User talk:Drovethrughosts/Archive 5

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

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Recent edits to Hannibal (TV series)

Hello, and thank you for your recent contributions. I appreciate the effort you made for our project, but unfortunately I had to undo your edit(s) because I believe the article was better before you made that change. THe correct word here is indeed "subtly", not subtlety. Feel free to contact me directly if you have any questions. Thank you! hamiltonstone (talk) 10:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think it's incorrect, then use the proper method when dealing with direct quotes, which is [sic]. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Thexfiles.jpg

Since you originally uploaded File:Thexfiles.jpg I thought I'd let you know that another editor has uploaded a new version, which appears to be a derivative of the non-free title card. I've looked through all of the aired episodes and can't find the new version of the title card. The same editor has been replacing title cards with logos at several articles. I've fixed several but thought I'd get your thoughts on this file. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it was reverted back by another editor. I believe that new one that was uploaded was from the revamped season 9 opening credits, and obviously the classic title card used for all the previous seasons is much more significant and recognizable for main article use. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for updating the Bondage & Beta Male Sexuality page. Yay teamwork! Drywater2k (talk) 15:20, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

The Walking Dead

Thank you for helping to revert edits made by the user who keeps adding Idiotbox pages as references. If you have a chance to undo the most recent edit at Still (The Walking Dead), that would be much appreciated (another revert by me would violate the 3RR rule). Thank you. --Another Believer _(Talk) 20:44, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Done. Best idea would be to add some reviews (IGN, The A.V. Club, etc.) to fill out the section, so it's not empty and maybe that user won't get keep readding it. I'll try and do that tomorrow if I can. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Your revert has since been reverted. Methinks this user needs a warning issued by an admin. --Another Believer _(Talk) 23:26, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Both users have been blocked for three days. I anticipate more accusatory emails in my personal inbox. Thanks for your work on these articles. --Another Believer _(Talk) 18:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

No problem, happy to help. I'd like to see what those emails say, lol. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:48, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Community

Thanks for updating pages on Community. I'm having trouble using the picture of the "Old Timey Photo Club" due to lack of license: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Old_Timey_Photo_Club.jpg

I'm not sure how exactly to proceed since I don't have the license. Could you please help? Drywater2k (talk) 21:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

You can only upload to Wikipedia Commons if you have the license, or possibly if you are granted the license. You should upload images via here: Wikipedia:File Upload Wizard. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Plurals of proper names

I was going to just revert your edit to The Americans (2013 TV series), but I figured I'd discuss it with you first. Using an apostrophe to make a proper name plural is grammatically incorrect. I have not seen a reference that recommends anything other than "-es", e.g. "Joneses" (see [1][2]). There are sites that recommend optionally leaving off the -es for certain names ([3]), so "Jennings" would probably be acceptable in this case, but an apostrophe is definitely incorrect (except for possessives, which this is not, though it could be reworded to be). --Fru1tbat (talk) 14:51, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Anya Jenkins

Hi, I've just added a new information about Anya's returns. Can you copy edit it, please? Thanks.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 01:47, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

The Americans

Alex,

I notice that you have undone the changes that I have made to The Americans again. You do realise the paragraph I have deleted is duplicated in the next section (Development).

TwoNineFour — Preceding unsigned comment added by TwoNineFour (talk • contribs) 21:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. That's why it's best to explain your edits when removing large chunks of text. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:09, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

24: LAD poster

Saw it online the other day and thought about doing it. Thought maybe the 24 logo would be better, but this does look damn cool! — Wylie pedia 13:57, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Probably best to differentiate it from the original series, much like the season pages or Redemption, which uses the individual poster art. And yeah, it looks awesome! Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:36, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

List of The Walking Dead episodes

Hello! You did this. But don't you think it's clearer way to say it? As you can see in the article history, there have been many users who keep changing the date to 2014. It is confusing. --Cary (talk) 21:28, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I changed it because the the other way doesn't sound that good ("will be made" or the missing "it" after the date), nor do I think it makes it any clearer. I don't understand how it's not clear, and I'm continued to be baffled why anonymous editors keep changing it...how can something be renewed on a date that hasn't happened yet? I've never seen this problem anywhere else besides that page. Sadly, the more popular this series gets, the more it attracts undesirable anonymous editors... Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Terriers

Hi. Didn't realize that you had edited the episode summaries. I thought Wikipedia swallowed the space between paragraphs.

