User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2016

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alex 21. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy New Year, AlexTheWhovian!

Happy New Year!

AlexTheWhovian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

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

I wanted to apologize for our issue a week ago, I think we both could've done things much differently but who cares it's the beginning of a New Year! :), Anyway I just wanted to pop by to wish you a very Happy New Year :), Thanks, –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 11:25, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Simultaneous US and UK broadcast of Sherlock: The Abominable Bride

Hello AlexTheWhovian. I noticed that you reverted my edit to the Special (2016) section of Sherlock (TV series). To summarise for others, I added broadcast and cinematic information about the American half of this jointly simultaneous release. The reason you provided for its immediate deletion was:

Information concerning international (in regards to the UK) release should be noted under Broadcast.

I am always more than happy to comply with policies, rules, guidelines, and manuals of style on Wikipedia or elsewhere, but I feel in this case your wholesale removal of my edit was both drastic and unwarranted. I offer these points for you to consider here:

This is a co-production on one hand by a Welsh company for a Welsh company (Hartswood for BBC Wales) and on the other hand by an American company for an American company (WGBH for PBS/Masterpiece). The simultaneous première was broadcast in those two territories. I did not add information about a secondary derivative purchase and re-broadcast to a territory uninvolved in its production.

I will state my "lack of the usual nationalistic conflict of interest" right up front. I feel I am genuinely unbiased in regard to these two territories. I was born in Llwchr, Abertawe, Wales, and reside in Martinez, California, USA.

Your requirement has not been deemed necessary for any of the other episodes or episodic series of this set of works.

At the start of the Episodes section, the British and American broadcast dates share the same sentence - not once but in the 2nd, 3rd 4th and twice in the 6th sentence of the opening paragraph. That pattern is repeated to a lesser extent throughout this article. The article lead even daringly flaunts near total proximity of the words BAFTA and Emmy, despite their origins on different sides of the Awards Ocean.

There is not now and never has been a Broadcast section or even a Broadcast subsection in this article.

This means that you require creation of a new section called Broadcast that contains broadcast information about one of the co-producers but not the other. Apart from the lack of any reason to separate the two co-producers, and apart from the fact that your suggested section title applies equally (and in this case simultaneously) to both of them, did you have an honest reason for picking just one for relegation? Reassure me that darker motives were not involved.

I was unable to locate the origin within Wikipedia or determine a common sense derivation for your requirement, particularly governing cases like this episode, with its "simultaneous" television broadcast and "simultaneous" cinematic showings in the territories of the co-producing entities.

Even though they conform to the style and format of the rest of this article, I did not instantly restore my recent additions. This is to respectfully give you a chance to respond (on my talk page if in some detail, or here if merely a brief (and brave) concession) with references to the specific policies, rules, guidelines or style suggestions that lie behind your requirement. Perhaps you can provide actual examples of a discussion elsewhere resulting in a consensus of similar compartmentalisation of otherwise equally relevant information.

The co-producers of this particular episode (BBC Wales and PBS Masterpiece) issued a joint statement on 24 October 2015 in which they were proud to have been able to comply with fans' wishes with a simultaneous broadcast in both co-producing territories at 9:00 pm on 1 January 2016.

Your new rule prohibits Wikipedia from conveying information about that simultaneity or even the co-producer's concomitant pride, at least in consecutive sentences in the same section, for example.

It seems rather arbitrary to me to introduce a new and previously unnecessary rule at this very late stage, after the simultaneous television broadcasts at 9:00 pm on new Years' Day 2016, but before the simultaneous cinematic showings scheduled for next Tuesday and Wednesday 5 and 6 January 2016 at 7:30 pm. But if I am wrong on the points above, and you can adequately demonstrate that to me (with a WP:CON), I will be happy to relegate this and all other information concerning the lesser of the two co-producing nations into a secondary newly created section of its own.

My use of the word "simultaneous" in all its forms here should not imply any level of accuracy. The 9:00 pm television broadcast and 7:30 pm cinematic showings refer to local time across many time zones (I counted eight), even without considering the Einsteinian Relativity of simultaneity that your user name suggests you might.

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr. With only kind regards, from ChrisJBenson (talk) 12:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to agree with Chris here, buddy. Rebecca Eaton and Masterpiece are credited as producers alongside the BBC and Hartswood. There are a number of these collaborations now, notably BBC/BBC America with Doctor Who and ITV/Masterpiece with Downton Abbey where the production are really British-American (although another editor and I gave up trying to describe them that way because it caused too many British heads to explode.) Given that, it's reasonable to note the simultaneous broadcasts in the two producing countries. As the world gets smaller, these lines get blurrier and blurrier. --Drmargi (talk) 22:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Specials field for Aired template

Hey Alex. Can you add a field "specials" to the template, that would add the following sentence to after everything that is already there: "X special[s] has/have also aired/been released." Was thinking about this given the release of the new Sherlock special last night, and how that should be noted in the lead. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. Technically, we could just add "This includes 1 special that aired in 2016" after the use of the template, as general text, could we not? Alex|The|Whovian 03:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hmm that's true. Implementing this template, I'm sure you've seen more variety of articles. Are "specials" a wide spread thing that would be worthwhile to add it to the template? Or should we just do the manual text after? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:09, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, according to AWB, 67 pages use the special version of the Series Overview template, so it could be worthwhile. It would probably be best to add it as a run-on into the sentence "X episodes of Y have aired, which includes Z specials", instead of a separate sentence. Alex|The|Whovian 04:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I think you should. Wouldn't hurt. And I think the format should be this: "X episodes of Y have aired, including Z special[s], concluding the..." That sound the best, and works well within the sentence structure I feel. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Easy done. Alex|The|Whovian 05:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Done Alex|The|Whovian 06:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, complete side topic. I don't know if you and AWB could help with this: I moved an article (Purity Ring to [[Purity Ring (band)}]), and then redirected the old name to Purity ring. Now there are ~500 or so articles linking to the wrong article. Can AWB go through and adjust these (I don't have it else I would do it). Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:35, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Also easy done. I'll do a search for "Purity Ring" (case-sensitive) and change it to "Purity Ring (band)". Alex|The|Whovian 05:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Turns out, only about 75 of those pages are to "Purity Ring" (case-sensitive), the rest are probably to "Purity ring". Alex|The|Whovian 06:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: All

Done. Alex|The|Whovian 07:12, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Awesome. Thanks! I would have done it, but AWB doesn't work on Mac (last time I checked), so I've been unable to acquire it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who serials

Whether I agree or disagree to the edits is irrelavant, the discussion on Talk: List of Doctor Who serials has clearly not been concluded. Therfore nothing should be edited until consensus is agreed.Theoosmond (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: There is a CLEAR consensus between editors - the issue is clear: you have not contributed to the discussion and you disagree with it, hence you are forcing your ways. Did you miss the part that said "Yes there is consensus"? Continue, and you will be reported. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:22, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

