User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2018

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

I thought I'd ask before I reverted but has Victoria been renewed for 'Six more specials'??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: ITV administration expects Victoria to run for a total of six series. However, even though we're only on on our second series and first special, it doesn't hurt to use a less expanded layout early on. See List of Call the Midwife episodes and List of Downton Abbey episodes for similar layouts. -- Alex^TW 02:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

'Expects' is not confirmed. And then even if it does run for six series there is no guarantee that there will be a Christmas special for all of those. This would eventually be WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. For now I think it would be best to leave it with the special as separate and if it gets to the point that it is crowded then we can use the less expanded layout. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it doesn't hurt to use a more compact version earlier on, nor are we including anything that states that it will definitely run for six series, so no, it's not CRYSTAL. We are simply using a version now that other articles have used without any issue. What is wrong with this version? What's "best" with the separated version? -- Alex^TW 03:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No you're version is not including anything that states that it will definitely however it is implying it because you're writing it now how it would be written if it ran for six series. Yes I agree after six specials it would be cluttered. But from the same view it doesn't hurt to use a more expanded view earlier. It's not that hard to change later on. The template is specifically made to be used with specials if specials are aired. It's not made to put the special in the same row as the season and use '(+1)'. It wouldn't make sense to wash your hands in the shower when there is a sink right next to you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm displaying it as such now because it's more compact. I'd recommended it be kept as such even if the series had been cancelled with two series. Please do not put words into my mouth. Thanks. Three articles, and nobody has raised an issue with this layout - perhaps it'd best if this be taken to the article's talk page now, and not my personal one? I'm not sure how the template is not "made" to display it this way, but it's acceptable if there were more seasons? Does the template suddenly become acceptable to use in that way? Your analogy is also lost on me... (Although, a sink is smaller and more compact than a shower, and if that's what we're going for...) -- Alex^TW 03:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Does being more compact help anything. The first time I looked at it, it confused me which gives me more reason why it should be expanded (for now). I'd especially expect it to be expanded if cancelled after two series. I don't recall putting words into your mouth so.... And I believe in a case like this three articles means nothing that it needs to be decided on an article by article basis. Also you almost made me spit my drink out with the edit summary on your second edit to this last response. But no you didn't get it, my point was that a sink is made for handwashing not a shower which leads to my point about series overview being made for specials not your compact version. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, Wikipedia is all about removing clutter and whitespace and the like. The series overview was made to include anything - I could put in a picture of an elephant for the episodes if I so wanted. There is no way that it was "made". A sink's also made for brushing your teeth, but I brush mine in the shower, so. It's all up to personal interpretation. If it needs to be decided on an article by article basis, then again, I recommend it be taken to the article talk page, not a user's talk page. If more editors come out of the woodworks and agree with the expanded version, then by all means. -- Alex^TW 04:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I believe that clearer information is better than being compact. And that's true I guess the next time I have disagreement on a series overview table I'll make sure to put a picture of David Tennant and Billie Piper in there (Those are the best in my opinion). Also that's interesting to know although it's a little TMI. And your wish is my command I'll take this to the article talk page and see how it goes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I think I'm back. I'm trying to cut down on what I am focusing on and just do some bits and pieces where I can, but probably spend less time on Wiki than I had been ... call it a New Year's resolution. I have started by addressing your GA review comments, so my changes and replies to you are waiting for you over there. Thanks for the review and general support, hopefully this year progresses better than the last did. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back. After my wikibrek over the holidays, my resolution's exactly the same; I cut down my watchlist from 800+ to about 390. Spent too much time here. I'll take a look at the review soon. Best wishes for the new year. -- Alex^TW 08:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex, in your edit summary you said that according to the source the whole eighth season of GoT will air in 2019. However, all i can read there is: The epic fantasy series Game of Thrones will return for its six-episode, eighth and final season in 2019. I believe "will return" only refers to the season premiere. Am i missing something? Thanks. -- Radiphus 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess we're interpreting it differently, yes... When it says that the show returns for its final season in 2019, I assumed that this means that the whole season will return in 2019, as it specifies the season, not just the show returning in 2019. If not, the same then applies to the Season 8 episode table. -- Alex^TW 05:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Though i believe the end date is not specified in the source, i guess it's not damaging the article for now, unless we start hearing of news about a possible "late 2019 release". -- Radiphus 05:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

From https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/06/26/black-lightning-cast-gives-insights-season-one/ :"They also mention that both Jennifer and Anissa are starting to get their powers, as their comic book counterparts do." Also noted on the official FB page by CW. --AlisonW (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Hello AlexTheWhovian. I noticed that you created the redirect Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) and have been editing Fear the Walking Dead-related articles recently, and I was wondering if you could provide a second opinion on the draft at Draft:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4). I was thinking that it's currently too soon for a standalone article about the season at this time, but apparently a premiere date was announced earlier today, and the creator of the draft has asked me to reconsider. Do you have any thoughts on whether this article should be created? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Hurricane Seth in this as well, so they see my reply and agreement with Mz7.

There is not enough to make a separate article in the mainspace for the season yet. A premiere date does not mean that the article needs to exist, much like how a premiere date does not mean a row should exist in the series overview table per WP:TVOVERVIEW. All the article contains at the moment is a short lead, a cast list found on any other season article or the parent article, and very minimal production information. Not even an episode table or ratings table exists, meaning that the article should be moved to the article space only when we're a lot closer to it actually premiering. There is no information on that page that is unique to that page, that cannot be found anywhere else.

There needs to be a lot more information to make it a separate article - there is no rush for it to be created, and more time in the draft space means that there's more time to perfect the article and bring it to the standards it needs to be at to be separate. -- Alex^TW 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, AlexTheWhovian. @Hurricane Seth: Feel free to continue to work on the article in draft space, and when sufficient information becomes available in the future, feel free to ping us again and we can reevaluate the circumstances. I have no doubts this will be a valid article, but perhaps not now. Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

If you would rather have your markup errors preserved, that’s kind of inconsiderate of any problems they might cause for others, but your prerogative. But please do not deliberately restore errors made by other editors that have been corrected—as a perfectly acceptable edit under the WP:talk page guidelines. You may not like the practice, but it has community support, and its reversal does not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to you to correct parts of their messages. If they used that markup, they did so intentionally. Leave them as they are. They are not articles, layout is not as necessary.

You seem to be quoting the WP:TPO section for "Fixing format errors". However, you need to read all of it: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." Reading: It's FUNdamental! Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That objection isn’t yours to make when it wasn’t your post. If you disagree with allowing other editors to fix other editors’ formatting and layout errors in discussions, petition to change the guideline. Otherwise, it’s not your concern. And improper threading does have an effect, on screen readers for instance, even if no effects are visible to you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reversing my error, by the way. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's anyone's to revert. When it says you should stop if there is any objection, does it say who? No. And what can I say except you're welcome? -- Alex^TW 07:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to wikilawyer over it, the page explicitly allows corrective edits that don’t affect content, but it does not allow reversion of such edits. But my non-wikilawyer answer would be: common sense. It makes sense that someone might feel affronted when someone comes along and fixes their mistakes for them, and persisting would start a stupid fight (sorry about that, by the way, seriously, I should have stopped). It doesn’t make sense for an uninvolved editor to object to something that he has nothing to do with and that doesn’t affect him in any way.

Me, I just fix it as a matter of habit when responding to a thread. I’d vastly prefer if talkpages used semantic HTML, but unordered lists and description lists are the closest we’ve got, and frankly it’s just stupid to break a nested list in the middle to start it all over. Not that the user is stupid; it’s stupid that changing the * at the beginning of the line does that. But that’s our system, unless WP:Flow gets off the ground. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mentions of wikilawyering from the wikilawyering one... Interesting. You know the guidelines and policies (apparently), read them and follow every part of them, not just what you want. You can stop posting on my talk page now. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 08:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I think that the descriptors are helpful people who are unfamiliar with those specific shows. I don't see why its controversial, but at least the examples remain. Can you explain why you think the descriptors are problematic in a way that outweighs their educational value to people outside of the viewing area of those shows? -- Netoholic @ 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The genre of the show is irrelevant in relation to what that section of the guideline is describing, and it doesn't matter if people are unfamiliar with the show or not - if they want to know, that's what the article links are for. Please note that content dispute should be taken to the article's talk page instead of user talk pages. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All the other examples later in the page have some explanatory text with them. I mean, if you feel this is important enough to be considered a "content dispute" rather than me just asking a fellow editor their own justification, then so be it, but I was hoping this was just a minor thing we could clear up. -- Netoholic @ 17:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the changes to the structure of the Doctor Who episode lists. Regarding the syntax in the series overview template of both articles, in case you didn't know, the link for the classic Doctors on the 2005 onwards list links to the 2005 onwards article and the same goes for the revived Doctors on the 63-89 article. Unfortunately I can't figure out what's wrong with the syntax but I'm wondering if you could work it out. TedEdwards 18:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Cheers for that; all fixed! -- Alex^TW 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The End of the F***ing World intertitle.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. GMG^talk 13:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

This seems to have worked as the article is not in that category. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Please do not post on talk pages using my name. If you want to start a RM, please do so. I don't intend to waste anyone's time with one. Station1 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Station1: Techncial requests do not get denied. They either get accepted and moved, or contested. If they are contested, then a mover uses the (discuss) link in the technical request listing to post a Requested Move to the talk page, which uses the initial listing comment . If you did not intend to have the page moved, then do not file a technical request for it to be moved. Please know how to file a technical request before you do - you should know how to use a feature before using it. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This was a request to revert an undiscussed move. If they meet the technical requirements, they should be moved, not denied and not discussed. Station1 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The original move was requested, and accepted. It was your revert request that was contested, not the original. Hence, an RM was filed for your request. Please know about filing a technical request before you do. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 21:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "The original move was requested, and accepted." Station1 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought; I've edited the articles for layout purposes, but I've only seen two episodes of the most recent season. -- Alex^TW 04:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello, content has been added to the page... Could you please remove the "draft" status? --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Hello... ? --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello AlexTheWhovian, why did you remove the link de:Liste der Rassen und Einzelwesen aus Doctor Who#Der Master from The Master (Doctor Who)? 188.106.142.149 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia, and we don't make links between different language Wikipedias like that. TedEdwards 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Genuinely out of curiosity, because I've done a few of these now and you've reverted about half of them, when is there enough information for it to be considered suitable to split out episode lists? Primefac (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: I wrote a reply at User talk:Macapaka#Your submission at Articles for creation: Blindspot (season 3) (February 4) as you posted this. -- Alex^TW 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No problems. Sorry if it's come across as annoying at all. Simply put, the WikiProject Television has simply come to the agreement that there needs to be more season-specific content to split, not just include information that is already available elsewhere and acts as a duplicate. -- Alex^TW 18:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Aye, was just me misremembering the rules. At one point (long ago) I recall it being "3+ seasons" being the point when lists were forked, and not being in the project I tend to miss important updates. Thanks again. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was back when articles existed for everything and looked like this. Further rules were made as well as to when to fork episode lists on main articles to a separate episode list article. -- Alex^TW 18:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

for moving the rolls royce page. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think we're at the point where, if the IP keeps editing comments made by other editors, we should be warning him with a template. I've tried to explain the error of his ways at the RM and now on his talk page but he just doesn't seem to get it. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling that a template wouldn't have enough of an effect, as they are simply standard substituted texts, and you've gone further than that and gone into actual detail. -- Alex^TW 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheOldJacobite Is Removing Rotten Tomatoes Score From Movie Articles. What Do You Think About This. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please make sure your checking the talk pages of any requested moves. Also someone forgetting to move a contested move out of WP:RM/TR is not an excuse to assume its not contested, the issue at Talk:Director general could of been prevented should you of checked the talk page prior to moving. If you need any help, please never hesitate, to ask another experience user, myself, or any administrators, most other editors will be more than willing to assist you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue at Talk:Director general could have been prevented if it been removed after the discussion was filed by the first person. The issue doesn't lay with the second person here. Thank you for your concern, but I'll continue to do it this way, I've done it for long enough. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 21:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, i was wondering if you could create a draft for the second season of BCS, it would be greatly appreciated, thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: You'll find it at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 2). -- Alex^TW 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, your contributions to Wikipedia is greatly appreciated. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, what do you think of the Draft right now, is it good enough to have an article based around it, if not then what improvements does it need to have. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: The article is in good condition, but it needs more to be moved. Development only has 1 sentence, there should be a lot more in casting what with the newly introduced characters, there needs to be more on filming for the rest of the season. Did the ratings break anymore records as they did in Season 1? Home media for Regions 2 and 4. And the summaries need better working on, per what Drovethrughosts posted on your talk page - they should be restored to their excessive lengths and trimmed properly. -- Alex^TW 23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, i'll get onto it very soon. The Optimistic One (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

Thought I'd drop you a line re the accusation you left on Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989). I've had a look around and figured out exactly what you're accusing us of, so I wanted to give you some clarification. I do know the poster of the IP address comment - it was left by one of my flatmates. The subject came up in conversation that night and I offered to keep an eye on the page and add my voice if it looked as though it was stalling as I do agree with him on the point in question. I figured this would be OK, but it seems to be similar to something that Wikipedia terms "meatpuppetry", which neither of us were aware of. Neither of us created new accounts to bolster our positions, no 'recruitment' took place either, but it's possible that our having had a discussion about it and my offer to join the talk page may have inadvertently broken one of Wikipedia's policies on that matter. However, I do feel your last comment on that page with the sockpuppet accusation is perhaps a bit uncivil and assumes bad faith, and I was wondering if you'd care to strike it out or retract it. I just wanted to reassure you that while we do know each other and agree with each other about how that article should be named, there was no intention to deceive and our posts were made in good faith. All the best FaithHealer1 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I should strike it and replace it with WP:MEATPUPPET. I'd consider it just as bad as it is clear that it was deliberate that no mention of this was made in the discussion. Sounds valid. -- Alex^TW 21:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to be as polite and unaggressive as I can here, I'd appreciate the same courtesy being shown in return. I didn't see it as relevant to the discussion as I am another human being adding my voice to the debate; the fact that I happened to know somebody else involved in it does not diminish the points either of us made or make it any less true that four people out of five in that discussion are in favour of the title including 1996. I'm not especially wikipedia-savvy so the finer points of this eluded me until I looked them up on seeing your at first puzzling post. When I realised there was a chance I'd unknowingly broken a policy this evening, I got in touch to try and give you some transparency. I would be happy to put a note to that effect on the talk page, if that would satisfy you.

