User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2020

Do you think it's worth considering....?

Just curious, I noticed that in the Torchwood closing credits Rhys Williams is credited with the other top billed cast as early as series one. In the first few episodes it lists the main cast (including Williams) followed by the words "In order of appearance" and then all the guest cast. The "in order of appearance" is roughly dropped around episode 4 or 5 but there remains a large gap between the main and guest cast where Williams remains with the main cast. The only thing with this is that he isn't listed in the opening credits of the series until series three. Do you have any thoughts? TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 00:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that he's credited the same way in series two. TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho, hm, that's a tricky one. So, he appears as main cast in the end credits, but not in the opening credits. I think it's best to stick to whatever way he has been listed for the past 9-14 years. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah only being in the closing credits makes it difficult. I was considering being bold and changing the cast chart for him to the yellow color/text that got used for Hitchcock and Scully on List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine characters and his position in the Infobox there wouldn't need any adjusting perhaps I'll leave a message on Torchwood's talk page and see if there's any disagreements first. Thanks! TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 21:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really a question this time 'round but if you wanna add to the trickiness then here goes: I've finally made it around to series 2 (I've been binge watching btw, forgot to mention) and just finished up the set of episodes with Martha in it. In "Reset," Agyeman is billed with the main cast in the opening credits but with the guest cast in the closing credits. In "Dead Man Walking," she's credited with the main cast in both opening and closing but in the closing she's billed after Kai Owen who still remains absent from the opening credits. Finally, in "A Day in the Death," shes credited as main in both opening and closing (noting that Kai Owen was absent from "Reset" and "A Day in the Death.") TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 08:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Spyfall

Hi Alex. Apologies about my edit to the Spyfall page. I knew these references to past episodes but I don't know of any article that has named them, you know like when you know an answer without doing the working out, so I was a bit cheeky hoping someone else would add the evidence for me. I can link in the relevant episodes that I referenced but as for evidence, I'm not sure where I'll find that

92.15.218.175 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries! Such content needs a reliable source, but trivial content such as that, which typically only serves fans, belongs at other sites like the TARDIS Wikia. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 12 - SPYFALL

Hi,

since you are the person that is doing the most edits and adds most information on the Series 12 page for Doctor Who - I thought I should bring this issue up to you, since I am not that experienced nor decisive in things like that, I just thought that my idea is worth bringing up.

I have seen that Spyfall had a separate episode page created on Wikipedia (Ep. 288), although technically Spyfall, Part 1 and Spyfall, Part 2 are two separate episodes in one story, making them 288a and 288b, just as it is listed in the table on the series page.

However, all the previous cases of the revised series had separate pages created for all episodes, no matter if they were joined as one story or not.

To list just a few examples of this done in the past:

275a/275b - "World Enough and Time" / "The Doctor Falls" 254a/254b - "The Magician's Apprentice" / "The Witch's Familiar" 164a/164b - "The Empty Child" / "The Doctor Dances"

Don't you think it should be wise to rename the Spyfall page to "Skyfall, Part 1" and create a separate page for the upcoming Part 2 as technically episode 288b? I feel like this should be done to preserve consistency, but your opinion would be decisive.

Hope you can look into this and reply, All the best

The article follows the format of 202 - "The End of Time", as a two-part episode with the same title, as well as every article for every classic serial of the 1963-89 era (see List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)#Episodes and the article links). Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Dracula episode 3 summary

Good day Alex 21. I note your reversion of my summary on grounds of length. Unfortunately the version you reverted to contained errors, solecisms, ambiguities and omissions: the reader needs to know Zoe drank the blood sample not directly, "either death" should be "fear death", "discusses" should be "discuss", "taken in" is ambiguous and should be "imprisoned", Lucy Westenra is a reference to the original novel and so on. I have corrected that version and its word count is now 177 words, which is one word less that the version you reverted to. Since it is shorter than that version there is no need to re-revert it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: WKOP-TV

Could you please move WKOP-TV back to East Tennessee PBS? WKOP isn't even the main station, it's WETP (which signed on first as WSJK). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Invalid speedy deletion tags

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Do not re-add declined, bogus speedy deletion tags to pages. WilyD 10:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WilyD, please elaborate on how it is bogus. If you disagreed with the tag when it was re-added, perhaps you should have left it for someone else to consider instead. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It requests speedy deletion on the basis of a criterion that does not apply to the page in question. Spamming bogus speedy deletion tags is a disruptive practice, and the speedy deletion policy specifies that removed tags should not be re-added (unless they're removed by the page creator). Past that, the suggestion that an administrator should ignore disruptive behaviour because they've previously had to deal with an editor's disruption is just silly. WilyD 11:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WilyD, does any source report the title without a space? No. The title was credited through a typo, hence the deletion tag applies and it is not bogus. Simply because you personally disagree with it, does not make it disruptive editing; I would request that you minimize the personal attacks you are adding to this page. The policy goes to state [i]f an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith - this was not good faith, it was done with an insult. Try again. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

They probably don't - I don't care, because it's irrelevant. The title was created through a highly plausible typo, and so isn't eligible for WP:CSD#R3 deletion. Beyond that, if you're not interested in understanding why your edits were a problem, my only other interest is warning you that if you continue to make disruptive edits, you may find yourself blocked to prevent further disruption. WilyD 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WilyD, and my only further interest in you is to warn you that if you continue to accuse good faith editors and their good faith edits of being disruptive, then I'll find myself looking towards ANI, or wherever it is that administrators are to be reported for their behaviour. No further response is needed here from you; thank you for your time. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:38, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Doctor who series 11

Hi Alex 21.

Thank you for your message. You told me that if I had any questions I was to leave a message on your talk page, so I am duly doing just that.

I am a little baffled as to why you say my editing is "unconstructive". Your message did not explain why, and I struggle to see how you have reached that conclusion. I made an edit on the Doctor Who page and explained my reasoning. You disagreed. I responded, explaining why I thought your reasoning was erroneous.

So far, all I see happening is a perfectly rational and civilised disagreement between two individuals arguing in good faith. If I have inadvertently done something wrong I am very happy to be educated. However, as things stand, I simply see no good justification for the label of "unconstructive" whatsoever.

Thank you.

Aerenius

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Black Mirror episodes

Hi Alex! In response to this edit, I'm wondering where exactly the colours are taken from in the case of Black Mirror. As far as I know, there aren't any DVDs for Bandersnatch or series 5. I wasn't aware of that part of MOS:TV before, so thanks for pointing me to it, but it's not got quite as strong wording as you maybe implied: Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons. My suggestion was based on the logo and on other reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, glad to help! That's why I mentioned promotional art covers as well. So in the case of Black Mirror, we've used the poster for Bandersnatch, and as for Series 5 (for which there's no individual poster), clearly Smithereen's poster was chosen for colour variation. MOS:TV also states that [o]nce established, colors that meet that guideline should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion. Hope that helps. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it does. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fugitive of the Judoon

Hi Alex 21, I was thinking of creating two new categories Category:Television episodes set in Gloucester and Category:Television episodes set in Gloucestershire and i was wondering if i could put your Fugitive of the Judoon article in the first category when it will be completed since i have had the Gloucestershire one in my categories to be created section since last May. If that is okay, let me know. D Eaketts (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@D Eaketts: I don't personally know the different behind them, as I'm from Australia, but if you think that's best, go for it! -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Thanks Alex, There isn't much of a difference between them but i will be creating the Gloucester one for your article and putting that category within the Gloucestershire one. D Eaketts (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Spyfall continuity

Hi Alex 21,

I do not understand why Gallifrey and Jodrell Bank have been removed. Gallifrey is not “trainspotting” it is clearly continuity. Gallifrey is an overhanging arc that deserves a mention on continuity every time it is seen.

