this time. Regards Therin of Andor (talk) 10:49, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Therin of Andor, at List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes? There is no such error. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:54, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Edit Request Barnstar
	Thank you for the help with my multiple simultaneous edit requests! DannyS712 (talk) 07:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: No problems! Glad to help out. Just emptying out CAT:ETP. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:32, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, you and JJMC89 - I filed like 50 template-protected edit requests over the last few days, including >30 in the last few hours, and yet the category is empty! --DannyS712 (talk) 07:35, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, no worries. I just finished my three assignments, so I've got nothing better to do. Regarding your comment here, the entries of WP:TPEGRANT are listed as "general guidelines"; given your contribution value and technical expertise, I have a feeling that you would be accepted quickly if you applied for the TE right. You could most definitely list down a multitude of sandbox edits and template-protected requests. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:45, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you sure? I've only made around 80 template-protected edit requests. --DannyS712 (talk) 07:49, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, to submit a request for the right, you only need to submit "at least five significant edits to template-protected templates". I recall struggling to find five for myself when I requested the right, but I achieved it. Eighty is quite a significant amount. It's up to you, of course, but I would strongly recommend you for the right; you can cite my statements in this discussion, if you'd like. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:54, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

yeah, but most of mine aren't "significant" - I'll give it some thought, but if I don't apply / until I do, can I ping you for template-protected edit requests? --DannyS712 (talk) 07:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

DannyS712, most certainly. Happy to help. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:57, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Gotham edits

Hello, Alex21. I gave a reason for removing the columns from the Gotham pages. I was told by another user who monitors the edits, that we should make every effort to save space on the pages. To me, it was a waste of space to use columns as it means that it takes people longer to scroll through the section. For example, with columns, it would take 5 lengths of my phone's screen to view the entire cast of Gotham. Without, it takes 3 lengths. Why would we want it cast to read this way:

Ben Mackenzie as James Gordon

When it can read this way instead:

Ben Mackenzie as James Gordon

Again, trying to save space. Anyway, that's my two cents. Allindsey1978 (talk) 08:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

@Allindsey1978: I recommend discussing it on the article talk page. Removing the columns causes too much whitespace, and listing them all out in a straight line is what causes the use of too much space and time spent scrolling. Everyone's screens are different, and you should not be basing your edits on just your personal experiences. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Consider

I understand that the IP edit you reverted here was not necessary. But so was your revert. Or is there a special reason you made that revert? Debresser (talk) 10:55, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Debresser, MOS:TVCAST. Cast must be listed on Wikipedia as they are credited, and they cannot be ordered as any editor would prefer that they be. Stapleton is credited before Alexander, therefore Stapleton is listed before Alexander. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:59, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks for your reply. Debresser (talk) 11:27, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Doctor Who (series 12), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bowmans (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello!

Not sure if you understood the G6 for Legacies (season 1) here. Legacies (Season 1) was created, but that capitalization of "Season" is never used. Which is why it has to move to Legacies (season 1) which is now a redirect only. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:13, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind. I saw it was redirected to the main article, which makes sense, seeing how season 2 hasn't even started airing. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Jovanmilic97, yeah, my apologies about that, I recognized its meaning right after I submitted my change but it was too late. However, I did redirect the two articles, as they are nowhere near the quality one would expect from a separate season article, as well as the fact that a draft exists for the first season at Draft:Legacies (season 1). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:47, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLANKING

Hello Alex 21, as per WP:BLANKING, the user is allowed to remove this notices, including the {{Dynamic IP}} one. Thank you. --MrClog (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures

From reading through the history of the series, it is clear that there is one series titled Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures, which switched from an animated to live-action format for its third season, retaining the voice cast from the second season to portray the characters in live-action. Each season had (for the most part a different crew), so there isn't really any reason to keep the articles separate. I do admit that it'll take a small amount of work to explain the transition, but that's what Wikipedia is for, after all. Would you be able to assist me in constructing this page? Hope to hear back from you shortly. MacCready (talk) 10:58, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

MacCready, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:49, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Not correctly referencing information on Brooklyn Nine Nine season 6

Hi Alex, I noticed you left a message on my profile saying that I added information to Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 6) without a proper reference. I was wondering if you can tell me what my edit was, and what you undid, so I can find a more reliable source to reference? Thanks! -Rebekah

@Thebekahbird: See WP:CITINGIMDB. You cannot cite IMDb for future episodes. And please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~ (four tildes). Thanks. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:42, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Are you unaware of procedure at WP:RM/TR?

My page is not a "draft", it's a fully fledged article created in user space that I'm requesting be moved over a redirect. I have page mover rights, but it is considered inappropriate for a user to move a redirect another user created out of the way for their own article based on prior incidents, so I request this when I have created an article at RM/TR. If you think this is not something that can be done at RM/TR, then I suggest you talk to various admins like Anthony Appleyard and Sergecross73, who both have carried this out when it's been requested by users at RM/TR. It is a technical request because I can't delete a redirect outright. If admins consider it appropriate to do, then I can't see why you don't. A user does not have to go through AfC to make an article. Ss112 05:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I am a regular contributor to WP:RM/TR. In the future, please submit article drafts through AFC. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:14, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. Don't treat users like newbies who don't know how to make a page through AfC if that's what they wished to do. Considering admins will move my userspace article, I will continue to request it at RM/TR. If you don't wish to move them, leave them for someone you will. If you continue to remove them, then it will become a problem that needs to be addressed. Ss112 20:29, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Good for you. My method has worked for the years I've been contributing, and it will continue thus, just as the admins have their ways of contributing. Have a good day! -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:54, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

Hi Alex. I don't want to continue this silly argument about the Season 3 section with you, it is because of things like this that I don't spend much time on Wikipedia anymore. The thing that is confusing me the most is that you and I have worked on the MCU TV articles together for years, and every formatting decision I have made while getting the Discovery pages set-up has been copied from those articles that you very much are aware of. So to have you arguing with me as if you have never seen this done before is very confusing to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:47, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hey Adam. I am aware of them, and while I'm not arguing them as such, I'm just raising the fact that their layouts and these practices are out of the ordinary when viewed against the MOS. I've brought up the topic of table-less season sections before, so this isn't a first regarding that. And as I said, I'm not overly worried about the release overview table; I restored it when there was an editor deleting it some time ago. Just raising the fact that compared to almost every other TV series article, these practices are unique to this area of articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

They may be different from some other TV articles, but we do them because they are a better interpretation of the MOS that makes more sense for us coming from TV articles and being used to having so much content and help from other editors. Or at least, that is what I thought we were doing. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:34, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Victoria

Hi Alex, I just wanted your opinion. Someone updated the summaries of Victoria and I feel that the original summaries were perfectly fine and the 3rd season's is a bit too long. Think you can check it once you have the chance? Thanks! Mirrorthesoul (talk) 04:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Issues with Episode list

Hey Alex, we seem to have a bug with Module:Episode list. I've tried comparing the versions of the sandbox vs live code, but since the change was a new feature, pin-pointing the issue is a bit hard.

Issues:

{{Episode table |background=#2E5528 |overall= |title= |director= |writer= |episodes=
{{Episode list
| EpisodeNumber        = 2
| NumParts             = 2
| Title_1              = Title1
| Title_2              = Title2
| DirectedBy           = director
| WrittenBy_1          = 1
| WrittenBy_2          = 2
| ShortSummary         = Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.
| LineColor            = 2E5528
}}
}}

No.	Title	Directed by	Written by
2	"Title1"	director	1
2	"Title2"	director	2
Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.

{{Episode table |background=#2E5528 |overall= |title= |director= |writer= |episodes=
{{Episode list
| EpisodeNumber        = 2
| NumParts             = 2
| Title_1              = Title1
| Title_2              = Title2
| DirectedBy_1         = Director1
| DirectedBy_2         = Director2
| WrittenBy_1          = Writer1
| WrittenBy_2          = Writer1
| ShortSummary         = Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.
| LineColor            = 2E5528
}}
}}

No.	Title	Directed by	Written by
2	"Title1"	Director1	Writer1
2	"Title2"	Director2	Writer1
Locke meets the Others' mysterious leader Jacob.