I would add that it's upsetting so see you're continuing to be uncivil: the very post you just linked to states "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy...it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute". I'm trying my best to be civil, polite and transparent, and I don't think I deserve that rather brusque dismissal. FaithHealer1 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit where you replaced the photo of the insignia with one of the logo, why do you believe it's better to have effectively two photos of the logo (as the logo is in the poster) rather than the insignia, which is only described in prose in the article? TedEdwards 17:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Because the infobox image will eventually be updated to a promotional poster, then home media cover art, whereas the logo will stay as it is in the prose. I don't believe that the insignia will have any great importance to the series, and was created simply as a companion piece to the new logo. -- Alex^TW 05:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But as it stands, the poster has the new logo in, and it could be months before this changes, and when it does change, the article will probably have room for both the logo and the insignia. And even if the insignia isn't important to the series (which might not be case, we'll have to wait and see), I believe it's still important to the promotion. TedEdwards 12:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Suggestion: Perhaps both could be included using {{multiple image}}, so that it's inclusive of both already and we don't need to re-upload anything in the future after new promotional posters or home media cover art are released? -- Alex^TW 23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I like that. I'll edit the page then. TedEdwards 11:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

The fanboys are really out for blood tonight--yours, mostly. I honestly think this may well end up needing dispute resolution as of the last few edits on that talk page, now that Gutt is basically trying to start whole new RfC in the middle of the existing one: this way madness lies, and if he does not relent the RfC must perforce descend into chaos and confusion. We need the usual voices of Reason: User:DonQuixote, User:Masem, User:Dresken, and others to restore balance to the ... perforce. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Interesting how that entire section was deleted after you brought them to their senses. I've posted on the talk page of WP:NFCC, to bring in editors who actually know the policy and its consequences as well. -- Alex^TW 00:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ordinarily I might have a problem with someone deleting their own post like that--along with a response or two, including mine, but let's face it, the RfC could not possibly have proceeded with that mess dropped in the middle of it. I do believe his intentions were noble, but that one's got a bad habit of just doing his own thing without thinking through how it impacts an ongoing discussion.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire - Just to correct you - I'm not a "fanboy" ... I've never watched Doctor Who in my life and certainly don't plan too now, I'm simply going by the majority of other articles here .... –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 Hello, Davey, just to be clear, I was not referring to anyone in particular (maybe Gutt and ok definitely DrMargi) in my message to Alex, nor do I mean to impugn anyone having an opinion in the discussion as a whole, up until things took a decidedly weird and un-Wiki-like turn with several attempts made to bully Alex here into silence and then to hijack the RfC itself. As I said on the talk page in question, Alex is not without his faults--who is?--but the tone and tactics employed by some on the other side crossed a line. Not sure if you saw what was written before it was deleted, but if not you can read it by going through the edits. To your own point, the trouble with 'the majority' of other articles is, there are virtually no other TV shows that go through as many logo changes as Doctor Who, because few ever run this long, and things like this just don't always come up in discussion (How many logo changes did Last of the Summer Wine go through in three decades? I know of two logos). The technical term for the problem is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Editors get used to something being done one way, and assume it's correct. Most often it is, but sometimes it's not, and, unlike precedent in Common Law, it's not always a valid reason for doing it that way in the article in question, and it turns out what's happened is we need to revisit those other articles. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 I just wanted to thank you. This, and then this, it really made my day. -- Alex^TW 06:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow - there has been a bit going on in my absence - I've been a bit distracted with real life and a couple of projects. I just read through the RfC (including the now deleted thread hijack o_O) - it seems like the animosity has died down a little in that thread now - so I didn't comment on it (didn't want to be the "And another thing..." guy). I'm sorry to be disagreeing with you guys on the actual RfC - I feel I have a valid point of view on it and hope I've conveyed it reasonably. Anyway look forward to everyones thoughts. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

All good! In the dozens of RFC's I've been a part of, I've always noticed that the closer primarily looks at the policies being quoted and their importance over the number of !votes anyways. Shouldn't be too hard to close this one. -- Alex^TW 13:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dresken, Wow, indeed (I normally almost never look at that talk page, much less write there). It's not a coincidence that both argue and agree are etymologically related, and people who truly understand what an argument is, have, in a sense, already agreed on certain understood and unstated things related to civility, the exchange of ideas, and the inherent interest of the thing about which they discuss. And that's why I called. If I wanted people who were going to just take "my" side unquestioningly--not that I ever would or should--you lot are the last people I'd have called!:) No, I meant what I said: that discussion needed cooler heads brought in, regardless of any 'side' they might have taken, or, perhaps, new solution they might have put forward. And thanks for 'boxing' the deleted material (wonder if this where the term originates as used in Battlestar Gallactica)?. I've seen that done a few times but never knew how or when it was applicable. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I see you moved my request. Can you explain what I did wrong and where is the current discussion? Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, and the current discussion exists on the talk page. As a mover that contribute to WP:RM/TR, I believe it requires further discussion. Not everything that goes to RM/TR is instantly moved. -- Alex^TW 09:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I see you wrote that this move is contested. Can you explain why (here or on the talk page?) Golan's mom (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

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

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the messages! what should I do about those articles?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐)

See how the AFDs go. We're not here to create articles on everything. -- Alex^TW 07:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

fair enough! I look forward to the conversation. thanks again, @AlexTheWhovian:-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 07:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I found this redirect recently, and realised that an arguement for deleting it is the same as the one's given in here. Do you agree and do you think an RfD should be started? TedEdwards 00:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree, it should go to RFD for deletion. There's a bunch of links like this, where they used to be Doctor Who articles but where then redirected to the episodes article, I'll find them all one day and RFD them too. -- Alex^TW 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Started RfD, please contribute :) TedEdwards 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex! Just to let you know, i've slightly improved the development section, i've added a few more to the cast section and the summaries have been improved, if there is a problem with any of them, please don't hesitate in letting me know. In my opinion, the article is solid enough to have a stand-alone article based on its content. I've also created a draft for the third season, you'll find it at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3). Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. A couple of sentences doesn't make an article... -- Alex^TW 09:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added more sentences to the lead section. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, the lead section has been expanded, to be honest, i don't really know what to do next with the article. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: You do not deliberately move an article to an incorrect title because you can't move it yourself. The move has been reverted. Post on the talk page of the series' main article if you want to make sure it's alright to move. -- Alex^TW 20:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I added a season review from IGN and i expanded the lead section. I couldn't find anything else to add to the draft, so that's basically why i changed it into an article. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply because you can't personally find anything more, doesn't mean it gets to be an article. The production section is quite bare. There is WP:NORUSH for an article to exist. And why did you deliberately move it to an incorrect title? Post on the talk page of the series' main article if you want to make sure it's alright to move. -- Alex^TW 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok Alex, i admit it, moving the draft into an incorrectly-spelled article was stupid and illogical, not wise either, i have left a message on the draft's talk page, just forget everything about this incident. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've replied. I won't forget it. -- Alex^TW 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, always forgive, never forget ;). The Optimistic One (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I added some more content to the production section. Is the section good enough now. If not, then how far is it? The Optimistic One (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessarily how good it looks. A split is only required when other articles have become too bloated that the content needs to be moved away to to a separate article. What content elsewhere will be moved/removed once the article is moved to the mainspace? -- Alex^TW 02:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that if the article was good enough, then it would qualify, is it ever gonna qualify? The Optimistic One (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You never answered my question. -- Alex^TW 02:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You said on the draft's talk: "it's got an expanded lead and ratings section, but the production sections needs some serious addition to it to be considered worthy of an article". I added some content to the production section, so whats the story with the production section?, is it considered to be worthy of an article yet? The Optimistic One (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did say that, and content was added. So, now, the next point to consider is my question: What content elsewhere will be moved/removed once the article is moved to the mainspace? -- Alex^TW 02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know, i'm not an expert on that one. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Then if there's no change, a split is not immediately required. -- Alex^TW 02:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe List of Better Call Saul episodes. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

One episode table? -- Alex^TW 02:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for Season 2. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all that would be moved? -- Alex^TW 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the talking Saul section and critical reception in the shows article. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does the Season 1 section of critical reception still exist even though the Season 1 article exists, then? -- Alex^TW 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on that kind of stuff, so i'm not surprised that i haven't noticed. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Update:That problem has been solved. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's all to be moved. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Anything else to be moved? The Optimistic One (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So when are we gonna turn the draft into an article and move content? The Optimistic One (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. You say here that there is a "WP:CONSENSUS of WP:TV and MOS:TV" as it is "not enough to split". Could you give me a link to this consensus, please? :) I'd like to see what was said and decided during that discussion, please ^^ Lady Junky (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: For sure! The main discussion was held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 9#List of episodes - when to split; also see the three individual discussions linked in the first post. -- Alex^TW 09:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :D You guys should consider adding a summary of what is decided at the end of each consensus x) So... if I understand everything, the split for a "List of XXX episodes" should only happen when a series has 40/45 episodes, aka 2 full US seasons? Am I right? Lady Junky (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's the general guide, yes, but it really depends on the series and its articles. Especially on whether the summaries are included in the episode list, or if there's separate season articles and the summaries aren't displayed in the episode list. For example: List of Sherlock episodes only has 13 episodes (26 regular length ones, since they're all double-length), but there's enough content to split away, as the summaries are included; whereas Daredevil (TV series) has its episode list on the parent article, also with 26 episodes, but summaries aren't displayed. 19 episodes without displayed summaries, such as ACS, wouldn't be enough to split. A wrap-up of the consensus would definitely be beneficial, however. -- Alex^TW 09:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: Forgot to ping. -- Alex^TW 09:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clearer when you explain it that way. And, it is my understanding that showing the episodes summaries are not necessary for ACS, as it has season pages, contrary to Sherlock? Because, otherwise we could just show the summaries, would be the same. Lady Junky (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: Exactly. Summaries are only to be displayed in one article, and that article is the page where the episode table is actually included. In the case of ACS, this is on the season pages; the episode list (or now, the parent article) simply transcludes/pulls the episode tables, the tables don't actually exist in the episode list. In the case of Sherlock, the episode tables actually exist in the episode list, they aren't transcluded/pulled from anywhere else, and hence that's why the summaries are displayed there. -- Alex^TW 09:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay :) Thanks for everything :) Lady Junky (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No problems. Also not sure why the episode tables were only using the number in the season for each episode, not the number in the season and the number overall together (as they are now). -- Alex^TW 10:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

If you undo the OUAT edit, you might as well undo all the edits of the rest of the TV shows in the 2018 television series endings category even before the series finales air. Let's be fair about it, OK! I'm just making a factual contribution without disrupting anything. I'm done with you and don't do anything stupid like suspending my editing privileges because of something small! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxman07 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soxman07: Yep, that's fair, I can easily remove the category from series that are still airing. I'll do that today. I guess since you suggested this, you won't have any further issue with the topic? Great! -- Alex^TW 00:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soxman07: All done! Category:2018 American television series endings is now only populated by series that have actually concluded up to the present day. Good work! -- Alex^TW 01:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, is it okay if you get an image of Kim for the characters article. Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: The article, as well as the Chuck one, need to be moved to the draftspace to be worked on. They're entirely plot, it's the same case as the season articles. -- Alex^TW 00:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, surprisingly, the article for Skyler White is almost entirely plot as well, we could add more to that. What else would we add to Kim Wexler and Chuck McGill, all i can think about is expanding the reception, plus the articles, in my opinion are solid enough to last until the reception section is expanded. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because the have a lot of content, that doesn't make them solid enough. Due to their lack of almost any real-world information, it actually makes all three (including Skyler White) very weak; if any of them were put up for discussion, I could guarantee they would all be deleted. Take a look at other character articles for popular series and see how they've succeeded. -- Alex^TW 00:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The article for the character Saul Goodman was nominated for deletion a few years ago because of a lack of content, and the result was keep, not because of the content, because the character is significantly important to both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. All three articles mentioned are lacking content, BUT! the characters are all very important to their respective shows. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That was a few years ago, policies and guidelines have updated this then. Saul Goodman is the titular character. The other two are not, and hence it is not a reason to create/keep the articles. -- Alex^TW 06:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please do not revert the change from 3rd of June to 17th of June. She has stated herself it is incorrect on Wikipedia - see http://chrissyiley.com/jodie-whittaker-sunday-times-magazine-march-18-2018/

Not considered a reliable source, please use an official source. Forcing this edit will be considered edit-warring. -- Alex^TW 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick note: The article is an extended version of the article here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exclusive-interview-jodie-whittaker-on-being-the-first-woman-to-play-doctor-who-rtfsd8mqw on the website of the interviewer herself. I don't see how more reliable it can get :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.65.228 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page. And sign your posts! -- Alex^TW 14:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Done - thank you for your help and time! I'm still learning on Wikipedia :) Mythmaker1977 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