Jodrell Bank was put in to Spyfall purely for CONTINUITY purposes. What else could you possibly think it is? Panda815 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Panda815, I have responded on the article's talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Panda815, are you are all related to the account Panda619? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, No just sheer coincidence!! Panda815 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, nope lol Panda619 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Anchors for duplicate episode numbering on page

I'm thinking of adding a parameter to Module:Episode list |anchor=<id of choice> so we can handle anchors for duplicate episode numbering on the same page. I was thinking at first of just making it a Boolean, say |special=, but then on pages like List of Heroes episodes you have 7 episode 1s. What do you think? Have an alternative idea? --Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, could we add a parameter to {{Episode table}}, such as |anchor=GoingPostal (for the first Heroes example), and then Module:Episode table automatically changes (before line 165) all occurrences of id="ep#" in the |episodes= parameter to id="epGoingPostal#"? By the time the |episodes= parameter reaches {{Episode table}}, it will be HTML and able to be modified directly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Update; it works. See my recents edits to Module:Episode table/sandbox and User:Alex 21/sandbox. The only downside is that it would require articles to use both the {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} templates, instead of just the latter as it wouldn't work without the former, which is just a matter of emptying User:Alex 21/sandbox/Episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Great idea and very simple. Looking at the output seems to work great "id="epGoingPostal1". Doesn't seem to break anything when there is no episode number field. Think it can go live. --Gonnym (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, done! I've updated the documentation for both templates as well. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Afterthought - might anchorep# be better than epanchor#? So "GoingPostalep1 instead of epGoingPostal1". I think it would be easier to read this way. --Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym,  Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Viewing figures

Hi Alex 21 I looked at the main page for 2005-2020 Doctor Who and your username came up so I assume you're the one to talk to. The final consolidated viewing figures for Spyfall are out. They're 6.7 million. It has been out for 2 days now and I wondered when it would be added to the page. There's alot of people saying the 4 million it got live is the final weekly figure and adding this consolidated figure to the page where it now says TBD would fix alot of confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.121.90 (talk)

Bet to wait for the official BARB release tomorrow; the only source we have at the moment is a Twitter account that hasn't posted the exact ratings (is it exactly 6.70? 6.71 but they've rounded off?). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See? The official ratings were 6.89m (for Part 1). The 6.7m (or rather, 6.699m) was the television-only ratings. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Messiah (American TV series)

I noticed you added {{plot}} tags to my episode summaries there. I did my best to write them within the target number of words but found some events too important to leave out if the aim is to create a coherent summary that can be read from beginning to end and not a blurb. I have no plans to rewrite them or to shorten them, but don't mind if you or anyone else takes a crack at it. Personally I don't think they're that long, but you're technically right and that's what wins here. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, I haven't watched the series, so I'm not able to trim them. Per MOS:TV, the summaries are over 200 words, and there are shows out there that have 90-minute episodes with plots within the limit, so I'm sure someone will be able to trim them appropriately. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who RT ratings for S11

Regarding this edit, if you look closely episode 9 "It Takes You Away" has reviews for "The Witchfinders" (Pajiba: "The witchhunt was scary, but the witchfinders stayed ridiculous. Malevolent yes, but ridiculously so."), because some staff from RT added another episode titled "Demons of the Punjab" and now the episode titles are mixed up. It Takes You Away is completely removed from the site. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian James, wow. They've really screwed the listings up for DW11, haven't they? My bad, you were right, thanks for restoring it! -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who promotional images

FYI, I have official press access to Doctor Who promotional images. So if you need help with drafts for future episode articles, I can help at least with that part. --Afong10 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

War Of The Worlds

Hi Alex, I hope you are doing well!

I work at the FOX channel in London and, as we are approaching the air date of War of the Worlds in the UK (March 05, 2020), we need to update some information on its Wikipedia page. I noticed you reverted a few edits I made yesterday, will it be possible to approve them?

I am happy to provide more details about the show as well.

Feel free to reach me anytime, thanks! Andre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtvuk (talk • contribs)

You work with Fox? Then you need to read WP:COI. The edits I reverted were edits that removed the initial airdate and added unsourced content; this is not tolerated on Wikipedia. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Why?

I do hope that I will also get other reactions to my edits... Anyway, the answer to your question seems obvious to me: because there is just not that much discussion going on on that talk page. There were only ten topics discussed in the past year, most of them contain only one or two posts. Under these circumstances, it seemed to me that the archiving could be a lot less aggressive. KarlFrei (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Song (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Batwoman

Just inviting you to participate in the RFC at Talk:Batwoman_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment about listing the monitor as a main character or a guest. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Witcher's plot

Hi there, Alex. Thank you for your edit summary. But still there isn't information on how the plot works like in similar artcles like Stranger Things etc., at least in the lead. So I added a basic description on what the plot is centered stated since the first chapter and that will lead all characters adventures. Best regards.Miaow

Issues

WP:OWN is there for you. I reverted your "very", and instead of following WP:BRD, you reverted other editors and told them to discuss. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Also watch out for 3RR. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 13:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian James, point me to where I violated 3RR. I guarantee you cannot. And in fact, I reverted your removal of "very", so it's up to you to discuss. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian James, also, what's your issue with how I modified your RT entry? Am I not allowed to change what you've put into the article? Read the first five words of your original post here... -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That editor was mistaken that's why I removed their message and they reverted to my edit. If you are gonna show the past, do it right. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 15:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Stranger Things 4

Hello! Production for ST4 has officially begun so I kindly ask that you move the draft into the mainspace. Thank you. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Opacity

Hi Alex 21, I've answered to your question at [1]. --Birger Fricke (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 1

Because the releases are relevant to series 1 they should be included. From an encyclopedic point, they're just as important as the already listed home media — Preceding unsigned comment added by DMT biscuit (talk • contribs)

@DMT biscuit: As I said: Any new info should be added to the correct table at List of Doctor Who home video releases. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

8 out of 10 Cats

Hi Alex 21. I hope that you are well.

Sorry for this weirdness. I just wanted to explain what I meant by my reversion edits. I have been editing here for a while around the same time as when 8 out of 10 Cats began. (2005-2006) At the time, the episodes were recording at least a day before broadcast when Sean Lock was a regular panelist. Only a few episodes were pretaped and broadcast later. I believe that is when that paragraph was put in, during the time that the episodes were taped every week. So, that paragraph fit the pattern. However, over the years with the change in team Captains and networks, the show has changed taping schedules and the format has changed and has become less topical. Unfortunately, the only proof that I can currently see is in the episodes themselves as most likely, the time that paragraph was originally conceived was during the first few years of the programme. (comparing the episodes from the first few series and the ones that are being made now.) When Launchballer said that he didn't think that statement was not true, it made me think that they had never seen the older series from 2005 to maybe 2012. Maybe it's in the wrong place but I just wanted to let you know that the statement was true. Btw, what does "Transclude" mean as you mentioned below in a previous edit? Thanks.160.32.214.75 (talk) 01:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC) Samusek2

Do you have a source for any of that? If there's no source, it cannot be included. Also see WP:TRANSCLUDE. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:29, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well, I have found this article. https://www.realitytitbit.com/channel-4/how-does-8-out-of-10-cats-work-where-is-the-quiz-show-filmed-and-is-it-scripted/amp?espv=1 I also found an article from Digital Spy that discusses about one incidence of Cats Taping the day before airing. It was when Carr was being cited for tax evasion. It was talking about the filming the night before and stated that the programme would air that night. Does that help? https://www.digitalspy.com/tv/a388987/jimmy-carr-mocked-on-8-out-of-10-cats-over-tax-avoidance-scheme/ 160.32.214.75 (talk) 02:36, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

MOS:TVCAST discussion

Hi, you might be interested in this discussion.--TheVampire (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Victoria (British TV series)

Hello Alex21. I noticed you reverted my edit - as well as those of two other editors in the past - with the statement that if nothing has been announced about the status of the show then it should not be added. I have to disagree with you as it's sometimes better to use as RS that states that renewal or cancellation is uncertain rather than just leave it open. In the case of Titanic II (granted a proposed ship is not a TV show!) this project has been postponed with no construction started and nothing has been announced. However the editorial consensus is use an industry list of ships on order but mention that Titanic II isn't on that list. In the case of Victoria, there are RSs which mention that the show is on hiatus. Town & Country is a respected publication that uses fact checking and editorial oversight. Blue Riband► 04:34, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, it's not a TV show, so we cannot use it as an example. The consensus of MOS:TV/WP:TV is to only add update information when there is definitive news on either a cancellation or renewal, otherwise it's just us stating the obvious. If you disagree, I recommend that you take it up at WT:TV. Cheers! -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

No problem. I wasn't aware that there was a TV project group as it's not an area that I usually edit. I'll leave the topic alone and let it be handled by those with more expertise in this area. Toodeloo. Blue Riband► 13:45, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

John Mulaney & the Sack Lunch Bunch cast listing

I don’t know about you, but I think it looks awkward to have the big titling in the middle of the list followed by two of the names and then the rest of the kids off in the next column. Got any suggestions — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duroq145 (talk • contribs)

@Duroq145: I've never edited the article before, so I'm not sure why you came to me, but I've adjusted the cast list. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:45, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

I came to you as a generally experienced editor who seemed to be someone who would know the right formatting--Duroq145 (talk) 06:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey, I just left a comment on Talk:List_of_Steven_Universe_episodes regarding AJD's 3O request. MiasmaEternal^TALK 04:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Amaury

Amaury clearly learned nothing from the ANI report [2]. Baselessly claims that I have a habit of intentionally riling up users, and implying that it's somehow my fault that he made a personal attack. Unfortunately, that by itself is unlikely to be enough to get a different result at ANI. However, it can definitely be something that can be used as supporting evidence if/when he does something worse. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 18:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