I think the issue is at local function createCells(args, isSerial, currentRow, onInitialPage, title, numberOfParameterGroups)"</source >: <syntaxhighlight lang="lua"> local thisRowspan if (firstParameterGroupCell and k < firstParameterGroupCell) then thisRowspan = numberOfParameterGroups else thisRowspan = 1 end if (currentRow == 1 or (currentRow > 1 and k >= (firstParameterGroupCell or 0))) then createTableData(args[v], thisRowspan, textAlign) end </source > As the sandbox version always passed "1" for the span <syntaxhighlight lang="lua" inline>local function createTableData(args[v], 1, textAlign)</source > Also this is a bad function: <syntaxhighlight lang="lua"> -- Local function which is used to retrieve the NumParts value. local function getnumberOfParameterGroups(args) for k, v in ipairs(cellNameList) do local numberedParameter = v .. "_" .. 1 if (args[numberedParameter]) then parameterGroupCells[v] = true if not firstParameterGroupCell then firstParameterGroupCell = k end end end if (hasValue(args.NumParts)) then return args.NumParts, true else return 1, false end end </source > As the first part has nothing to do with the second one which means it is its own function. I'm not sure if the issues above have to do with parameterGroupCells or firstParameterGroupCell, as the code that uses those seems to be working, but it's worth looking at that as those are the changes in the code. Let me know if you think you know what the issue is as I've only spent an hour or so reviewing the code differences but not actually diving into it. --[[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC) :{{u|Gonnym}}, sorry for the late response. Per the notice on my user pages, I'm basically semi-retired from editing here, I only drop it once every few days, but I'll see if I can take a look at the code. Cheers. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 04:20, 6 June 2019 (UTC) == [[User:Alex 21/sandbox2]] removed per request == I've gone ahead and removed the protection on [[User:Alex 21/sandbox2]]. My apologies for the delay, I have been unfortunately rather busy outside of Wikipedia this week. --[[User:TheSandDoctor|TheSandDoctor]] [[User talk:TheSandDoctor|Talk]] 03:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC) == Precious anniversary == {{User QAIbox | title = A year ago ... | image = Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg | image_upright = 0.2 | bold = addiction to Doctorr Who | normal = ... you were recipient no. '''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious#Alex 21|1957]]''' of [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Quality Article Improvement/Precious|Precious]], a prize of QAI! }} --[[User:Gerda Arendt|Gerda Arendt]] ([[User talk:Gerda Arendt|talk]]) 07:50, 22 June 2019 (UTC) {{clear}} ==Happy Birthday JP== Hello A 21 (formerly ATW). Today is the 100th anniversary of [[Jon Pertwee]]'s birth! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dqmp2u5UH9k Here] is a nice interview with [[Sean Pertwee|Sean]]. Being the child of any of the actors playing the Dr would be amazing. With Jon's love of gadgets Sean's youth must have been a real treat. Cheers. [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 17:20, 7 July 2019 (UTC) == Move warring == For move warring at [[Good Omens (TV series)]], I have revoked your page mover permission. Further move warring will result in a block. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 17:53, 10 July 2019 (UTC) :{{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}, I fail to see the issue here. I moved the article once, and the page has already been protected after I requested it myself. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 02:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC) :: You {{diff2|900507565|moved the page in June}}, he {{diff2|905349084|moved the page back in July}}, you {{diff2|905600916|immediate reverted that move}}, and he {{diff2|905623192|moved it again}}. Back-and-forth moves like that are disruptive and incompatible with the page mover right. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 02:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC) :::Yes, back in June, where there had been no dispute since. One revert is not warring. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 03:20, 11 July 2019 (UTC) :::{{u|NinjaRobotPirate}}, now that the article's requested move has concluded as no consensus, there is no further disagreement when it comes to the disambiguation of [[Good Omens (TV series)]]. How would I go about having my page mover permission restored? Thank you. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 10:04, 5 August 2019 (UTC) :::: Page movers are supposed to use [[WP:RM]] whenever a move is contested. Per [[WP:PAGEMOVER#Page move disputes]]: "{{tq|unilateral decisions should be avoided, and moves should be reverted upon request}}". If you think you can follow this, make a request at [[WP:PERM]]. Having a recent history that shows that you're willing to reverse your actions upon request would probably help. [[User:NinjaRobotPirate|NinjaRobotPirate]] ([[User talk:NinjaRobotPirate|talk]]) 10:12, 5 August 2019 (UTC) == Nomination for merging of [[Template:Horizontal ToC]] == [[File:Information.svg|30px|alt=|link=]][[Template:Horizontal ToC]] has been [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion|nominated for merging]] with [[Template:Horizontal TOC]]. You are invited to comment on the discussion at [[Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 12#Template:Horizontal ToC|the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page]]. Thank you. [[User:Gonnym|Gonnym]] ([[User talk:Gonnym|talk]]) 09:26, 12 July 2019 (UTC) == Inappropriate invocation of BRD == You [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_highest-grossing_films&diff=906313572&oldid=906275363 reverted my edit] on the basis that my edit did not have a consensus and that you were restoring the article to the [[WP:STATUSQUO]]. The problem here is that the version you restored was not the "status quo" either. The image was changed without discussion and consensus as I explained on the talk page. Furthermore, I was the only editor who actually started a discussion about a change of image. Since nobody objected to my proposal then there was a [[WP:SILENT]] consensus for changing the image. As I explain at [[Talk:List_of_highest-grossing_films#Image_in_highest-grossing_films_section]] consesnus is not "permission" i.e. I do not have to seek permission to the article. You cannot revert an editor simply because an editor has not been given permission by the community; you can only revert an editor if there is a substantive objection to their edit i.e. it goes against policy, it violates the MOS, or there is a consensus for something else. Also, if you are going to revert in accordance with [[WP:BRD]] then you are obligated to join the discussion. You can't just revert and abstain from the discussion because [[WP:Communication is required]]. As you can see from the talk page discussion it has advanced to the stage where there is tacit agreement to restore the ''original'' image, so in fact your edit not only did not restore the status quo, it actually goes against the evolving consensus on the talk page. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 02:32, 15 July 2019 (UTC) :{{u|Betty Logan}}, discuss it further and cease your edit-warring. Thank you. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 02:34, 15 July 2019 (UTC) ::You are the one edit-warring. There was a dispute between me and another editor. We have discussed it on the talk page and agreed on restoring the original image in the section. You are now editing against the consensus on the talk page, and have also refused to engage in the discussion. [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 02:36, 15 July 2019 (UTC) :::{{u|Betty Logan}}, you have been reverted by multiple editors. Take heed and cease edit-warring. No further reply is required here; continue to discuss the topic on the relevant talk page. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 02:38, 15 July 2019 (UTC) [[File:Ambox notice.svg|link=|25px|alt=Information icon]] There is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.  [[User:Betty Logan|Betty Logan]] ([[User talk:Betty Logan|talk]]) 03:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC) ::Alex21, you need to come to ANI & explain your behavior. [[Special:Contributions/137.118.149.197|137.118.149.197]] ([[User talk:137.118.149.197|talk]]) 04:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC) == Are you still emailing people about me? == Hi, long time no see! I barely remembered who you were until I saw your name show up in the sandbox of someone I had come into conflict with fairly recently. I don't know why he specifically chose to name you and Adamstom rather than any of the other editors I had briefly come into conflict with at various points in 2015-2018, but it seems very likely that the list he is working with was furnished by you. (If it were Adamstom who was responsible, he would almost certainly have mentioned Favre1fan93, and perhaps not mentioned you.) If you are continuing to monitor me and email editors I come into conflict with, I would ask you to kindly stop. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] ([[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]) 03:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC) :As I'm sure you can see, I'm now semi-retired, mostly due to my exhaustion of the bull that editors get put through when being a part of Wikipedia. This is not a productive place. I'm out there, enjoying myself and focusing on the better things life has to offer. So, apologies, but no, you are ''exceptionally'' low on my list of things to worry myself about. Go find mindless accusations to make elsewhere, bud. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 07:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC) ::So ... are you going to reblank this? It's pretty bad form to restore a message that had been deleted/retracted just to attack the author, then leave it up indefinitely. It borders on [[WP:POLEMIC]]. [[User:Hijiri88|Hijiri 88]] ([[User talk:Hijiri88|聖]][[Special:Contributions/Hijiri88|やや]]) 10:59, 3 August 2019 (UTC) ::: No. You posted a question to my talk page, blanked part of my talk page without my authorization, so I restored it and answered your question. How you interpret it is up to you. If you truly "barely remembered who [I was] until [you] saw [my] name", then stop coming back to my talk page. I've already asked you twice ([[Special:Diff/836160207|once]], [[Special:Diff/872478741|twice]]) to not post to my talk page. No further response is required here; if you want to reply to me, go back to doing it in your sandbox. Thank you! {{smiley}} -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 07:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC) == Update {{tl|Arrowverse summary}} == Hey Alex! I know you're not on here much anymore (as with me), but I realized that {{tl|Arrowverse summary}} needs to be updated to handle the Crisis crossover. I gave it an [[Template:Arrowverse summary/sandbox|attempt]] but couldn't quite figure out the coding to make it handle a fifth show. Whenever you get a sec, if you could update it, that'd be great. Thanks. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 17:12, 25 August 2019 (UTC) :{{u|Favre1fan93}}, I'll get on it as soon as possible! Its syntax is incredibly complex... I'm wondering if I should have ever created it that way, or if there's a much simpler way. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 06:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC) ::{{re|Alex 21}} All good! Yeah, you can see my attempts in [[Template:Arrowverse summary/sandbox|the sandbox]] trying to get it to work in all instances and grammatically. Perhaps there is a simpler way? - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 23:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC) :::{{re|Alex 21}} I actually was able to update the code by changing over to a switch statement. I worked it in the sandbox and testcases and got it to mimic the original code you wrote (with small changes to when "continues"/"concludes" is used). Take a look and let me know what you think. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 17:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC) ::::{{tpw}}{{ping|Favre1fan93}} I understand you've solved the ploblem Favre, but I did in [[User:TedEdwards/sandbox8|my sandbox]] come up with an alternate way of doing the whole template. My method doesn't rely on a "parts" paramater, and works by first determining how many parameters have been filled, and then working out which parameter the dash (-) is in. It works for up to 6 parts at the moment, and if 7 or more parameters are filled, and/or a dash is never used, the template reads "This episode FAULT.". In case you or Alex wanted to know. --[[User:TedEdwards|Ted]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|Edwards]] 21:16, 30 August 2019 (UTC) ::::::{{re|TedEdwards}} Thanks. It doesn't particularly matter to me which method is used. For the immediate, I just wanted to get the template ready to handle the upcoming Crisis crossover. And in my update, I didn't want to "break" the current uses by removing the "parts" parameter. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 16:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC) :::::::{{re|Favre1fan93}} While I'm not imposing any method on a group of articles I've never edited, not having a "parts" parameter wouldn't break the template, it would just be redundant, as <nowiki>{{{1}}}, {{{2}}} and {{{3}}}</nowiki> refer to only the '''unnamed''' parameters, in that order, so in the hypothetical templates <nowiki>{{t|A=b|c}} and {{t|c}}, the paramater 1= is filled by c</nowiki>, if that makes sense. You're welcome to edit [[User:TedEdwards/sandbox8|the sandbox]] if you like, and see what happens if you change the examples (btw. I've removed the error message). --[[User:TedEdwards|Ted]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|Edwards]] 18:23, 31 August 2019 (UTC) ::::::::Sure, I see the simplicity in it so you don't worry about the parts parameter. We can see if Alex has an opinion once he is back on. - [[User:Favre1fan93|Favre1fan93]] ([[User talk:Favre1fan93|talk]]) 03:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC) :::::::::Works for me. Go for it. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 08:18, 1 September 2019 (UTC) ::::::::::{{ping|Favre1fan93}} I'm just making sure you noticed Alex's reply, because I'm not sure you have. --[[User:TedEdwards|Ted]][[User talk:TedEdwards#top|Edwards]] 17:10, 4 September 2019 (UTC) ==Orphaned non-free image File:Brooklyn Nine-Nine Season 6.jpg== [[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Brooklyn Nine-Nine Season 6.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 17:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC) == Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Doctor Who (series 6)]]== Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article [[Doctor Who (series 6)]] you nominated for [[WP:GA|GA]]-status according to the [[WP:WIAGA|criteria]]. [[Image:Time2wait.svg|20px]] This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period.  Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] -- [[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] ([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]]) 14:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC) == Page mover granted == [[File:Wikipedia page mover.svg|right|80px]] Hello, Alex 21. Your account has been [//wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3AAlex_21 granted] the "{{mono|extendedmover}}" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and [[Wikipedia:Moving a page|moving pages]]. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect]], move [[Wikipedia:Subpages|subpages]] when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages. Please take a moment to review [[Wikipedia:Page mover]] for more information on this user right, especially [[Wikipedia:Page mover#Suppress redirect criteria|the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect]]. Please remember to follow [[Wikipedia:Moving a page#Post-move cleanup|post-move cleanup procedures]] and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when <code>suppressredirect</code> is used. This can be done using [[Special:WhatLinksHere]]. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to [[Wikipedia:User account security|secure your password]]. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status [[Wikipedia:Page mover#Criteria for revocation|can be revoked]]. Useful links: * [[Wikipedia:Requested moves]] * [[:Category:Articles to be moved]], for article renaming requests awaiting action. If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! [[User:Primefac|Primefac]] ([[User talk:Primefac|talk]]) 15:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC) == Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Doctor Who (series 6)]]== The article [[Doctor Who (series 6)]] you nominated as a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article]] has been placed on hold [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|20px]]. The article is close to meeting the [[WP:GA?|good article criteria]], but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See [[Talk:Doctor Who (series 6)]] for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] -- [[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] ([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]]) 17:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC) == Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Doctor Who (series 6)]]== The article [[Doctor Who (series 6)]] you nominated as a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article]] has passed [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]]; see [[Talk:Doctor Who (series 6)]] for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can [[Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article|nominate it]] to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] -- [[User:Lee Vilenski|Lee Vilenski]] ([[User talk:Lee Vilenski|talk]]) 07:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC) ==Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Season 26 DVD.jpg== [[File:Ambox warning blue.svg|35px|text-top|left|⚠|link=]] Thanks for uploading '''[[:File:Doctor Who Season 26 DVD.jpg]]'''. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a [[WP:FU|claim of fair use]]. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see [[Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy|our policy for non-free media]]). Note that any non-free images not used in any '''articles''' will be deleted after seven days, as described in [[wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#F5|section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion]]. Thank you. --[[User:B-bot|B-bot]] ([[User talk:B-bot|talk]]) 17:35, 4 September 2019 (UTC) == Titans 2018 == i can provide a reliable source, can you add it to the page? https://fullcirclecinema.com/2019/09/02/demore-barnes-wintergreen-titans-season-2/ here, it is. Thank you — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/49.207.128.90|49.207.128.90]] ([[User talk:49.207.128.90#top|talk]]) 09:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)  :I've taken a look at your source; it states "According to insider Lance Ausfresser in the Titans Facebook group". That's not a reliable source. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 09:35, 6 September 2019 (UTC) ::Is it ok now? The source has been included :::See my above comment. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 09:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Ok nevermind. Thank you anyway There is Titans listed in Demore Barnes' Filmography — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/49.207.128.90|49.207.128.90]] ([[User talk:49.207.128.90#top|talk]]) 09:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)  :Please stop creating a new section and just click Edit. I've removed the entry as unsourced. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 09:48, 6 September 2019 (UTC) Ok — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/49.207.128.90|49.207.128.90]] ([[User talk:49.207.128.90#top|talk]]) 09:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)  == Infobox television season == Please be careful when removing <code>season_name</code> from articles that use it. At the iCarly season articles it is needed because the infobox improperly capitalises the "i" in "iCarly" forcing it to display as "ICarly". This was one of the examples specifically mentioned at [[Template talk:Infobox television season#Infobox titles broken]] after changes to the infobox were implemented. --[[User:AussieLegend|'''AussieLegend''']] ([[User talk:AussieLegend#top|<big>✉</big>]]) 10:44, 10 September 2019 (UTC) :I noticed after your reverts; apologies about that. I was unaware of the discussion, as it took place during my several months away from Wiki. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 10:49, 10 September 2019 (UTC) ==Neutral notice== This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to [[Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film]] over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted [https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Film#Request_for_comment here]. --[[User:Tenebrae|Tenebrae]] ([[User talk:Tenebrae|talk]]) 14:57, 14 September 2019 (UTC) == Doom Patrol == {{talkback|Talk:Doom_Patrol_(TV_series)}} I think the anon IP was right and it would be better to not emphasize anything about spin-off/separate universe at all in the article lead. I've explained a bit more on the talk page and I hope you will consider reverting your revert. -- [[Special:Contributions/109.79.168.251|109.79.168.251]] ([[User talk:109.79.168.251|talk]]) 15:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC) == F is for family - season 4 realease date == Hi Alex, Why did you remove my update to the "F is for Family" wiki page? Here is the source: http://www.tvmaze.com/shows/6209/f-is-for-family let me know (if) what i did wrong.. Thank you, Naor. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Naor.Jonasoff|Naor.Jonasoff]] ([[User talk:Naor.Jonasoff#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Naor.Jonasoff|contribs]]) 13:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)  :{{re|Naor.Jonasoff}} TVMaze is a user-generated site, much like Wikipedia, making it an unreliable source. I only removed the unsourced table, not the premiere date. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 13:49, 15 September 2019 (UTC) I understand, so we will wait for the official announcement for bringing back the table.. thnx — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Naor.Jonasoff|Naor.Jonasoff]] ([[User talk:Naor.Jonasoff#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Naor.Jonasoff|contribs]]) 13:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)  == I'm sorry == I just wanted to apologize for my conduct towards you regarding the ''Suicide Squad'' logo. I still have great respect for you and your contributions, and you're not someone I want to make an enemy of. [[User:TheJoebro64|JOE]][[User talk:TheJoebro64|BRO]][[Special:Contributions/TheJoebro64|64]] 18:13, 16 September 2019 (UTC) == Presentation of ''[[Money Heist]]'' series overview == Hello Alex, you made an edit[https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Money_Heist_episodes&diff=916301567&oldid=916081518&diffmode=source] to [[List of Money Heist episodes]] which affects [[Money Heist]], an article that I currently work on significantly. I've open a discussion at [[Talk:Money_Heist#Presentation_of_series_overview]] and invite you to join it. Thanks. – [[User:Sgeureka|sgeureka]] [[User_talk:Sgeureka|t]]•[[Special:Contributions/Sgeureka|c]] 17:34, 18 September 2019 (UTC) == Sherlock == I've put a message in the show's talk page upon your request. [[User:LTPHarry|Luigitehplumber]] ([[User talk:LTPHarry|talk]]) 18:44, 18 September 2019 (UTC) == Hiding Notes == Is there some sort of guideline for when to use ^ and when to use <! for hiding notes and extra episode lines? I've noticed a shift towards ^ of late, is this an official change or is it more of a dealers choice sort of thing? I never know which one to use and no matter what I choose it seems someone edits to change to the other. Any direction would be appreciated thanks - [[User:Racheal Emilin|Racheal Emilin]] ([[User talk:Racheal Emilin|talk]]) 13:22, 19 September 2019 (UTC) :{{u|Racheal Emilin}}, Dealer's choice, basically. If you read the documentation at [[Template:^]], you'll see why it's so useful: you can hide and nest full HTML comments in them. So, for example, [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mr._Robot_episodes&diff=916549073&oldid=916542958 here], when hiding the Season 4 header with <!, you couldn't use <! for the "Per MOS:TVSEASONYEAR" note. If someone removed that first <! instead of moving it, then the note would become fully visible. That's not what we want. [https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=List_of_Mr._Robot_episodes&diff=next&oldid=916549073 Here], however, we can use ^ and include the full note, so when we show the table, we can just remove the ^, instead of having to remove the <! and move it to the start of the note. Less hassle! -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 13:26, 19 September 2019 (UTC) ::OK cool, I see what you mean about the nested notes like trying to hide a "Don't add copyrighted text, e.g. from the show's website" note in the summary when you also want to hide that particular episode until you have more info. Thanks! [[User:Racheal Emilin|Racheal Emilin]] ([[User talk:Racheal Emilin|talk]]) 13:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC) :::Yeah, exactly! That's probably one of the best uses for it in the TV project, adding a HTML note to the ShortSummary parameter and using ^ to hide the whole list template. Means you just have to remove the ^ later on, instead of messing around with messy HTML notes. All the best! -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 13:43, 19 September 2019 (UTC) == Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion == [[File:Peacedove.svg|60px|left]] This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! [[User:Radiphus/redirect|Radiphus]] ([[User talk:Radiphus|talk]]) 13:11, 20 September 2019 (UTC) == Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Doctor Who (2013 specials)]]== The article [[Doctor Who (2013 specials)]] you nominated as a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article]] has been placed on hold [[Image:Symbol wait.svg|20px]]. The article is close to meeting the [[WP:GA?|good article criteria]], but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See [[Talk:Doctor Who (2013 specials)]] for issues which need to be addressed.  Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] -- [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 02:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC) :{{u|Kingsif}}, I believe something went wrong when promoting the article to GA... The bot hasn't sent the typical "The article you nominated as a good article has passed" or added the GA icon to the article. I tried readding it to the GA nominations article, but no luck there in fixing it. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 23:09, 23 September 2019 (UTC) ::Legobot might be slow; the article is listed on the GA page, and I think the template <nowiki>{{GA icon}}</nowiki> is the one to use at the top of the page to show it. [[User:Kingsif|Kingsif]] ([[User talk:Kingsif|talk]]) 05:48, 24 September 2019 (UTC) :::{{u|Kingsif}}, it's definitely not slow, it's already informed and promoted other passing articles, I think it's just gone faulty on this article. I'll add the icon manually. Cheers. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 01:01, 25 September 2019 (UTC) == 100,000th edit! == {| style="background:#fdffe7; border:1px solid #fceb92;" |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 5px;" | [[File:100K Edit Star.png|100px]] | style="font-size:x-large; padding:3px 3px 0; height:1.5em;"| '''100,000th edit award''' |- |style="vertical-align: middle; padding: 3px;" | Hi there Alex 21. Let me be the first to congratulate you on your 100,000th edit! You are now entitled to place the 100,000 Edit Star on your bling page! or you could choose to display the {{tlx|User 100,000 edits}} user box. Or both! Thanks for all your work at the 'pedia! Cheers, — [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 04:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC) |} :Thank you so much! I retired for a while, but it's good to be back and editing among such great fellow editors. -- ''/[[User:Alex 21|Alex]]/[[User talk:Alex 21|21]]'' 06:36, 2 October 2019 (UTC) ::You are welcome A. Best regards!! [[User:MarnetteD|MarnetteD]]|[[User talk:MarnetteD|Talk]] 17:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC) Amazing, congrats! ---[[User:Another Believer|Another Believer]] ([[User talk:Another Believer|Talk]]) 14:52, 3 October 2019 (UTC) == [[Template:Smallcaps all]] == I got the new implementation for this template. The new source code doesn't use any parser function but make use of TemplateStyles only, so it doesn't permanently change letter case, and not affect copying the text. The TemplateStyle page is already done, you can copy the following source code to the main template. <syntaxhighlight lang="text"> <templatestyles src="Smallcaps all/styles.css"/>{{#if:{{{2|}}}|{{{1}}}}}{{{2|{{{1}}}}}}<noinclude> {{Documentation}}</noinclude> -- Great Brightstar (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Great Brightstar, okay.. I'm confused. Is this a protected template edit request? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:27, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the new source code is already passed the validate, but the template is protected that I have no rights to update, and it's the only letter case template that I've found is still use parser function. --Great Brightstar (talk) 00:20, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