The editor has taken over yet another article with unnecessary and repetitive table fields and can not be reasoned so discussion of any sort would be futile. Editor should be reported for his dictatorial style of editing. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor is talking third person? That's strange. The unnecessary and repetitive table fields is the entire table dedicated to listing what's already available in the article, and the infobox is meant to summarize what's in the article, not present new information - for example, who wrote the story should not be listed solely in the infobox, it should be in the article. Does that make sense? -- Alex^TW 11:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Now that the draft is fit for purpose, can you please move it into an article. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there's currently a review request on the Draft page. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Completely unrelated to anything, but I'd love to know what you think about Narnia when you finish reading it. I've done so a few years ago and I have to say it's quite a monumental series of books. See you later! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the access date was the date most recently used to add information to a page. I had assumed that it meant the date that the link was added. Thank you for letting me know. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Alex, you might want to take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV ----Dr.Margi ✉ 14:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for that. You may want to personally look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MapReader reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). -- Alex^TW 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, NeilN gave me a heads up. I think I'd prefer to stay out of the line of fire for now. SOP for the board should be that they let it go stale. Meanwhile, you keep fighting the good fight on the talk page, and I'll jump in if I can help. You seem to have Calton well in hand for the moment. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex,

I am very sorry, but I believe that the War Doctor (John Hurt) is very much an incarnation of the doctor as is demonstrated in The Day of the Doctor (November 23rd 2013) by Steven Moffat. This is why I know he should be included in the list of incarnations of the doctor so by ridding my earlier contribution, I believe you have forgotten that he is infact the Doctor! However, I am unable to change the picture of the Doctors, so may you please change the picture to one that is including that of the War Doctor as that would be most helpful.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.197.15 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Alex^TW 14:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex, my name is Vanryoko about the Hotwiki we checked the GMA Network programs in the Philippines, for Hotwiki User contributions since getting wrong page like the GENRE and CATEGORY were REMOVED having a mistaken from the editing the page, like US Shows they CORRECT page for GENRE and CATEGORY programs, so please Alex STOP editing Hotwiki for GMA Network programs in the Philippines or BLOCKED the page permanent please Thanks. Vanryoko (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, take this elsewhere. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 04:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

What's wrong with the draft? The Optimistic One (talk) 15:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Draft: Better Call Saul (season 3) does not yet meet MOS:TV standards for a split. Please discuss and gain consensus for move/split. -- Alex^TW 15:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

So I read the reference article on that line and it never mentioned it to be 7 or 8 episodes, the article was posted on January 11, 2017. Don't know if that was the wrong article but it's posted at that line where it says the final episode was supposed to be 1 epiosde. It never mentions season 3 being 7 episodes. P.J. (talk) 01:08, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

You're reading the wrong reference, then. -- Alex^TW 01:18, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Well show me the right reference than. P.J. (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The one in the Season 3 section. I rearranged the refs. -- Alex^TW 03:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I see they didn't like your longer descriptions of the Krypton episodes, but I found them very useful to help me follow the episodes while I was watching them. Please return to the longer descriptions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.206.225.106 (talk) 23:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

They weren't mine, I was the one who tagged them as being too long. Per WP:TVPLOT, the limit is 200 words, and therefore they shall stay as they are in their shortened versions. -- Alex^TW 23:56, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I saw that the List of A Series of Unfortunate Events episodes article has been reverted. I read the message you left about a consensus on WT:MOSTV but there actually isn't a consensus on there, just a bunch of people unsure on what to agree on and no definite agreement as I had to dig deeper but still couldn't find a definitive agreement. So can you elaborate on when it's right to make a list of episodes page? The show is going into its third season and the episode list is already cluttering up the main page article, making it look very unattractive. Do we have to wait for the series to end to create the page? Is 3 seasons the minimum to make a list of episodes page? Thank you. Codywarren08 (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Codywarren08: The primary discussions were Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 9#List of episodes - when to split and later Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television#"List of episodes - when to split" consensus; an additional discussion can be seen at User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 27#ACS episode list. You can see the results of those discussions at User:Bignole/Episode page. To summarize, even after the conclusion of A Series of Unfortunate Events at three seasons and 27 episodes, there still won't be enough to split. -- Alex^TW 06:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Quantico (season 3) was deleted to make way for Draft:Quantico (season 3) in the main space. Why did you create the redirect again? Coderzombie (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Was it? My apologies, I didn't notice, my bad. Feel free to nominate it again or request it at RMTR. Has the draft gone through AFC? Who determined it was a valid article? -- Alex^TW 09:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, draft is well-cited and ready to move into main space. Don't think it needs to go through AFC, but you are the creator and major contributor, so I'll let you decide. Coderzombie (talk) 08:58, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm not the one being disruptive. I've added guest stars with references.

I ask you for help and all you've done is being a hindrance.

Next time help!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeydee15 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mickeydee15: You deliberately went through my edits and found one that was me reverting vandalism, and you restored the vandalism. Hence, disruptive. And you asked me for help? Where? I don't see any posts on any talk pages... -- Alex^TW 02:07, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

You can't read comments now in the editing? I tried revert back because I'm using a phone and it's easier.

And you did interfere. I added the guest cast you deleted it. I added it a second time and asked for your help. Again you deleted it. You wonder why I revered back.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mickeydee15 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mickeydee15: You say You wonder why I revered back, but it was my edit at List of The Big Bang Theory episodes that you reverted. You reverted my vandalism reverts. Disruptive, and also WP:HOUNDING. Bad, bad... Edit summaries are not talk pages. Use talk pages. Like you are now, great job! -- Alex^TW 02:39, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Based on the fact that past guest stars don't have references beside them under the guest cast...... Or hadn't you noticed they're not there? 2001:1970:4C27:4800:F4:BE70:F666:73FF (talk) 14:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You didn't give any reason for your partial reversion of my edit. You re-added "will consist of eight episodes. The Duffer Brothers have said that Stranger Things is likely to end after its fourth or fifth season." We are not supposed to put anything in the lead about the WP:FUTURE unless it's "almost certain to take place". We could say "eight episodes are planned". And it's fine to include what the Duffers have mentioned about future plans in the article, but we can't have it in the lead unless it's an "official announcement". Also, you added a fifth paragraph, which goes against MOS:LEADLENGTH: Article length that's more than 30,000 characters should be 3 or 4 paragraphs in the lead.

As for the removal of the "refimprove section" templates, I thought that all entries should have a ref. for verification – especially guest stars.

If you think it would be better, I could put this discussion on the series article. --Musdan77 (talk) 18:26, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Alright then. Taking it to the article talk. I also didn't appreciate your following edit, but I'm letting that one go (at least you put something in the ES that time). --Musdan77 (talk) 00:55, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Sincerest apologies for the lack of reply; I've been completely swamped with RL lately, and I'd completely forgotten about my talk page. So as to not duplicate the discussion, I'll reply there. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 09:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @AlexTheWhovian:,

I'm bringing this to your attention because you are an active editor in articles regarding television-related topics. I have noticed that one user User:FerenComm might have a conflict of interest in regards to the edits they have made on the Sony Crackle page. The edits they have made to the page have seen it rewritten in a manner that appears to be more promotional rather than encyclopedic, as it was before. A Google search of that username has turned up Feren Communications, a television publicity company (see their website: [1]). I'm not sure how to go about notifying the proper people to report such a possible violation of Wikipedia policy (at least as far as I understand it after reading Wikipedia:Conflict of interest). I appreciate hearing your thoughts on what ought to be done. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 00:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the series' creator J. M. DeMatteis, it is "Not a continuation of the series. It IS in the same universe as the JL DARK movie and I guess time will tell if it's in the Arrowverse!" (tweet) So for now can it be hidden from the Arrowverse article? Because it seems unlikely to be a part of that universe, and Arrow EP Wendy Mericle confirmed that the Constantine on Arrow was the same one from the NBC series. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:01, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I'd suggest we wait until an Arrowverse EP definitively states that the animated series isn't part of the Arrowverse. -- Alex^TW 02:00, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to use the flashy user warning templates, but I find your activity with regards to the Westworld episode articles exceptionally disruptive of the editing process. I've only seen this sort of vitriol for a subject when the editor is significantly opposed to the very concept of the topic, and in that case, you'd be better served to step away and let others handle it. You've said your piece, now you're just being intentionally obstructionist. -- Netoholic @ 05:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Then don't make assumptions of what I say and do. Especially because, for the record, I love Westworld, the series and its character development. So, I'd say you were wrong. (Again.) -- Alex^TW 05:55, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Then it would be a shame for your poor behavior displayed in handling of these episodes to lead to any sort of topic ban. -- Netoholic @ 06:05, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Your empty threats are noted. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 06:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Please explain your contributions using a descriptive edit summary. Specifically, you used edit summaries at Virtù e Fortuna praising the article when adding content warning headers - this is misleading/uninformative. --Netoholic @ 20:01, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

You guys are doing a great job at expanding the article! Keep up the good work! You're a star! -- Alex^TW 04:10, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

We saw him last night on The Big Bang Theory. A reference for his guest appearance is no longer needed.

Same as any other past guess or recurring stars for the show. Which I've mentioned before. Please do not add it back. Mickeydee15 (talk) 13:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

And? There is nothing in the WP:TV policy about removing references based on appearances of guests. Is there? -- Alex^TW 13:37, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologizes about my edit on A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series). I will learn from my mistake. Thanks for letting me know! INeedSupport (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The current consensus for the soundtrack is to follow the liner notes--that's to avoid original research as people have been known to add episodes based on what they hear. DonQuixote (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: I won't be the one to edit-war, as can be seen by your ignoring of WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. (Interesting that you've quoted it three times in the past week, but can't follow it yourself.) Can you point me to the discussion or result of this consensus? Every other series soundtrack article I see is grouped by multi-partners. I can point to every series article to point to the consensus of grouping by multi-partners. -- Alex^TW 04:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Talk:Doctor Who: Original Television Soundtrack for one such discussion. As for the other soundtracks grouping them together--that's what the liner notes do. DonQuixote (talk) 04:51, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

As for BRD, I can say that I'm far from being the best editor (so cheers on that), but I can also say that I keep tabs on consensus. DonQuixote (talk) 04:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: I've scanned the talk page, and I don't see which discussion you're referring to; care to point me to it? The most recent the discussion, the better. Or at least follow your own quotes of BRD? Practice what you preach, I'd say. -- Alex^TW 04:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's the last two discussions on the page. DonQuixote (talk) 04:55, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Those are no discussion or formed consensus. That's someone posting about information, then replying to them. WP:CONSENSUS is the agreement of multiple editors as to the outcome of an article - that has not happened there. Consensus is not a one-editor reply. I'll reword my question, then: Can you point me to the discussion of multiple editors and result forming this consensus? -- Alex^TW 04:58, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's another Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 27#New Series soundtracks - OR? DonQuixote (talk) 05:00, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

(proper response) The discussions for these things are all over the place. Expecting me to remember every one of them and the most important ones in a few minutes is asking a little too much. DonQuixote (talk) 05:02, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Just checked the liner notes for series 6, which lists the first ten tracks under The Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon, and the liner notes for series 5, which lists tracks 18 and 19 under The Time of Angles/Flesh and Blood. The series 9 liner notes are different for some reason that hasn't been mentioned. But the main point is--using reliable sources avoids original research and synthesis. DonQuixote (talk) 05:13, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

That discussion doesn't relate to multi-partners either, sorry. It even ends with "Comments at the RFC have dried up without much consensus". So, that means that no consensus exists as for the multi-partners, bar the default grouping in series articles? This grouping is not original research, and is based on previous example, which remains standing. What I was expecting was BRD to be followed and a discussion started on either the article's talk page or the WikiProject's, and wait for a consensus to come out of that. -- Alex^TW 05:21, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Admittedly, it was probably a soft-consensus rather than an explicit one, but the point is that the previous examples were based on liner notes--which is why they're grouped together. The current liner notes don't do that. It's your incorrect assumption that the multi-parters were grouped for some other reason. DonQuixote (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

To put it into context, originally the soundtrack tables were filled with episodes added by editors who heard them in such-and-such episode and added them to the list. These were trimmed to list only those in the liner notes based on them being the primary source for the CDs. That means that in the end, any groupings of episodes were left in the lists because they were present in the liner notes. DonQuixote (talk) 05:35, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

When I read it, as far as I could tell, the discussion was about how the soundtrack listing what episode belonged to what song, and that editors couldn't/shouldn't list down every episode the song was included in. I can definitely agree with this and how you put it into context. However, you can see that that is clearly no longer the case, as the fan attitude towards these articles has dramatically decreased in the past decade. And given that the liner notes have changed, a new consensus is therefore required, and the current soundtrack needs to follow the layout as given in the previous articles. Are you prepared to revert per your quoted BRD and allow a new discussion to start on an article/project talk page? -- Alex^TW 06:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

It's your opinion that it's "clearly" no longer the case. The base guideline for all encyclopaedia articles is to cite and summarise reliable sources. If you want to start a new discussion to gain a new consensus, then you're free to do so. As for BRD, the current implicit consensus, through editors editing the articles, is to use reliable sources, which includes the liner notes--that means that that's the status quo. So unless you can cite a reliable source that groups the tracks in the manner that you describe (which is your POV and not supported by reliable sources or manuals of style), then the status quo is to summarise the primary source, which is the CD release that includes the liner notes and the track/episode listing on the back of the CD case. DonQuixote (talk) 15:44, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Just randomly checked the edit history on the series 9 page, and other veteran editors have also cited the liner notes as a reliable source. I recommended you re-asses what the status quo and consensus are and who the "bold" part of BRD in this situation is. DonQuixote (talk) 15:53, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

The situation has changed concerning the liner notes. Therefore, if the situation has changed, the same "consensus" (using the word lightly, in a very different meaning, as it was by no means a consensus and was only you and another editor or two making replies [the other editor who clearly stated that it was not actually a consensus at all]) no longer apply to the situation, and therefore is required to be updated. That is how Wikipedia works, through continuous updates and discussions to best fit the site and its continuously changing situation.