JDDJS, unfortunate. I want to say that I expected better of him, but I've dealt with him for the past three, four years, so. Definitely save it, though; it will come in useful for his (inevitable) return to ANI. I've also given my !vote to your RFC. All the best. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Its good to see someone calling Amaury out on his behaviour. He reverts everything, even the most obvious improvements to 'his' articles , edit wars then games 3RR by summoning IJBall and Geraldo Perez to make the final revert ( two otherwise decent editors). It fossilises some shockingly poor content. He never discusses, though he's very fond of throwing WP:BRD into the edit summary like it's a free pass for his bullshit. Hopefully oneday someone will sort it out. He's a problem.2001:8F8:1F35:CF90:2:4:186F:88EF (talk) 15:57, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

The Flash (2014)

Just saw your comment regarding my edit. I was trying to revert the article back to before the new characters for season seven were added, but I can't seem to get it to work. Eightsixofakina (talk) 22:55, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Eightsixofakina, just edit the article and use hidden comments. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The Timeless Children

Please see my discussion window on the talk page for “The Timeless Children”. Panda815 (talk) 21:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

"Dracula (upcoming TV miniseries)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dracula (upcoming TV miniseries). Since you had some involvement with the Dracula (upcoming TV miniseries) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Steel1943 (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

The End of Time vs. "The End of Time"

Forgive me if I'm misreading the edit histories, but it looks like you changed a lot of infoboxes at least to put The End of Time in quotation marks. My understanding is that as the name for a story that covers multiple parts, it would fit the criteria for italics—in which it was unique until Spyfall. My main question for you is just regarding the link to a talk page you left in the edit history, as the page it leads to didn't answer the question for me, and I'm curious if there was a discussion about these titles. Could you let me know? Thanks! Andrei Iosifovich (talk) 20:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Andrei Iosifovich, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 32#"The End of Time" -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 7)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 7) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 10:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 7)

The article Doctor Who (series 7) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the 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 7) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 21:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, thanks Adam! I've already gotten a start on your points. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Alex Parrish

Hey Alex! Did you finish the show? Can you add the season 3 arc of the character in its article? I'm thinking for its FA nomination but I have not seen the show after season 1. So I don't know the arc. Would you help? I would appreciate your gesture.Krish | Talk To Me 15:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Krish!, I have seen it, yes, but that was over a year ago; the season itself was about two years ago. I can't remember what happened. If you're wanting to nominate it to FA, then you need to know as much about the article's content as possible - best to start watching! -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 7)

The article Doctor Who (series 7) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 7) 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 nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Small error with Television season ratings template

Hey Alex, Would you mind having a look at the error being produced at American Horror Story#Ratings when {{N/A}} is entered in the Viewership rank, Avg. viewers, 18–49 rank, and Avg. 18–49 rating columns of the Television season ratings template. There's no error when it is used in any of the other columns. - Brojam (talk) 00:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Brojam, I've taken a look at it, and unfortunately, there's no way to use {{N/A}} in those final four columns, solely because of the way that the rows have to be coded for rowspans. I've fixed the issue with a different template, though. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

Hi Alex 21! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Crown (season 4)

Hello, Alex 21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Crown".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! JMHamo (talk) 08:20, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

As I remember it

You've done an edit or two on the topic of TV. If you have an opinion on this discussion, please share: Talk:Diriliş:_Ertuğrul#Controversial_statements The article in general could use more eyes too. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

The Haunting of Hill House

Hey, I see the issue that you are having at this article and don't want to step into anything or get involved in other people's business, but if there is an appropriate place for me to add my voice to the discussion then I would express support for your version of the article, which seems like the obvious place to take the pages to me. - adamstom97 (talk) 06:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Hey Adam, thanks for the support. If the other editor decides to discuss civilly, or it's taken to a wider venue, I'll be sure to let you know. I tried to explain that my split was because it makes no sense to have a parent article then a second season article, but to no avail. Hopefully we can get this all figured out, given the article's messy restored state while the split articles exist. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Adamstom.97, hey again. The discussion has moved to a move civil manner, without the drama, after the inclusion of another editor, if you wanted to drop by. Thanks again. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Image renaming

Hello, I apologize for singling you out, but you are the first user on the list of File Movers with recent contributions (the rest last edited months or even years ago).

May I draw your attention to the page Wikipedia files requiring renaming?

I am aware that the oldest listed file on the page is barely two weeks old. This is not to seek an immediate response, but an attempt notify an editor with File Mover rights. Thank you. Seloloving (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seloloving, I'd be glad to help! I'll take a look over the category and see what I can do. Thanks! -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Seloloving, all files cleared! I might take a look at emptying CAT:SHADOW, as well, when I've got an hour or so free. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:30, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much, I appreciate it immensely. Seloloving (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Looney Tunes Cartoons

Hi, I hope it's ok to post this here, but this user, Evelynkwapong539 has been really rude in their tone to people adjusting their edits on pages related to Looney Tunes Cartoons. I just want them to realize that other users just want to help, but keeps edit-warring with people without listening. I just wanted to get this out here, Thanks. (Noelephant (talk) 03:14, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Haunting of Hill House (season 1).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Haunting of Hill House (season 1).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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!

Changes to the Adventure Time: Distant Lands table

Thanks for changing it back. I honestly only made those changes because I couldn't get the old code to work. I may beef up those descriptions though.--Historyday01 (talk) 00:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Historyday01, no worries! Go for it. I only reverted back to the last stable version because the changes were messing with the transclusion at List of Adventure Time episodes. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Whenever the eps actually drop, I may end up adding a little more. Its an exciting time to be an Adventure Time fan!--Historyday01 (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Questions regarding changes to Big Finish List pages

Hi Alex, you left a message on my talk page saying that the edits I made to the Big Finish List pages were not constructive and were therefore reverted. I don't deny that I may have done something wrong, as I am new to contributing to Wikipedia, but I want to establish that the intention of my edits was in good faith. I also hoped you could clarify the specifics of why my edits weren't considered constructive and what I can do in the future to ensure that any edits I make are made with the approval of the community. Belegityt (talk) 15:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Glad to help.

The reason I reverted your edits was because of the introduction/moving of separate spinoffs series into the specials table. We don't necessarily have to categorize each series under what Big Finish categorize's them. For example, we don't have a "Fifth Doctor Collection" section, or similar, but as for the "The Worlds of Doctor Who - Special Releases" section, they may be special releases as far as who is involved or the character's, or that they were a single-season release, but that's it. They are still separate spinoff series, hence their listing as separate series, and the edit also removed them from the article titled "List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish". An edit like this separates those releases that are multi-season; for example, The Churchill Years's two seasons are no longer grouped together.

The specials that do reside in the table are singular releases outside of the regular schedule, typically to mark some special event; The Light at the End for the 50th anniversary, The Eighth of March for that specific date, Time Lord Victorious is a special event across multiple media, etc. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Alright, I think we may have to agree to disagree on that front. I still think that the way I did it was more accurate and looked nicer, and that categorizing releases not necessarily the exact same way, but similarly to Big Finish is important and should be considered "better", but I accept that you're the authority on it. Just a few more small questions: what distinguishes "bonus releases" from "specials"? It seems like an unnecessary distinction, as a lot of the "bonus releases" don't share much in common. Also, why are the "bonus releases" numbered with roman numerals, except for The Maltese Penguin? I haven't seen any other source that distinguishes them this way and it seems rather convoluted and nonsensical. Also, is there a better place to discuss this than your talk page? Like I previously said, I'm very new to Wikipedia contribution and don't exactly know the best way to do these things. Thanks for your help! Belegityt (talk) 01:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not the authority on it at all, but this is the way that the articles have been since their creation and there's never been an issue with it, especially with the grouping together of each series.

Bonus Releases were were stories created for and released (initially) solely to subscribers, very much like the release of the Subscriber Short Trips range. The Roman numerals are included because that's how they were initially numbered upon release, and "The Maltese Penguin" is numbered 33+1⁄2 because it was released between #33 and #34 in the 2002 main range, and, again, that's how the story was initially numbered upon release.