O, sorry. The only reason I didn't notice this is because I thought the discussion was right at the bottom of the talk page, not in the middle. And do not assume the only reason I've made these edits is because I disagree with the edits, the reason I didn't this is because until now, I found no consensus. I agree with these edits as a matter of fact.Theoosmond (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

However, you have not achieved consensus for your edits on Doctor Who (series 7). Achieve consensus on the relevant talk page before making major edits like this. Your edit has been reverted.Theoosmond (talk) 13:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

That is not a major edit. It is following the standard practice at pages such as List of Haven episodes#Season 5 (2014–15), List of Breaking Bad episodes#Season 5 (2012–13) and List of Teen Wolf episodes#Season 3 (2013–14). Consensus is not required for this, and you are now edit-warring over this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who is a completly different show though, and the way the page is now is how it's been for at least 2 years.Theoosmond (talk) 13:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Your claim that is is a "completly different show" is your own opinion, original research, and just that - a claim. It is a television series just as every other series is. And obviously nobody has thought to put them in, or have not known of the existence of {{Episode table/part}}, and I have. Hence, addition. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Hell, even the BBC list them as Part 1 and Part 2 on the official website here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The consensuses for different shows are different, look at The Walking Dead (season 4) and the shows you mentioned for example. You can't just edit like this, since the consenus for Doctor Who is different to other shows. And the reason the BBC lists them like that is obvious, they want the episodes in chronological order, but don't want to include the Snowmen into series 7. Otherwise they would do the same for series 6.Theoosmond (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you going to try to achieve consensus?Theoosmond (talk) 16:02, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

As has been mentioned time and time again: No consensus is needed for this. Consensus is not needed for EVERY edit. And you're claiming what the BBC are/would do? Are you the BBC? No? Then don't. You've already had a warning filed against you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:48, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

redlinks

Hi there,

Thanks for sharing your scripts. I'm trying to use the remove redlinks script but find that I only get "no redlinks!", having tested now in both the usertalk (User:Rhododendrites/sandbox2) and article namespace (list of web directories), and as both a bookmarklet and copied into the console. Any idea what the issue might be? I'm using Chrome, if that matters. Thanks. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:19, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

@Rhododendrites: Interesting. It may be that you don't have localStorage available (though, I'm using Chrome as well and the script worked on both of those links for me). Try running the following script and let me know what you get in the alert box. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Extended content

function lsTest(){
    var test = 'test';
    try {
        localStorage.setItem(test, test);
        localStorage.removeItem(test);
        return true;
    } catch(e) {
        return false;
    }
}

if(lsTest() === true){
    alert('available');
}else{
    alert('unavailable');
}

"available" pops up, then "undefined" appears in the console. I have used other scripts that require localstorage, though. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:40, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

BTW Just tried the same two pages using Firefox instead. Same result :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Weird. O.o I have no idea why it's not working at all. Especially since localStorage isn't actually used until the red links are extracted from the page; until then, there should be no issue as it's regular arrays. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Arjun G. Menon/Userboxes/My Time

Regarding your edit: 13:11, 26 December 2015‎ AlexTheWhovian (Talk | contribs)‎ . . (1,430 bytes) (+15)‎ . . (Allow for non-integer timezones.) (undo | thank)
Prior to your edit the following was working. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

It is approximately Error: Invalid time. where this user lives (Adelaide). [refresh]

@Pdfpdf: Sorry, mate, but that's displaying "It is approximately Error: Invalid time. where this user lives. (Adelaide)". Glad to see a fellow Adelaide-based editor around Wikipedia, though. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been displaying "Error: Invalid time" since you changed it.

Prior to your edit it was working - i.e. it was displaying the correct time.

i.e. Your edit "broke" it. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 07:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Pdfpdf: According to my sandbox, it only works when you include +{{#expr:{{Current daylight saving offset in Australia}}}}, which isn't really "working" as such. And yes, that uses the old version before I fixed it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

If you say so. More importantly and more usefully, how do I "fix" the input to get it to work properly again? (i.e. How do I get Daylight Saving Time to work?) Pdfpdf (talk) 08:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It is approximately 7:47 AM where this user lives (Adelaide). [refresh]

Timezones. Use +10.5 Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Errrr. No. To do that means it will give the wrong time when DST is not active.

Given that you broke it, it is incumbent upon you to fix it. Please do so. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Must be terribly hard to then change it back, only twice a year. The horror, ey? And mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions#Time Zone issue states that minutes should be used instead of hours, so... I didn't break it in any fasion. You are simply using the template incorrectly. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It must be comforting to always be right, and to never let reality influence your view of the world. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it definitely is. Thank you for noticing. Learn how to use it correctly. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:33, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

Hello, I feel like I owe you an apology for my recent behavior towards you. I have yet a lot to learn about how Wikipedia works and how to treat other users more respectfully. And your contributions are extremely good and helpful in improving Wikipedia's articles. I just wanted to say I mean no harm to Wikipedia nor any of its users (even though, sometimes, it may feel otherwise). I was hoping with this, simply not feud and, whenever we disagree with something about how it should be displayed, we could try to understand each other's point of view and try to reach a consensus more calmly (and specially, not Edit warring—sorry about that too). So, as an apology, I offer you this Barnstar for putting up with me. Thank you.

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for putting up with me while I was being disrespectful and stuborn. SORRY! — Artmanha (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

No problems, we all have our moments. ;) Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:39, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:OUAT Season 5 Promotional.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:OUAT Season 5 Promotional.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:38, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Quantico

What I couldn't ready ? Daan0001 (talk) 18:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

The part that said . Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The da Vinci Barnstar
		For all your outstanding technical work to help make Wikipedia better. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:14, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:08, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

January 2016

I am not acting as if I own anything on Wikipedia, it is Drmargi, who is treating me as a less important editor than everyone else. And I said "I have as much say as any other editor", so I'm not acting like I have any more say, I'm saying I've got equal say.Theoosmond (talk) 10:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: You stated not to do anything without your approval. What's that? Right under WP:OWNBEHAVIOR. Oh, and you broke 3RR with your edit warring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:52, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I stated not do do that without my approval, because I have as much say as any other editor, not any more, not any less. And I've have not broken 3RR on the talk page, you need to do 4 or more reverts to break that policy. And answer my question, where is the appropiate talk page?Theoosmond (talk) 10:56, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Oh, so because you didn't revert four times, you weren't edit-warring? "An editor who repeatedly restores his or her preferred version is edit warring regardless of whether their edits were justifiable: "but my edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is no defense." And it was closed by an admin. Do you not understand that? That's because "no-one comments any further, not even those the admin agrees with". Take it to another talk page. I'm not the one closing it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:59, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

You said I broke 3RR, and I know 3RR and edit warring are not the same thing. And which talk page?Theoosmond (talk) 11:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So, that makes it alright. It's like drumming my head against a brick wall. And I don't know - go do some searching! I'm pretty sure that you can find it in yourself do get up and do something about it by yourself, if you feel so strongly about it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

