User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2021

John Bishop

Blimey that was quick off the mark, mate - even the news source is only 4 mintues old! Romomusicfan (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Romomusicfan, had to get in quick, before IPs make any disruptive edits! There'll be a better source come out within the next day, but the sooner we can verify the information, the better. -- /Alex/₂₁ 20:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Dammit, I was just about to do the Series 13 article too! Oh well ...Romomusicfan (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

About [[Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Jack to move Finding Jack to this draft, but was copy-pasted over rather than moved.]]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Jack to move Finding Jack to this draft, but was copy-pasted over rather than moved.]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Draft:Finding Jack. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Trailblazer101, huh? I haven't copy-pasted anything. Are you wanting to move the article back to the draftspace but can't because it exists? If so, I can move it if required, but it seems to be going through an AFD right now. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm not sure why this auto message was sent to you. I put the article up for hist merge with its draft that had copied over content before that draft was reverted and it is currently awaiting deletion to make way for the move to draftspace. Looks like it was sent to you because you moved Finding Jack to draftspace before it was reverted, and I am trying to reverse it back to draftspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Phase Four critical response table

Hey, saw your edit converting the table I added, and your edit summary. Just wanted you to know my thought process with what I did hardcoding, was to eventually include the films in the same table, separated by rowspans saying "Films" and "Television series". The content also needs to be able to be transcluded, as that's how we get the film content to the list of films article, and what I wanted to set up at the TV list, but I could seem to do that with the given template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed so. I was hoping to convert it all to template and still have the same functionality (just like the series overviews, which can be transcluded separately), while being able to implement both films and television series, but apparently it's going to take a bit more work. For now, I've restored the raw-code table and see how we go.

Do you think you'd be able to sandbox up a film/television critical reception table for me to see how you'd intended to implement it? From there, I can convert it to the module code. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I can make something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what I'm envisioning. I've made a full table that I think should be used at the Phase Four article, and then the content that would need to be transcluded to the films list and the TV list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at User:Alex 21/sandbox and User:Alex 21/sandbox3. Sandbox 1 are the live tables as they'd exist at the articles (Phase 3 and 4 respectively), and Sandbox 3 is the transcluded formats, all in the form of templates. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

99% there I think! The TV series will not have CinemaScores (those are just for the films), so I think by looking at the flag parameters this is possible? Also I see the template is called "Television critical response". Given we're dealing with films and TV series, would a more neutral template name be better suited? Especially as mentioned, if we've got CinemaScore inclusion, TV series don't deal with that at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Mind of the Hodiac / BIG Finish

I've added this title under the specials of Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures. There is no such listing available with Big Finish yet, however, RTD announced it today while appearing on The One Show and a referential article has been placed with the reference.

If you disagree this is the wrong section of the page please change where necessary. For now, this seemed the most suitable place to include it. I've included RTD as the writer as well until more details emerge on whether its an adaptation or otherwise. R2Mar (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To prevent any further deletions or moves to draftspace. I have now added a history section to Doctor Who: The Fifth Doctor Adventures, Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures, and Doctor Who: The Seventh Doctor Adventures. If you feel this satisfies notability, the tag can be removed. R2Mar (talk)

Helping coding a table

Moved to Template talk:Timeline of release years § Helping coding a table

Template:Netflix original upcoming series

Hello, I noticed that you have removed Sonic Prime from the template for being a redlink a few times now. And while redlinks are normally avoided, WP:EXISTING states that articles that are very likley to be developed can be redlinked in navboxes. And with reliable sources such as: forbes stating that this series is coming in 2022, and a draft of the article being created. Linking here might be appropriate. Terasail^[✉] 11:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In EXISTING, it is further noted that [r]ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data[...], where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first. The result is far from incomplete, and while an article for the series is likely, there's no given timespan on when production is set to actually begin. If there was, I'd be more inclined to include it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Arrowverse

Hi. You left a reference error after your edit to Arrowverse. Could you take a look? --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 10)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 10) 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) 02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina Greatly appreciated! -- /Alex/₂₁ 03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A Court of Thorns and Roses