I'm happy to discuss this here now that it's been started here, but you're also welcome to discuss it on the talk pages on either of the Big Finish audio plays articles; you'll see the "Talk" tab on the upper left of the article. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help, Alex! I'll keep the discussion going on the articles' talk pages. Belegityt (talk) 01:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Series overview and HTML code

Hey Alex. Is there a way to adjust the coding one has to do at Adventure into Fear (planned franchise) or the other MCU series article with {{Series overview}} to avoid needing </table> at the end? A user tagged the AiF article with a clean up HTML notice, and the only way to do that (and the other articles) would be changes to the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Fixed it with a bit of a rough edit, but hope that helps getting the HTML out of the article. It still needs the separate tag, as <section> tags don't work inside templates (i.e. the {{Series overview}} template), so having a template should be better than having a HTML tag. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Per Category:Articles with HTML markup, I think the section tag is okay. It was just the table, which you fixed with the template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Warning of a post to an administrator's noticeboard regarding your actions

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Template_editor_privilege_abuse. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC) When are you going to be reverting yourself on the aesthetic edits that you should not have made before reaching consensus? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:34, 27 August 2020 (UTC) Thank you for posting here. No, I will not be reverting my edits. The AN report against my edits and revert was closed, with no requirement for me to revert my own revert and thus restore the previous version. My initial edits were made over three weeks ago to the opposition of only one editor, and since being restored five days later, no further opposition has been made evident, even with a discussion being present where any editor could participate and voice any disagreement. Reverting edits that have been live and accepted for the past three weeks would, in fact, be more disruptive to the project than keeping them, as constant reverts without a paramount reason can be detrimental. -- /Alex/21 00:50, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Alex 21, As you know, based on Wikipedia:Template Editor, you were to seek consensus before that edit and as you know from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive323#Template_editor_privilege_abuse "Alex was in the wrong for making a significantly noticeable visual change to a template to begin with." So will you revert yourself now as you know that it was an inappropriate edit to make in the first place? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC) @Swarm and Mdaniels5757: see above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:53, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Constantly repeating yourself will not change my response. As stated, there's no requirement for me to revert it (that's after the template talk discussion, the dispute proposal, and the administration close), and doing so would be more detrimental to the project than keeping it. Cheers. -- /Alex/21 09:45, 28 August 2020 (UTC) Alex 21, I disagree. Since you should not have made it in the first place (do you agree that is true?), in a spirit of collegiality, you should revert yourself. Otherwise, you are breaking policy and getting away with it because it's been several days. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:06, 29 August 2020 (UTC) I am now aware that the edit should not have been made in the first place. However, I am under no requirement to restore the previous version. Besides, a clear consensus is forming on how to update the parameter, and I may be only days aware from implementing this new version. Reverting edits that have been live and accepted for the past three weeks would be more disruptive to the project than keeping them, as constant reverts without a paramount reason can be detrimental, especially when I would be restoring the edit in possibly less than a day. -- /Alex/21 12:24, 29 August 2020 (UTC) Alex 21, What would be less disruptive is not breaking policies in the first place and restoring edits that had been perfectly fine for several moths. Which policies do you think you are allowed to break, Alex? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 29 August 2020 (UTC) TPECON is a guide, not a policy. Regardless, you're just repeating yourself now, and to no avail. Three discussions/proposals closed without any requirement for me to revert. I have explained my position; if you disagree, that's on you. If you're going to post here again, it will be with something you haven't said before, else it will be instantly reverted as soon as I'm next online. Else, I'll see you on the flip side after I make the agreed updates. -- /Alex/21 11:51, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

• Alex, first of all, in my assessment it's inappropriate to selectively delete a portion of a discussion pursuant to WP:TPNO, as it misrepresents the exchange that took place. You can remove or archive a discussion in its entirety, but deleting individual comments simply because you feel an editor is repeating themselves and you don't like that is not permitted under WP:TPO. Secondly, you're right, there was no requirement for you to self-revert, self-reversion is a gesture of good faith and it probably would have been appropriate here. Alex's steadfast refusal to self-revert and seek a consensus before pushing their edit forward is disappointing, though as a technicality he was not required to do so. Self-reversion is sometimes mandated in lieu of a block but it was not in this case. The closest concept we have to this is WP:STABLE. A disputed change can be procedurally reverted in conjunction with page protection, and this can be implemented by request. Neither a stable version or a page protection was requested and it was presumed to be unnecessary. Anyway, this is all trivial. As to the heart of the matter, you both appeared to agree to start a new discussion from scratch. It looks like such a discussion was held and there was no objection to the proposed change, aside from the procedural complaint that Alex should self-revert. So, I'm not sure where we're supposed to go from here. @Koavf: I appreciate your frustration but you're not even currently objecting to the content in the current discussion. Do you plan on doing so? If yes, you should start by forgetting about your procedural objections and entering the new discussion from a content dispute perspective. Lastly, you both need to understand that you can call TPECON whatever you want, it's the community-mandated usage requirements for the most restrictive user right on this project, and we will enforce them. We're not a bureaucracy and they can be ignored based on common sense and rational justification. That does not mean they can be ignored for any reason. They 100% will be enforced if they are violated without an exceedingly clear and obvious justification. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, I already stated my objection to how I think the template/module should work and that I think that "it's unstable to revert it after a couple of weeks" is a weak, bad faith argument after the template/module worked a different way for months. I don't have much to add to the substance of that discussion. I do have strong feelings on Alex's behavior, lack of collegiality, and the fact that he seems to have gotten away with breaking a policy because he got away with it. I don't see a lot of value in discussing that because he either learned his lesson and therefore won't do it again (not my assessment) or this is just one of those times when someone gets away with doing the wrong thing repeatedly and he may learn the lesson that this is acceptable behavior (my fear). By drawing out the discussion interminably, he's just made it an exhausting chore that I think everyone wants to be over, myself included. At the very least, he explicitly acknowledged that he shouldn't have made the initial edit or revert but still seems to think that a policy regarding advanced user rights is a guideline and that either policies or guidelines are okay to break because ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:41, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  @Koavf: I get it, but a third template editor was attempting to mediate the dispute and was basically suggesting that we start the discussion over with a clean slate and you both appeared to be open to that. Perhaps the lack of a general reversion to the pre-dispute version was a grave oversight. However here we are, all this time later, and nothing has changed from the very beginning of the dispute. If you wish to continue disputing the change, it probably needs to be an RfC. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:47, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, Which is appreciated. I would figure that a discussion on how to proceed would best start with how it was before the policy-breaking edit abusing advanced user rights. I'm also genuinely shocked that someone can harass another editor on WP:AN and everyone seems to think that deserves purely a verbal warning. But thanks for chiming in and the suggestion for an RfC: I won't pursue that because, again, it's turned into a tempest in a teapot. Again, nice of you to try to take an objective view and I appreciate your time. I'm thoroughly disappointed by someone getting away with repeated abuse of an advanced user right and repeated harassment but I'm not personally upset at you or Mdaniels. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Koavf, I collapsed the discussion here because I am tired of your repeated claims and continues lies of harassment and uncollaborativeness. You are done posting on my talk page per TPO effective immediately; Swarm, however, is more than welcome to respond to me here, as I will respond to them. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:06, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, thanks for the response. It may be inappropriate, but I warned the editor that if they repeated themselves to no avail, I would revert them. They continued to do so anyways. It's my talk page and not an official conduct discussion, so I will revert them if I feel the need to.

  The self-revert may have been appropriate. However, I believe it not to be; I would have had to re-revert the revert to make the updates, which have already been made. Continuously reverting would be an extremely disruptive move. As stated: Reverting edits that have been live and accepted for the past three weeks would, in fact, be more disruptive to the project than keeping them, as constant reverts without a paramount reason can be detrimental.

  I appreciate your frustration but you're not even currently objecting to the content in the current discussion. I'd go so far as to say that they refused to then continue in the discussion, only making one comment in regards to the content and not responding any further. It becomes evidently clear, then, they have no solid issue with the content.

  not my assessment Eh. I already said I was aware of my mistake, directly to them, but they refuse to acknowledge that. They don't want to be collaborative? Don't post on my talkpage. By drawing out the discussion interminably Is that not what the editor themselves is doing here, after I collapsed this discussion? Pot, kettle, black.

  someone can harass another editor on WP:AN Lies. Nothing more. Nothing to backup these egregious lies. What you experienced was WP:BOOMERANG - your behaviour was noted by your own report. Get used to it. someone getting away with repeated abuse of an advanced user right and repeated harassment Repeats. Lies. I can hear it echoing. We're done here, the entire situation, dispute and discussions are over. This is just drawing it out unnecessarily. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:14, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Pinging and harassment

Hi, just to clarify the situation with pinging, it's generally well accepted that continually pinging someone when they've asked you not to qualifies as harassment. This makes sense, since pinging is a personal thing intended to notify an editor. It serves no direct purpose to the community, other than which arises from ensuring editors are aware and able to participate in discussions. If you want to make sure who you are referring to is understood, you can simply refer to them by name without wikilinking it. In rare circumstances, wikilinking someone's name so people can more easily check their contributions (or whatever) and so it gets a little complicated (you could use the noping template or just leave it be). But such circumstances do not arise when the editor is already an active participant people can easily check just follow a link from their signature.

While editors have the ability to disable pings from certain editors and they may have their uses e.g. if an editor is frustrated with another but feels it's partly their fault so don't want to bring it up. But in general just like with similar tools with email and phone contact for example, it should not be necessary to use these tools. If editors respect each other, they should have the courtesy of not doing something they've been asked not to do when it mostly affects the editor it's directed at and is benefiting no one.