What's like drumming your head against a brick wall.Theoosmond (talk) 11:06, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Having discussions with you! Now. Go find your page. This discussion is over; any further comments by you on my talk page will be swiftly reverted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Putting up with Theoosmond

Hi AlexTheWhovian

I am sorry for and regret my persitant disruptive editing, edit warring and being difficult on talk pages. I do have to say I sometimes don't find keeping calm on talk pages easy when I'm annoyed but I know I was being extremely stupid with my attitude towards you and other editors. I do not know the ins and outs of the Wikipedia policy that well yet, but I will try to get my head around it. As for the disruptive editing/edit warring, I will now start dicussing at a much earlier stage than I've done before. I am sorry for any distress I have caused, and congratulate you for putting up with me. I will now give you a barnstar, hoping you'll forgive me, and if you ever want adminship, I'll be happy to support your cause.Theoosmond (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	This is for putting up with me, however difficult it was Theoosmond (talk) 16:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Yeah. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:13, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

No, seriously, I am sorry.Theoosmond (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Prime Ministers of Australia colour compliance

Hi AlexTheWhovian, can you change the layout of List of Prime Ministers of Australia page to one similar to List of Presidents of the United States, otherwise the party colours don't comply to the white or black lettering, thanks.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 20:25, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've modified the colours so that they are AAA compliant and hence follow WP:COLOR. If you need someone to reorder the layout, post on the talk page of the article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Game of Thrones characters

Hello. I've recently started a discussion on Talk:List of Game of Thrones characters regarding a recent edit of mine that you reverted, and I would like to invite you to join. Thank you — DLManiac (talk) 04:24, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Shadowhunters

I have the cite, but I can't get it to apply. Here it is see for yourself http://www.shadowhunterstv.com/article/watch-shadowhunters-episode-two-now-in-the-freeform-app

@9janedoe999: Added. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Overlinking in templates

There is really no need to link "Doctor Who" in all the navboxes... Every article already has that as the first link. Would you mind undoing those? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There were templates with Doctor Who already linked, so I thought that it should be all or none. If you're viewing the template by itself, there would be no link to Doctor Who. And Doctor Who isn't necessarily always the first link, but that's beside the point. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

They're navboxes; they don't need links by themselves. But inside the contect of an article, they are completely redundant unnecessary. I'll remove them myself then. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with both of the above, and find them to not be solid reasons to not include them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:OVERLINKING; in templates where everything is already linked, we simply do not need more redundant links. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pardon me for butting in, but can somebody please point me to these templates? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, see Category:Doctor Who navigational boxes. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: Then why are links such as Ood and The Master required in these navboxes (for example), when they'll only be included on pages to do with the Ood and The Master where such links will already exist? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Who/what says they're "required"? If those links are redundant on the pages they appear on, then they can be removed as well. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. If the navbox has a header, and there is an article that relates to the header, then the header should be linked to said article. Is there a policy (not guideline) that clearly states otherwise? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Inferno (2016 film) edit

When I removed the exaggerating and useless phrases, I assumed the edit was uncontroversial. However, presented with the alternative, I now am curious why you reverted the edit. Cheers. Fdssdf (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How is it an exaggeration? It is almost a year. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's both an exaggeration and an ambiguous construct. It's ambiguous because just how far from 12 months can something be "about" a year away? Of course, there is no good answer to that, and that is why I removed the ambiguous language. It's an exaggeration for a related reason: Nine months isn't "about" a year in my opinion. If the rescheduled date had been for some time in December 2016, I would not call "about a year" an exaggeration. As it is, the extra four words are unnecessary because the date follows immediately. Fdssdf (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ten months* Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Shadowhunters

Hey! I do think you made a mistake on the page for Shadowhunters. It is a lie that Netflix will be airing the show. Please do remove that piece of false information.

A source has been included that supports this fact. If you believe it to be wrong, include a reliable source stating this, as a modification to the original content. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The 100

I've warned the IP that keeps making the edits that you keep reverting at The 100 (TV series). I've also clarified the situation for him but he doesn't seem to care. He's already been blocked once for this so if he does it again, don't hesitate to report him at ARV. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I may not be able to keep as much of an eye out as normal, given that I'm on holiday again with limited net access. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 7)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, I'm thinking that the colour for DW series 7 is too similar to series 8 (then so is season 18 to season 21), but also whether it would be better as a dark or medium pink colour, if you agree can you come up with a suitable colour? Thanks.Emperorofthedaleks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Emperorofthedaleks: How about this? – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not AAA compliant, so I need to find another one. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, are you going for darker or lighter?Emperorofthedaleks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be darker to increase the contrast ratio, I think. Or else it would have to be really light to have proper contrast ratio if changing to black foreground. Here's one that's compliant. (Also, you should sign your posts with four tildes to include the date.) nyuszika7h (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the new dark plum colour suits the DVD cover though?--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it's one of the colors from there, not the most prominent though. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well it's ok, we'll use #8C224A, because otherwise it'll conflict with series 8. But are you going to make the change?, Because my computers acting up.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how many TPS' I have... It seems that you two have worked this out. Works for me. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlie Kelly autistic

Hi AlexTheWhovian, is Charlie Kelly from It's Always Sunny autistic or near-autistic? I ask because I was wondering if the character should be in the category [Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum].--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea, I've never seen the show, only (possibly) edited the article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Killjoys (TV series)

Hi, just regarding your edit to Killjoys (TV series) in which you removed the channels the program airs on, giving your reason as "...also, we are not a TV Guide", could you please explain where it is stated that including the channel the program airs on in the broadcast section of a Wikipedia article is not appropriate. I've seen arguments from senior editors/admins both ways on this issue. Personally, I think it should be included and doesn't turn the article into a TV Guide (it would if timeslot, etc were included, but the channel name seems relevent without overreaching to me), however as far as I can work out there is no strict policy on it. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just asking if you can point me in the right direction considering WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't overtly state it one way or the other. Thanks, -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Scorpion

Hi,

I reverted the change you made to my edit because it does bear mentioning that "Tech, Drugs And Rock'N'Roll" is a longer-than-normal episode; also, the episode aired in the UK with no indication in listings guides that it was split in two halves by CBS (for syndication purposes, I assume). Cindylover1969 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cindylover1969: Then include that in the Broadcast section of the main article (Scorpion (TV series)), instead of as part of the plot summary, which it is not. This is real-life information, not in-universe events. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who specials + Charlie Kelly