How it does not work is by you not reading WP:CONSENSUS - consensus is formed through discussion only, not through some similar editing patterns by an editor or two. Therefore, no such consensus exists, as no new discussion has taken place. As these edits have been disputed and reverted, they therefore remain the bold edits and a consensus is required to keep them. The status quo is how the table was initially created. That is the definition of the status quo - the initial state.

If you wish me to cite how the episodes are grouped, I point you to the multitude of discussions that group the episodes on the season and series articles. Or do are you stating that the episodes are only to be grouped into the same story on the series articles, and that they are not the same story for the soundtrack articles? I am not indicating that the songs belong to both episodes. I am indicating that the episodes belong to the same story, and hence must be grouped identically to the series articles. If they are not to be grouped by story on the soundtrack articles, I recommend you start de-grouping them in the series articles, else you are contradicting your own argument.

As for you, I recommend you re-asses what the policies and guidelines on this site are, and what your position in this situation is. -- Alex^TW 16:04, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

consensus is formed through discussion only, not through some similar editing patterns by an editor or two.

Seriously, you really need to read the guidelines--from WP:CONSENSUS Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached. In this way, the encyclopedia is gradually added to and improved over time. (emphasis mine)

So, no, it's not "through discussion only". The current consensus, which started off from a discussion eventually lead to a consistent approach to the track listings. And, as a matter of fact, your claim that "we group two-parters together" for the track listings is doubtful. Where was such an discussion? It might have seemed like that because the liner notes did that, but I'm not aware of any discussion that says that that was the general consensus.

If you wish me to cite how the episodes are grouped, I point you to the multitude of discussions that group the episodes on the season and series articles.

That's how the episodes themselves are grouped together--that's not how the track listings are grouped together. There's a disconnect here because how the episodes are grouped together have little bearing on how CD tracks are grouped together and vise versa. There's not question or objection that those episodes are grouped together in their respective places. However, the current liner notes groups tracks with individual episodes. That does not mean that the episodes themselves are "ungrouped" in any way.

I recommend you start de-grouping them in the series articles, else you are contradicting your own argument.

Nope, not a contradiction because listing the tracks according to individual episodes in no way "de-groups" the episodes themselves. I don't know where you're getting the idea that this will occur, but the CD releases and episode groupings are rather independent of each other.

And finally, I have a reliable source, which other editors have also pointed to, and a few discussions on the matter. Again, can you point to the discussion that resulted in "we group two-parters together" in relation to the CD releases? Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 16:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I came across Draft:Top Chef Canada (season 6) while reviewing, and since the season is about half over I figured I'd get it up to snuff and accept it. But now I'm sitting here working on it and realizing that there really isn't that much season-specific information to add (or is there much on the other seasons' pages). Would this series be a good candidate for merging it all into one "List of episodes" similar to Cutthroat Kitchen, or is really all that's needed to create a meta page like List of Top Chef episodes? Primefac (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: A meta article like List of Top Chef episodes could be useful here, so that the progress tables could be kept. They could very well also easily be merge into a single episode table, with the use of summaries, which would reflect List of Cutthroat Kitchen episodes. However, I'd probably go with the former suggestion. -- Alex^TW 14:26, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, I thought I'd ask for your two cents in this discussion because you are so active in television articles. I proposed moving Confederate (TV series) to Draft:Confederate (TV series) mainly due to the fact that the production has yet to receive a series order let alone go into actual production. It just makes sense to me for it to be moved into draft space and the content merged into the show's creators pages. What do you think? The discussion is happening here : Talk:Confederate (TV series). Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why you didn't move it straight to the draftspace; I would have done that without opening a move request. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I thought that the move would be controversial, which it is. – BoogerD (talk) 05:05, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Kailash29792; the consensus for WP:TV and WP:FILM is that articles should not exist until production starts. I would have boldly moved it to the draft space straight away as well, then redirected the original page to prevent a move war; unfortunately, we are where we are now, so the move needs to play out. -- Alex^TW 09:44, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

What can I say...I'm still learning. Always willing to listen to others (especially those with a lot of experience.) – BoogerD (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: No problems, we're all always learning. While I've got you here, you might have been tagged in the discussion below; articles for television don't get created until filming has commented for the series, per WP:TVSHOW and WP:NFF. Until then, they should be moved to the draft space. -- Alex^TW 22:47, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Understood. Not a problem. I will say however, it might benefit the community for that policy to be more clearly outlined/delineated in the notability guide. As it currently exists it mentions the television pilot model of television production and how pilots are not noteworthy enough for articles of their own. However, in the media landscape of 2018 (with streaming services and the like) most streaming services, cable networks, and broadcast networks bypass the pilot model in order to grant straight-to-series orders. Perhaps the guide can be updated to reflect that. Just a thought. Respectfully, BoogerD (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I posted at WT:TV about being on the watch-out for the creation of articles during May sweeps, and another editor did note that we need to use another guideline in lieu of an actual notability guide. I do agree with your opinion, it needs to be stated a lot clearer. Thanks for your understanding! It makes things a lot easier, unlike the discussion below. -- Alex^TW 23:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The move discussion ended against our favour. A new move discussion followed suit. Can you please do something about this Alex? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Submit an AFD for the article and specificy that you want to draft it rather than delete it. -- Alex^TW 08:07, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Other users like BoogerD create one article after another for upcoming TV series which do not even have a selected cast and you move mine, which are only articles of series ordered directly in the last days out to draft section? Are you sure you know what you're doing? Keep the articles where they are. We have May sweeps and all ordered series start their production now or have already started.--Robberey1705 (talk) 13:32, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robberey1705: Can you link those articles? I'll happily move them. Per WP:CONSENSUS of WP:TV, television articles are not created until it can be verified per WP:V that production has already started. Why are your articles separate from this? Are your articles more special? I know what I'm doing - do you? May sweeps are a nightmare for television editors because of editors like you. -- Alex^TW 13:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't need to link those articles. I already moved them back. Off of them provide valid sources, and to be honest: I am an editor on the TV sections here since more than 10 years. Pretty sure, I know what I am doing. Next time, just read given sources, and if it's a foreign language to you, i.e. as some international Netflix productions aren't in your native tongue, just use a translator.--Robberey1705 (talk) 13:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robberey1705: You didn't answer me either. Why do you get to ignore WP:CONSENSUS? None of those articles that I moved include any content about filming having commenced. And more than 10 years? A couple of edits in 5 years barely counts. Nice try. -- Alex^TW 13:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You just moved F.B.I. (TV series), which in the moment, is shown with pictures on Deadline.com and a trailer following. Move them back as soon as possible. I don't have to say anything anymore, as would I woukd like to tell you, goes far over my knowleddge of the english language. Under the same consensus, i will start moving articles created by other users which contain TV series ordered but not produced for now, now too. For example, check out what user User:BoogerD created in the last weeks. Articles for over 40 TV series that did not start production. Guess, if you keep them, you are just bigot .--Robberey1705 (talk) 14:06, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Still not answering me. Why do you get to ignore WP:CONSENSUS? If you don't have anything more to say, then best of luck developing the drafts. And if you could move the articles that haven't started production yet, that would be amazing! It'd be a massive help. Thank you! -- Alex^TW 14:08, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So you just start an editwar for personal reasons? Great.... --Robberey1705 (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robberey1705: Nope. For WP:CONSENSUS. Are you able to read? This is the fourth time I've mentioned it... (Besides, I'm not seeing any more edit-warring...) -- Alex^TW 14:12, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for moving back the Magnum PI article. The original series is definitely still the primary topic. I was going to do it myself once I got the chance, but I'm happy that I don't have to now. JDDJS (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

@JDDJS: No problems. An editor posted at WT:TV about it; I had exactly the same issue with Charmed the other day. Some editors just don't understand primary topics. -- Alex^TW 14:39, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

With all of the reboots coming out nowadays, I have feeling that this is going to be a recurring issue. Of course, reboots could potentially make disambiguation nessicary if they last a long time and become popular in their own right, but the idea that they make it nessicary before they even air is just riddiculous. JDDJS (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Definitely agreed. If they become more noteworthy of the title, then discussions can be held for each of them to determine this. Until then, we editors have to deal with the issues that come with May sweeps, including articles for reboots and upcoming series that haven't yet started production (see above). -- Alex^TW 14:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey, so I'm shortly going to be editing in the references to the movies that all the Riverdale episode titles have. Taking inspiration from how Switched at Birth formats their references (in their case, paintings), do we want me to reference an article that talks about the reference? (For example, this article), or an article that talks about the references from a single episode, or is just explaining the reference, as the SaB page does (as the page establishes that the title references are to films later on), good enough? Thanks!--QueerFilmNerd (talk) 20:24, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@QueerFilmNerd: Probably best to post this on the article's talk page, to get a wider view. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 10:54, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 3) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

The article Doctor Who (series 3) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 3) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey AlexTheWhovian,

I was hoping you might chime in on this discussion being had in regards to deleting a page for the upcoming Netflix film First Ladies. I created a draft earlier today due to the fact that there is no word that the film has actually begun filming. Noticed later in the day that someone had went ahead and created a article in the mainspace. Hope to get your input in the discussion over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/First Ladies (film). Thanks, BoogerD (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

XMEN — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.223.37.161 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC) Prequel means beginning so don't see why you keep changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.223.37.161 (talk) 15:15, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Because it's the term that was officially agreed upon on the talk page, as Beginnings is the term used by the home media release. -- Alex^TW 22:18, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi, you asked about the nonspecific tag I had added to the tech section in Mr. Robot. I added the tag as the refs just link to all Mr. Robot articles appearing on those blogs/websites instead of specific articles "dissecting" the tech as claimed in the text. Gotitbro (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't get a response on the TV Wikiproject talk page. Maybe you might know where I can find Canadian TV ratings. I am specifically looking for Corner Gas Animated. I have searched and can't find anything. I am wondering so the ratings on the episode list can be updated. Thanks. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 04:08, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Fishhead2100: I rarely deal with ratings so I wouldn't know where to look, but ‎Esuka323 may be able to help you out - they're great at finding ratings! Cheers. (FWIW, I know Canadian ratings are hard to find, I could list dozen of Canadian series articles without ratings.) -- Alex^TW 04:15, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Alex. The only source that I know of for Canadian ratings is Numeris and I don't think they will have the show. They release a list of Top 30 shows weekly which includes the National numbers and the numbers in Quebec. Sorry I couldn't be of more help. Esuka323 (talk) 11:49, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Esuka323: I searched their site and didn't find anything either. Thanks anyways. Mr. C.C.^{Hey yo!}_{I didn't do it!} 02:44, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I'll keep my eye open for any reputable Canadian sources in the future. I'm mostly focused on American pages which is why I haven't looked beyond that. Esuka323 (talk) 20:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, since you have asked for sources, here I leave some [2] [3]. However taking into account that the book is written without the asterics. I think it's relevant to mention this.--Philip J FryTalk 11:43, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Primarily, it is known as The End of the F***ing World; a few review sites spelling it out does not make the actual title of it The End of the Fucking World (one of which is in another language, and hence would spell it out for translations purposes for its readers). And that's the book, not the television series. -- Alex^TW 12:18, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Exactly, but why not clarify this in the article?--Philip J FryTalk 12:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Because the name of the show isn't The End of the Fucking World. It's The End of the F***ing World. Also, listing it in the lead isn't clarifying it. It's stating that it's a definite title, when it's not. -- Alex^TW 12:26, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Every other Wikipedia pages have only two decimals, and that’s how they’re supposed to be. It looks unprofessional the way you did it. Mmm1103 (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

@Mmm1103: You mean "Every other Wikipedia pages that you've seen have only two decimals". The WP:CONSENSUS is three decimal places for series where the ratings have not exceeded a million, or only exceeded it once or twice. Clearly you're not aware of this, so I recommend you listen to the advice that an experienced editor is giving you. I can link plenty of articles that use three - shall I? -- Alex^TW 12:39, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Just off the top of my head, without any heavy research: Legion (TV series), List of 12 Monkeys episodes, American Gods (TV series), List of Black Sails episodes, Blunt Talk, The Mist (TV series). -- Alex^TW 13:11, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Good day AlexTheWhovian! Tha k you for the improvement you've made on the page Ang Probinsyano (season 3). I'd like to ask if you can do the same for the pages Ang Probinsyano (season 1), Ang Probinsyano (season 2), Ang Probinsyano (season 4) and Ang Probinsyano (season 5) so that all the said seasons would render nicely in the List of Ang Probinsyano episodes page.

Also, I'd like to ask, do you have an idea how to change the cell color in an episode table? From what I've read the changing of cell colors can only be done if the table used is an ordinary wikitable and not the episode table. I wanted to know if there's a way because I need to denote the ratings high and low of the series like it did prior to its conversion to the episodes table format.

My warmest regards. Gardo Versace (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Didn't mean to offend. The user, Harmony, is clearly problematic so if that took me out of character a bit much, I certainly apologize. His manner is very belligerent so it took me there. Cheers =D 2605:A000:4641:6000:E54D:96B3:56AF:D13A (talk) 02:19, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

No problems, I understand completely. But sometimes, we have to be the bigger person and not return their childish mannerisms with our own childish mannerisms. Keep up the good work. -- Alex^TW 04:13, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For your forbearance, commonsense and logic 2605:A000:4641:6000:E54D:96B3:56AF:D13A (talk) 02:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello, AlexTheWhovian. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Arrow".