So, how do other series' episode summaries handle B- and C-plots? All as a single paragraph, or each plot in a separate para?

- Last Contrarian (talk) 18:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

It's no big deal, but usually plot summaries within episode lists don't use line breaks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

BSG Series

Apologies for reverting your edit. I caught the other edit in my notifications list and reverted on that without checking if any other edits were made subsequently. Apologies again. Canterbury Tail talk 02:01, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

April 2014

Please stop making test edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Party Down. It is considered vandalism, which, under Wikipedia policy, can lead to being blocked from editing. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. And please, always be sure to include the edit summary for your future edits on Wikipedia. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't send me boilerplate messages like this, it wasn't a "test" edit or "vandalism". If you want to open a dialog, please do it properly. "Deadpan" is inappropriate in an infobox as a genre (because it's not a genre, but a type of humor or delivery method of comedy). It's one person in a review stating it has deadpan humor, that doesn't override everything else. It's a comedy, you don't need to get an more in depth than that unless it's animated comedy, black comedy, comedy-drama, etc. (look here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I needed you to explain yourself and you did so this is a progress. I am not fond of users' tendency to go around canceling edits of their fellow users randomly without a single explanation provided since actions like that are unjustifiable and plain confusing. Imagine if all 21,181,438 Wikipedians or whatever the real number is also did that, does it seem normal to you? Anyhow, if deadpan is not a genre on its own as you claim (you can't use the Wikipedia itself to support your claim though but I'm just going to take your word for it) then it surely belongs in the format line with sitcom because it's a modifier and a mood-setter of the entire show like sitcom is. I insist on that deadpan part inclusion since The Suite Life of Zack & Cody is also a comedy and this can be a little confusing but Party Down does not seem to be categorically same or even remotely close, is it? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:47, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

May 2014 disambig contest: let's do it again!

Greetings fellow disambiguator! Remember back in February when we made history by clearing the board for the first time ever, for the monthly disambiguation contest? Let's do it again in May! I personally will be aiming to lead the board next month, but for anyone who thinks they can put in a better effort, I will give a $10 Amazon gift card to any editor who scores more disambiguation points in May. Also, I will be setting up a one-day contest later in the month, and will try to set up more prizes and other ways to make this a fun and productive month. Cheers! bd2412 T 18:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

24 Season 9

I have noticed that you keep on reverting my fixes to the 24 page referring to the new season of 24 as a new series instead of the 9th season. This can be very misleading since it is in fact a new season. I don't really want to continue this edit war but I'd like to see the page have the most accurate information possible. --Jimv1983 (talk) 09:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, but it's not officially referred to as "season 9". When Fox announced Live Another Day, they didn't say they renewed it for a ninth season, they said it's a "limited event television series", which is what we have to refer to it as well. Hope you understand. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:09, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Facebook as an EL

Talk:24: Live Another Day#Official Facebook external link, if you need something to read. — Wylie pedia 19:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

24 LAD Deletion

I noticed that you seem to have a problem with what I have updated about 24 LAD and spent a great deal of time creating for many Wikipedia users and 24 fans alike, to view and gain information on the main characters that will be on their screens throughout season 9 of 24.

To be honest, I would rather not start an editing war as that would be impolite and just a foolish waste of time. In my opinion it is better to have separate pages for each character so that users can gain a more extensive view on these characters' lives.

You may wonder why I cannot just leave it as part of the main page for 24 season 9, whereas I struggle to find your reasoning behind the issue of a separate page for each main character. The positives of creating a new page for each character means that there can be sub categories which can divide up certain aspects of these characters' lives. This means that other Wikipedia users can add in their own sections to the page if they ever account for more information about the characters. If you still don't agree with me I would like to stress the fact that this is the format that has been used by past Wikipedia users for 24 seasons 1-8 and I believe it is important to carry it on for season 9.