Hi Alexthewhovian, Doctor Who (2008–10 specials) (especially) and Doctor Who (2013 specials) aren't 100% identical to the most prominent colour(s) on the DVD covers, could you help me come up with a colour for 08-10 specials and if needed a colour for 13 specials? Cheers. Also, you could look up videos on YouTube of Charlie Kelly character that will help you judge whether or not he belongs in the [Category:Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum]. A good one is "The Best of Charlie Kelly - Part 1" or if you live in the U.S you could watch the show online. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Emperorofthedaleks: "could look up videos on YouTube ... that will help you judge whether or not he belongs in the ... autistic spectrum" – That sounds like original research to me. Just because someone has a few autistic traits does not necessarily mean anything. It needs to be stated explicitly in the show. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, so what about Doctor Who?--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Using this, the most predominant colour for the 2008-10 specials image is #431F1B, and the second-most for the 2013 specials (minus black) is #3F2B27. Your view on these? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think both of them are probably less suitable than the current colours. What about the website Color Hunter? That gives you a palette of colours that match the image you upload. Also, I don't think it has to be the most prominent colour, recently I changed the series 1 colour from #3E506C to #09162A and think it looks better. Peter Capaldi's series' also don't use the most prominent colour just the text colour. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

War and Peace (2016 TV series) episode table

Hi Alexthewhovian, on the episode table for War and Peace (2016 TV series) after "Title" it should go "Directed by", "Written by", "Running time", but is wrong way round. Can you fix it so it is in the right order? Cheers --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue has been fixed, per my edit summary at the article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Messengers Intertitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Messengers 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Previous revision restored. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Quantico TV series

Please stop vandalize the page about Quantico. Especially about the stuff not related to Australia. Stick your edits about Australia. We don't need an Australian teaching Americans about American TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrat1 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read my reasons per my most recent edit summary. And remember, always remain civil in discussions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

RE

Leave me alone. I didn't mean to revert that last time- just wanted to signify to the other person that they should come join me on the talk page.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not my fault you edit warred. Should have posted on their talk page if you wanted their attention. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Royal Pains episodes colours

Hey Alexthewhovian, in the view history of List of Royal Pains episodes it says you changed the series colours to be compliant, but Season 1, 5 and 6 aren't compliant right?--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

They are compliant, per the links for Season 1, Season 5, Season 6. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

But they show up with a white text. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the raw code should either be changed to {{Episode table}}, or the raw code's text colour should be changed to black. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OUAT season articles

@AlexTheWhovian: Hi. I added the "Part 1/Part 2" sections to the OUAT episode lists as each season from season 3 onwards is definitively split into two parts. This allows the writers to dramatically change the story and theme of each season every eleven episodes (e.g. Season 4A: Frozen, Season 4B: The Queens of Darkness). I would like to know why you reverted this as being "unnecessary". I am contacting you as I wish to clarify the situation and understand both sides instead of having it unintentionally spiral into an edit war. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 10:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Then, in that case, the series overview table should have its rows for the respective seasons split into two parts using the appropriate template, to reflect these separate parts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Series overview#Example 3 - Split season. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have seen no other examples of this template used anywhere else, not even for Doctor Who, which had series 6 and 7 split into two parts. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: The use of this template may also leave the series overview table unnecessarily cluttered, when the finer details really belong lower in the article. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

None? Here you go. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but all of the examples presented were released in two volumes of DVDs for each split season, OUAT was not. Additionally, the split seasons template is only available for tables that include the season number, number of episodes, and airdates, it does not take into consideration the ratings already included in the current overview table. If there is an overview table that circumvents this issue, I am willing to try using it. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Chasing Classic Cars Season 7/8

Hi AlexTheWhovian, I've recently edited List of Chasing Classic Car episodes and there's an error on Season 7 table can you fix it? Also can you add Season 8 episodes/table and a series overview section? Cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The Season 7 issue was fixed; I've never seen the show so I can't add a table for Season 8; and if you want to do the series overview yourself, just use the template at User:AlexTheWhovian/Notes#Series overview. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad Wolf outside references

AlexTheWhovian, I'm pretty sure that in Bad Wolf it is mentioned that Arnold Schwarzenegger was the President of the USA, but it isn't in outside references section? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the quote ("It's the buccaneer look. Little dash of pirate and just a tweak of President Schwarzenegger.") you're right, but to list it in "Outside references", there needs to be a source for it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe WikiQuote has a page for the episode, it might be there. As for Chasing Classic Cars I don't want to change the series overview to template because I don't know how to get the total number of episodes with the template. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Either take a look at other uses of the template, or read the documentation at Template:Series overview. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

As you know, I was often a nuisance editor. However, I have stopped, and I've apoligised and said I'd stop, and I have, but you still seem to have a grudge against me. If you do have a grudge against me, I ask you politely to stop. I'm not going back there again. Theoosmond (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Closing a duplicate discussion, that you opened up, that was currently being discussed at the current time, is the same as having a grudge on you? Please do grow up. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems with you closing that dicussion. However you have implied in one of your posts on Talk: List of Doctor Who serials that you have a grudge against me, saying No need to ping me, I am watching this talk page and related article. Putting episodes together on a round disc does not determine whether the episodes are in the same series, given that Christmas Specials aren't even part of any series. And yes, they also agreed that Series 7 was to be split into two parts, but certain editors had issues with that. And the BBC are not here to put their opinion across. The BBC also hire showrunners to decide this, but editors also argue their words. Just can't win here., particular note going to but certain editors had issues with that. I had stopped by the time you posted that comment. Theoosmond (talk)

Why are you bringing up a weeks-old discussion? That was ages ago. And it was never directly at you. Also, please do sign your posts on my talk page, thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I didn't sign it. I'm sometimes forget. Signed now without time. Theoosmond (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A couple of questions

I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a problem at Bones (season 11) with some of the citations in the ratings table. This is currently under discussion at WP:RSN and I was looking at replacing the manually formatted table with {{Television episode ratings}}. That template doesn't seem to have a references column, which I think would be appropriate to have, since the ratings often come from one source. Can one be added?

The other question I have concerns Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23. Is there a reason that you split it again? The episode list was originally merged back to the main article because, with only 26 episodes (little more than the average season), there wasn't enough content to justify two articles. I do resist a lot of George Ho's edits, but this was one I actually agreed with. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Typically, I've always seen the references added to the last column it supports the information of. i.e. At List of Scorpion episodes#Ratings: the first reference supports the information in the first two columns, so it's placed in the last of those two columns, and the second reference supports the information in the last four columns, so it's placed in the last of those four columns. I would assume the same would apply when one reference supports the entire row - place it in the last column?

Secondly, if there was consensus for not splitting the episodes, then my bad, feel free to revert as such. Upon visiting the page, I simply found the page far too cluttered with the episode tables (including plot summaries) and series overview (which was in its own section rather than in "Episodes") on the main article, while it also had production information for the second season above the table. If it were something like Agent Carter (TV series)#Episodes, with both tables on the page and no summaries visible, then I would have been fine. But as I said, no issues here with reverting the edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've seen different references for different columns and it's sometimes ambiguous as to what part of the row a reference actually supports, so a separate reference column for when a reference supports the whole row seemed appropriate, rather than having to duplicate references along the row. This similar to the way we only use |RTitle= in {{Episode}} list when the reference supports the whole column. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Per the template and documentation, I've added a references column (toggled to appear with refs_col, default doesn't appear), with reference parameters for each row (ref1, ref2, etc). Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

TV show recommendations

I recommend Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Dollhouse (TV series). Based on the other shows you like, I suspect you would like both.