By the same token, it's generally accepted that editors can ask another editor to stay away from their talk page and this should be respected. Failure to abide by such a request, except for essential notifications would generally be considered harassment. However editors cannot escape scrutiny of their actions by forbidding someone from talking about them. So in the absence of interaction bans, an editor can talk about another editor's conduct in a suitable place, probably one of the ANs. Of course, if an editor keeps raising an editor's conduct and the community finds no major fault with said conduct, that is likely to be seen as disruptive and harassment and would generally lead to sanctions of some kind.

Discussion on generic (article, template etc) talk pages should focus on content the page is for. They aren't generally a place to discuss editor conduct. However some limited discussion may occur, especially when trying to understand the content issue or what the dispute is about. Excessive discussion of editor conduct is normally a problem, but whether the editor it concerns has asked for it to stop doesn't really matter much for that. But because it's complicated, it's a lot less of a clear red line than simple things like continuing to ping or posting on an editor's talk page when asked not to.

Also because two wrongs don't make a right, no matter what an editor has done wrong, there is no justification for harassing them e.g. by continuing to ping or post on their talk page when asked to stop. Even if the other editor is doing the exact same thing, the solution would be to bring it up at an appropriate noticeboard rather than to harass the editor in return to try and convince them to stop.

Nil Einne (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Killer Camp

Thanks a tonne for removing the US ratings from Killer Camp's series page. When I first created the page it didn't include any of it, but then Some Dude From North Carolina came in and added the US ratings column and ratings table in Reception. I reverted the edit once but they just added it back. I haven't been editing for very long...so I reckoned that maybe there is some Wiki policy that allows US ratiings to be added to British shows that I'm unaware off, so I let it slide. I also wasn't really interested in starting an edit war. But it always felt weird to see American viewership data for a British show. They've done the same thing for Fridge Wars. TheRedDomitor (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

TheRedDomitor, yeah, no worries. There's been the odd editor here and there who always liked to add US details to a non-US series, including dates, ratings, etc. I think it's specifically because they started airing reruns on The CW for a lot of series, but that doesn't mean US ratings should be added; a very related discussion is at Talk:Stargirl (TV series)#Viewers, where the consensus was to add broadcast ratings after being released through VOD, but only for that one series. I've done the same removals for Fridge Wars, cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:23, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

RfC

I labeled it because it took me five minutes to find it. Gleeanon409 (talk) 06:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, how so? The RFC is titled "RFC: What should the naming convention for television season articles be?". -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:27, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes, but only as a subsection of another title which makes no reference to an RfC. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409, I simply structured it the exact same as my previous RFC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/Archive 16#U.S./American in WikiProject Film/Television, which had no issues. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Title style question

I have another question but I'm posting it here so to not derail the RfC. How would a title like Big Brother 22 (American season) work in any of the new versions? I'm having a hard time figuring this out. --Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, why not just follow Big Brother (Australian season 12)? It's also known as "Big Brother 12", same as how Big Brother 12 (American season) is, but the article lists at the typical format, so it'd be moved to Big Brother (Australian TV series), season 12). Same concept? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:43, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Wish that was possible, but some reality series articles have shown that RS refer to the seasons as "X #", in this case "Big Brother 12" and not something like "The 12 season of Big Brother", which resulted in some reality articles with a disambiguation style like this. --Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, then I'd say keep it as it is. The title of the season is Big Brother 22, and we are disambiguation it from other seasons as an American season, hence it makes sense to disambiguate it thus. My issue with the current format of NCTV is that typically we disambiguate it as "Show (season #)", but that indicates that the season is titled "Show" and we're disambiguating it from other media entries titled the same; it's not. But in this case, the title of the article is the title of the season. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:30, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

"The Fugitive (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect The Fugitive (upcoming TV series). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 23#The Fugitive (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 20:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Skulduggery Pleasant series.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Skulduggery Pleasant series.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Burlesque film article titles

Hello, I saw that you renamed Burlesque (2010 American film) and Burlesque (2010 Australian film) to Burlesque (American film) and Burlesque (Australian film), respectively. I'm curious: wasn't the original style correct per WP:PRECISE and WP:PRIMARYFILM? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:55, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

No. Double disambiguation should not be used when it's not necessary. "2010" does nothing to disambiguate those articles from any other. Disambiguation should be as precise as possible. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:23, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The titles of the three Deltora Quest series (in Australia and North America respectively)

The titles "Deltora Quest 2: Shadowlands" and "Deltora Quest 3: Dragons of Deltora" are not correct. "Shadowlands" and "Dragons of Deltora" are, first of all, only used in North America. In Australia the books the three series were simply "Deltora Quest", "Deltora Quest 2", and "Deltora Quest" respectively. Secondly, "Shadowlands" and "Dragons of Deltora" were not subtitles in the North American releases but instead the main titles, with them not using "Deltora Quest" for those two series. And thirdly, the second series was "Deltora Shadowlands" and not simply "Shadowlands" in North America. --Luka1184 (talk) 17:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

(cont'd) Furthermore, Cavern of the Fear is officially Cavern of The Fear with "the" being capitalised. The title refers to a monster that's called "The Fear" and not "the Fear" in the text. Sometimes this title has been wrongly written as "Cavern of the Fear" with a lowercase "the" in official and legal texts by Scholastic, including inside Deltora Quest books themselves, but not on the book's own title page, Emily Rodda's website (she does not list books anymore, but used to have a book list there), or at the top of every page from that specific book in the Deltora Quest 2 bind-up released by Scholastic. --Luka1184 (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Luka1184, I listed them as such to save room in the navbox; listing the full titles stretches it beyond necessary. And "the" is correct per MOS:CT; Wikipedia has its on policies on capitlization, which we follow. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello my friend

Can you help me to edit a page title Draft:Batman: Death in the Family please. Blackknight1234567890 (talk) 10:43, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

I have no knowledge about the topic of the draft, sorry. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits/scripts

Firstly, thanks for your accessibility edit to an episode list I created recently. It’s nice to know there’s a script to help with that! I noticed that the newer tablecolour script creates an edit summary that links to the infoboxcolour page. — cBuckley (Talk • Contribs) 00:16, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Cbuckley, no worries, glad to help! I've actually made 13 scripts I've made, you can find them at User:Alex 21/Scripts, if any of them are something you need. Thanks for the heads up in regards to the link, I had no idea! That means it's been that way for over four years, my bad! -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:22, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Episode table question

Alex, do you know if someone has changed the {{Episode table}} code recently? It used to be that you could just add |total_width= to tables, and they would "fit" automatically to page widths (e.g. would fit with Infoboxes). But as of a couple of days ago, you now need to do |total_width=auto to get the same effect... I'm wondering if this change was intentional, and if so, why. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:31, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, yes, that was me, after the discussion at Template talk:Episode table#"total_width" issues. I could see if I can modify the code again so that |total_width= (i.e. including the parameter but setting it to blank) sets the table to an auto width, if that would help? -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:36, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

OK, yeah, that's interesting... But, yes, best-case scenario: "auto" would still work as "auto" (which I gather is what your recent change did(?)), but leaving the parameter blank would also default to "auto". Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:42, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

IJBall, all done! Test cases:

Not set (100%):

No.

Set to 70%:

No.

Blank:

No.

Auto:

No.

-- /Alex/₂₁ 02:50, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Yep, I just tested it an an article myself, and it's back to behaving the way it did before when you leave |total_width= blank. Thanks again! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD

Hi, I noticed that in your favorite TV shows page, you put Agents of SHIELD. The show is now over, so it should go with Agent Carter, in the Gone, but not forgotten section. Also, big fan of AoS and AC as well. If you ever just want to "fan-chat" about the show, leave me a message on my talk page, we can chat over Discord. PhilCoulson20 (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Splitting discussion for Template:Netflix original ended series

An article that been involved with (Template:Netflix original ended series) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (Netflix original ended series (2019+)). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. Terasail^[Talk] 11:27, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

As a frequent contributor to the Netflix original ended series navbox template I am informing you of a split proposal.