I would be very grateful if you could undo the edits you made to the pages I spent a great deal of time preparing for, planning out and creating for the 24: Live Another Day main characters, thankyou. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 21:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG 9th of May 2014

You have understand this isn't the 24 Wikia where on there it's okay to create an article for every character. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. The character must be notable and contain more than a character summary, please see WP:ALLPLOT. All the new character articles you created had nothing beyond a basic character description (which is already included in the Live Another Day article; let alone spelling mistakes, incorrect wikilinks, and I'm assuming a bad copy-paste job of incorrect Wikipedia categories that you applied to all the articles even though they're wrong). Any further character/plot information will be in the episode summaries in the main article, so the character articles will serve no purpose, especially if they are just plot reiteration, which is what Wikipedia is NOT. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:21, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for your response. The point I am trying to make is that this format for the 24:season 9 main character's is not the first time it has been acquired. I am asking if you could look up the previous 8 seasons of 24 and read their character articles. On these pages they too have separate pages for each character. I understand that the information about the characters on the pages I have created isn't hugely extensive. However you should understand that I am dealing with limited information as 24: season 9 is only two episodes in. I will be making alterations to the pages as the season progresses and other users will too. I hope you can understand my point and make an effort to look up the pages I have previously mentioned, as these are in the same format as the pages I am trying to create. I also hope you can understand my frustration at the fact that you deleted the articles I spent a great deal of time on and put a lot of effort into creating. I hope you can understand my point of view and I must stress that i do not want this to turn into an editing war. As i said my reasoning behind this, is the fact that it is a format that has been used for every other season and I would not make these alterations if I did not think it was a good idea.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 21:40, 9 May 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG 9th of May 2014

I didn't delete them, I redirected them per the fact there's no notability for them to have their own individual article. Please read WP:NOTPLOT to understand this properly. Also, please do not do what you did here, recreating Adrain Cross, purposely misspelled. Yes, I understand the previous season's format (trust me, I've been on Wikipedia a long time and have edited those articles extensively as well), but that's just how those articles were done at the time. We shouldn't just remove information and references for no reason. That information was added to the article over time as it expanded, and we shouldn't just delete it for conformity sake. I hope you understand. Everything I'm saying is basic Wikipedia guidelines, and I suggest understanding them before making further edits. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said previously I do not want an editing war to ensue so if you insist on having the articles laid out this way that is your right. As I do not wish to add anything more I will finish with this discussion. I never intended on anything like this happening. I saw the format for the previous seasons and noticed they were different to those of season 9. I thought I was making a positive contribution to the article and I was just a bit startled when I noticed that all my work had been deleted.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 22:05, 9 May 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG 9th of May 2014

Thanks!

Just wanted to take a second and say thanks for all the good work you do here on Wikipedia. I went looking for some things over on the Fargo page, and saw there had been a bit of a dustup there a while back about the story summaries and the allusions in the episode titles. Thanks for helping explain things to that editor, and for continuing to do great work on all the TV articles. They're a great resource. Thanks, and take care! 2607:FCC8:B886:7200:A010:11BF:B579:520A (talk) 23:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for the nice words. I appreciate it! Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Broken section redirects to List of Gilmore Girls episodes

Hello!

I was doing some wikignome work on Say Goodnight, Gracie when I found that I needed to repair the section redirect I found here. I found that the section redirect became broken due to your edit here. I would expect that all the other episodes now have broken section redirects, you might wish to look into that.

Hey, it's something to do on a rainy day, anyway. Cheers! Ashanda (talk) 15:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow, this threw me for a loop! I remember making that edit, but didn't realize it was so long ago. Weird. Yeah, I must of randomly stumbled upon that page and made those edits (I don't watch GG), to be uniform with other LoE pages. I don't know how many redirect articles exist for that show, so if you want to revert back to the old section links, for ease, you can. It won't bother me. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll see what I can do. Thank you.Ashanda (talk) 21:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

"we go by what they"

What? Also the TV series is based off of something so Jed and Joss didn't "create" it they "develop" a pre-existing idea. And was the edit description meant to end in say?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 13:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the page loaded before I finished my edit summary. I made a null edit to say what I meant to say. To reiterate, the series does not use "developed by", but "created by". To me, it's that simple, we go by what they're officially credited as. I understand the developed by credit, but it's not used in this instance. Anything else is editorial opinion. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

24 character redirection

Look I decided to create a number of articles based on the characters of 24:LAD and I won't give in to your constant editing and seemingly proper corrections of these articles. If there's any extra information regarding critical reception, casting etc.you wish to include to make this a plausible article feel free to do so. This is a community based website where multiple people are able to make edits which they think are best for the article. I think that for 24: LAD it is best to have separate articles for the main characters. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2014 (UTC)JohnGormleyJG