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 edit the submission 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. » Shadowowl | talk 16:32, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it's better if we take the draft to the mainspace, since it has enough content to warrant a mainspace article (it's not like anyone is aiming for GA). --Kailash29792 (talk) 16:44, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It does not. Two lines of Production does not an article make. It simply needs some hard work, then it can be moved. -- Alex^TW 16:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone who can help expand it; someone like Brojam can, at best, drop sources to use. And someone better know how to fix those invalid refs in the draft. --Kailash29792 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Brooklyn Nine-Nine Season 5.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) 17:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

addiction to Doctor Who

Thank you for quality articles around TV series, such as Doctor Who (series 1) to 3, for Sense8, for page moves and template work, with planned fixes, for improving color contrast for accessibility, for remembering Sandy, - Alex, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

FYI, DownFame has been busy recreating templates deleted after the 27 June 2017 discussion. odd, because DownFame participated in that discussion, so should be aware that these were deleted for a reason. Frietjes (talk) 18:27, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: How unfortunate. I noticed that some weeks back, and speedy-nominated those that had already been deleted before, under G4. This template really needs to go... -- Alex^TW 00:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

there are dozens more. I nominated a batch at TfD. Frietjes (talk) 12:28, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Voted for deletion. I really wish the template itself would just be deleted. -- Alex^TW 12:44, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but at the very least, we don't need to put these in templates for use on multiple pages. and there are so many more to have deleted. Frietjes (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Looking at their full contributions and performing some copy, paste and regex, this is the complete list of templates they have created:

As I said at the TFD, the editor is just spamming templates; they are, for the most part, not even implementing them. -- Alex^TW 13:09, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Frietjes: Take a look at their contribution history now. Even more. -- Alex^TW 08:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

which new ones have been created? the last new one that I see is Template:Fresh Off The Boat ratings which was created before I started the deletion discussion. Frietjes (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I monitor a couple of error tracking categories and am trying to work out why List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes is showing an error ("Expression error: Unexpected ( operator") in the last paragraph of the lead. It is due to this:

{{Aired episodes|2018|3|19|showpage=Murdoch Mysteries|title=Murdoch Mysteries|specials=3|finished=11}}

A bonus problem is why User:AlexTheWhovian/script-updateepisodes.js is in hidden Category:ParserFunction errors and Category:Pages with script errors. Examining the HTML source of that page shows it includes:

Lua error in Module:Template_parameter_value at line 26: attempt to index a nil value.

I'm hoping you can work out what's going on. Johnuniq (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Cheers. I've reverted List of Murdoch Mysteries episodes back to its original state; basically, {{Aired episodes}} pulls the number of episodes from the parent article and expects it to be a number, but Murdoch Mysteries also has extra alongside the number, so it doesn't work properly. I'll take a look at my Update Episodes script as well. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 05:48, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This is the just another reason I am decreasing TV edits. If people cannot tell an episode has aired by looking at the airdate and the infobox's number of episodes, sure, let's flood the reference section and stretch the page. — Wyliepedia @ 02:30, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

@CAWylie: Except that it doesn't spam the references, because it's the same ref, so it's still one line. Go ahead, go check. You'll see. I'll wait here. -- Alex^TW 03:31, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Is it really not in WP:MOSTV that cast info should not be in the episode plot summaries (especially below it)? I could have sworn it's been discussed. - Brojam (talk) 06:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Brojam: Take a look at the talk page, they really don't like us. As for the cast info, yes, it has been agreed that guest cast should not be included in summaries, that's the WP:CONSENSUS. Good work for implementing it. -- Alex^TW 06:15, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That's what I thought. It really should be added into MOS:TVPLOT because I've seen it done in many articles, in particular the Disney series. Oh I know, I've been reverted a few times for trying to re-merge LoE and season pages that totally didn't justify their splits per the consensus. - Brojam (talk) 06:26, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Brojam: I agree. Perhaps raise it at WT:MOSTV? A lot of Disney series are edited by the same group, who don't feel the need to conform to the consensus. I'm trying to discuss the re-merge of a LoE at the moment, with an editor who's supporting the split there but was against early-splitting in the MOS discussion... Doing my head in a bit. -- Alex^TW 06:30, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Since your recent mass-AWB changes cited MOS:US, I feel like it needs to be pointed out that it says retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it. I'll also point out that, as far as I'm aware, there has never been a community-wide RfC to determine if "US" usage should be adopted at all. Using AWB in this way is against the WP:AWBRULES #2 and #3 - you should have sought consensus prior to embarking on that effort. I'm bringing this here in the hopes you can see the problem with imposing one usage against the guideline and self-revert. -- Netoholic @ 20:42, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

State the policy that says an RFC is required? No? The general consensus in the cited discussion was that US was preferred, so I did seek (and gain) consensus prior to my effort. Your personal opinion is noted, thank you. (I get it, though; people always wants to comment only when something is put into action, and they're a bit mad that they personally missed the discussion.) -- Alex^TW 21:12, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

You probably got the ping, but I've requested revocation of AWB access based on this at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions/AutoWikiBrowser. -- Netoholic @ 22:05, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Removal of AWB Access request. -- Netoholic @ 23:17, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Good day AlexTheWhovian! Thank you for editing Ang Probinsyano (season 1), Ang Probinsyano (season 4) and Ang Probinsyano (season 5) into the format you did for Ang Probinsyano (season 3). The edits you introduced made for a more uniform look to the seasons of the show and it renders beuatifully on the List of Ang Probinsyano episodes page.

However, you forgot to do the same with the Ang Probinsyano (season 2) page. That's why I'm dropping by to ask you to do the same for said page since its the last entry into the show that hasn't been converted into the format you introduced some 3 weeks ago. Thank you. Gardo Versace (talk) 02:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I have just reverted your edits in the season articles for BCS & The Walking Dead (also GoT) upon reading about your recent activity regarding MOS:US. MOS:US should not be used in American English articles. You didn't gain consensus prior to making them changes and because of that, you violated WP:AWBRULES. The Optimistic One (talk) 04:06, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Good job, kiddo - you didn't even know of either of those links before today, you're just jumping on the hype train 'cause you're a tiny bit annoyed that I caught you copying my user page. Go away. -- Alex^TW 13:21, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Don't worry... the reporting user is not off to a good start right now... The discussion is here. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:49, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

@Oshwah: Wasn't even aware of the discussion until it was closed. Thanks for the notice anyways. -- Alex^TW 10:34, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

TL;DR - An IP user opened the discussion by quoting himself in earlier messages to you where he was uncivil and making a personal attacks at you, and I boomeranged him for it. lol ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 10:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Closed RM. Hasteur (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Simply delivering notice that I've namechecked you regarding a question you raised. Hasteur (talk) 22:32, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I mentioned that User:AlexTheWhovian/script-updateepisodes.js is in the hidden Category:ParserFunction errors and Category:Pages with script errors error tracking categories here. The categories can be seen if the preference to show hidden categories is enabled, and can also be seen in the page information regardless of preferences.

I have finally got around to investigating the issue. I have no idea why but MediaWiki seems to parse the content of a js page as wikitext. Possibly that is a bug that should be fixed but meanwhile the page has three comments that contain empty templates and the errors are due to those mentions. Would you please workaround the issue by searching for {{ and replacing it with something that avoids the problem. For example, {Aired episodes} or Template:Aired_episodes. It is useful to empty extraneous stuff from the error tracking categories to make it easier to see items that need fixing. Johnuniq (talk) 03:50, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

The other Netflix series with 3 seasons also have their own category. Should go ahead and delete those too if 3 is too few.★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Also, I feel like I should add that it isn't allowed to empty a category by removing it from a bunch of articles and then try to have it deleted for being empty.★Trekker (talk) 13:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@*Treker: And the policy that states this is? -- Alex^TW 13:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I can't find the a page right now, but it's definitely something that's been stated during many deletion discussions I've seen and it's obviously the case because you're creating the fact that it's empty, it's beyond disingenuous and the guidline at the "critera for speedy deletion page" says "This criterion applies to categories that have been unpopulated for at least seven days." Which clearly isn't the case when you empty the thing yourself manually. If you really want it to be deleted do it the right way then, not that you cited any specific page when you claimed that it had too few articles.★Trekker (talk) 13:51, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

So, there's no policy. Thanks. -- Alex^TW 13:53, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Doing things the right way is hard am I right, just having it your way is much easier. Just make something true if it isn't! Even if it's pretty much cheating and false as hell.★Trekker (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Purge (franchise), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Fuller (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't mean to make edits to the list of Riverdale episodes it's just that I was only trying to put the seasons into different sections cause I think that the edit would help that and many other articles out Emilyiship'05 (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

@Emilyiship: They are in different sections: sub-sections, exactly how they're meant to be. -- Alex^TW 13:54, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be a bug with {{based on}} causing there to be no space after the 'by' when there are multiple creators, which is what I think these editors were trying to fix with these edits [4] [5]. - Brojam (talk) 02:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I brought this up at the template talk page, but I don't know if anybody is actually watching it. - adamstom97 (talk) 02:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

 Fixed -- Alex^TW 02:54, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! - Brojam (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 4) 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) 22:20, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex, just had a question for you here before I continue with this. The current structure of the article is fine, but having a look through the other season articles for the show it looks like there is a bit of inconsistency in terms of structure and section layout. If you were hoping to get this to a good topic at some point in the future, then you would probably want to go through and change this just to make sure it all lines up. I am happy to review this article as is, but if you do want to go ahead and make some change then I could wait until that was all sorted before giving my review. Just let me know what you want to do. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Hey, thanks for taking it up. I just got back from a week of visiting family, so I'll look into this as soon as possible. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 10:38, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey, Adam. I think I'm good on the layout for the specific review. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:35, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Okay, I'll just get on with the review then. Should get it sorted within a day or so. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:34, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex can you tell me how I can find the colors of TV season artwork please? Like how someone got the exact background color from The Goldbergs (season 3) or the sky on the cover of The Walking Dead: A New Frontier. Is there a tool on Wikipedia or somewhere else? Asking because I've seen some shows which colors don't match to their DVDs I'd like to fix.--90.193.151.125 (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. Personally, I use TinEye Labs' Colour Extractor. You load in the URL of the image, or drag-and-drop the image onto the site, and it extracts the main colours of the image. Try it with any image! You can then use Snook to make sure that the colour is WCAG 2 AAA Compliant (Contrast Ratio > 7) with either white or black (as you can see, the preloaded example is). -- Alex^TW 14:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I just used it and it works great. Many thanks!--2A02:C7D:892B:3D00:6D0A:BF8A:99B3:3C98 (talk) 18:52, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

No problems, glad to help! -- Alex^TW 04:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Template:Template parameter value has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but in my recent request at WP:RMT I forgot to include the acute accent in élire. Would we be able to correct that? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 01:52, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex^TW 02:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!! 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi AlexTheWhovian. Can you please tweak the syntax in your User:AlexTheWhovian/sandboxM so that the non-free File:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. title cards animation.gif is not being displayed. Non-free files are only allowed to be used in the WP:MAINSPACE and the file was flagged by a bot as a NFCC#9 violation. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:  Done -- Alex^TW 06:19, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, just to follow up from the recent reverts at Constantine: City of Demons: the status quo you mention is the article as it was before the edits were made (check out the Status quo ante bellum article linked to at the policy you quoted)... As you can see, I found the edit to be contentious, and reverted it. Reframing my revert as being the edit itself (rather than just being a reversion), because a discussion had been started yesterday on another article is... quite a novel interpretation! A bit concerned whether this is the kind of approach you've taken before/likely to take again, especially when dealing with new editors? ‑‑Yodin^T 14:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I am not totally knowledgeable about this particular article, but it looks like you made a bold edit and were completely happy to follow the BRD cycle (as stated in your edit summary) ... until Alex actually reverted you and then you decided that you wanted to revert him straight back. That's not how BRD works. If you say you want to follow BRD then it is up to you to stop editing once your bold change has been reverted and take the issue to the talk page. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:21, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I see what you mean, I didn't keep the revert text in the edit description, and said I was 'removing' rather than 'reverting'. From my perspective, I didn't do any bold edit: I made a revert of a bold edit that had been made earlier that day, only to have my own revert reverted, so I returned it again to the status quo while contributing to the discussion that was pointed out (I'd waited for the original bold editor to start a discussion until I found out people had talked about it on another page). Can see how my comment would look kind of hypocritical if I just turned up and boldly deleted that line if it had been there forever! ‑‑Yodin^T 22:25, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

It took a lot of effort (lots and lots of commercials too) because I was thinking it happened later in the episode, but I found the specific time two characters (and the subtitles for one of them) used the word "Trig". That's just one use, and it's a primary source and we're still guilty of WP:OR but it seems pretty clear what's going on and I hope that's enough.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 18:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex. This is something very minor, but looking at the Luke Cage (season 2) table with its color, I noticed in the header the column lines are virtually not there. Do you think that is an WP:ACCESS issue at all, and if it is, something we should adjust, given the color used? Is that even a parameter you have the ability to control? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it's a WP:ACCESS issue, but it can certainly be fixed by applying a border to each of the header cells, like so. We'd need to work out at which contrast a border should be applied. -- Alex^TW 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Cool. I think that seems better. It might not even have to be black, but maybe just a darker grey. Let me know how I can help you in implementing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I would need to know/work out what contrast I'd need to apply a different border at; the default border is #A2A9B1. -- Alex^TW 23:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)Would it work to have the borders change to black when the text does, contrast wise? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I mean, we could, but it seems to work fine for cases like Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 1). -- Alex^TW 10:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries, just thought that might be an easy fix. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