"Midsommer (upcoming film)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Midsommer (upcoming film). Since you had some involvement with the Midsommer (upcoming film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Belated Congrats

A little birdie told me you reached a big milestone recently. Congrats, congrats, congrats from me to you. --Bicam3ralMind (talk) 15:24, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Bicam3ralMind, thank you!

-- /Alex/₂₁ 22:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Plot Lengths Script

Hey, so the plot lengths script only partially seems to be working for me, it'll tell me the length of plots, but doesn't bring up a pop-up or put the template into my clipobard, don't know if this is just me or a wider issue so I thought I'd let you know! QueerFilmNerd^talk 22:07, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, oooh, thanks for the reminder! I did indeed notice that and I've been meaning to look at it, but I've kept forgetting. I'll work on a fix for it soon. Cheers! -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:40, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, all fixed, thanks again! Glad you're enjoying the script. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:35, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Glad I could help! Thanks for fixing it! QueerFilmNerd^talk 04:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Undoing an edit twice because you were incapable of understanding why it was made is just about the dumbest thing I've seen on Wikipedia. Grow up. 46.208.152.94 (talk) 22:52, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm sure you know how to use your words. So use your edit summaries to explain your edits. I'm sure it's really not that hard for you! -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:55, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Question

Alex, I note your action after I ran the script, here. I've sometimes wondered what difference those templates make (what their advantage is, and whether they can be used in all table-contexts). Tony (talk) 07:13, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Tony1, yeah, I see your edit here; the script that fixes MOS:NUM, etc. always seems to remove the {{start date}} template from episode tables. The benefits of that template can be seen at its documentation. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:22, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

So I could raise with Ohconfucius the possibility of removing that function from the script. Do you think it should be removed ... or made more selective in its application? Why did he insert that function in the first place? (Ohconfucius is on en.WP only occasionally, but I can email him). Tony (talk) 07:32, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

More selective, definitely. For example, the script should definitely remove the template when it's used in regular article prose. However, it should be kept when used in other templates. If you do email him, let me know how it goes. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:38, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thx. @Ohconfucius:. Tony (talk) 01:29, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Dedicated

About my edit that was reverted: what's wrong with letting readers know that a certain episode was dedicated to the memory of a beloved actor? --SkyGuy94 (talk) 18:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

@SkyGuy94: Please create a new section when creating a new topic. The section is for a short summary of the episode's plot. Details such as dedications can be included in the parent article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The End of the World

What would you have me add to The End of the World for it not to be deleted? MacCready (talk) 23:13, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

MacCready, it's not being deleted, it was moved to the draft space. The article needs a lot more real-world information such as reception, release details and awards, instead of just consisting solely of a lead and a plot summary. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Got it. Will add. MacCready (talk) 23:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

MacCready, concerning your previous edits, what sources do you have to support that the series is titled "Skulduggery Pleasant and Valkyrie Cain"? Or was the move based what you believe the series is titled? -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't have a specific source to be linked; I spoke to the author himself this past Saturday, who informed me that that was his preferred title for the series collectively, that he had wanted to title Skulduggery Pleasant: Resurrection and the future planned eight books in development beyond as Valkyrie Cain, so-as to keep The Dying of the Light as the last Skulduggery Pleasant book (for a variety of reasons, one of which being so that readers new to the series could still see it as a culmination, the "end" of the series), but was vetoed by HarperCollins executives for branding purposes. I do think in retrospect it may be too early to have such a page rename though, perhaps if he is ever successful in having the new series renamed in a future edition, or moving ahead with the film adaptation, that would be the time. Similarly, while I'm on the topic, he gave myself an update on the in-development Skulduggery Pleasant film with regards the current script, to which I also have no link; would you think I can still mention the details I learned in the film adaptation section of the Skulduggery Pleasant page? MacCready (talk) 08:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

MacCready, ah, so it was all through an interview of a sort. Unfortunately, such primary sources cannot be used on Wikipedia unless published. That applies to the film adaptation too. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:06, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Very well. Would you think I have enough at the draft page now to make it an article; if not, what should I add? MacCready (talk) 00:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

... for correcting "bit part." I thought it had to be case-sensitive. Cheers! Shir-El too 08:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Shir-El too, I was confused as to what I'm being thanked for/what I corrected, but then I found this edit, was this what you were referring to? In that case, no worries and glad to help, but that was automatically the program I used! My edits were only updating "infoheader" to "infoA".

But in any case, concerning your edit, yeah, there's no need to pipe a link when the link and the text are exactly the same save for the first character being upper/lowercase. So, in this case, [[bit part]] is identical to [[Bit part|bit part]]. You can read more at the "Style" section of MOS:PIPE. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one, and thanks again. Unfortunately I don't absorb info from 'manuals' very well, most of the time flying by the seat of my pants or copying formatting that looks good elsewhere.

BTW am "sandboxing" a short (but I think) interesting article. May I ask you to look at it before it's submitted? Cheers! Shir-El too 10:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Shir-El too, no promises, but I should be able to take a quick look over it. Let me know when it's ready! -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Historical

The use of a v. an is determined by whether the h is sounded. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 02:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, "an hour", because the H is not pronounced, vs. "a historical", because the H is pronounced. Either way, Merriam-Webster says either applies in this case, so I'm not going to fuss over such a minor issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on whether you're French or Cockney. Some Brits write 'a herb' [which quite frankly gives me goosebumps], despite the word following the French who don't pronounce their H's. : ) Have Fun! Shir-El too 07:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Our own Wikipedia article on the topic describes "historical" as being pronounced with its "h", so there's that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Ref formatting

Regarding your edit here, this is my reply: I add and edit references with a gadget named ProveIt. It has a "normalise" button, which formats the styling of all references within its view. That is just what I did here, and I don't see what's wrong. --Kailash29792 (talk) 03:40, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Kailash29792, yes, I've seen your edits formatting references. Why does every references need to match exactly? What was the point in capitalizing "cite" and changing to "access-date"? How does that fix the readability or display of those references? The references that Favre and I added are perfectly acceptable per template and V/RS standards. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, I have no idea. I just click the "normalize everything" button (this is how it originally looked), and all refs get instantly formatted. But maybe I like the end result, so I don't manually re-edit every ref. I wonder how you add Twitter refs since {{cite tweet}} is not part of WP:RefToolbar (it is part of ProveIt though) which I think you use. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:15, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:Television episode ratings

Mind taking a look at Template:Television episode ratings/testcases to make sure I didn't miss anything? Thanks. The changes were made so pages like the Arrowverse crossover don't need manual code. --Gonnym (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, looks good to me! Would it be worth keeping the number column (for the numbered episode of the crossover), and just toggling the title column between episode/series title? If not, then it's likely good to be implemented. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah that would be easy to change. I just copied the style of what was used in the manual list. I'll make the updates now. --Gonnym (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)\

Made the changes. Let me know if this is good. --Gonnym (talk) 23:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, looks good! -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

his dark materials tv show

yes i know the show is british show but bbc 1 is a free to air tv channel in the republic of ireland so the show is aired at the same time so the 1st episode came out today in the uk and republic of ireland so it was viewed by ..... number of people in the uk and ireland — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hourie56 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Hourie56, okay, and? It's not an Irish show. Don't include Irish in the prose. It's not that hard. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:48, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

NCTV changes

Hey Alex, regarding your change to NCTV, how would you name articles such as So You Think You Can Dance (Belgian and Dutch TV series), So You Think You Can Dance (Belgium and the Netherlands, season 6) and My Name is... (Belgium & The Netherlands)? --Gonnym (talk) 12:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, personally, I would rename them with a disambiguator of "Dutch", given the common Dutch language between the two countries and shows. Either that, or by year. So, (2008 TV series) / (2008 TV series, season 6) / (2010 TV series). -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The year is impossible as there are other versions with that year and it also makes it much less clear what country it is. Placing it as Dutch for language might work, though I'm not sure if there will be support for such an option, but that won't for all cases such as Expedition Robinson (Central Europe) or Big Brother (Norwegian and Swedish TV series). --Gonnym (talk) 17:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Change your mind (Steven Universe)

Did you really have to blame me for an edit another user made? StarwhiteDiamond (talk) 00:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

StarwhiteDiamond, do you mean the IP editor 96.241.219.202 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and how your account was created directly after their edits, only 14 minutes after, and they ceased editing once you came into the picture? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:26, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, no, some user named Hyliad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StarwhiteDiamond (talk • contribs)

StarwhiteDiamond, when did I ever compare your edits to Hyliad's? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21, you reverted the page back to your version and said the changes had been explained to me on my talk page not too long after they edited the page.StarwhiteDiamond (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

StarwhiteDiamond, do you mean this edit? I mass reverted both of your edits [3][4] at the same time with that edit, and the summary was more pointed towards you than to Hyliad. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Crisis On Infinite Earths Titles

Hello Alex 21,

I was wondering why did you put the titles of Crisis On Infinite Earth with ¨Hour (1,2,3,4,5)¨. Because I haven't read any news about the title being in that way, so I changed it to ¨Part (1,2,3,4,5)¨, because it is the most logic and normal way. If I been any trouble, I apologize. I just wanted to know why put ¨Hour¨ and not ¨Part¨, which I think is better.

Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoArrowverse (talk • contribs)

@NicoArrowverse: Per the source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:13, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for answering. Although I still think that the writers should have put ¨Part¨ would have been better. Because in the previous crossover, Elseworlds, and I am sure in Crisis On Infinite Earths, weren't actually hours that happened each episode, there were two or three days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NicoArrowverse (talk • contribs)

@NicoArrowverse: What we think they should have titled them is irrelevant. A source shows "Hour". That's what we use. Also, do not edit while logged out, as you did on your own talk page. Also, "Hour" likely doesn't mean hours in the story, it means hours as in the episodes. Hour One, 1 hour for the first episode, etc. The crossover is five hour long. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:48, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex why do you keep changing title Crisis on Infinite Earths to "episode" or hour and not to Crisis on Infinite Earths Part 1,2,3,4,5.As this is obvious like the previous year.

I know the crossover is 5 hours your forgetting that each episode is 45 minutes plus 15 minutes for advertising thats why they say hour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.21.74.82 (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Per the source. Do you have a source that states that they're titled "Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part #"? No? There's your issue. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:39, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 no source is needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.21.74.82 (talk) 06:40, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Wrong. Sources are always needed per WP:RS and WP:V. You add any content without a source, and it'll be reverted. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

https://cartermatt.com/385590/crisis-on-infinite-earths-teaser-brandon-rouths-superman-more/

This news article says it's parts

Where's the part explicitly stating that the episodes will be titled "Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part #"? I can't seem to find it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:53, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's a copy and paste from the article.

There will be three parts of Crisis on Infinite Earths that air in the month of December, and then after a hiatus, it will return to conclude the story in January.

So, it doesn't say "Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part #" at all. Thank you for confirming that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 here's a news article says it's "Crisis on Infinite Earths Part 1,2,3,4,5.

https://comicbook.com/dc/2019/11/15/first-look-at-crisis-on-infinite-earths-part-one-as-supergirl-ph/

Where does it say "Crisis on Infinite Earths Part 1,2,3,4,5"? Point it out to me. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Legends season 5 note

Hey. So I realized after I kind of talked to you here I should have just come to your talk. As I stated though, the note currently doesn't indicate at all that Crisis will not count towards the 15. Hence why I move the note in the first place, because it only covered air dates. So we need something in the note about episode numbers to keep it where you have it. But with that, should we do a split season formatting to make this clear? So "16" overall episodes, then split part 1 is 1 episode for Crisis, and then split part 2 is 15 for the rest of the season? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:09, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Hey. I think that we should expand the note to note that there's 16 episodes in total, so that the note applies to the episodes cell and start cell. As for the overview, you mean something like this?

Season	Episodes		Originally aired
Season	Episodes		First aired	Last aired
5	16	1	January 14, 2020 (2020-01-14)
5	16	15	January 21, 2020 (2020-01-21)	TBA

I could probably support this. It would make the unique airing of this season somewhat clearer. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:57, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm good with that overview format as well. - Brojam (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Yes, that's what I meant for the overview table, and yes to expanding the note too. I believe you compiled the references for the episodes, if you wouldn't mind expanding the note with wording/sources that are appropriate. Then having the note in the season column works for me. And then we could change over the overview table to how you presented it here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so the note currently states: A special episode for the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" crossover is set to air on January 14, 2020, with the fifth season officially premiering later on January 21, 2020. I would suggest expanding it to: A total of 16 episodes are set to be produced: a special episode for the "Crisis on Infinite Earths" crossover, which is set to air on January 14, 2020 before the fifth season, and fifteen contributing towards the regular season, which is set to officially premiere later on January 21, 2020. The best source for "16 episodes" would be the script for 5x15, which will have the production code 516/T13.21916. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I like the note change. What sources do we have now? Didn't I see a video of Klemmer stating 15? Can that be used for the time being? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 06:28, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, this one. At 9:10, he states "We're got four great episodes, we just need to come up with eleven more, and we'll have a season." I think that'll do for now; it's already in use, we can just expand the note as-is. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Ok, let's do it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Done. I've also expanded the note at the Arrowverse series overview, but I've kept the Season 5 row simple with just the 15 episodes and January 21, 2020 date, for simplicity's sake there, and linked List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes § Series overview and Legends of Tomorrow (season 5) § Release for further information. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Good Omens Title Sequence

Hi, Alex

Can you help me understand the criticism of this section. What exactly do I need to change? What is the grammatical problem, for example? Thanks for your help

Mjr524 (talk) 12:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Crisis on Infinite Earths Title

Alex 21 if keep continuing change the title ill report you to Wikipedia.

It's Crisis on Infinite Earths, Part 1 and so on Titus25go (talk) 08:02, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

@Titus25go: You need a source. There's sources for Parts 1 through 3, do you have one for 4 and 5? It needs to explicitly say "Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part 4". -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:30, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's the source. If there's a part 1 in this article and we already know there's 5 episodes. They follow on part 1 to 2 and so on.

Alex 21 do you have a source that says its "Crisis on Infinite Earth " episode.?

If you keep doing this you will be reported. https://comicbook.com/dc/2019/11/15/first-look-at-crisis-on-infinite-earths-part-one-as-supergirl-ph/

@Titus25go: That's a violation of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Read those links, then come back here. Where is your source that explicitly states "Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part 4" and "Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part 5"? You do not have one. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 you don't have a source either

I'm not stating any title. I'm stating that it's an episode of "Crisis on Infinite Earth". Nothing more. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:43, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes what number is the episode

There is no source stating what the episode title is, so I'm not adding it. That's what you're doing. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

An apology, asking to start over.

I am very sorry for the tone of my messages in our recent discussion. Sometimes I am so opposed to another user's edits that it manifests in extreme anger that can spiral out of control if I don't keep it in check.

I knew I went too far almost as soon as I'd posted that last message. That along with general fatigue was the main reason why I didn't touch your removal of the entire discussion, or react in any way at all. Instead, I've taken a full week off Wikipedia, both for my own sanity (or to "cool down" as you had suggested) and to show my sincerity here and now.

I know you told me not to post on your talk page anymore, but seeing as this is an apology for the conduct on my part that led to that it seems like the only appropriate place to write it. If you don't accept my apology, please feel free to remove this post without commenting at all.

Otherwise, I would like to further demonstrate my willingness to change by inviting you to a brand-new discussion, where I will do my utmost to ensure that conduct is not mentioned in any way, shape, or form and focus solely on the content issues at hand. The one and only thing I would ask of you is to please consider and address all of my arguments – as if they were from another editor, and the prior conversation never happened.

As an aside, I would like to note that your last post in the discussion took me by surprise, as I genuinely had no idea who you were or that we had crossed paths before at all. Once I realized you had changed part of your username I did recognize it but I still had no idea where I'd seen you before until I used one of the user interaction tools. Of course this does not justify anything I wrote, but I thought I should let you know that even in the heat of the moment I never had anything against you personally, and would have reacted the same way to another user. Modernponderer (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

User talk page block

Now that the issue is resolved, I would like to ask: could you please remove my username from User:Alex 21/Editors?