Thanks for the work you do! I see you, or rather traces of your work, on various pages. I appreciate it. - Paul2520 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestions! I'll add them to my (eventual) To Watch list. And thanks. :) Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Husband of River Song

If you want a reason why I ignored the note, I did it because the same thing was done on Hell Bent, before the title of the Christmas special was released, even though there was a note beforehand, so I felt, since we know the next episode is the 2016 Christmas special, that it would best to fill in the parameter. Theoosmond (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point, but it shouldn't have been done then either. Next episodes should only be given once we actually know the title of the next episode, which, in this case, may not be for a while. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Template talk:CGuest

Hi there, I recently started a discussion on Template talk:CGuest about some helpful changes to the template that you have recently edited. I would appreciate hearing your opinion there. Thank you, and happy editing! PS: You gotta watch Breaking Bad! — DLManiac (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Shadowhunters

Hello, I have a "hypothetical question" and I'd appreciate your input. On Shadowhunters, as you might know, after the pilot was broadcast, the second episode was released online on the same day (a week prior to its original broadcast). So on the episode table it shows the original broadcast date and a note, indicating the episode was released online earlier. Why should we or why should we not change the broadcasting date for the second episode to the online release date, changing the parameter to |airdate= plus the |released= and the "U.S. viewers (millions)" to "U.S. TV viewers (millions)" to match the "Original Release Date"?

It would be something like this:

Extended content

No.	Title	Directed by	Written by	Original release date	Prod. code	U.S. TV viewers (millions)
1	"The Mortal Cup"	McG	Ed Decter	January 12, 2016 (2016-01-12)	267074-1	1.82
2	"The Descent Into Hell Isn't Easy"	Mick Garris	Ed Decter & Hollie Overton	January 12, 2016 (2016-01-12)^[a]	267074-2	1.01
3	"Dead Man's Party"	Andy Wolk	Marjorie David	January 26, 2016 (2016-01-26)	267074-3	0.98

^ The second episode, "The Descent Into Hell Is Easy", was broadcast on January 19, 2016

Thank you in advance — Artmanha (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, firstly, because you're changing the header to "Original release date", and only one episode was released, the others were aired. "Released" in this manner always means online - when an episode airs, it is not "released". And if this were the case for many episodes, then perhaps, but this affected only one episode. Also, for Episode 2, the very first thing that comes to one's sight is "January 12, 2016" and "1.01" (million) viewers. These are not connected, and though the note explains this, the viewers in the viewers column should be for the date displayed in that row. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. We a facing a similar problem with a IP address on The Shannara Chronicles (only with this series, two episodes were released online earlier). Could you please give me some help there? — Artmanha (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No problems. And I'll see what I can do, definitely. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I could not thank you enough! — Artmanha (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi,

I just wanted to tell you about putting references in for the titles-they don't just needed to be used for future episodes. I looked it up on Wikipedia's policies and that. If the article is poorly sourced, it will most likely be challenged and Radio Times is a reliable source too.

Thanks,

Grangehilllover (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Grangehilllover: Please read Template:Episode list: Unformatted parameter that can be used to add a reference after "Title", or can be used as a "raw title" to replace "Title" completely. Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. References are not needed for episode that have aired - the episodes themselves are the primary references. If you go and ask other editors of the television project, you will receive similar answers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Grangehilllover: My understanding is that they are not strictly necessary if the air dates have been referenced in the article before, or there are obvious sources for it and they are not contentious – but you can't just claim "this episode aired on this date, it's in the past so I don't need a reference to prove it". However, it's best practice to have a column reference in the table header to make verification easier – both for readers, and editors in case sneaky vandalism is left unnoticed.

P.S.: AlexTheWhovian, you shouldn't be using {{xt}} for talk quotes, per its documentation page. There's {{tq}} for that. ;) nyuszika7h (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a better way to put it: Source it up until the episode has aired, then the reference can be removed once the episode is released. (And though they basically do the same thing, thanks for letting me know. ;)) Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

agent carter

Hello. Yes you made a mistake to remove. Mrs Carter, Peggy's mother was played by the actress Carole Ruggier in Smoke and Mirrors episode. Season 2 Episode 4. "Scoop: MARVEL'S AGENT CARTER on ABC - Tuesday, February 2, 2016". BroadwayWorld. January 19, 2016. Also imdb.Tylercourtney (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tylercourtney: Firstly, that section is for Peggy Carter, and not for relations to her. Secondly, you didn't give it a source. Thirdly, IMDb is an unreliable source and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fourth (jumping off of the first point by Alex), that section is about Peggy Carter. For other characters and actors in the series who are not the main credited cast, see List of Agent Carter characters. You'll see Ruggier listed in the guest section of that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

4 o'clock Club episodes

Hello, Please stop your disruptive editing to the episode lists of 4 o'clock Club. Imdb is a reliable source as it is a 'film/tv bible'. This means all information is valid. The episode table in Series 5 must remain on the article as a source has been provided for the first episode. If you continue doing this, you could be banned from editing. Sponge58 (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sponge58: IMDb is a site where the information is contributed by users, just like Wikipedia, so that makes it unreliable. If you continue to use unreliable sources, it will be you who may be banned from editing. Please read up on WP:RS / unreliable sources. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Shannara Chronicles

Hello AlexTheWhovian, sorry to bother you again. Could you please take a look at the discussion? The IP address is commenting again. Thanks a lot! — Artmanha (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Dumping Ground (series 4)

Please stop adding a full episode summary as you did to The Dumping Ground (series 4) to episode 1 "Lost and Found (Slings and Arrows part 1)". You do not need to put EVERY SINGLE DETAIL that took place in the episode. There only needs to be short summary such as the one I put (Bailey's mum turns up at Ashdene Ridge after seeing him at a football match. Meanwhile, Ofsted come to inspect how Mike and May-Li run the house and Carmen directs a Shakespeare play). That is a short and simple summary. Not a huge summary that described every detail. Also, a casting section is not needed.