You might be onto something, though. I made the border match the text in the testcases here; original then modified for 100 random colours. Doesn't look too bad. -- Alex^TW 11:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, that does look pretty good. I say if you want to make the change, go for it. For cases, such as the Brooklyn Nine-Nine example, where it doesn't look bad with the grey, it might take some adjusting, but overall it might make everything look a little better. Have the heading be its own thing (with white or black text/lines) and leave the episode rows to have the grey. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex. I've been away for a bit, and just remembered this. Any objection to implementing what you tested in the sandbox? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

I'd completely forgotten about this! All implemented now. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 09:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: But alas, Brojam reverted it[6]. -- Alex^TW 03:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Why don't you just make the inner border (between each column of the header row) white when there's a contrast issue with the current border color ( #A2A9B1 ). Like this. - Brojam (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

It's possible. Set border-left and border-right of each cell to the alternate colour of black or white, and then border-left and border-right of the whole table to default. -- Alex^TW 03:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Can't the code Alex previously implement, just be applied to the inner borders, so it still matches the text color (and isn't defaulted to black or white when the contrast is off)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten about this. Just working on a million things on- and off-site at the same time. -- Alex^TW 04:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

The article Doctor Who (series 4) 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 4) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Hey Adam, I haven't forgotten about this, but I'm currently out of town until Friday night (University rural teaching placement for the week), and the net out here is terrible, so I'll get to work on it as soon as possible. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 03:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries, I trust you to get to it when you can. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Recently, an editor updated the Rotten Tomatoes graph for this season, causing the graph to glitch, leaving yellow streaks across the graph. This glitch is nothing to do with the editor who made the edit, and changing any of the numbers appears to fix the glitch. I was wondering if you could figure out what's happened as I've tried, by briefly partially reverting the edit to no avail. Cheers TedEdwards 15:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: I fixed it with a small decimal addition, the effect of which will be negligible. I need to look into why it's doing that... Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

After viewing Doctor Who Confidential I have decided to fix up the article a bit as it seems a bit messy to me. I plan to eventually publish the changes I've made at User:TheDoctorWho/sandbox5 into the article, of course after I do more converting into episode tables, watch, more Confidential, and do a little work on the rest of the article. Two questions though, for starters the Series Overview seems a bit bulky any ideas on how it could be simplified/less confusing? Secondly, since the episodes are non-fiction I'm having a bit trouble writing the beginning of the episode summaries, do you have any ideas of what to use other than "This episode primarily covers"? Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Hey, nice work! I'd leave the specials and +1's out of the overview, just like we do at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)#Series overview, and add a similar note to what's on that page ("The following table dictates the season or series in question; singular specials are not included in episode counts or viewer totals."). As for the episode summaries, just leave them out; what the episodes focus on is rather obvious, and that's covered by the "Doctor Who Episode" column section. -- Alex^TW 13:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done I left a few of the episode summaries in there, mainly the ones that don't tie into a specific Doctor Who episode. That definitely cleared up the series overview. Thanks for the advice! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Awesome. Let me know when you've implemented the changes; there's a few formatting edits I'd like to do, but I'll wait until you're finished the new version with your edits first. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 05:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Will do! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I've just implemented the edits. Feel free to do your thing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho:  Done -- Alex^TW 03:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Coming back to this... I think we should include the specials in the overview table, as the numbers don't match up in the "No. in series" columns. For example, Series 6 gives 13 episodes in the overview, but 14 plus a special in the actual table. Same with Series 2, 3 and 4. What are your thoughts? -- Alex^TW 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to get back to you, I think that makes perfect sense. I'll leave it to you to decide how it's included. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Currently you've caused problems with articles that use Japanese episode list templates. Japanese shows include kanji and romaji in the episode titles aside from the English titles which is why the template is different in the first place. Your efforts in suggesting the deletion of the template has caused the episodes list in a lot of articles became unreadable. Please fix this problem asap. Edit: Some anime have episodes that should be watch in release order OR chronological order. This is why the sortable function in Japanese episodes list is important. Again, please fix this (all the episode titles have disappear from the articles right now). Tsukishimastarrk (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

I guess you can't read. If you actually went to the discussion, you would see that I suggested to merge it, not delete it. Are they unreadable because of the "The template below (Japanese episode list) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus." notice? Sorry, can't remove that, has to be there. "all the episode titles have disappear from the articles right now"? Not my change. -- Alex^TW 08:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex. What is the reason you oppose having a background color in the cells with average ratings and also why do you prefer the italic font type instead of bold for the text? The truth is that i was very satisfied by the readability of the table after the changes i made, but now it looks weird again. - Radiphus 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

As I said, we don't use colours just for the sake of it, colours need to have actual meaning behind them when they're used. Same as when Template:Television season ratings used to use colours; it is a violation of WP:COLOR to use colour just as a way to display or convey information. (A textbook example of this that still exists can be seen at Parks and Recreation#Ratings. It's not the only one, so many more still need to be updated to template format.)

In the same vein, bold text is a violation of MOS:BOLD. (So are the italics, so realistically, it ought to be displayed as just a regular unformatted number.) -- Alex^TW 15:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I see no conflict with the style guidelines, but we don't have to argue about it. It's obvious that we both think that the average ratings should be highlighted somehow. Is the style i had proposed in January for the average column at Template talk:Television ratings graph#Suggestions considered as one of the "good suggestions"? I avoided it, because that style is used for headers. If we can't agree on any of these, i agree that displaying the average ratings as just a regular unformatted number would be better than italics. - Radiphus 16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

That form of formatting shouldn't be used either, as it's a violation of table layouts, but you do already know that. Regular unformatted number it is. The column could have a border to the left, but that is all that would be necessary. -- Alex^TW 09:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think a border would make any difference as to the purpose of highlighting the column. The increased width of the column does the job already in visually separating the average ratings from the other numbers. The purpose of using a background color and/or bold text was to immediately attract the reader's attention to data that are not already repeated elsewhere in the article and to make reading the table easier and faster. As i said, i don't believe there is any conflict with WP:COLOR or MOS:BOLD, but i don't have time to change your mind on that. Let's keep it as is (no color, border, bold, italics) and i will also make sure to remove the bold text from other templates sometime soon for consistency. - Radiphus 09:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I still haven't quite finished with the summaries on the series 3 page, though once I am then I'll probably start with series 4 immediately after. TardisTybort (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

@TardisTybort: No problems! I'm debating on copying the plots from the episode articles and trimming them down to 200 words anyways. It'll give me something to do, then the GA status for the article will be done. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 14:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand why my edit for Fear the Walking Dead was deemed "not constructive". Please let me know why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slone19 (talk • contribs) 02:52, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Slone19: The table is unnecessary, and should exist on a separate characters page, but one does not exist. Discuss on the article's if you disagree, and sign your posts with ~~~~ when you start a discussion. -- Alex^TW 03:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

I've recently been on the "BBC Doctor Who website". and it seems to have started to regard the Snowmen as the 6th episode of Series 7 (it shows this more explicitly "here"., but I'm not sure if you'll be able to see this link) and therefore regards tBoSJ as episode 7, tRoA as episode 8 etc.. It used to regard tBoSJ as episode 1 of "Series 7 part 2" and so forth before there was one heading for series 7 rather than 2. However, I'm unsure about changing this in the article, so I wanted to know what your opinion was. Cheers! TedEdwards 12:42, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Best to leave it as it is, I'd say. This is only an update far after the series has aired, and I think it's just for convenience on their part, as many reliable sources consider Series 7 to have 13 episodes. A sentence of prose could be added detailing this update in a Release section, perhaps. -- Alex^TW 12:51, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

The article Doctor Who (series 4) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 4) 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) 04:03, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm leaving a message here in hopes of a faster response. I realized that when Template:Infobox Doctor Who character is used it automatically makes the subheader Doctor Who character. The template accepts a |series = parameter however this does not work due to the current code in the template.

{{Infobox Doctor Who character
| name = Jack Harkness
| series = [[Doctor Who]] and [[Torchwood]]
}}

Although the parameter says |series = Doctor Who and Torchwood it still comes out Doctor Who (example in first infobox on right). I may be wrong but wouldn't this be incorrect for any characters that appear in spin-off's? (Examples: Rhys Williams (Torchwood), Clyde Langer, etc.) Although those characters exist in the Doctor Who Universe they never appeared in Doctor Who itself. I created a sandbox for the template and changed the code

from: |subheader = {{#if:{{{multiple|}}}|''[[Doctor Who]]'' characters|''[[Doctor Who]]'' character}}
to: |subheader = {{#if:{{{multiple|}}}|{{{series|}}} characters|{{{series|}}} character}}.

The above code change appeared to fix the issues (example in second infobox on right).

{{Infobox Doctor Who character/sandbox
| name = Jack Harkness
| series = ''[[Doctor Who]]'' and ''[[Torchwood]]''
}}

Anyways, realizing I got a little long-winded above, should the infobox be changed to accommodate the issues raised above? TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm very on and off Wikipedia at the moment (as can be seen by my contributions), so I promise I'll take a look at it when I can. -- Alex^TW 03:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Take your time, there's no rush. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: Back to this. Great suggestion! I've updated the template, with a minor tweak to your code. It now uses

|subheader    = {{#if:{{{multiple|}}}|{{{series|''[[Doctor Who]]''}}} characters|{{{series|''[[Doctor Who]]''}}} character}}.

This is so that if |series= isn't defined, it automatically sets to Doctor Who. Just make sure that when using |series=, it's properly linked and italicized, just like your second example. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 02:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll update any characters that don't have the |series= defined as I notice them. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: No problems! While you do that, I might help out and go through and clear out the ones that explicitly use |series=Doctor Who, so that it automatically sets to Doctor Who (as the parameter is needed just for those of multiple series or a non-Doctor Who series). -- Alex^TW 04:02, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Quick question before I get too far into this: At which point do we want to include multiple series in the parameter? Do we only want to include it if it was a main/starring role in both series, if it was main role in one series and recurring role in the other, or include one-off guest appearances as well? TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:09, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'd say the second one, where the character is at least a main role in one and recurring in the other. Definitely if main for both. Guest appearances don't really matter that much in the grand scope of things. -- Alex^TW 04:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Noted, thanks for the advice. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Alright, as of now I've taken care of all main post-2005 companions (that I can think of off the top of my head), all SJA characters, and all TW characters. I intend on working on secondary and minor characters later when I have more time. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I've been looking at this article, and I was wondering if you knew what defined a character as starring or recurring/guest for the classic series, considering the opening titles did not list any actors? TedEdwards 21:34, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, I think the universally accepted rule for what defines a recurring character is that they should have made at least four appearances in a single season. Any amount lower than that makes them a guest character. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

It varies depending upon the season and the series; four episodes out of the upcoming Series 11's 10 episodes is far different to four episodes in Season 1's 42 episodes. Best to rely upon reliable sources that state what they are. -- Alex^TW 13:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

So what about starring characters? What defines those in this article? TedEdwards 20:09, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Doctors and Companions mostly, I would assume. I'd suggest to a look at the individual season articles and see what's listed there. -- Alex^TW 02:37, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey! Sorry to bother you with something like that, but since you're an experienced user with the TV series pages, I'd like your help with my issue, please. So, I added an episode table on Grand Hotel (U.S. TV series) with the info about the pilot episode and the second episode, as it was revealed by a main actor of the show via Instagram. BoogerD reversed my edits saying that we generally don't create an episode section until we have a premiere date and that Instagram is not a reliable source for that. Here is my question: how so?
On American Horror Story: Apocalypse, we created the episode section as soon as we got the confirmation that Paulson was directing an episode (and if I recall, we did something similar for Cult?). We also keep using Twitter and Instagram sources on the page. Yes, I know we replace them with media sources as soon as we can; but if we can't, we still use them if they come directly by the actors (which is the case here) and no other choice.
I thought it could be - maybe - something only allowed for "old shows", but on the A Million Little Things page, there is a table and a title via the Instagram of one of the actresses.
I'm getting really lost now... The shows pages do not seem to work the same at all... I just don't understand why on AHS or AMLT it would be okay to use social media sources, but not on Grand Hotel :S So, if you could help me, please, that would be really cool of you. Thanks! Lady Junky (talk) 05:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: Hey, glad to help. (No idea about Cult, I'm only following Apocalypse for my partner since she watches AHS.) Your edit to the page is completely acceptable. As I stated in my edit summary, there is no rule on adding a table only where there's a premiere date; the common practice is to add it once there are two cells of information available (e.g. title/date, director/title, writer/date, etc). The Instagram account is also verified, and thus is an acceptable source. The editor does not seem to be aware of this, and thus they should now know. -- Alex^TW 05:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! Really. I was really getting lost now ^^' Lady Junky (talk) 05:30, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: All good. I've made a few tweaks on the concerns of the other editor, such as the first episode not being explicitly titled "Pilot", and a production code of 102 not explicitly meaning the second episode, but it should be all good now. -- Alex^TW 05:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I can get the issue with the production code. But, if you look at the pics released by ABC once the series was picked up, they called the first episode "Pilot" (here, just check the episodic pics). It should be enough, no? Lady Junky (talk) 05:42, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm checking the episodic pictures, but I can't see where "Pilot" is listed, can you point me to where? And it needs to specifically be titled "Pilot", not just called "the pilot". -- Alex^TW 05:47, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I see it saying "Pilot", in the first picture of the "episodic" section if you click on the picture it says GRAND HOTEL – “Pilot” – Eva Longoria executive produces this bold... and so on as the caption of the photo. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I see it now. It can be reimplemented, just with a note on where to see it on the page. -- Alex^TW 11:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex,

I saw that you have been attempting to revert Joeymiskulin's numerous unexplained edits wherein he seems to be removing content for no reason. I feel as though we have exhausted attempts to speak with him and that he has every intention of carrying on an edit war. Any chance you might report him? I'd do it myself but I'm not particularly skilled in that area of Wikipedia. – BoogerD (talk) 06:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@BoogerD: Already reported to WP:AIV. Unfortunate when we get editors like these. -- Alex^TW 06:13, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for being so swift. I mean, I feel like for me the main agitation is that it takes away time I could be spending doing something more valuable for the site. There's always a hundred different things I want to get accomplished on here each day but somehow "shenanigans" like these occupy so much time. I'm sure its a huge pet peeve for you as well. – BoogerD (talk) 06:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a heads up. The editor left a message on my talk page here: User talk:BoogerD#Edit warring on TV shows. Their message was this:

Hi. Sorry I appear to be engaged in an edit war, vandalizing articles about TV shows, which is very bad behaviour and I'm not going to revert them no more, so don't block me. Joeymiskulin (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thought you should see that. – BoogerD (talk) 06:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

A note of appreciation for repairing the unsolicited rename of "Llanfairpwllgwyngyll" by Turkish20302 (and they had even put a trailing '.' in the name). This user seems new. But he/she has done several other renames. I wonder if they, too, need attention. And does this user need to be guided, educated, mentored, etc.? Feline Hymnic (talk) 08:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Feline Hymnic: No probs, I'm just a frequent contributor to RMTR. If there's any others, best to list it there. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 11:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You reverted my edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_The_Next_Step_episodes&diff=855952838&oldid=855951845, citing that it was unsourced. The other series in the article are also unsourced. What source would be suitable to verify a TV show's listings?