Game of Thrones (season 5)‎‎

Hi, thanks for adding to this article, However, you did change the date format from DMY to MDY, whereas WP:DATERET tells us that the initially used format should be retained. Could you change it back? (I personally prefer DMY because it's what the citation gadget outputs, so it's less of a hassle to add citations.) Thanks, Sandstein 21:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I simply changed some of the date formatting for consistency (some were DMY, MDY and a mix of both), and to be consistent with the other GoT articles (main article, list of episodes, season pages). I feel since it's an American-produced series that mainly uses American publications as references, it should use MDY date formatting (and to be consistent with the previous season articles). Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The topic isn't particularly associated with the US: it's American-produced, but actors and locales are European, and the setting is a faux-European one; it is seen and written about the world over. There's no particular need for consistency across articles per our manual of style, just within one article. I've restored the original format. Sandstein 15:21, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

It makes more sense for date formatting to be consistent across the entire article as the body text will use MDY and the fact the all previous season articles use MDY. But whatever. Consistency is key across multiple articles because certain references are transcluded to the list of episodes page. Also, technically, the date format was established with this edit who originally created the article.Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Film and TV Show Barnstar

		The WikiProject Film Award
		I, JohnGormleyJG (talk), hereby award Drovethrughosts the WikiProject Film Award for your valued contributions to WikiProject Film and TV Shows. Thank you for all the contributions and hard work you spent on editing Films and T.V. shows. Awarded 12:42, 5 August 2014 (UTC) 5 August 2014

The Bridge ratings...again

Hi, DTG. I saw the low numbers for the recent episode of The Bridge and expected TVBTN to bump it from its Daily 100. That happened, so we'll need a backup source. The previous one, from the similar situation before, doesn't have one yet. — Wylie pedia 05:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, I switched the ref. Not looking good for The Bridge though. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:38, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Good reference work

Excellent reference work on GoT. I am so glad to work with someone who knows how to seek out great references. It is appreciated, sir. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:00, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to help out. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The Newsroom (U.S. TV series)

Hi. I'd like to keep the extra line regarding Good Dog and Good God in "Series Title". The comments from Maclean's were 'snarky', and the Daily Beast only partially rebuts this, sort of implying that HBO might have simply contacted Finkleman (a random phone call by a lawyer to some unknown guy in Canada). I believe there is value in showing that Finkleman was not merely an afterthought, and was a well known respected person in the eyes of HBO. Your thoughts? Jmg38 (talk) 22:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

How is it relevant to The Newsroom that Finkleman appeared on an HBO Canada series? Is there a reliable source that discusses this is notable and is connected The Newsroom? Thinking that extra line implies "there is value in showing that Finkleman was not merely an afterthought, and was a well known respected person in the eyes of HBO" is original research on your part. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Homeland season four

Hello, you recently reverted my edit over at Homeland (season 4). You don't think that having the valuable airing dates of episodes is a good reason to add the table? I personally love having the dates to mark down, I would think it is very useful information to others as well. LLArrow (talk) 01:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

From my experience, it's best to wait until there's more information beyond just an air date, such as episode titles, to add a table, especially the entire table, which would have lots of empty space. Hopefully that makes sense for you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DTG. In my experience, having so much empty table space on such a high-profile series (unlike, say, Haven) encourages editors (mostly IPs) to add unsourced information like titles/writers/directors, who wouldn't bother otherwise. If that makes sense? -- SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Good points guys. Thanks for insight. LLArrow (talk) 07:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

AoS season 2

Just so you know, I started the season page in my sandbox until it is ready for the mainspace, if you'd like to help build it over the season. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

User warning templates

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to The Walking Dead (TV series): you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. —Msmarmalade (talk) 03:02, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Person of Interest genre

I modified the Person of Interest to include the genres of science fiction and cyberpunk, which the show is. Why do you keep reverting the changes? I am new to editing so any advice would be helpful. Person of Interest is science fiction because the third season the big bad wants to create an AI controlled fascist government. --Saagar A (talk) 00:08, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Boardwalk Empire season 5 Althea

I have no idea why you keep rolling back this edit. The actress is an IMDB-confirmed, Boardwalk Empire Season 5 credited, recurring character that was given full camera time with speaking part. Her entry as a character is proper and her presence along with her mother, Daughter Maitland, was the determining factor in the sacrifice made by Chalky White. She was essential to Chalky's storyline as Chalky lost one daughter to Narcisse and now he was making a stand for his two "daughters". Althea is not a background character or an extra. Finally, characters like Eliot Ness are referenced on this page even though their input is the storyline is negligible. Waad21 (talk) 22:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Ryan Johnson (IMDb) is an Australian male actor born in 1979, not a 7 year old black girl. Come back when the information is actually correct. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In 24-72 hours, IMDB will repopulate with the correct information. I will resubmit then. Thanks for point out the correct route. How do I post photos? I would love to share with you some behind-the-scenes photos from the set of Boardwalk Empire ep 5 & 6 for all of your kind efforts. Waad21 (talk) 23:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)Waad21