What is the point of reverting everything all the time? Genuinely speaking you really need to stop. ACOTAR is a five book series with around 700+ pages and three more books coming. Do you really think the series has only 5 characters? There are numerous characters in the series but I have literally only added the important ones. None of it is fancruft. What is not clicking? You are disrupting the page and not letting anyone update the page what is the problem? Before reverting pls have a conversation. Check through the edits. There is nothing disrupting the rules. It is merely getting annoying. There are summarised descriptions of only the important characters of this long series and character info is not sourced. You can get checked by someone who has read the series but pls stop disrupting. You also reverted the summary of the recently released book. Everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia. These are only updates based on the series, not opinions or theories. Thank you. Vucien (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Vucien, if you can see that the content has been reverted before and the page has been protected directly after removing the fancruft, for reasons of vandalism, disruptive editing and fancruft, by multiple administrators, then you are deliberately not paying attention. I never said the series has five characters, nor are five listed here, are you not able to count? I removed the constant addition of unsourced, trivial content. If you want to add such pointless content, might I direct you to the Fandom site, they're responsible for all your fan-ish needs, not Wikipedia. I've requested further protection for the page, and will once again revert once the protection is in place. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned this before but I will say it again, none of this is fancruft. A series has characters that need to be described a little. All the characters mentioned are important to the five book series [+ 3 more in the future]. These are 700+ page novels do you really think it will have only a few main characters? The latest books are spin offs with stories about other characters becoming the main ones. There are main villains for each one. Of course they will be mentioned. There are seven High Lords who are extremely crucial to the story. I don’t understand what’s not clicking. None of this is fancruft, it merely informative and is mentioning important characters to the whole series. Vucien (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also characters cannot be sourced. There are no articles describing characters and their highlights. How are you expecting sourcing for characters? You can ask somebody who has read the series to verify the info if you want. Vucien (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Vucien, if you can't source it, you can't add it. Is that really so hard to understand? Have you not read WP:V or WP:RS? Still not sure if you can count, where did you get five from? -- /Alex/₂₁ 08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 10)

Congrats dude! The article you were working on, Doctor Who (series 10), has passed the GA-criteria, becoming a good article on March 7, 2021. Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this interesting image of a dog. Enjoy! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 10)

The article Doctor Who (series 10) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 10) 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) 03:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 11)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 11) 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) 14:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 11)

Congrats dude! The article you were working on, Doctor Who (series 11), has passed the GA-criteria, becoming a good article on March 12, 2021. Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this interesting image of a frog. Enjoy! Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:53, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 11)

The article Doctor Who (series 11) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 11) 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) 02:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Reflections and Lies"

That is the name of the Eva McCulloch graphic novel which spans from mid-season 6 to the first three episodes of season 7 (sources: EW and this which contains a screenshot of Eric Wallace's tweet which is not visible to me). Which to use? --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Parse number

Template:Parse number has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFX^talk 11:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:The Walking Dead (TV series) episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:The Walking Dead (TV series) episode redirects to lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Attack on Titan

I removed the width on the parameters of the episode table for readability purposes, they are not optimals as the text is cut off making the lines longer when there is enough space on the width for them to be consistently on the same size. Custardbandlers (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Custardbandlers, please read the header at the top of my talk page: If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. However, to answer you here, setting column widths is standard practice for WP:TV, as it conforms the columns of the multiple episode tables at the primary episode listing article. Text wrapping in a cell does not affect readability. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

My bad, didn't see the header. What do you mean by standard practice? Is it a guideline which has a written notice that can be seen somewhere or just what you've personnaly saw be done most of the time on other articles? Because that's not what I'm seeing on other articles, here the seasons have different title format and listed staff in the parameters, making the columns irregular, that's the reason I believe they must have a different width for readability purposes. What if one of the parameter has to be removed? Which seems to be the case of the writer parameter for the last season as all the episodes so far have been written by the same artist, or what if an episode has 16 different directors listed which is sometimes the case for some animes, will there be an episode line with 16 rows while the others are on two? My version seems more conform than the current one in my opinion. Custardbandlers (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've been editing television articles for seven years, having edited thousands of articles across thousands of series; yes, it's standard practice that hundreds of editors conform to. Simply because you haven't seen it personally, does not make it invalid. Each episode having the same writer is not a basis for removing a column, it will remain thus even if the entire season has the same writer; I know of a series with the writer column even though every episode of the entire series has the same one writer. Can you provide an existing case for an episode with 16 different directors, or is that simply a ridiculous example? -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

That's the problem with these standard practice, they need to be referenced somewhere because I see plenty of them being contradictory. Anyway I did change the width but kept it the same on all the seasons if that's what must be done. Custardbandlers (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Do you have a guideline concerning episode tables and readability?