I don't want to be on anyone's "bad list". It feels awful, as a constant reminder of past mistakes. Modernponderer (talk) 10:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Vikings (season 6)

Hi. I added more referenced content to Draft:Vikings (season 6). Just let me know if it should be published now. The season is gonna premiere soon and the content gives more context to the sixth season now, so I think it's ready. Also, you might have read my edit on Vikings main page on the Production section. I think it's quite unorganised and the structure/writing style of production and casting content could be improved by summarising everything in two new sections, Production and Casting, so that the specific content in the seasons articles doesn't read as a plain copy of that big section.--TheVampire (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy Doctor Day

Hi Alex 21. So six years today ago we were at the tippy top of the timey wimey 50th anniversary celebrations. It will always be a special memory that we fans saw The Day of the Doctor at the same time all over the planet :-) Things are quieter now but there is still a little extra joy when the 23rd falls on a Saturday. Cheers!! MarnetteD|Talk 05:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Happy Doctor Day to you too! Can't wait for tomorrow when the Series 12 trailer is released... An even better present was that two days ago, two days before the anniversary, I actually got a TARDIS tattoo! Best one I've gotten so far. I also vividly remember the 50th anniversary; I have the 50th anniversary version of Monopoly, and I've had it signed by eight Who actors! -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:39, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

TARDIS ink!! How marvelous is that!!! Great news about the game and the signatures. Two days after the 20th anniversary ep aired (Nov 23rd here in the US) I was in Chicago for the big DW convention. Stood in several lines for autographs in this book. My favorite was getting Pat Troughton and Nick Courtney together. They talked about the fact that their guest spots in All Creatures Great and Small aired one week apart. Gosh that show has created great memories for people all over the world :-) MarnetteD|Talk 05:52, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

MarnetteD, amazing! You're lucky to have been able to meet those two in particular before they passed. We're so lucky to be part of such a massive group. (Also, just to "show off" a bit, here's the two pictures [5][6]) -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:09, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Those are both great Alex. Thanks for sharing them!! Whoo wee the pics I could have taken if today's tech was around in '83. The closest I can get is this - if you have the Five Doctors special edition there is a 50 minute documentary narrated by Colin B that covers all of the celebrations that went in that year. Near the end there is a segment about the Chicago convention and in one scene you will see Pat and Jon as well as Lis in Sarah's "Andy Pandy" outfit. I am in that room (though unseen) to the right of the picture. Cheers again. MarnetteD|Talk 07:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi again. Here is another treat for your DW day. Earlier this year I picked up this and this neck tie. Fun stuff. If you've watched Good Omens you might have noticed that, in episode two, Pulsifer is wearing the first one :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 19:04, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Amazing! I did indeed notice that; Good Omens had a few easter eggs laying around its episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 12

Alex21 okay we'll wait! I genuinely can't wait for the new series Can you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bgtxfactordoctorwhostrictly (talk • contribs)

@Bgtxfactordoctorwhostrictly: Looking forward to it! -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:20, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alex21 , After I see the trailer may I have the honour to add the release date if the trailer has one?

"honour"? What on Earth are you talking about? How's it an "honour" to add the date? -- /Alex/₂₁ 15:05, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Before you see what I have written in the article, give me a chance. I am a person who doesn't know how to cite references so I added the article in the wee comment you're supposed to write after you have edited the page. I think the BBC is an accurate source. Also the What's On TV magazine 30 Nov - 6 Dec 2019 edition contains it. The exact comment is this : Jodie Whittaker returns for the new series of Doctor Who on BBC One. It would be amazing if you told me how to cite references. (Bgtxfactordoctorwhostrictly (talk) 17:56, 27 November 2019 (UTC))

Because your first edit asked about citing references, I left a welcome message specifically about that on your user page, everything you need to know is in that. Ideally you should read all the links, but especially the link to Help:Referencing for beginners which also links to other referencing help articles. You can also go to Wikipedia:Teahouse or Wikipedia:Questions or post {{help me}} at the bottom of your talk page. But before you work out the technicalities of referencing, you need to read and understand Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and Wikipedia:Rumour. For TV series schedules the reliable source is generally only the official site of the broadcaster - so in this case it would be the BBC's website. Cross-posting this to your talk page, please reply there if you want to talk to me about it. Amedee123 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Plot Lengths Script

Hey! Don't know if this is intentional but I was checking the plot length of a film with the template stating that the plot it too long and it's (the template) included in the word count, which gave an inaccurate account of what the plot length actually is. Don't know if this is intentional or not! QueerFilmNerd^talk 08:55, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Lists of Doctor Doctor episodes

See Talk:Lists of Doctor Doctor episodes. I think this is properly a disambiguation page. There is currently an active discussion at Wikipedia talk:Lists of lists over a recently-created draft guideline on the subject. Any comments welcome. Thanks, Aymatth2 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User: 86.8.201.75

He just will not stop reverting. He ignores every request for proof, he keeps moving the goalposts, he just won’t stop edit warring. What should we do?--Simmerdon3448 (talk) 00:28, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Simmerdon3448, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:86.8.201.75 reported by User:Alex 21 (Result: ) -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:29, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Straža

Straža is duplicate of Straza in Wikidata, can you resolve this? And I believe it should be redirected Straza --> Straža anyway. AndrejJ (talk) 08:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Andrejj, no idea on the Wikidata fix, sorry; I don't edit Wikidata. And as my summary stated, the move was in regards to a request filed at WP:RM/TR by another editor; you can see the request here. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Edit Warring notice by IP

Erm, was that actually justified as such? I don't think the IP had no reason against what was a justified matter... did they? GUtt01 (talk) 12:54, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Such a revert is valid per WP:3RRNO: Reverting actions performed by banned users in violation of their ban, and sockpuppets of banned or blocked users. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:57, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The IP was blocked because it was using a proxy and it wasn't blocked until after the notice had been left so that reason is not valid. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The editor used two IPs to force their edits and both were blocked as a result. The reason is valid. (Thank you for your opinion; please only post on my talk page if it concerns article content.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Who wording.

Any reason for this? I think my rewording is more coherent and less idiosyncratic, doesn't seem obvious that in should be reverted. In particular, succeeded doesn't really work, and the new writers do not include Chibnall. Amedee123 (talk) 22:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

More prose that flows on from each other instead of colonized-lists, as well as "; and", which is gramatically incorrect. The series is definitely succeeded by a special, same as Series 11. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Or overwritten rather than simple, with incorrect usage of some words and a big error (which I'm about to correct) in implying that Chibnall is a new writer. ;and is perfectly gramatical, here's an example (from [7]) this style guide "I visited the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford; the Victoria and Albert Museum, London; and the Pencil Museum, Keswick." Succeed doesn't do anything that followed can't also do and tends to imply replacing rather than just following. It's all a bit pretentious and wordy. And in typing all of this I've realised I don't care enough to argue with you WP:OWN problem*. I'll take this off my watchlist and leave you to it, but as it stands it's bad writing. Scrap all of that, in fact, your latest version is much better. Still don't like succeeded, but I'm leaving you to it.

*I withdraw this, but I'm leaving it as an impression of how you were coming across, briefly, in case that's helpful with other editors. My withdrawing from editing on these isn't anything personal, I just don't think it works for me to get involved in this sort of to-and-fro, I should be doing other things. Feel free to disregard all of this except in as much as you find it useful in future. All the best. Amedee123 (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Tom Baker

Hi Alex,

I removed the marriage info as it was not for the opening section and clearly becauseas his second marriage which was to the actress Lalla Ward was listed before his first (?).

This is not impartial nor neutral for an article.

I see that you have now added this back but this is biased because if you are adding his first and his second marriages then can I ask why you have not added his third marriage?

Regards

Juanpumpchump (talk) 07:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Steven Universe "specials"

I thought this had been resolved but apparently not. I've posted on the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard to try to get a third opinion on whether Steven Universe Future belongs under the heading "specials" or not. I apologize for not alerting you sooner; I didn't realize the notification was supposed to go on your talk page rather than the talk page of the article. AJD (talk) 08:34, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Ajd, ah, thank you. I see now that you posted a listing at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 182#List of Steven Universe episodes; I'd apologize for not responding, but I never knew it existed, as I never knew if you'd gone ahead with it. I'll post my dispute summary as soon as I can. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Chilling Adventures of Sabrina Episode Titles

Has there been any other episode titles added recently? Thank you for the current listings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8b0:64a1:0:ed6d:2eba:6ed1:6560 (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately not; the source still only lists 26 episodes; Season 1's 20, plus this upcoming's season six miscellaneous episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 18:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply 2001:8B0:64A1:0:ED6D:2EBA:6ED1:6560 (talk)

Laurel

Earth-1 Laurel has been dead for some time. Earth-2 Laurel now lives on Earth-1 but is not the Earth-1 Laurel. The fact that her entire world of Earth-2 was destroyed has been a major plot point for her. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 22:34, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Doczilla, thank you for summarizing the episodes I've already watched. Now, did you do what I told you to do? My money is on that you didn't. See the Twitter source next to Katie's name. I'll even link it for you! Now, tell me what it says, word for word. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:53, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