Haven Episodes

Hi there. I noticed your clearing of the Haven episodes due to WP:PLOTONLY. Did you post on a talk page, asking if anyone was willing to fill out the details so that it wasn't plot-only and so that the articles would have a point, or did you take it upon yourself to immediately clear the pages? AlexTheWhovian (talk) 23:07, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I could have posted a note on the List of Haven episodes. I can do that now if you want. Every single article was basically the same–a plot summary and then info about the ratings, which is already included in the season articles. Most of them have been tagged for clean-up for years, and haven't been improved at all. If you wish to expand them, you can, they haven't been deleted, merely redirected. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Boardwalk Empire (season 2) Recurring characters

No worries on removing the Delivery Guy reference undering recurring characters. I saw there were 4 other 1 episode characters under recurring, then saw that Jonathan Dickson was listed in IMDB as being in 1 episode as well and had a speaking part. Granted it's not very notable, but it was speaking & credited, so I thought listing him was appropriate. Perhaps a separate list below Recurring called "Minor Characters" or something similar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScottStevensMe (talk • contribs) 02:44, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The characters that are listed with just one episode in some season articles are recurring characters, they just happened to appear in one episode in that season. Sorry, but the addition of Jonathan Dickson as "Delivery Guy" is not notable; if you add him, then why not the hundred other minor characters? Wikipedia isn't IMDb. It'd odd why you're pushing the addition of such a small role by a more-or-less unknown actor, if it's because you have a relationship with this actor, then please read this policy: WP:COI. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Homeland, main page, attempted addition of an "Additional Reading" section

I thought that it would be a helpful enough thing to do, to add an "Additional Reading" section, which is not uncommon in other pages, and likely useful here in particular as more is inevitably written about Homeland. I added an initial entry, a recently published book, Homeland and Philosophy, in which I have a chapter, but I'm not the editor, and have no special vested interest, except that it's an interesting initial entry in what I think is likely to be a growing popular and academic literature on Homeland. My effort was "reverted," however, and I'm wondering why? Thanks in advanced for your help. Trip McCrossin / username: tripmccrossin — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tripmccrossin (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

DVD release information

I'm removing the DVD release dates because of the new rules at WP:TVOVERVIEW. I don't like it either, and for now you can voice your opinion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#rfc_D0531CC if you want the DVD info back but right now the rules say that this is the way it has to be.Rayna Jaymes (talk) 22:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you reverted some of my edits per WP:POINT. However, I was told that this information should be deleted (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Television#Series_overview_tables so if I don't delete it then someone else eventually will anyway. Rayna Jaymes (talk) 23:05, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi

Hi Alex, seems that our paths have crossed a couple times recently, first on Game of Thrones and again on Entourage (film). I see that you are interested in and actively editing Entertainment related articles, that's an area of interest for me as well. I worked in Hollywood for several years. First for Turner Broadcasting at Hanna Barbera Cartoons in Hollywood and then for Time-Warner at Warner Bros. in Burbank and Sherman Oaks. Regards, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:21, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi again, no hard feelings about the Game of Thrones article, but thanks to TAnthony you "dodged a bullet". I've participated at ANI and other Noticeboards this last year so many times in this last year that I have reservation about reporting Editors who Edit war or revert without discussion on the Talk page or just via the edit summaries. This is primarily because I have been called out on it. For the record, I don't hold grudges and have no ill will towards you. I can tell that you are a good Editor and I can appreciate that everyone is subject to WP:KNEEJERK or has a bad day on occasion. I'm guilty of the same. See you around Entertainment articles... --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:36, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

No hard feelings either. Thank you for your understanding. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:39, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	I can't thank you enough for your many wonderful contributions to Wikipedia, especially related to television programming. Thank you for improving this project, and keep up the great work! --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:31, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