You also cite "per WP:TV and MOS:TV, we only list airings in the series' origin country, not every other country first". I have read both WP:TV and MOS:TV and can't find any reference that says that listed airings must be in the series' origin country. The series that was removed (series 6) was aired first on the CBBC channel and not in Canada as was the case for the other series of the show. Please could you clarify which policy requires TV show airings to only be in the show's origin country, rather than the country that the episodes were first broadcast in. Tom29739 ^[talk] 20:06, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The other seasons have aired in the series' origin country, Canada, and therefore act as WP:PRIMARY sources for themselves.

Per MOS:TV#Release, when listing down broadcast details, can include: the original network or streaming service of release in the country of production (i.e. the British network for a British series such as Doctor Who, or the American and British networks for a co-production such as Sherlock); a change in network throughout the run, such as with Futurama; start and end dates; and discussion of technical data such as picture and audio format, when it is accompanied by critical commentary. This does not include details about other countries and networks.

Furthermore, As Wikipedia is not a television guide, do not include an indiscriminate list of every network that a series appeared on in countries outside the country of production. It does go on to state that Editors are encouraged instead to add noteworthy foreign broadcasts, if reliably sourced; for example, special cases such as an American series airing its finale first in France. As such, the episode table should only be added in sync with the series' broadcast in its origin country, Canada, and any early release on the season can be noted through prose in the parent article for the series.

Hope that clears things up. -- Alex^TW 02:50, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I did resolve the problem by shortening the entries in question. It just seems to me, that you think it's not enough. Maybe you should give it a shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobbyR (talk • contribs) 06:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@NobbyR: MOS:TVPLOT gives a limit of 200 words, and the summaries tagged are over that length, closer to 250. Removing a few words doesn't make the tag removals valid. If you're not sure how long a summary is, you can easily use this script, which tells you the length of each plot. And when posting on talk pages, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 08:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Well, it seems to me that in this case a plot with multiple story lines is hard to condense into 200 words without neglecting important aspects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NobbyR (talk • contribs)

There are "complicated" series that have episodes that are an hour long, Game of Thrones. An hour and a half, Sherlock. They manage to keep to 200 words. Preacher isn't that complicated, I've watched it too. And sign with just four tildes. -- Alex^TW 11:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey there. I saw that you moved the page to draft status. I don't really see a reason for that. While the page is far from perfect, I would say it is just fine as a stub. I will move it back unless you can point out a problem with it that I am missing. All the best, Abyss Taucher (talk) 16:17, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

@Abyss Taucher: If you'd read the edit summary... Television series don't exist as articles until production has actually begun (i.e. filming). Until then, they exist in the draftspace. And since the original page now exists as a redirect, you are unable to move it back. -- Alex^TW 00:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

>"Television series don't exist as articles until production has actually begun (i.e. filming)."

Could you provide a source for that claim? Is that a rule? The article about the US Witcher series exists on 6 other language versions of Wikipedia, including all the largest ones such as the German, French, Russian and Chinese Wikias. There's clearly enough info about the show already to have an article about it and the topic is clearly popular, so I see no reason to remove it except for some personal misinterpretation of the rules unless I am missing some important part of the equation.

P.S. You stated in your edit summary removing the latest version of the article that I created: "Creating articles via copying is against Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia". Just an FYI that version wasn't a copy of the previous one. I created the article from the scratch because I didn't know you removed the previous version just a day before and therefore didn't know another version of that article existed. I just noticed there was no article on the TV series and decided to create one. Cheers. Openlydialectic (talk) 03:50, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Why would you reply here when there's a discussion on the article's talk page? I'll move your reply there, and reply there myself. -- Alex^TW 11:54, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

If you treat your fellow regular editors as newcomers you will have a bad experience here at Wikipedia, something you ought to know already. As a reminder, how do you feel about being treated as a greenhorn? In other words, do not slap insulting newbie messages onto my user talk again. Very sceptically, CapnZapp (talk) 12:10, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

@CapnZapp: I've been here for long enough, my experience is just fine, thanks. Don't act like a newbie, and I won't have to. It truly is that simple. -- Alex^TW 12:14, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

How did Power Rangers Beast Morphers escape the “unfilmed shows must stay in Draftspace until filming” rule for the months before the Rangers flew out to New Zealand? Was it that the Sentai footage already existed? Did people just…forget?--Sarcathmo17 (talk) 02:01, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just because there is a rule does not mean that people will always follow it, and just because some people manage to get away with not following a rule does not mean that everybody should be allowed to do so as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 03:14, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

I've recently being tidying up the redirects to the first five American Horror Story seasons, and other than finding 77 redirects that needlessly ended with "(American Horror Story)" (see here) that I'm taking to RfD, I found a few redirects that were too ambigious, such as Fiona (American Horror Story), which links to the Murder House article, but could be confused with the Coven character Fiona Goode. So I'm wondering how you would deal with such redirects? Thank you TedEdwards 16:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Wentworth Season 6.jpeg. 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) 17:51, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, as a Doctor Who fan have you heard of Camping (U.S. TV series)? It has David Tennant in a lead role and it starts next month on HBO. It may be worth checking out. Esuka323 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

@Esuka323: I hadn't heard of it before today, and I'd love to... However, I'm already behind on the latest season of about twenty other shows. (And that's not an exaggeration!) -- Alex^TW 21:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

I am actually no longer proposing the preexisting move request on Triangle (2009 British film) because my previous reasoning overlooked WP:FILMLEDE as I was mistaken in my interpretation of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC since once you apply a parenthesis it ceases to be a primary outright. The issue is that it's a British-Australian film incorrectly labelled a "British film"....I have actually proposed an Amendment to the move discussion. I would like to know the proper procedure in dealing with that, if the move request can be changed or how else we go about dealing with that. DA1 (talk) 05:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21. You have new messages at Hhkohh's talk page.
Message added 08:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hhkohh (talk) 08:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello, AlexTheWhovian. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Talk:Counter-Revolutionary Violence, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a COI may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (see the {{request edit}} template);
• disclose your COI when discussing affected articles (see WP:DISCLOSE);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:SPAM);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you must disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation (see WP:PAID).

Also please note that editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. Hhkohh (talk) 09:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Please read the COI guidelines and note it has absolutely no relevance here, it doesn't relate to what you think it does. Am I directly related to the Counter-Revolutionary Violence? No? Nice try though. -- Alex^TW 15:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

.......I think the issue is that you have a conflict of edits rather than interest. You answered the IP, made a TR of a page, always a bit of a risk with IP editors, the editor Hhkokh reverted this using a technical restore. You edited out his technical restore. It's at that point that there's a conflict of edits. Now we have a pointless RM starting from the wrong end as a result. This is a waste of all editors' time. If someone uses technical restore to revert a technical move let it go back to stable title. Simple. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:46, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@In ictu oculi: So, the editor had no idea what guideline they were even talking about, and tried to look important. But failed. Gotcha. -- Alex^TW 10:25, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful. Visible personal animus is coming into your posts. I suggest you close any RM where you have prevented any editor using a technical revert. And also moderate comments. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Did s/he use the correct guideline, or did they use it to further their personal beliefs against me? The latter. It's not my fault if they made this post for their own purposes. No further comment is required here. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 11:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

just move the text to the regular page. i can;t do it but i'm sure you can and probably isn't so hard to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.250.119.17 (talk) 07:15, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's not an actual article. If you feel the need to create it, do so at Draft:List of stores at Kings Plaza, the correct place to work on incomplete articles. You have now combined article and talk page content into a mess. -- Alex^TW 07:21, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi,

I see you previously moved this article to a draft version but it has since been made back into an article, making two articles with the same title but differing content. I have tried to delete and move it back since production still hasn't begun but the creator is resisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt14451 (talk • contribs)

@Matt14451: Nominated it for deletion. -- Alex^TW 08:44, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. I tried to propose deletion and redirect but both got removed by creator of page.

Thanks for uploading File:Crisis on Earth-X home media.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) 17:25, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, when is it possible to close an AfD? It's been 7 days since The Witcher (TV series) and List of Batman storylines started. Matt14451 (talk) 08:53, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451: An admin will do it when they get around to it. Be patient. -- Alex^TW 11:40, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

I see you're an avid Doctor Who fan. My cousin used to be in it awhile ago. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:47, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm Irish, she's Scottish, I'm ginger, she's ginger, I'm tall, she's tall, I'm a Clarke, she's a Gillan. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:45, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Cry (2018 TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

You moved this article to Blackwood railway station (Australia) this morning, even though (Australia) is not used as disambiguation on any Australian railway station. I now can't move it to Blackwood railway station, Adelaide, where it should be (and used to be, before someone helpfully un-disambiguated it in the first place), because a bot corrected the double redirect that was created. Would you be able to please move it back to Blackwood railway station, Adelaide? The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife:  Done -- Alex^TW 04:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:40, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Why don't we seperate special guest stars on AHS Apocalypse? They are seperated in other AHS articles. King10 (talk) 13:21, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@King10: They shouldn't be. I'll merge them. Thanks for the heads up. All special guest stars are still guest stars. -- Alex^TW 13:30, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

If this is the case Alex, should the system on List of American Horror Story cast members be changed, where at the moment special guest stars are highlighted blue with the {{CGuest}} template and "guest stars" are highlighted pink with {{CRecurring}}, to a system that the one-off guest stars are highlighted with {{CGuest}} and the recurring actors are highlighted with {{CRecurring}} (which tbh sounds a lot more sensible and actually in accordance with the templates)? TedEdwards 16:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Hey, Ted. I think the article specific to cast members and characters should be fine, as they have the room to be able to go into more specific detail. Although, I would agree with your proposal as well; it makes sense. It's the season articles themselves that should just list the default Main/Recurring/Guest. -- Alex^TW 01:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I would be very grateful if you could explain the reason to remove Romance from genres of the show, Lucifer. I thought Lucifer can be considered as a show about romance. So I'm just wondering why you removed it. I'm a newbie. So please tell me if there's anything I should know about adding genres. Please pardon my brevity and typos. Savindu Sihilel (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Savindu Sihilel: Do you have a source to back this up? -- Alex^TW 02:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:There's a trailer under the name "A Devilish Love Story" in RottenTomatoes.com Is it enough? There are many sources. I have listed most trusted ones, Silver Petticoat Review, Love Interest Wiki If you want more sources, Google "romance in Lucifer". Thanks for hearing me out. It's an honor to talk with a fellow Wikipedian.