Now, setting the first two columns to 3% does literally nothing different to 5%, as the column already has to fit in the header column text (i.e. "No overall" or "No in season"), and thus the minimum width to do that is 5%. I'd recommend you fix this mistake. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

No I don't have a guideline and that's what I'm asking for or else there is a problem with standardisation. What do you mean by literally nothing different? The first two columns width have been reduced from the last revision as expected. If you're talking about the No. being splitted, that's how the template implemented it by default in the code source of the episode table template no matter the width used. Custardbandlers (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I explained what I mean. "season" and "overall" require at least 5% of the table width to be displayed, so again, visually, there is no difference between 3% and 5%, because the HTML automatically forces the cell to a minimum of 5%. Does that make sense now? Do you think we could set it to 0.1% and it would change? No, because the minimum is 5%. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Are they not correctly displayed as of right now? I see a difference of width between 3% and 5% when previewing the change. 3% seems to be the minimum if we don't bother with decimals while the default when letting blank is 5%, am I wrong? Custardbandlers (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No; as I see it, the lower-than-minimum widths are actually warping the rest of the table and making them not conform with each other. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

C. E. Webber

I noticed that not long ago you edited this page. I want to draw your attention to the use of Shannon Patrick Sullivan's website being used as a source, which I think you have removed from other Doctor Who related articles as not being reliable. Is that correct? Rodericksilly (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

As you have not responded, I'm going ahead and removing the source myself. Thanks. Rodericksilly (talk) 19:15, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Go for it, I have no qualms about it. (Sorry about the late response.) -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:46, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification for series overviews

Hi, I was hoping you could clear up for me whether or not to use a subheading for a series overview when adding it on a main page. It was my understanding that you just placed it between the Episodes, and Season 1 heading without one. The only info I could find was MOS:TVOVERVIEW. I interpret that as no subheading is required when the overview is on a main page, and a separate section heading is used when on a list of episodes page. But I've been reverted when removing subheadings, and had them added when I don't use them. So I'm just confused, as some pages have one and others don't. A lot of pages marked as good seem to NOT have them. Is this one of those things where it's up to the editor? Or is there a right way? Racheal Emilin (talk) 00:38, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Racheal Emilin, you are correct. As I stated in my revert, a series overview table is an overview of the entire Episodes section (hence series "overview"), meaning it should be at the top of the Episodes section without subsectioning it off. Episode tables are sectioned off, because Season 1 is separate from Season 2, but the table summarizes all the seasons. On a LoE page, being an "episodes" page, it summarizes the entire article, hence it having its own section, and being the very first section at that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:08, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I seen both with and without Series overview label as a subsection on the main articles including good television articles. I believe it is up to editors. Nothing on MOS:TVOVERVIEW explicitly said a subsection label for the Series overview is frown upon the main article without a List of episodes article nor any past discussions that said that. WP:OSE. — YoungForever^(talk) 01:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

OSE is completely irrelevant here, so I'm not sure why it was quoted basically as an add-on explain-all? This essay is not a standard reply that can be hurled against anyone you disagree with who has made a reference to how something is done somewhere else.

None of this changes the fact that a series overview summaries the entire episodes section and hence belongs at the extreme top of the section. For example, see how Arrowverse#Development doesn't have an opening subsection, because it all concerns the development, and there's only a new subsection when the development concerns a specific topic. In the same vein, we shouldn't use an opening subsection for a series overview, because it concerns all of the seasons/episodes, and there's only new subsections (i.e. season headers) when the episodes section concerns a specific season. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yet, there are still good television articles have both with and without Series overview label as a subsection on the main articles for those without List of episodes articles. So, OSE is relevant. — YoungForever^(talk) 16:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

YoungForever, can you give the guideline or policy that clearly states that content should be acceptable if it's in an article that's passed a GA review? I also clearly cited OSE and how it doesn't apply; don't just state "oh and OSE" as if it's a catch-all. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

On WP:GA, good article (GA) is an article that meets a core set of editorial standards, the good article criteria, passing through the good article nomination process successfully. They are well written, contain factually accurate and verifiable information, are broad in coverage, neutral in point of view, stable, and illustrated, where possible, by relevant images with suitable copyright licenses. — YoungForever^(talk) 22:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