The Haunting (TV series)

Hi there. I believe that the draft article The Haunting (TV series) is ready to move into the mainspace. Bly Manor premieres very soon (few hours). Didn’t want to do it myself and wanted to clarify and make sure with another editor. Thanks. KaitoNkmra23 talk 00:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

KaitoNkmra23,  Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:07, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing upcoming episodes

Hey, sorry to bother you but I've noticed your knowledge about policies and convention in here, especially regarding the Television topic and was wondering if it's allowed to list, with reliable sources, titles, airdates and production staffs for upcoming episodes that have not yet been released because I'm having trouble with some user that claims that it is not. If it's allowed, what kind of convention or rule should I redirect them to prove it? They also claim that we should wait until the episodes aired on American platforms, even if it's about a Japanese anime. Many notable and reliable monthly anime Japanese magazines provide one month worth of episodes in advance, but only in the original language, so is it also allowed to use an unofficial provisionnal english title literaly translated from the Japanese one while waiting for the official english title from the licensed company? Because they usually do during the preview of the next episode. Thank you. Closesophy (talk) 03:14, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Closesophy, your contribution history shows no edits to any articles; where are you having this trouble, and on what account are you making these edits? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry but I never used an account on Wikipedia, I just use my public IP to edit, I just made this account to contact you so you know that it's me when responding because my IP keeps changing everytime. I have this problem with a few articles but it would be nice indeed if you can look by yourself for example on One Piece (season 20) which is one of them. This user doesn't seem to know that much about the source used here but on the other hand, he's not trying to understand it either and that's the problem most of the time since it's completely in Japanese, I've tried sourcing it as much as I can but it's not enough apparently, should I post a screenshot of the magazine? I don't think that would be okay since it's a paid magazine but I can if you need any details. Closesophy (talk) 05:21, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Closesophy, I would recommend posting the same question to WT:TV to get an answer from the community; I'm not overly knowledgeable in the area of anime. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

I see, I don't think it would make a difference whether it's an anime or not since even the Anime and Manga WikiProject doesn't have a guideline or poilices about it and instead redirect to the Television WikiProject, they even recently updated their modules and templates to fit with what is done in here, anyway, will do thanks. Closesophy (talk) 21:00, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks

I changed Superman & Lois (TV series), but forgot about Superman & Lois (TV Series)! Thanks for catching it. BilCat (talk) 04:41, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

BilCat, no worries! I just checked what articles linked to Supergirl (TV series) and updated any redirects; found three. Cheers! -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:42, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Your input at the Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse) GA review

Hello. Your input would be appreciated regarding some of the discussed review material for the GA review of Crisis on Infinite Earths (Arrowverse). I have also pinged you, so apologies for the second notice. The GA review can be found here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:01, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 8)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 8) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 11:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 8)

The article Doctor Who (series 8) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the 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 8) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 03:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Big Wolf on Campus episode list

Um, hello.

I really don't want to be a bother but I really don't know who I am suppose to talk to about this.

Recently I noticed the episode list for season 1 and season 2 of Big Wolf on Campus are missing.

I don't know how to fix it.

I hope you are keeping safe from the virus.

Have a good morning or afternoon

Kaybugg1 (talk) 09:02, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

The hope that is you Part 2

Can you provide any evidence that Ep 2 of Season 3 has this title because I cannot find any reliable sources to support this? Cameron Scott (talk) 12:25, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, I said in my edit summary: per the talk page, The Futon Critic. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Seems to be wrong - no other RS says this and no critic who has seen the first four episodes (and there are a few) support this. Cameron Scott (talk) 15:55, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, saying it "seems" to be wrong is a textbook WP:OR statement. TFC is and has always been considered a very reliable source. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:13, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

But the *weight* of reliable sources do not use it. So you have the TFC and everyone else. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:16, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Cameron Scott, TFC is considered a very reliable source at WP:TV and is used in over 6,000 articles. That's all I need. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:19, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

But it's wrong! CBS Access rolled out media previews last night - not a single one uses this title. It's just wrong. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:21, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank for you contributing to the discussion on the actual talk page. Good job. -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:30, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 8)

The article Doctor Who (series 8) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 8) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Footlessmouse -- Footlessmouse (talk) 05:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Wentworth Season 8.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Wentworth Season 8.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a 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 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Spyfall (Doctor Who)

Hello. Can I talk to you? I tried to edit the page about Spyfall to make some corrections and it seems like you reverted them. I understand there seems to be some rules about how to edit a page. So I wanted to know why could I not edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinejd (talk • contribs)

@Antoinejd: If you're saying that you're the logged-out IP who's edits I have recently reverted (note that editing while logged out while you own an account is highly frowned upon), I explained myself in my edits twice and pointed you to the note in the article that explains why. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:43, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Yes that was me. But I'm not sure I understood your explaination. I don't exactly know how editing wikipedia works. I didn't use this account in a long time. Almost forgot I had one. Anyways, the name of the episodes were the wrong ones. I just wanted to correct them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antoinejd (talk • contribs)

@Antoinejd: The note states: In the case of differing titles between in-episode titles and official episode listings, WP:TV has always deferred to the official episode listings by the series' original broadcast network (i.e. the BBC's website episode guide). -- /Alex/[User talk:Alex 21|₂₁]] 00:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: So it means the name of the article comes from the title on the BBC website, not from the title in the episode itself. That's weird!Antoinejd (talk) 01:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Antoinejd: Please indent and sign your posts correctly, I've told you how to on your user talk page. And not at all. Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (i.e. BBC episode guides) over primary sources (i.e. the episodes themselves). That's how Wikipedia has always run; you may disagree with it, but that's how it is. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Sorry, still learning how this works. And I don't disagree with it, I just said it was weird. Anyways, thank you for your explanation. And for your help. Antoinejd (talk) 01:05, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Big Finish Productions - The Eighth Doctor

Extended content

Hey Alex21. Whilst perusing The Eighth Adventures via BFP official webiste. It seems notable that they have incorporated Dark Eyes, Doom Coalition, Ravenous and Stranded all under the Banner of the eighth doctor adventures. Thought: Is it worth merging the pages Dark Eyes (audio drama series), Doom Coalition, Ravenous (audio drama series) and Stranded into The Eighth Doctor Adventures (audio drama series) page and make EDA more comprehensive? R2Mar (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC) R2Mar, I've actually been thinking the same thing recently. Big Finish reorganized their website last year, and I've wondered if it's worth updating. The Eighth Adventures is one of these, but they also now have ranges for other Doctors that don't have separate series. For example, The Fifth Adventures: "No Place Like Home" special, "Cuddlesome" from DWM, "Return to the Web Planet" from Bonus Releases, and The Fifth Doctor Box Set. They got rid of the Bonus Releases section, and heavily trimmed the Special Releases section, merging them into separate Doctor adventures releases. Six and Seven also have their own Adventure sections. -- /Alex/21 00:21, 9 September 2020 (UTC) R2Mar, just wanted to see if you saw my response? Especially now in regards to 10DA and Dalek Universe -- /Alex/21 13:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC) Alex 21 I still concur with the above. Things could be more concise. Especially with The Eighth Doctor. But how conise is concise? Where does should the line be drawn? Dalek Universe is more of a tricky point as its listed partly within The Fourth Doctor Adventures for the prologue and The Tenth Doctor thereafter. R2Mar (talk) 10:42, 17 September 2020 (UTC) R2Mar, yeah, that's why I reverted two splits of it (to 10DA and then on the parent BF article), since it really need to all be together. I can make a list of all the changes that would need doing, and see what we agree on. -- /Alex/21 11:05, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Alex 21 I believe that would be acceptable. R2Mar (talk) 12:59, 17 September 2020 (UTC) Alex 21 Have you given this subject any further thought? R2Mar (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2020 (UTC) R2Mar, almost got a complete list, sorry for the delay. Bear with me. -- /Alex/21 07:23, 3 October 2020 (UTC) Alex 21 Sounds good. There is a lot to go through. R2Mar (talk) 09:11, 4 October 2020 (UTC) Big Finish Productions updates R2Mar, I've started the updates at User:Alex 21/sandbox3. These are the updates I've found after going through Big Finish's website. (BR = Bonus Release, SP = Special Release, DWM = Doctor Who Magazine Release) Add to The Fourth Doctor Adventures: BR: Night of the Stormcrow Dalek Universe prologue Create and add to The Fifth Doctor Adventures: SP: No Place Like Home DWM: Cuddlesome BR: Return to the Web Planet SP: The Fifth Doctor Box Set (rename to The Fifth Doctor Adventures: Volume One) Wicked Sisters Create and add to The Sixth Doctor Adventures: SP: The Ratings War BR: The Maltese Penguin BR: Real Time BR: Her Final Flight BR: Cryptobiosis BR: Return of the Krotons BR: Trial of the Valeyard SP: The Sixth Doctor: The Last Adventure The Sixth Doctor and Peri: Volume One Create and add to The Seventh Doctor Adventures: SP: Last of the Titans BR: Return of the Daleks The Seventh Doctor: The New Adventures: Volume One Add to The Eighth Doctor Adventures: SP: Living Legend BR: An Earthly Child Dark Eyes Doom Coalition The Eighth Doctor: Time War Ravenous Stranded Add to Specials (rename to Special Releases): Excelis BR: Shada BR: The Four Doctors BR: The Five Companions DWM: The Veiled Leopard The Comic Strip Adaptations Add to The Tenth Doctor Adventures: Dalek Universe Results in completely removing: Bonus Releases Doctor Who Magazine Excelis Results in moving: Dark Eyes * Doom Coalition * The Eighth Doctor: The Time War * The Seventh Doctor: The New Adventures Ravenous * The Comic Strip Adaptations Stranded * The Sixth Doctor and Peri Wicked Sisters Dalek Universe ** Comments: * Merge Dark Eyes (audio drama series), Doom Coalition, The War Doctor (audio drama series)#The Eighth Doctor: The Time War and Ravenous (audio drama series) into article The Eighth Doctor Adventures (audio drama series) ** Merge into article Doctor Who: The Tenth Doctor Adventures Big Finish list the following changes as well, but these needs a debate. I think they should stick to where they are, as the first two are spin-off releases and the third has more than one volume: "Jago & Litefoot: Voyage to Venus" and "Jago & Litefoot: Voyage to the New World" to "The Sixth Doctor Adventures"? "UNIT: Dominion" to "The Seventh Doctor Adventures"? Classic Doctors, New Monsters to Special Releases?