Hi Alex. I've been looking at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) and I've noticed that for the links that should go to List of Doctor Who episodes (1963-1989) on the series overview (i.e. Seasons 1-26 and the TV film), they instead go to the 2005-present article. This is not true the other way around i.e. the links for Series 1-11 on the 63-89 article work fine, so I can't figure out what the problem was, so I wondered if you could. TedEdwards 12:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

All fixed! I realized it was incorrect to put the includeonly tags in this particular overview. Thanks or the heads up. -- Alex^TW 12:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi AtW. You may have seen that we have an editor who is trying to add death info to the Tom Baker article. I can't find any info about this on the net. However, I did come across an article at mediamass.net which is blacklisted so I can't leave the link but it talks about a hoax that started last month. I'm heading out to run errand in a bit so you might keep an eye on his article. Of course, you might be going off wikiP as well so any pf your TPW's who can lend an eye will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Cheers for the heads up; I've added his article to my watchlist. It's either a nobody with nothing to do, or a very sad day for the world. Seems they made similar edits to Geoffrey Hayes, but Hayes does appear to have passed. -- Alex^TW 07:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well, they've said that is was a BBC News break, but when I went onto https://bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment_and_arts, well no mention, and something tells me the BBC would widely report it. So Alex, I think the former explanation you gave is correct. TedEdwards 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks AtW. I agree TedEdwards. That announcement - long may it not happen - would be widely reported and fairly quickly to boot. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 14:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Why did you draftify this article when my attempts to draftify an article like The Simpsons (season 30) with hardly any content get reverted? Mine had a lot more. Matt14451 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451: I don't follow The Simpsons or the articles for it. Ask the person who moved it, or the person who requested the move. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, such a double-standard is annoying. Matt14451 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451: Noted. -- Alex^TW 07:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi again AtW. Only a few days to go! There are lots of creative people producing good Dr Who videos on Youtube. This is one of my favourites and perfect as a lead in to Sunday. It is nice that (as with the The Day of the Doctor - can five years have gone by already) we will all be seeing it at the same time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not long! It's a 4am wake up for me to watch it here, but totally worth it. This has always been a favourite of mine; bit old, but still love it. -- Alex^TW 23:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is fun. I hadn't seen it before so thanks for this link AtW! MarnetteD|Talk 23:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware that I have been on wikipedia for a few years now. And I'm aware that I have to sign every post! Thanks! Matt Campbell (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: I know you're aware of it, but are you signing it properly? You've just signed your name three times in this post, your talk page twice and the date twice. You only need 4 tildes - how many are you using? -- Alex^TW 23:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quiet storm. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Clearly not an edit war. You are showing far too much WP:ownership of this article - not sure anyone who sticks Whovian in their uses should not be editing any Sci-Fi-related articles because of WP:COI issues. And WP:DTTR - good grief! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)

@Nfitz: Was it your edits being disputed? I counter with WP:TR. Also, I recommend you strike that WP:PA - looks like you've had issues with blocks recently, probably be best to be on your best behaviour! -- Alex^TW 02:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Reading - it's fundamental! -- Alex^TW 02:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

... or other relationship. ANY external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest ... and I'm sensing an unhealthy relationship with science fiction here! I shouldn't have to deal with edit conflicts trying to add a reference, shortly after adding something, because someone is watching the page so closely that they feel an immediate need to do nothing except add a note that a reference is needed. Why not simply add the reference yourself, rather than slow my editing? I'm done ... going to watch this on TV ... Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nfitz: I should have to deal with edit wars on my open watchlist. Source your content or don't add it. Is there anything in WP:V about adding it later? And do try to understand COI and not wrap it around your pinky finger for your own uses. Love me some sci-fi.

Also, as a side note, I was a massive fan of that Doctor Who episode that premiered on September 23. Were you? What did you think of it? -- Alex^TW 02:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh good grief - edit war? Don't exaggerate; and over a minor formatting issue in a table that does no harm? BTW, did you not read what I wrote back then? I never thought it would air that day. I was adding what had been reported by a leading media outlet in the UK. I'm concerned you are being obsessive, and take things too literally. Can I suggest staying away from editing articles in this genre? It's sources that are the issue? I'll re-add that column with a reference than, if that's the only problem. You are relatively new here, so my advice to you, is if you have such minor issues, that simple continue to add to the article to improve, rather than reverting! Nfitz (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nfitz: If you re-add it, you're still edit-warring over that one column. "Relatively new"? Yeah, 80,000+ edits is "relatively new". You're kidding me, buddy, really. No more posts on this page from you, thanks. -- Alex^TW 03:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You just said that your issue was references. So I suggested adding a reference. How is that edit warring? I'm trying to sort out the issue. If you think discussing the issue on a talk page is edit warring, you need to read further! 2014? That is relatively new. So you oppose editing ... and now you oppose talking? And you wonder why I'm offering you advice? Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not. They were two separate sentences. 1) Column: I should have to deal with edit wars on my open watchlist. 2) Date: Source your content or don't add it. Clearer? -- Alex^TW 03:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

There was a good reason, I moved it because it makes more sense as (duo) rather than (DJs). Looks more professional. --Larcombe (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Larcombe: Then why did Flooded with them hundreds list it at WP:RM/TR under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" [8]? -- Alex^TW 09:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "AlexTheWhovian". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 October 2018.

Hey, is User talk:ALWhovian another account of yours? --Gonnym (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Not me, I don't sock. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be a copy either, like AlexTheDoctor was, since they've been a year longer than I. -- Alex^TW 01:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess its fitting of a Dr Who fan that your name predates you. --Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

The request for formal mediation concerning AlexTheWhovian, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

Hi

I just wanted to apologise for the earlier issue. As you know I took the information from this site: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bp1brh

I thought that this would be adequate as it is an official BBC site as opposed to an external body. I did not consider a typo.

I apologise for the issue and also apologies for you having to lock the thread (fellow user) I did not mean any malice I was just trying to help make the page more accurate.

That was my FIRST EVER edit on this site and I am sorry, once again, if I caused you any porblems

Joe Age 17JoeLea591 (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@JoeLea591: Absolutely no problems! It's probably just a case of the BBC's website having it input incorrectly on their end, as Mark has already been confirmed as the director for Episode 2. I didn't lock the page; that was another article. Enjoy Series 11! -- Alex^TW 13:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words You too!JoeLea591 (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@JoeLea591: Also just another friendly tip. Whenever you post on a talk page, make sure you always sign your name with four tildes. It'll input your name and the date when you save the page. That way, other editors know it's you they're talking to. -- Alex^TW 13:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks JoeLea591 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, I saw that you created this category Category:Pages using infobox television episode with incorrectly formatted episode list and added it as a tracking category to the infobox, but I think this issue is a bit larger. I was looking at the first article in the category, which is 2-D Blacktop and that uses Template:Infobox Futurama episode, which is a "wrapper" of television episode and has in its code | episode_list = [[Futurama (season {{{season}}})|''Futurama'' (season {{{season}}})]]<br>[[List of Futurama episodes|List of ''Futurama'' episodes]]. Since I'm not familar with what you did and how this tracks, I don't know how to fix this. Mind taking a look? --Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, sorry for the late reply! The template is meant to use |season_article= and |episode_list= with just the plain links in each parameter; joining both by using |episode_list= with the formatted links is a deprecated format. I've updated the Futurama episode infobox template, so the category should soon begin to clear out. I'll see what other episode infobox templates do this too - cheers for the heads up! -- Alex^TW 06:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

So the documentation that says: Wikilink to the "<showname> (season #)" article. Use plain text, the template will automatically format and link the article; text manually formatted will not be affect and still be displayed as such. should be changed? --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, do you mean in Template:Infobox television episode? No, that is the updated text. Just plain text should be used; i.e. just "Futurama (season 3)", no wikilinks. The template automatically adds the link and italics. That's what should be added. If, however, wikilinks are manually added into the template, then they'll still appear as-is. -- Alex^TW 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I don't understand something here. The text says to "wikilink to the article", but also to "use plain text". Aren't those contradicting statements? --Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, I get what you mean... Perhaps Title for the "<showname> (season #)" article? -- Alex^TW 08:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's good, so working with that: Title of the season article, usually in the form of "<showname> (season #)" article. Use plain text, the template will automatically format and link the article. - I removed the end part as even if the infobox can deal with it, the code you added will put it in the maintenance category, so we shouldn't promote it. Comments? --Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, sure, that works. -- Alex^TW 08:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

After what user Legacypac suggested over here, I've decided to do the same. But not right away; I'll need you and Brojam to say it's good to go. Previously you said, "The Production section needs a great deal of expanding. Some of those sections are one, two, maybe three lines long. Critical response as well. No home media dates given for other regions, and it really ought to be in prose. Broadcast has one sentence." Just glimpse at these sections now, and please share your updated view on Talk:List of Supergirl episodes (I'm sure you have time for this). That is a key move in establishing the consensus of the draft being fit to enter the mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21. This is a courtesy notice that the copy edit you requested for Doctor Who (series 5) at the Guild of Copy Editors requests page is now complete. All feedback welcome! Good luck with FA and all the best, Miniapolis 01:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kind of Blue. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi just wanted to bring this to your attention

I don't think it means anything I just though it was interesting.

There is NO ONE listed as director.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bp1brh

Ok you were right ...

JoeLea591 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, can you explain to me how your move of Niki (singer) to the all caps-stylized NIKI does not go against Wikipedia rules for stylized all caps artist names, MOS:ALLCAPS, etc.? I am honestly puzzled.

See, for example, Zayn, Neiked, Sohn, Alma, 6lack, PartyNextDoor, etc., all of whom are not represented by their stylized all caps names on Wikipedia. Thanks! —Electricnet (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Electricnet, don't ask me. As my edit summary states in the move, as I provide one to explain moves that I execute, the move was requested at WP:RM/TR. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 06:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being frank, but are you saying that anyone can request any kind of page move, label it as uncontroversial, and moderators will perform it without looking into whether or not it's actually appropriate? —Electricnet (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I just researched how to request a revert of the move and made my case for it there. So all is good again, sorry for the trouble, and have a nice day. :) —Electricnet (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Electricnet, if the page mover or administrator looking at the page at the time believes it as uncontroversial, then yes, it can be moved. If it becomes controversial, then a request to revert it can be filed, as you did. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex. On Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode for a Doctor Who episode, as I assume you know, it lists both the 1963-89 and the 2005- episode articles at the bottom. As this was unlike the infoboxes on the Doctor Who season articles, I thought I would sandbox the episode infobox and I have made it so that the template doesn't have to list both episode articles, using DWC and DWN for the show parameter instead of DW (see User:TedEdwards/sandbox1 and User:TedEdwards/sandbox2). What I'm asking about though is whether I should edit the template to implement what I've done in my sandboxes (and use AWB to update all the episode articles) or should I just leave the articles as they are? TedEdwards 14:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, why not just list the correct episode list based on the provided story number? Using |number=, everything less than or equal to 156 gets the 1963-89 article, everything else gets the 2005-article. Saves having to use two separate templates, no AWB required. -- Alex^TW 14:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

O.K. I'll try that out. Thank you. TedEdwards 14:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, no problems. Something like this should work:

{{#ifexpr: {{{number}}} <= {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (1963–1989)]] | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] }}

Gets the story number and checks if it's less than or equal to the story number displayed in Doctor Who (film). If it is, 1963–1989 article; if it's not, 2005–present article. -- Alex^TW 14:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. Unforunately it doesn't work when it's a multi-parter, as the |number= is something like 160a. Any ideas? TedEdwards 14:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, as multi parters are only in the new series, would the parameter below be OK, as in this, if the letter causes an error, it defaults to the 2005- article. {{#iferror: {{#ifexpr: {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} >= {{{number}}}| | }} | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] | {{#ifexpr: {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} >= {{{number}}}| [[List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (1963–1989)]] | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] }} }} TedEdwards 15:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC) and can you think of any way to improve it before I implement it? TedEdwards 17:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, there's a template that returns all of the numbers at the start of any string, removing the "a" from "160a", or and references after the number: {{Str number/trim}}. So, going back to my original example, use:

{{#ifexpr: {{Str number/trim| {{{number}}} }} <= {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (1963–1989)]] | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] }}

So, now instead of just getting the story number, it gets the story number and takes only the digits at the starts, making sure it's a definitive number, then proceeds with all the checks. -- Alex^TW 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Implemented that change. Thanks for all your help. TedEdwards 12:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, no problems, great work. -- Alex^TW 12:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There was an error being generated if the number parameter is not defined. So as a temporary fix, I have omitted the link altogether if no number is given. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

MSGJ, even better, thank you! That works perfectly for Draft:The Witch Finders as well. -- Alex^TW 09:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Titans (2018 TV series) Logo.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) 02:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought until you reverted my edit on Class (2016 TV series) that if an actor appeared in a title sequence, they were considered to be starring in that show. Or do they have to appear in more than one episode to star? TedEdwards 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with the above, I thought if they were credited in the opening sequence in at least one episode that they were considered main or starring. That would also go along with the character chart on the List of Doctor Who cast members article where "Starring" cast members are here defined as actors whose names appear in the opening titles sequence. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Capaldi was a guest starring actor; every case needs separate consideration. This is further explained in MOS:TVCAST: Please keep in mind that [...] "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits. The general consensus is that a guest starring actor is the same as a regular guest actor. -- Alex^TW 06:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please refrain from what essentially is edit warring at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, I already asked you to leave my question there for the IP to answer it. A better solution is maybe to move it to contested requests, which I will do. Sam Sailor 06:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I took action as a page mover paying attention to the page; it was then you who reverted, so I recommend you take action to cease your edit-warring. The page exists as a page to file technical requests, it is not the place for discussions - if you want to hold one, you need to either take it to the IP's talk page or the article's. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 06:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) 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) 09:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The article Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) 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 (2008–2010 specials) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Infobox television season is only valid for US broadcast networks given they are the only ones that use true affiliate based networks. Every pay tv provider has channels and the same is true of non-US broadcasters. And it's only North America that uses the term season due to broadcast always scheduling on seasons. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So, your only issue is terminology? That is not a reason to remove the template; that is a reason to request a change of terminology in the template. Also look at the article title, and how it includes "season". -- Alex^TW 01:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is when it is delivering misinformation. IP users can not create or move articles to correct titles. And on a side note the template force CSS only styling which is not supported by HTML only browser engines. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is? No, it isn't. What makes you think that, what guideline or policy? And they can't, no, but they can file requested moves. I've requested other editors of the Television Project to keep an eye on those articles to make sure that no such edits occur any further. This is more certainly not an agreed upon edit, more a WP:BOLD edit that has been reverted per WP:BRD. -- Alex^TW 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In Australia, "season" and "series" can often used interchangeably in this context. For example, Nine Network websites refer to "season 3" here, "third series" here and "season 3" here. A lot of secondary sources use "season" [9] [10] but not exclusively [11]. Using "season" in Wikipedia articles helps avoid confusion between referring to the "series" as a whole or a "season" as one part of the show in my opinion. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of season versus series. The term network is still invalid for non-US broadcast networks as well as Alex's CSS only templates not rendering correctly on non-CSS browsers. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion on what should and should not be used, there is no reason to remove the template based only on terminology. You can either request changes to the template, or request a name change of the article. -- Alex^TW 07:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)