@Sponge58: Firstly, please sign your posts when on my talk page. Secondly, MOS:TV allows a summary of up to 200 words, so the extended summary is extremely valid. If you disagree, take it to the talk page, since multiple editors have re-added the summary. You also give no reason as to why a casting section is "not needed". Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

A casting section is not needed because so what if the BBC did an open casting for new characters? All characters (including new arrivals) should not be listed in a casting section, instead be listed in the main cast section. User:Sponge58 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sponge58: It means that there will be a new character for the series, and it should be noted as such. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

infobox list of episodes changes

I noticed that you have been changing a lot of episode list links in infoboxes for TV Shows. This is just a friendly note to let you know that I reverted a couple of them because your change broke the link. You might want to keep an eye on this going forward. I only checked the pages that I am following and I see you edited quite a few. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DinoSlider: Thanks for pointing this out. We've recently modified {{Infobox television season}} so that it is no longer necessary to format links to the episode list article. It's now just necessary to name the article, and Alex was removing redundant code in articles. Clearly the articles that you reverted were hiccups in the system. @AlexTheWhovian: DinoSlider is correct, these issues need to be kept ahead of. The links in question were in the format [[Agent Carter (TV series)#Episodes|List of ''Agent Carter'' episodes]]. Fortunately, List of Agent Carter episodes exists as a redirect, so |episode_list=List of Agent Carter episodes works, but there may be other articles where no redirect exists. Of course, that raises the question of why season articles exist for a series without a corresponding LoE page, but that is another matter. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; there's always error somewhere. The edits to the template deliberately match the "List of {showname} episodes" format in the URL part of the link; this may require adjusting to convert "Agent Carter (TV series)" to "List of Agent Carter episodes", for example. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Cast listings

Don't you find this edit summary to be inconsistent with the way we treat episode articles? The infobox starring field is normally populated based on the credits in the episodes. WP:TVCAST says The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order each episode they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. Clearly the MOS is saying that we do use episodes to determine how we organise cast tables. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? I've always found it done the other way. GA articles such as Agent Carter (season 1) have their cast listings sourced via reliable sources, and I've always followed by the example of such pages. And what you've given is the order and organization of the cast listings, not the cast listings themselves. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There are various ways in which cast lists are sourced. Ongoing changes are usually taken from the episodes themselves, which is quite acceptable per WP:PRIMARY. An episode is a reliable source for plot information, cast credits etc that don't require "further, specialized knowledge". On-screen credits meet the definition of "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". It's actually quite common to see people added to a cast list because a reliable source like the Futon Crtitic or a press release, has said they're going to be a "series regular", only to have them removed because they haven't been credited in an episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then. Curious question. If I were to remove all of the sources at the article above, on the basis that the episodes are sources enough, I would not get reverted? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The TV project is, in my experience at least, unique in that it regularly removes sources. Once something is sourced, the source should really stay. WP:DEADLINK says not to remove sources simply because they are dead, so why should we remove sources that are live? There are plenty of times outside the TV project where somebody will challenge something that is easily verifiable, but if they add {{citation needed}}, WP:V says that an inline citation is needed. (I once had to add 18 unnecessary citations to an article just because a troll decided some easily verifiable claims needed sources.) If you were to remove the citations you would probably be reverted by somebody because of that. The question you have to ask is "Does removing citations improve the encyclopaedia?" --AussieLegend (✉) 01:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Noting the above and somewhat back to the topic of requiring sources for the season page, simply having the ability to remove the sources as is done in the television project is not reason enough to not include tertiary sources for the inclusion of the cast. While episodes may be primary sources enough, we as editors should prefer sources that are more available to readers than sources that are less available - in this example, online sources over episodes. This seems to be what many GA articles in the TV project seem to do - even Forever (U.S. TV series), while not sourcing the character themselves, has sources for the character descriptions with basically source the former. The reason that new cast are sourced that they're going to appear but are delete because they haven't yet somewhat falls under a crystal ball outlook - what has been added has not happened yet and so should not be listed. Once they have appeared, then they should be sources accordingly. (This very example falls under the editing between the two of us linked under "Edit warring vs collaboration" on your user page). Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who serials

Hi AlexTheWhovian. I wanted to alert you about the List of Doctor Who serials discussion as I know you have been heavily involved - I can understand it would have been frustrating for it to have gone on so long. Those of us left in the discussion feel we are coming to a consensus - we appear to have agreement on the direction of change - but the exact layout is still being worked on. However before we proceed wanted to get in touch with some more editors and commenters to make sure consensus has actually been reached - and if so hopefully gain further advice on the layout. Your input would be valued. Thank you. Dresken (talk) 21:42, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

@Dresken: I'll take a look, but no promises. That particular discussion has given me numerous headaches and I've basically given up on it until something is executed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem, I can understand completely. I had guessed you might have stepped back for something along those lines, but I didn't want us to be jumping the gun on changing anything either - definite hot issue. It could be easy for us to mistake a false consensus, instead of noting some have taken a timeout. Thanks for taking the time to look. Dresken (talk) 02:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

No problems. I've given my opinion on the matter. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:45, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

List of Finding Bigfoot episodes

AlexTheWhovian, the article List of Finding Bigfoot episodes is in pretty bad shape, I think it is colour compliant, but the episode tables are all wrong. From Season 3 onward their is no colour in the tables, Season 4 is particularly bad with odd-coloured texts in "Series episode No." and Original air date. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: Noted. I'll look at it sometime in the near future. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 03:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

File source problem with File:11.22.63 TV series.png

Thank you for uploading File:11.22.63 TV series.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:16, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:11.22.63 TV series.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:11.22.63 TV series.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stefan2: For both of the following messages, I checked the history of the file in question and found that the summary and copyright information had been deleted without a reason by an IP editor. It has been restored and updated. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

4 o'clock club

Hello,

Why did you write an edit summary saying undid a revision by me? I did not add a plot, I added a new confirmed episode. Please don't make false accusations again. Sponge58 (talk) 07:39, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sponge58: Please learn how to read the summary. "Reverted 1 edit by 90.208.24.123 (talk) to last revision by Sponge58". Besides, it's an automated edit summary, I didn't write it. "Please don't make false accusations again." Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

BRD

Why do people cite BRD like it is a policy? It is merely an essay with a suggestion. Want another essay? How about Don't revert due solely to "no consensus". It's a good one too. Drmargi hasn't cited a single policy, guideline or MOS to support their position. None. The other two editors in the discussion who oppose the inclusion have. The other editor that did a drive-by revert, hasn't weighed in. Yet we're held hostage by one editor who has essentially offered nothing more substantial than ILIKEIT because of a backwards believe that there must be consensus to remove something? Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

9Janedoe999

Sorry that's my older acc. I don't know how to delete so I just used it anyways. If you can delete it please that would be much appreciated {Wanheda (talk) 21:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)}

@Wanheda: I can't do that - you should probably ask elsewhere, and/or look up information of multiple accounts so you don't get in trouble for having several accounts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Chasing Classic Cars

Hi Alex, I'm having problems with the Chasing Classic Cars article, when I tried to add a series overview linked from List of Chasing Classic Car episodes it showed the entire List of article. I can't find where the mistake is, also the List of Chasing Classic Car episodes article is missing the "s" at the end of "Car" and the title of the show doesn't show up in italics. What can I do to fix these problems?

Also the colour of the Season 3 section of List of Finding Bigfoot episodes isn't compliant. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: The issues in the first paragraph are fixed. I'll work on Finding Bigfoot sometime soon. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Great work, thanks for fixing it. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

One of those days

It's been one of those days when I wonder why I bother at all. This Mr. Robot thing is beyond absurd. And there's another beaut of a situation brewing on the main CSI article where, for reasons beyond comprehension, one of our favorite editors seems to think it's preferable to use a meaningless number than the name of the finale in the cast and characters list. I think there's too much loco weed around these days. --Drmargi (talk) 07:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Amen to that. And I've just taken a look at the article in question, and I see your point of view. I've given revert and review, you're entirely right there. Sometimes I just want to go back to a life without editing. 'Twas a lot easier. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, all's well that ends well. Did you see Dresken's final comment? Enjoy your enforced vacation! --Drmargi (talk) 09:51, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Game of Thrones Season 6.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Game of Thrones Season 6.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:34, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Vikings Season 4 / contribution deletion

Hello,

can you explain the reason for the deletion? The photo and information I added was obtained from visiting the filming site at Blessington Lake here in Kildare and I thought would be relevant to the article.