My bad

Hi Droverthrughosts,

I mistook you for another editor in my post here at Talk:Paul Finch. It was a silly mistake on my part, and I apologize for any confusion it may have caused. - Marchjuly (talk) 01:59, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I wasn't around at that time, so I just found out now. At least you were confusing me someone you "agree with", not the other way, ha. No biggie. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:50, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks and Old Veronica Mars Episode Articles

Hi,
Thanks for your help on my Veronica Mars articles. It is really helpful to have someone modifying my pages and fixing errors. I couldn't help but notice that there are records that indicate that previous episode articles for Veronica Mars existed, but were deleted. Could you possibly inform me on the circumstances of their deletion and if/how it applies to my newer articles? Again, thanks a lot. BenLinus1214 (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, always glad to help out! The reason most Veronica Mars episode articles were redirected were because they did not meet the notability guidelines, meaning they were mostly unsourced, and only contained in-universe plot information and barely or any at all real-world information (reception, production, etc.) with references to reliable published sources. The pilot article is a pretty good example of what the episodes articles should try and look like. Feel free to ask anymore questions. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:00, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks. Just one more question: should I worry that my articles will be deleted as well because they are on the same topic as the other articles that were deleted because they didn't meet the notability policy? Or are my articles complete enough that that shouldn't be a concern? :) BenLinus1214 (talk) 22:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

No, as long as the articles contain real-world information such as production and reception, it should be fine. The one thing I would say is, the articles need better sources. Like, using IMDb, outside wikias, and this reference for example (because it's literally a mirror of an old version of the Wikipedia article), are generally not considered reliable sources. So, for example, I would cite the TV.com ref that's already used in the article for the Jessica Chastain bit, and a better source for the Adam Kaufman bit would be this. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay. I'm having a bit of trouble figuring out how to cite multiple facts to one ref, though. I bet I'll figure it out eventually using help pages. :) BenLinus1214 (talk) 00:20, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I've figured it out now and will modify my sources soon. One more thing: How can my articles eventually receive a rating on WikiProject Television's quality scale? And who can review articles? (I know I shouldn't rank my own). How long does it usually take before an article is reviewed? --BenLinus1214 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The articles probably won't get reviewed unless you request them to be, as per WP:TV/A (under "Frequently asked questions") Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:02, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television season

Your assertion that "nothing at Infobox TV Season says custom fields can't be used" is incorrect. The instructions there have always said "The following fields are not for general use. They are only to be used in articles that previously used forks of this template that have been deleted or are otherwise no longer used and even then, they are only to be used to replace parameters that existed in the forked templates." The custom fields in {{Infobox television season}} are a necessary evil added to enable merging of seven forks of the template. The very limited number of articles that "may" use the custom fields number less than 3% of the articles that transclude {{Infobox television season}}. The fields were only provided to add backward compatibility, much like the colour fields in {{Infobox television}}, which are also not for general use. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:02, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I understand. But I noticed it was you who actually added these custom fields to the infobox in the first place. There's needs to be a better way to display release dates for these Netflix (and other) series. The current ways don't suffice: House of Cards (season 1), "February 1, 2013 –" doesn't look good, neither does "February 14, 2014 – February 14, 2014" used for House of Cards (season 2). Can't it just be changed so the hyphen is only displayed when the last_aired parameter is in use, simple no? That's how Infobox TV functions. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Fill out Edit Summaries more often please, thank you

Hi there! Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing Wikipedia, there is a field labeled "Edit summary" below the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! --Frankthetankk 18:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia genealogy project

Just wondering if you have any thoughts re: the idea of WMF hosting a genealogy project. If so, feel free to contribute to this discussion. And apologies if I have made this request before. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I did say I would stop making unnecessary lists.

It's different when you make a table of all the people who wrote at least one episode of a TV show. If there can be lists of writers for shows like The Simpsons and Family Guy, why can't there be any lists of writers for shows like The Office? --StewieBaby05 (talk) 21:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still the same information, just displayed in a different manner. What does the article contain that isn't already available on the list of episodes page (or can't be accessible by just looking at IMDb)? It's just a collection of data organized in a table with no references or explaining why this information deserves its own article. Unless you plan on expanding the article with actual content (production information, behind-the-scenes info on the writing process, etc.), you're just doing the same thing you were doing over a year ago where you admitted after that the articles weren't necessary and were subsequently deleted/redirected. You need to change your chronic editing habits. I suggest concentrating on merging and redirecting the episode lists for those season articles. Make these lists somewhere else (your sandbox, for example) if you feel the need to. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:38, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