Response

Alex 21 I have since updated Doctor Who: The Fourth Doctor Adventures and Doctor Who: The Tenth Doctor Adventures. I've created Doctor Who: The Fifth Doctor Adventures, Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures and Doctor Who: The Seventh Doctor Adventures although notability will need to be established for each new page. R2Mar (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

R2Mar The only major update left is to merge Dark Eyes (audio drama series), Doom Coalition, The War Doctor (audio drama series)#The Eighth Doctor: The Time War and Ravenous (audio drama series) into the Doctor Who: The Eighth Doctor Adventures article. Thoughts on the last three dotpoints above? -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:40, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 In process. R2Mar (talk) 11:42, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 Another editor moved T7DA to draft space R2Mar (talk) 12:07, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 I've completed moving all the information from Dark Eyes, Doom Coaltion etc. just need to sort out the redirect/merge R2Mar (talk) 12:12, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

R2Mar, great, thanks! Cast and all was copied across too? -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 JLF V2V and New World. Only listed in 6DA, Unit Dominion is key to Doctor Who as well. Classic Doctors should move to Special Releases. As for the cast lists there was an expansive Dark Eyes cast. I limited it down to the key roles. Compare and see what you think. R2Mar (talk) 12:18, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

R2Mar, looks good to me! Made a few formatting changes, and it looks like everything is transcluding to the main list properly. Still not sute about J&L though, as they're still entries to a spin-off and belong to another seires. And Classic Doctors, I'd agree with moving it, if there was only one volume, like how I moved Excelis. Given that there's two, it easily stands as its own series. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:29, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 The main point now specifically across the board Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh. Notability is going to need to be established. Any thoughts how we can cover this to meet WP:N

R2Mar Summaries for each of the episodes would be beneficial, as well as a "Development" section on how each special and series came to be, perhaps? -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:37, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 Thought where casting is becoming complex with the lead characters ie. Fourth and Eight in particular. Would it be worth tabulating rather than listing some of the cast to span the series. Something like this?

Actor/actress	Character	Appearances
		S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	S7	S8	S9	S10	S11	S12	S13
Tom Baker	The Doctor	Main
Louise Jameson	Leela	Main		Main				Main		Main			Main
Mary Tamm	Romana I		Main
Lalla Ward	Romana II					Main				Main
Jane Slavin	Ann Kelso								Main

R2Mar (talk) 13:46, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

R2Mar, yeah, that'd be completely fine! -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:47, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 are there any other table formats that could be used rather the above or is this the only option? R2Mar (talk) 14:09, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 Both T6DA and T7DA are getting flagged now mate. I don't know if you have any suggestions. Beginning to get concerned all this work may get deleted. R2Mar (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2020 (UTC)

R2Mar, they just need expanding with more sources and content, that's all. If they are deleted, then we just included the tables at the main list page, no biggie. And that's probably the best table, but for 8DA, you could split the table into two, like how we have it at List of Doctor Who cast members. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

While we're talking Big Finish, here's some details on how the spin-off releases are categorized. Not to say anything needs reorganizing, but just some notes.

• Series: Class, Counter-Measures, Cyberman, Dalek Empire, Gallifrey, I, Davros, Jago & Litefoot, Sarah Jane Smith, The Diary of River Song, The Lives of Captain Jack, The New Counter-Measures, The Paternoster Gang, The Robots, The War Master, UNIT, UNIT: The New Series,
• Special releases: "The Worlds of Doctor Who", "The Eighth of March", "Masterful", The Churchill Years, Tales from New Earth, Jenny: The Doctor's Daughter, Lady Christina, Missy, Rose Tyler: The Dimension Cannon, Donna Noble: Kidnapped!, Susan's War, Master!, The Lone Centurion
• Catergorized separately outside of Doctor Who and its spin-offs: Charlotte Pollard, Graceless, Vienna, Torchwood, Bernice Summerfield, Iris Wildthyme
• Catergorized as a Doctor Who release and not a spin-off: The New Adventures of Bernice Summerfield

-- /Alex/₂₁ 01:25, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 A quick note on your thoughts. With most ranges recieving tabulated cast lists. How do you feel an approach should be taken to Torchwood's overcomplicated cast structure? R2Mar (talk) 01:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

@R2Mar: How about this?

Actor	Character	Appearances
		Main Range						Specials			Torchwood One			The Story Continues
		S1	S2	S3	S4	S5	S6	Singular	SCJ	TSP	S1	S2	S3	S1	S2

It's definitely more complicated, since with 4DA and 8DA, we just add columns for new releases to the end, given that the previous releases have concluded, but here, we'll need to add new columns within the table. Definitely for S7 of the Main Range next year, possibly for further seasons of TWO and TSC, and if SCJ and TSP ever get a second season then we'll need to convert them to their own headers like TWO and TSC, outside of Specials. But for now, this would do nicely. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Alex 21 Well I tried but an anonymous user deemed it to overcomplicate things. R2Mar (talk) 20:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Cobra Kai Season 3

I might just be missing something so just asking since I don't deal with Netflix shows a lot - when Netflix states a premiere date do we automatically assume that all episodes release on that date? Just from everything I've read it says that it will premiere on Jan 8th not that all episodes will release on that date. I know Netflix has had other release schedules than releasing all at once. Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:22, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Sense8 Logo

You might want to know that I have updated the copyright status on one of your files (https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:Sense8_Title.png) from fair use to public domain. The title card depicted in the file is believed to be too simple for copyright protection in the United States (where Netflix, the original author of the file, is based). This decision was based on precedent found on Wikimedia Commons such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Looney_Tunes_Show_title_card.png, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minniesyoohoo01.jpg, and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legendary_Title_Card.png. Let me know if you have any questions.ShyAlpaca482 (talk) 12:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Looking ahead with Series overview

In my testing for transclusion options for the MCU TV table, I notice that for when we need to separately code What If season 2 (presumably on a Phase Five article), {{Series overview}} will not have the color show up in the row if we start with the season 2 parameters. See below for what I mean. Can that be fixed? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:16, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Series	Season	Episodes		Originally released			Head writer	Status
				First released	Last released	Network
What If...?	2	10		TBA	TBA	TBA	Pre-production

References

@Favre1fan93: Fixed! (The msising cell here is just the lack of a Network entry.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Great thanks! Is the issue fixed for all seasons that are not 1 as well (so say if we start with 3 or 4 and don't have the network)? And yeah, presumably there will be another series before What If season 2, and if not, we'll put the network in that row. :) - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:47, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, yep, should be! Before it was counting seasons from 1 to the number of rows included (which was also 1, so it couldn't even count to color2); now it counts from 1 to the highest numbered season (in this case 2, or 3 or 4 in a future case). -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Favre1fan93, while I've got you here, the Forbes referenced used for WandaVision's finale date also states "WandaVision’s six episodes will run through February 19, and we can expect The Falcon and the Winter Soldier (which was supposed to be the first MCU TV show out of the gate) in March". Can we use this to support a March 2021 date for TF&TWS? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Great about the template, thanks again! Forbes contributor articles are not considered reliable sources (Mendelson is a contributor) so it's a bit iffy as is using it for the WandaVision end date. Personally I'm not that concerned because ultimately the ref will not be there once the date comes and passes. As for FWS, because it's a Forbes contributor article, I would advise against using it at this time, unless another source confirms that speculation. I'm also not even sure where Mendelson is getting that as a release window. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:18, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thought I'd check on it before making any edits. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:23, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 9)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 9) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Custom label for Template:StoryTeleplay to avoid formatting errors

Please see this edit. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Jonesey95, my apologies, thanks for fixing the issues. I'll adjust my AWB find-replace rules to accomodate for those sorts of cases. -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:42, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 9)

Congrats dude! The article you were working on, Doctor Who (series 9), has passed the Good Article criteria, becoming a good article on November 23, 2020. Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this image of a cute cat. Enjoy! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 9)

The article Doctor Who (series 9) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 9) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:01, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:46, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Valhalla

I don't believe I have that button as I am using a mobile device. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think so. Can you explain your tag to me? At this point is it contrary to Wikipedia policy?, because it looks pretty good to me. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

I just checked. I definitely don't have that button. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Vikings season 6B release

Hi, Alex. I went to the official History website in Canada and discovered that Vikings season 6B will premiere on January 1, 2021, as can be read here. Since the series is Canadian, how should we deal with this broadcast date on the season six article? The Prime Video exclusive does not apply to Canada and is for the US and other countries including Ireland (the series is also Irish), so I am confused on what the primary date should be on the article. As an example, the third season of Victoria (British TV series) premiered on PBS in the US before airing on the original network ITV in the UK, and the table on the article shows the British dates only. Is Vikings a similar case? Also, Prime Video is not a commissioner of the series and Amazon bought the US exclusive (which is limited to a period of time that goes from Dec. 30 to March 30 as shown in the trailer) from MGM Television and not from History. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --TheVampire (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

TheVampire, good spot on the airdates for Victoria, as I was actually the editor that made the major details for the laying out for the dates in the overview and season tables. I assumed British only series, British dates only for the overview, but included the earlier dates in the table itself.