YoungForever, yes, I know what a GA is. You failed to answer my question completely. Where is the guideline or policy that explicitly states "if it's in a GA article then it's acceptable in other articles"? -- /Alex/₂₁ 22:56, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

House of the Dragon

Just out of curiosity, are there any negative issues with adding line breaks? If this is just a style issue, I really must urge you to go back to the previous version.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 01:57, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

TriiipleThreat, is there any reason to include it? Why are they necessary at all? -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nevermind, I see here that they can cause accessibility concerns.—TriiipleThreat (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Marvel Cinematic Universe Good Article Reassessment

Marvel Cinematic Universe, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. --Whiteguru (talk) 04:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

"Draft:Untitled Walking Dead spin-off" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Untitled Walking Dead spin-off. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Draft:Untitled Walking Dead spin-off until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"Draft:Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Draft:Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 May 23#Draft:Untitled The Walking Dead spin-off until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Extant Season 1 DVD.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Extant Season 1 DVD.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) 17:19, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Extant Season 2 DVD.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Extant Season 2 DVD.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) 17:20, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Color template for List of Trolls: The Beat Goes On! episodes

I just want to point out that those randomly used colors make no sense. Rainbow colors fit the theme of trolls better so not arbitrary change there. And for the record there was no edit war, just an attempt to introduce a better color scheme. Have you any suggestions to improve the choice of colors? Deltasim (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Beebo Saves Christmas

Where do we add info for this upcoming TV special? Or is it better to create a draft? Kailash29792 (talk) 11:52, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Kailash29792, definitely a draft, but we could add a separate Specials section to List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes (as this is a different sort of special to "Crisis on Infinite Earths: Part Five"). -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Transclusion check

Hey Alex. I just made some edits to the Phase Four article to adjust what parts of the TV overview table are transcluded where at the TV list and the main MCU article. I was hoping you wouldn't mind looking over my edits to make sure I put the right "dontclose", brackets, and "end" templates, etc. because I can get confused by what needs to be done. I think I did it all correctly. As well, I noticed for the Guardians Holiday special, if I did "Series overview|Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four" it then made the series name not appear, so I ultimately didn't include that. Is that wrong? Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Hey Favre. Made a few tweaks, but all looks perfectly fine! (And honestly, it looks so much tidier now in the released/upcoming format than before).

Really strange about the specials entry; I'll take a look into that. All the "Series overview|Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four" code it used for is for the transclusion parameters. Take Marvel's ABC television series, for example, and how its overview uses |network_transclude=onlyinclude - that means it shows the network on the transcluded-to page, but not the original page (mimicking the behaviour of the onlyinclude tag). So, "Series overview|Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four" will only be needed for the special once it's released to toggle the Status column (not until 2022!), but it's still something for me to look into. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I restored the transclusion tags around infoC for WandaVision because while all the changes looked correct, "Released" wasn't appearing. Any thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Ohh, it looks like I accidentally got rid of |infoC=y in the first overview when implementing the "transclude" parameter, my bad. All fixed! -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:06, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

The Guardians Holiday special issue is also fixed! -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:15, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:30, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

"Untitled Game of Thrones prequel" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Untitled Game of Thrones prequel. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Untitled Game of Thrones prequel until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:16, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Sorry about the revert

Hey, I'm sorry about reverting the edit. I will try my best to not let it happen again. —Bukkit 20:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

LavaBukkit, all good! I was genuinely confused by it, given that it was removing unsourced material. I do see now that it was a semi-automated edit. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

Just wanted to say thank you chiming in at the Q Force RM. It can be quite exhausting to have to deal with a "wrongheaded" editor (stubborn mule, even?) all by yourself :) Lennart97 (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Could you ...