Thanks,

Roddy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roddy Scott (talk • contribs) 13:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roddy Scott: I didn't delete the information, another editor did. Besides, it was entirely unsourced. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Roddy Scott: It was me who removed it. As I explained in the edit summary it was unsourced, which Alex has already pointed out, and personal observations by editors constitutes original research, which is not permitted. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Your scripts

Have you thought about making them into .js files on here, so that users can import them into their common.js pages? I'd find that easier than making them bookmarklets, and in theory, I'd have easy access to them on my tools menu to the left. Additionally, any changes you make would presumably be updated automatically to people who are using them. Also, on a somewhat similar topic, have you considered applying for Template Editor rights? You'd be perfect to gain them, considering all the template work you do. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:56, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The common.js files idea is actually brilliant, I've never thought of that. Thanks! And I've applied for TE rights, however, I was denied. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

No problem! I thought of it as we were winding down fixing the color issues, and I saw you kept updating the script. In part because of my laziness, I didn't want to update my bookmarklet, and I was also used to the version I had, but felt the common.js would be great for that, and obviously the others you've made. And really?? That's unfortunate.

Hopefully you can try again in a few months. It'd be great for you, and the TV project as a whole to have an editor with your knowledge have the rights. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

So, it may not be as easy as I'd hoped. Several scripts require content to be copied then pasted into the article; however, there's no pure-Javascript way to copy content. Then there's scripts like the line colour one that need the script to be run on websites outside of Wikipedia (the Snook contrast site). And it was rejected on the grounds of my occasional tendency to edit war, which, admittedly, may be an issue. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:28, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah. I see. Well it was good in theory! And yeah, things can get pretty heated sometimes, especially by committed editors who are passionate about a topic. It definitely takes self constraint to known you may be entering a war, and then having the upper strength to not continue and either get assistance from outside editors or take it to the talk first. I've definitely had a time where it seemed like I was in a war almost everyday. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: More than good in theory: I managed to get it into a proper script! User:AlexTheWhovian/script-linecolour. It's entirely independent and automatic now, and doesn't require us to do anything on the Snook contrast site or here - the colours are automatically selected, adjusted, and page saved. Easy. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! Great job! Don't have a lot of time these next few days, but I'll try to look it over to process it better. And I'll definitely be adding it to my scripts!! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:09, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Harass!!

Posting warning for an edit war which you are part of too, Posting warning about being uncivil, posting warnings about being blocked just to push a point, Trying to threaten with a blockade in comments, trying to censor my userpage, all form part of WP:HARASS. I would suggest you to stop it. A m i t 웃 08:20, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@A.amitkumar: I'm far from edit warring - I ceased reverting and took it to discussion. The warning for edit warring was because you were forcing your own views against the status quo, as we were discussion, and you were close to violating WP:3RR. Your uncivil comments are obvious and have been redacted by another editor besides me - you do need to remain calm. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Just because you have another editor who seems to be a possible troll supporting a viewpoint doesnt make your behavior acceptable! Refrain from my talk page. Talk in the article page if you need to about the article and report to an admin if you need to!. A m i t 웃 08:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

@A.amitkumar: Accusing editors of being trolls isn't going to get you anywhere. You talk about my behaviour being unacceptable, and yet you're the one cussing at editors trying to discuss issues you disagree with. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:29, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 8 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Once Upon a Time (season 2) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring and violating the three-revert rule, as you did at Talk:Blindspot (TV series). Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

6 reverts in the last two hours. It is really worth it? Just disengage. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@MSGJ: It is my opinion that this is completely unfair and unjust. Firstly, the edits were merely to obtain an orderly fashion of the discussion for the benefit of other users, not myself, all of which was reverted by an unruly editor who refused to further the discussion. Quoting a post of mine: "The editor refuses to abide by typical layout procedures in the discussion, forcing their posts in between other posts with no concern to chronological order and refusing to allow other editors to read and follow the discussion in an orderly manner. None of their comments have been directly editing in any way, with the majority of formatting and indents being inserted after my own posts, yet they claim I have changed theirs. They have decided to continue changing the discussion into an unreadable format after multiple attempts to tell them otherwise." While my edits were entirely contributing and not affecting the discussion nor the actual article in any negative manner, they both reverted and used an uncivil tone in their edit summaries, and received only half the block. The block posts states that I "should first try to discuss controversial changes". That's exactly what I was doing. You have shown zero faith in my edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:38, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Firstly, maintaining an orderly format for a talk page is not one of the exemptions to the 3RR rule (see the policy for details). When you are in a dispute such as this and want to avoid getting dragged into an edit war, you have two options. You can choose just to ignore it for a while. Or if it is so important that it can't be ignored, you can seek help from other editors, e.g. by posting at WP:ANI. I haven't looked in too much detail but I suspect the best option in this case might have been to ignore and correct it a week later when the other party had lost interest (if it needed fixing at all). — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:24, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Alex 21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Per my above post. (I'd duplicate it here, but it's really not necessary.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm sympathetic to your good faith motivations, but while you insist that your violation of 3RR is acceptable even though it does not comply with any of the stated 3RR exceptions, I really don't see how I can accept this unblock request. I suggest you make a new request and make it clear that you will not continue with any more reverts. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:43, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Alex 21 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Okay. I understand. Per MSGJ's post of explanation and Zebedee's fair suggestion, I will leave the discussion page as-is for the span of a week, and attempt to fix it once more if the other editor does not persist. If they do, then I will cease any further edits on the talk page itself. As for the main discussion that took place concerning the article, I will take it into my own hands to replace the offending phrase in the main article, so that no further contributions are required in the discussion, no further interaction would be required between myself and the other editor, and hence no further action would be necessary. Given my desire to eventually reapply for Template Editors rights, I will make myself more familiar with edit-warring policies, and immediately cease any future discussions or editing that may contribute towards me violating further warring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:49, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I will take your assurances on your word and have unblocked your account. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a pretty good unblock request. I'll wait for comment from Boing! said Zebedee, but all I am looking for is some commitment not to edit war. I looked at the talk page and really don't see any issue with its format. Why don't you let that go? In the meantime I've imported an article on back nine order and tried to translate it. It's not very good because I'm not familiar with the term, but perhaps you help fix it up when you get unblocked. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yep, that looks good to me, and I'm happy for you to unblock. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, both. I'll see what I can do about expanding the back nine order article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:35, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Little Red-Haired Girl

Greetings. Besides the colour thing, what was the reason for this edit besides 1. adding back pure and utter WP:OR by a persistent IP, and 2. changing the format of a TV title from italics to quotes? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Mac Dreamstate: Terribly sorry, I appear to have edited an old version of the article, instead of the current version. Revert as necessary, but keep the correct colouring so that it doesn't get tagged in Category:Articles using Template:Infobox character with invalid colour combination again. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, I saw that your addition of the colouring format was indeed legit, so I made sure not to revert that. No worries. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 22:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you fix this?