However, Vikings is similar to the above case but different as well, for several reasons. One, we can't have two airdate columns in Season 6B and only one airdate column for 6A, as they're the same table. Two, the fact is that the series is both Canadian and Irish, and Canada will be airing it weekly and Ireland having it release at once, so they need to be given equal weight. Given that the series is still Irish, the season and series will indeed conclude in Ireland on December 30, so that will be its definite conclusion date, but we can also make an inclusion in the episode table of both dates; e.g. December 30, 2020 (Ire.)<br />January 1, 2021 (Can.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was thinking, because History Canada is still an original network so those dates should be in the table, as well. We could put a note in the overview as we did for Victoria, but instead of putting the earlier dates we can put the History dates in the note and leave December 30 as the end date for the series. What shouldn't matter is that the series concludes on December 30 in the US as the show is not from the US but Irish/Canadian.--TheVampire (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, as the earlier dates are completely valid, however. Not due to any relation to the US, but to Ireland, because the season will be released and thus conclude in Ireland on December 30, 2020. So: December 30, 2020 for the infobox end date, for the overview table, and for the episode table; January 1, 2021-weekly dates for the episode table as well; and a note for the overview, detailing why we list December 30, 2020 (because that's the Irish date, we need not make any mention of the US) and add mention of the January 1, 2021-weekly dates for the Canadian airings.

Has a source actually reported the January 1, 2021 airdate on History yet? I know the website says it, but has a secondary source made mention of it? -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

here's one--TheVampire (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Perfect; I've added it and the date to both the parent and season articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

In the Blood audiobook

apparently can't post the screenshot link in the edit summary. Here it is

Also here is the direct link but I'm not sure if it will work for you

Etron81 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery

Could you take a look at the season pages that R2Mar is modifying with splitting the double episodes in two? 2001:470:1F2D:C:78EF:4AF3:28D2:17F7 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Marvel TV list - Guardians special and rowspans

I don't know if saw that the Guardians Holiday special moved up in the Disney+ table because it has a release window. With this change, and since it is a special, I don't think the infoA or infoB can be spanned, which would be great to do. I didn't think being a special would prevent the span parameters from working but I guess it does. Can you confirm this currently can't be done? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

All done, it works. Remember, the parameter should go [name][season], so just like [infoB][1S], we would use [infoBspan][1S] (as I've used in the Guardians entry) rather than [infoB][1S][span] (as was used in the Secret Invasion entry). -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Yup, I see how I messed that up. I though the [1S] was attached to [infoB]. Thanks for the assist! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Restored article

You removed the article on Pure, starting that it's non notable, however the episode has received multiple reviews and other coverage. This is by itself enough to pass either NFILM or NEPISODE, as it's been the focus of in-depth coverage. It's still in the small end of things but it can be further improved. If you think it truly fails notability guidelines, take it to AfD. --ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, I will expand it further but felt that it had enough to be moved live and that others may help expand in the meantime, as well as help with the summary. It should be improved, not deleted. Notability has been met. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

ReaderofthePack, you deliberately moved it back even though I explained why it was draftified? A very bad faith move on your part. Per WP:TV consensus, episode articles need more than a summary that's too long and two or three reviews, as it does not make the episode otherwise notable. There is no in-depth coverage of the episode, and the rest of the article is just a plot, that's in-universe content. Why do you believe that you are better than a consensus of a WikiProject? Is this the administrator priviledge I've heard about? -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

WP:NEPISODE simply states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It also states that stub articles are fine - this would qualify as a stub or start class article in my opinion, as there are reviews and other coverage from Bloody Disgusting, RogerEbert.com, Vulture, /Film, io9, The Verge, and The Daily Dot, enough to assert notability. I also don't see on WP:TV or NEPISODE where reviews and a plot invalidate the notability of an episode, particularly as this would be enough to pass GNG quite easily. There is mention of too little information, but the way it's written it looks like it's meant to cover articles where there is perhaps 1-2 or no sources and just a large plot section. Also, Wikipedia:Television article review process also recommends tagging articles before merging, redirecting, or other forms of deletion - you simply moved the article without any discussion, attempts to improve the article, or broach the subject on my talk page. This is not my exercising any fictional admin privilege, just that there should have been more attempts to improve the article and if you didn't wish to do it yourself, discussing it on the article or my talk page before moving it. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I will, however, bring this up at WP:TV. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Correct, it does say that. For this episode, there is not significant coverage. There are two or three reviews in the article, and that's it. You are welcome to search the discussion archives on the multitude of discussions on the topic; I myself have had to draftify/redirect several episode articles for popular shows only in the last few days for the exact same reason. GNG is a guideline, as is NEPISODE, and for a television-related article, a television-related guideline takes precedence.

Concerning "it's meant to cover articles where there is perhaps 1-2 or no sources and just a large plot section" - that's exactly what the Pure article is. A large plot section, and several sources on reception. "This is not my exercising any fictional admin privilege" Did you not delete the redirect twice so that you could move it back? That's admin privilege, as a regular editor would not have been able to do so. What you should have done is initiated discussion instead of move-warring over the article. Moving it to the draftspace was the attempt to improve it, so that it could be expanded on outside of the mainspace and not continue to create sub-part articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I could also argue that you should have initiated discussion rather than unilaterally decided that discussion was not needed before moving the article to the draftspace. I must also note that the move to have more than what was initially there is something that is still in development and is not yet an official guideline. It's still very much in discussion and seems to be fairly contentious as well. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Moved/draftified/redirected dozens of articles before with no issues, this one was no different, and editors who are happy to discuss have never used administrator rights (which are granted for administrative reasons) to advance their own movements. G6 clearly states that such deletion is for uncontroversial maintenance; if the article was moved, clearly it was not "uncontroversial". Do you realize this? -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I also wanted to keep the article history intact - I could have also just copy/pasted. The bottom line here from my perspective is that you moved an article that meets current notability guidelines, based on something that has yet to gain official consensus on the WikiProject and looks unlikely to do so any time soon. You did not bring up any discussion on the talk page of the article or my talk page, you moved it without discussion or attempts to improve the page on your own, something that honestly could have been fairly easily done. If you want me to do a histmerge so that the redirects are still there, that's fine. If you want me to remove my content and then do a cut/paste instead, that's fine. I do not view what I did as a violation since the article met notability guidelines as they currently stand and was easily improved. Any other discussion on whether or not the guidelines for episodes should be changed should be done on the TV WP talk page, but should not be used as official consensus before it's made official. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

"I could have also just copy/pasted"? No, you couldn't have. That violates Wikipedia policies, and you know that as an administrator. Are you aware that G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance or not? It's interesting how you refuse to answer this. Your actions are subject to higher scrutiny as an administrator than mine. I gave a reason for my move. You have not provided a reason for your adminstrative abuse and move-warring. Until you do so, or answer any of the questions presented to you, further excuses on my talk page will be reverted. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 2021. Happy editing, Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Happy Holidays! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 2021. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you Happy Holidays! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 2021. Happy editing, Starzoner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2021!

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 2021. Happy editing, adamstom97 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! adamstom97 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr Who Xmas fun

Hello A21. I stumbled on this delightful Dr Who parody. They know the show well. That is Petra Elliott and I spent some time looking at other songs she has sung and she is quite the sassy and bawdy entertainer. The question is have you ever met her at a convention or seen her perform? Enjoy :-) and best wishes for your 2021. MarnetteD|Talk 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

	Happy New Year!
	Hello Alex 21: Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unnecessary blisters. Starzoner (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)