"told you to do" "Now, tell me what it says, word for word." No, thank you. Strangely stubborn + bossy don't inspire me to keep wasting time on things that will be resolved soon enough on air. Still, I do believe you're sincerely trying to get things right as you see them. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:05, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Doczilla, so when faced with the fact that you are very clearly wrong, you don't even apologize. I'll copy the tweet from Marc Guggenheim (do you know who he is?) for you: Earth-1 Laurel in Crisis. Earth-2 Laurel in spin-off. Now, are you trying to put your own spin on that? You may just be violating WP:OR; be careful you don't do it too much, else you might just get reported! -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

By his own admission, Guggenheim has lied on Twitter about Crisis on Infinite Earths: https://twitter.com/mguggenheim/status/1174730410648981504 I am not saying that he did this time. I'm saying a social media remark that may or may not be correct is not a sufficient source to contradict story content as depicted thus far. Sigh. Now I've replied in spite of myself. I really am trying to come up with neutral wording for that page, and I really am letting this go. Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Doczilla, ah, yes, one tweet that seemingly "disables" every other tweet he ever mentions in the future. What clever logic you use. Mindblown. If you're letting it go, you won't be posting here anymore, or changing it to Earth-2 without a source. Bye! -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:26, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Template:Arrowverse summary

Hey Alex, I was wondering if you'd be ok if the code at {{Arrowverse summary}} be converted to Lua? When I was going over the code it was a bit hard to follow in that awful coding system we have in the template-space, so I made a working version at Module:Sandbox/Gonnym/sometest7 which is almost the exact same. The small differences are:

I've changed the handling of the current episode from placing "-" in the episode position, to using |part=.
Adding built in handling of the horizontal line (and |no_hr= when it's not needed).
Added error handling for missing or incorrect number value (for |parts= and |part=) or mismatch between parts value and the number of series used.

What do you think? --Gonnym (talk) 11:57, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, if you think it's best, then go for it! I haven't edited the template in two years, it clearly needs an update. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:02, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Need advice

Hey. I need some advice on what to do. I'm currently under discussion over edit-warring, which I probably will hold my hand up to for 3RR. The problem is I can't argue my case or make a statement that I'm not gonna be deeply involved in the page - I had to ask an admin to strip my editing privileges on the EW discussion board for jumping into discussions when I shouldn't have. What should I do? I don't know if the nominator has much of a case, but another user jumped in saying I shouldn't have reverted other stuff on the article, even though I later went to discussions with those editors to talk about the reversions or question something they had legitimately raised, and I'm worried he's made things worse.... GUtt01 (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

The Sinner (TV series)

Really? Sure, unsubstituted is fine, but substituted (i.e. with span tags) is an improvement, for all the reasons listed in the template's documentation. What's the problem with improving an article? —Joeyconnick (talk) 05:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well A21. MarnetteD|Talk 19:36, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Runaways (TV series)

Thank you for fixing my idiot mistake. Please excuse my accidental rollback of your edit fixing the date. This is going to sound stupid, but I'm currently running Windows 7 on only 4 GB RAM and using VMWare on my MacBook Pro. There's issues I'm trying to troubleshoot and resolve with Huggle and dropped packets on my main computer, and that comes at the cost of performance and other weirdness with this setup (such as page loads and clicking on the correct links... lol). I appreciate your diligence and I thank you for fixing that issue. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 09:05, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 12

How is Digiguide an unreliable source, I least I referenced it so put it back will you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebiggestoink (talk • contribs)

See my notes. Wait for an official confirmation from either the BBC or a BBC-related source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:07, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. Robot episode articles

does not mean episode article standards

This is plainly unhelpful. The article has a paragraph of sourced text and 13 dedicated references. That is more than sufficient for independent notability and stub guidelines. If you're using another standard, you need to link it in your edit. Until then, please revert your edit. czar 03:30, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

There is nothing in that article that cannot be included in the parent article. WP:42 is not a policy or guideline, thanks. I would also be very careful, if I were you, as to who you accuse of edit-warring, when two separate editors have moved the article to the draftspace, and when it is you forcing the content into the mainspace by creating it there and then moving it back time and time again (twice, for the 407 article). -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Czar, forgot to ping. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:18, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm looking at a bibliography of 13 dedicated sources that would be undue weight to include in the parent article. Textbook stub split opportunity. Yes, moving the article back to draftspace after it was expanded, citing no policy, starting no discussion, is indeed edit warring. These edits improve the encyclopedia how, exactly?

If the author objects to the move to draftspace, which I do, our policy says the mover should revert: Wikipedia:Drafts#Requirements for page movers. Please do so. If you think the article doesn't belong in mainspace, take it to AfD. czar 06:01, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

You've got a lot of sources. Nice. That doesn't make the article mainspace-worthy. There's still nothing wrong with including it in the parent article. And yes, indeed, moving the article back to mainspace multiple (three!) times against multiple editors, starting no discussion, is indeed edit warring. Also, "our policy"? What policy? You didn't link one at all; what you link is not a policy. Expand the article properly, and we won't have this issue! All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

No, it would be inappropriate to include those 13 sources in the parent article.

Where are you getting three "moves"? Apart from reverting your original 407 Proxy Authentication Required (Mr. Robot) move, the only moves I've made were after significant text was added.

Draftification is not meant to be used to hold articles in limbo. I already linked to the standard procedure:

To unilaterally move an article to draft space, you should:
notify the author (this is facilitated by the script User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js),

be accountable for your draftification decisions per the standard described at Wikipedia:Administrators#Accountability.
Other editors (including the author of the page) have a right to object to moving the page, and to have the matter discussed at WP:AfD. If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD.
— Wikipedia:Drafts#Requirements for page movers (emphasis added)

It can't be any clearer. As for your view of "proper" article expansion, argue it at AfD but it doesn't hold water. A basic description and a bunch of obviously related sources are sufficient for a stub. Are you going to revert your unilateral draftification per the above procedure or do I need to go elsewhere? czar 06:19, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Not at all. Also, the draft article has two references; further reading is separate. It also doesn't have a plot section; gosh golly!

Create, move back, move back. Three times creating/moving an article to the mainspace.

You linked to a standard procedure. Not our policy. If you want to take it to AFD, then by all means, go for it. Until then, it incubates in the draft space. Expand the article properly, and we won't have this issue! All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Alex 21, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020.
Happy editing,
Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラ PはAlex 21たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ P 03:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Have a great rest of your holiday season! If you do not, then you should know that I have acquired a very particular set of skills on my time on Wikipedia. Skills that make me a nightmare for people who do not enjoy themselves. If you do not have a great time this year, I will find you... And I will block you.

But seriously, happy holidays. Dark Knight 2149 22:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mandalorian logo

Hello,

quick question. Why can't The Mandalorian use an available high quality vector of its logo when The Simpsons and Friends (television series) also use high quality vectors in place of title screens? -throast (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because other articles do something, doesn't mean it applies to every article. MOS:TV lists a title card as one of its standard practices, and the status quo is the title card; a discussion has already taken place on this topic. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That means for both of my examples, logos should be replaced with their respective title cards too? -throast (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that different articles meet different needs. If you disagree with the status quo, please discuss it on the article's talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Plot Lengths Script Word Count

Hey! Don't know if this is intentional but I was checking the plot length of a film with the template stating that the plot it too long and it's (the template) included in the word count, which gave an inaccurate account of what the plot length actually is. Don't know if this is intentional or not! QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, whilst archiving my talk page, I came across your message here; somehow I'd completely missed it when you first posted it, my apologies! It's not intentional at all, so I'll take a look at the code for it; thanks for the heads up. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks a bunch! QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, all fixed! -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Father Brown

Hi Alex 21. Thanks for your message. The text that was removed is not protected by any copyright. As I said in the edit summary, it was taken from the BBC Media Centre. As such, and as publicity material, it is free to use so can be reinstated. Cybersub (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Cybersub, can you back that up, that it is published under a free license? Simply being publically-available material does not mean that it is free to use. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 - Any material is free to use if it's issued by a press office, which is the case here. Cybersub (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not the case on Wikipedia. If it is not clearly listed as free use, then it is bound under copyright. See here; at the base of the page, it clearly lists "Copyright © 2019 BBC". -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who Series 11 Episode 7 Kerblam!.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doctor Who Series 11 Episode 7 Kerblam!.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.