The Newsroom

It's been very nice seeing your work on the List of episodes, and now that the series is done (what a run!) maybe some of the early episode summaries can be enlarged a bit. Would like to discuss the show, but don't want to give spoilers on a talk page read by people who may not have seen it as yet. Just wanted to say 'nice work'! Randy Kryn 13:05 15 December, 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, it's very much appreciated! I usually don't write episode summaries, I find it easier when there's a summary already started, then I can just add details or copyedit it. Thanks for the expansion of the episode 5 summary, it was very much needed. It was a good run, just wish the final season was longer or we got another season. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2014 (UTC)

Appreciated also. I think Sorkin puts up a show or a movie, says what he has to say, and moves on. Doesn't seem to be an 'in a rut' kind of guy. With The Newsroom I think he's trying to shake up and improve America's news industry, which has gotten further away from the Murrow-Cronkite days and more into the realm of smiley faced bland entertainment. Cable news is better at what he wants (I never watch local newscasts, or almost never - maybe accidently see a few seconds here and there), and some cable shows actually approach what Sorkin envisions. Principled integrity used to be a hallmark of reporting (at least in what Sorkin calls the time of King Arthur), and putting up 25 episodes reminding journalists and other writers of their duty to both the public and to history sure is a good run. Seems he's moving back into movies for awhile. imnho The Newsroom arguably ranks as one of (if not the) best television series ever made, especially for people who like news, politics, and the profession of journalism (I'm a journalism major with a lifelong interest in news and history). One of those shows where every new airing feels like a holiday (I had that feeling with Ally McBeal for a long time). Randy Kryn 13:36 15 December, 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello Drovethrughosts, 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 a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015.
Happy editing,
BenLinus 1214^talk 03:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

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

Homeland (season 4)

Hi. Thanks for your recent edits to this article [4]. I wonder if your objection that this is "unrelated" to the article is a bit hasty, since it is a response to the flap generated by the subject of the article. I point you to the main article of the series Homeland_(TV_series)#Criticism_and_effect_on_international_events re. the sentence " In what Iran's Press TV called an "odd coincidence" with Homeland, and what Britain's The Guardian pointed out was consistent with the Homeland portrayal that the Lebanese government complained about, a few days later a bomb exploded in Beirut killing Brig. Gen. Wissam al-Hassan.", which summarizes a similar theme (real world events in indirect response to the criticisms levelled against the subject). I hope that you will revisit your edit and see if at least a part of the material can be included as appropriate. Thanks. 59.92.66.162 (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, I also removed it because it was copied and pasted directly from the article source, which is a copyright violation. I've readded a portion, but did not readd the parts regarding reader comments as that's not notable, only insight or comments from established or notable journalists is allowed (regarding subject matter such as this). Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:53, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, Thanks :). 59.92.69.247 (talk) 05:59, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

BSG

I've moved the discussion of the national origin of BSG around so the two discussions are together again. It appears Twobells is prepared to edit war what is arguably a POV edit in, using an interesting collection of assumptions and iffy sources. Sky's involvement in the show was very limited, and of short duration. It was never a British production, and it's up to Twobells to establish consensus, whether he likes is or not. Next revert, and we should begin warnings for edit warring and/or disruptive editing. --Drmargi (talk) 17:51, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Article is locked for five days, which will hopefully slow Twobells down a bit. I was disappointed to see he skated without at least a warning after the malformed AN3 posting and NINE reverts, but it was pretty apparent the admin didn't look carefully at the article, etc. --Drmargi (talk) 04:56, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. I feel my latest reply on the talk page shows pretty concrete evidence the series is 100% U.S. in terms of "country of origin". He's tried to push the UK angle (incorrectly) on Orphan Black as well—even though, if anything, that would be a CAN/US production, not UK. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:55, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? He's one of those British editors that thinks that if someone on the production team wears a t-shirt with a union flag on it, the production must be British. By his logic, we'll be very busy reworking BBC America and PBS co-productions, not the least of which being Downton Abbey. Imagine how the Brits will handle that. Downton was described as British-American (which it really is) at one time, but the Brits got their knickers so badly in a twist, a couple of us gave up trying to defend it. I'm hopeful, but not optimistic the locked article will give him impetus to move on, but given his block log… We shall see. --Drmargi (talk) 19:41, 31 December 2014 (UTC)