... kindly point me to the official wiki rule for this please? https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Template:Grishaverse&diff=1029119640&oldid=1027545775 (I think it's rather idiotic, but if it's official then that's that). 165.1.194.41 (talk) 15:44, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Yes. WP:NAVBOX. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:34, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. 165.1.194.41 (talk) 08:30, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Just so you know

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 08:13, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Uw-accessdate2

Template:Uw-accessdate2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Schierbecker (talk) 07:17, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Tips on editing

Hey there Alex i'm new to editing in the wikipedia world, got any tips i should have to avoid bad editing i guess? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue1601 (talk • contribs)

@Rogue1601: I've posted a welcome notice to your talk page at User talk:Rogue1601, which will include some helpful tips and links for you! Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:04, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Thank you for your message. I couldn't figure out how to leave a message for you on my own talk page, so here I am. I thought the plot summaries should be as comprehensive as possible, since presumably most people who come to read them, come for spoilers; that is indeed why I came to the page, and why I wanted to add to the summaries, as I felt they were missing a lot of plot points. However, I understand that Wikipedia has its own rules, and with a limit of 200 words, there is not much that can be added to the summaries. Still, shame. Thank you for the info.

--Amaybury (talk) 10:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Please move the page Draft:The Sound of Magic to The Sound of Magic

@Alex 21: hi, you moved the article The Sound of Magic to draft space with a redirect of main article, on the grounds that it has not begun filming. Here are 2 links which indicate that the Ji Chang-wook, the main lead of the series is presently filming the series, 1. "He (Ji Chang-wook) is expected to join after 'Anna Sumanara', which is currently being filmed.", 2. Ji Chang-wook is currently filming Netflix's 'Anna Sumanara'. Another link also indicates that Hwang In-youp the second lead is filming the series, "He (Hwang In-youp) is currently in the midst of filming the role of Nile-deung in the Netflix original series 'Anna Sumanara'". Please move the page to main space. Thanks. Rickyurs (talk) 06:50, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Now that filming having commenced is now included and sourced, I've moved the article back. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Mort Dinner Rick Andre

Hi, I've expanded Draft:Mort Dinner Rick Andre and would normally move it to mainspace, or request G6 of the redirect so it can be moved, but here there's a non-trivial page history (including copying from Mort Dinner Rick Andre to the draft in an edit of yours). I think the correct method here is a round robin swap of the two pages—is that right? And if so, I notice you're a page mover, so would you be able to carry this out? Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 20:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Bilorv,  Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:05, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 10:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who (2022 specials)

I went ahead and started Draft:Doctor Who (2022 specials), just thought I'd let you know since you're generally the main contributor to Doctor Who articles. I think it's pretty solid already. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho, brilliant! Thanks for that. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:22, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

On second thought, after reading over them both, that article actually meets WP:NTV (as well as the Wikipedia:Notability (television) that's currently being drafted). I know there's not a rush but, it has both a source that confirms episodes are filming as part of the thirteenth series, a confirmed start date of 1 January, and more than enough reliable sources. Since these conditions are met it could very well stand in the mainspace. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

You're definitely correct that it would meet NTV, but I still think it's too early, given that they've only been announced for a day, and filming information can be included in the Series 13 article for now. I'd say publish it once Series 13 is close to finishing, then we move all filming information across (even if it was filmed as part of S13, same as the 2008 and 2013 specials filming tables). -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:43, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorry for so many recent posts here, this one isn't regarding the specials itself and should hopefully be the last one for the time being, anyways not sure if you wanna do something with this or not [1]. I imagine someone at the BBC or on the production team had to contact Moffat if they intended to use the Weeping Angels since he originally created them for Blink. The actual Instagram post has since been edited after he realized it hadn't been previously announced, that's what the bit at the end in parenthesis is about, but since RT reported on it, it seems like solid information. TheDoctorWho (talk) 08:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho, revisiting this, I think it might be a good idea to move it, so we can separate the specials from Series 13, especially given recent news, confirming the director for one episode and that the first two specials have actually concluded filming. -- /Alex/₂₁ 02:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Hello A21. I hope your summer - oops I mean winter - is going well. Getta load of this website. I'm not O/C enough to have done all this research on my own but I'm glad that others are. Make sure to check out their info about Blake's 7 as well. Here is another one that I just stumbled across. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:58, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi again. This morning I found this gem. Must be nice to have the cash to indulge your hobby :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:30, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Please move the page Draft:Hellbound (TV series) to Hellbound (TV series)

@Alex 21: hi, you moved the article Hellbound (TV series) to draft space with a redirect of main article. Now the series is going to be premiered at 46th Toronto International Film Festival, to be held from September 9 to 18, 2021. Here are the links for verification: 1. Hellbound in Primetime section of TIFF, 2."Netflix's 'Hell' is the first Korean drama to be invited to the Toronto International Film Festival", 3. Director Yeon Sang-ho's 'Hell' officially invited to the Toronto International Film Festival in the prime time category. Another twitter link from Netflix also informs that the series is invited to TIFF, "Netflix series 'Hell' has been officially invited to the Primetime section of the 46th Toronto International Film Festival". Please move the page to main space. Thanks. Rickyurs (talk) 04:40, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Rickyurs,  Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:57, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Userscript for moving files

I noticed you move files manually and update the filenames in articles manually as well. As updating filenames is a drag I created LuckyRename some time ago, you may want to give it a try. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 12:35, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

your assistance

Hello! I'm a random person on Wikipedia. I'm asking you for assistance on a draft. I'm having trouble finding reliable sources, as well as confusion on what I should write. I was wondering if you could help. Draft here:Dark One.

Thanks! Heroisraelovishnuourlordoursavior (talk) 09:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Reply-link officially superseded by DiscussionTools

Hi! Reply-link has officially been superseded by mw:DiscussionTools, which you can install using the "Discussion tools" checkbox under Preferences → Beta features. DiscussionTools, developed by the WMF's Editing Team, is faster and has more features than reply-link, and it wouldn't make sense for me to keep developing reply-link. I think the Editing Team is doing amazing work, and look forward to what they can do in the future. Thank you for using reply-link over the years! Enterprisey (talk!) 06:11, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Brooklyn Nine-Nine episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:Brooklyn Nine-Nine episode redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:43, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 12)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 12) 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 [[User:{{subst:Dege31}}|{{subst:Dege31}}]] -- [[User:{{subst:Dege31}}|{{subst:Dege31}}]] ([[User talk:{{subst:Dege31}}|talk]]) 21:01, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Apologies

I'd like to apologize for this. It was completely uncalled for on my part. I'm not typically one to call people out for anything they did wrong (not that you did), but especially not preemptively. It's not an excuse but sometimes I get tired of pushing for things to go certain ways and eventually get to the point where it pushes me over the edge, which is where I felt this was eventually going. As I said over on that talk page, after looking at more sources there doesn't appear to be any uniform uses with every source referring to it differently, we could honestly go either way. Won't get too much further into that though as discussion regarding that should stay on the articles talk page. We may have had a few disagreements on how to handle certain things but most of the time we come to a mutual agreement and because of that we've never had a serious problem. Ideally things will stay that way. I hope you will accept my apology and I promise it will not ever happen again. TheDoctorWho (talk) 14:39, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 8

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited War of the Sontarans, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dan Starkey.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 12)

The article Doctor Who (series 12) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 12) 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 [[User:{{subst:Dege31}}|{{subst:Dege31}}]] -- [[User:{{subst:Dege31}}|{{subst:Dege31}}]] ([[User talk:{{subst:Dege31}}|talk]]) 17:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		For great efforts in bringing an entire series of articles to GA class and years of continued, solid work Dege31 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Much appreciated. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for help

Hi, I noticed that you are a template editor and that you're around. I tried to close WP:ANEW#User:Mcphurphy reported by User:Vice_regent (Result: Indefinitely blocked; article fully protected one week) with the templates Atop and Abot, but it closed only part of the thread. I'm assuming there is something in the rather complex formatting used by the editors that is preventing it from closing fully. Could you maybe take a look? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23  Done! There seemed to have been a conflict between {{atop}}/{{abottom}} and {{reflist}}/{{notelist}}, so I've moved the latter templates to the end of the section. -- /Alex/₂₁ 23:35, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

You're a prince! --Bbb23 (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:List of Batwoman episodes

Hello, Alex 21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:List of Batwoman episodes, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM

WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM —¿philoserf? (talk) 00:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

@Philoserf Haven't watched the episode, can't fix the problem. Don't remove tags if you don't intend to fix the problem yourself; WP:MTR may help educate you on how and when to remove these tags. Happy editing! -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Delinkiing

Why this? Isn't that against WP:REDYES? Vanjagenije (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagged with {{Redlinks}}. Restore them only where appropriate. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Songs of the season

		Holiday cheer
		Here is a snowman a gift a boar's head and something blue for your listening pleasure. Enjoy and have a wonderful 2022 A. MarnetteD|Talk 03:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2022!

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 2022. Happy editing, TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.