Hello ATW. I hope that you are well. I just noticed that there is some extraneous markup around the 12 Dr pics in the infobox here The Doctor (Doctor Who). I tried a couple things in "show preview" mode but they were still there. If it were just one pic I think I could have fixed it but I haven't dealt with a montage like this before. If not no worries - maybe we can leave a request on the talk page and someone will come along and fix it. Enjoy your weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 05:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look at it. Though it's only one image, I don't think that the template or module typically supports imagemap with the multiple links. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

British-American productions

Thanks for your staunch defense of Sherlock as a British-American production. I've just corrected Downton Abbey so it is properly identified that way: NBC Universal is one of its producers along with WGBH, so it is really British-American. The Brits are going to get nationalistic about it, as they have in the past when it's been accurately listed as British-American, so you might want to keep an eye on it. --Drmargi (talk) 20:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, no problems. Seems some people have a real aversion to it. I've added D.A. to my watchlist so I can watch any such reverts on the page (I'll watch the series itself one day). Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Quick question - if British shows with American production companies are British-American productions, then why aren't US series funded by the British (Band of Brothers, The Pacific, etc.) not considered American-British productions? --Unframboise (talk) 20:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please post such discussions on the talk pages of the relevant articles - this is simply a request from a fellow editor to keep an eye out. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:26, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 13 March

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the The Big Bang Theory (season 4) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you explain this revert?

I am not sure what you were saying with your edit summary, A. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 23:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Sorry. For one, she's linked in the cast list as well and that particular link wasn't removed, so the affected link should have been alright. And as for requiring a source connecting the two, that's where the part of Per "In other media" of character article comes in - there's an entire section on the character page under the section titled "In other media" that details how the character has appeared on the series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The Lion Guard

The sources from zap2it were published long before the series began to air. Revisions later occurred. The plot line of "Fuli's Speeds Ahead" was instead combined into "The Search for Utamu." I watched on February 26. The episode titled "Fuli Speeds Ahead" never aired.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:30, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikicontributor12: Zap2It is constantly updated as the series airs and has always been viewed as a reliable source as an episode guide. Can you provide a source that supports what you've stated about the combination of the episodes? Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:31, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ultimately, when the episode "The Search for Utamu" aired (which I saw and is currently available on demand) in the episode; Bunga, Kion, Ono, and Beshte search for the Utamu grubs. On the way, Bunga tells the story of how he met Timon and Pumbaa. Meanwhile Fuli goes on a mission alone and overexerts herself, leaving her vulnerable to Mizingo and his vultures. According to zap2it, the plot of "Fuli Speeds Ahead" was "Fuli goes on a mission alone and overexerts herself." Unfortunately, the zap2it link you provided in the edit summary is currently buggy and is not loading to The Lion Guard episode guide. As I said, an episode titled "Fuli's Speeds Ahead" never aired on February 26 (only "The Search for Utamu" aired on that date), and judging from the zap2it summary of "Fuli Speeds Ahead" and the events that occurred in "The Search For Utamu", all signs point to the fact that the plot of "Fuli Speeds Ahead" was combined into the plotline of "The Search For Utamu." Unfortunately, I cannot provide any other evidence other than that at this time. I can only report on what actually aired.Wikicontributor12 (talk) 02:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't know about this specific case, but Zap2it often lists the Canadian air date if it aired there before the U.S., with absolutely no indication that it's the Canadian air date, and no mention of the U.S. air date. Not even after the episode has premiered in the U.S. They are not really good at updating other info if it changes either, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Your revert on Talk:Peter Capaldi

Hi there. I think you made a mistake with this revert. Please remember that per our policies and guidelines, anti-vandalism tools shouldn't generally be used to revert good faith edits such as the one you reverted, at least not without providing an explanation (cf. WP:Twinkle#Abuse). Since you neither supplied an edit summary to explain your change nor left the editor a message, this editor has no way to know why their edit was removed. I encourage you to remember that everyone starts as a newbie and has to learn how things work, registered editors and anon editors alike. Also, I would advise you to use edit summaries on all your edits, since it allows other editors to know what you changed and why you changed it without having to check the diff. Regards So Why 21:38, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

@SoWhy: Sorry, pressed the wrong button so I couldn't provide an episode summary. Wikipedia is not a forum. Simply because Peter Capaldi played a W.H.O. Doctor in World War Z, does not mean it relates to Doctor Who. This is typical fan spotting. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

As an experienced Wikipedian, I guessed that this was your reason to delete the comment. Unfortunately, a new anon editor most likely has never heard of that policy and might now - since you also didn't leave them a message - think their contributions are not wanted, potentially scaring away someone who could have become a great editor. Hence my message. Regards So Why 19:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Please responsd

Hi AlexTheWhovian, could you please respond to this thread on my talk page. I have some questions about the topic that I need help with and could really use your assistance. Thanks. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 00:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

People Just Do Nothing series colours

User:AlexTheWhovian, I edited the People Just Do Nothing article to include series overview template and episode templates, but now I want to change the colours to match DVD colours (like I did with The Curse of Oak Island) and can't find DVD release, so do you think the colours could be changed or are ok? Thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 18:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Emperorofthedaleks: They'll be just fine. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

MCU TV series

I see you have used the existing number of series parametre in the infobox for the other kind of series (the former being the UK version of season, the latter the series as a whole). I think it works for this page, which is obviously a special case, and was wondering if there was anyway to have the series above season in the infobox, so the three parametres (including episodes) could appear in somewhat more of a logical order. Not sure if that's possible. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:24, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: It was a bold edit to see if other editors approved of it, and since you've seemed to, I'd created a discussion at Template talk:Infobox television#Number of series/seasons to swap the order of the two parameters. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of sections/discussions (as discussed around the tech pump)

Just in case you missed my inappropriately placed ping: See {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS}}.

Can be used in math like {{#expr:{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 1}} + {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 2}} ... up to /Archive 11 }} which gives 0

fredgandt 12:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll be sure to use it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome, but hang on! I'm gonna update the supporting module in a bit (working module sandboxed and almost ready to go (dog walk and testing first)) to take all the pages in one call. It should be much more efficient with the caveat that for every page listed, the same section levels will be counted.

So {{NUMBEROFSECTIONS|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 1|... 2|... 3|... 4|... 5|... 6|... 7|... 8|... 9|... 10|... 11}} will return the total 2s.

Better performance and a bit neater. I'll drop you a message when it's live. fredgandt 02:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Now

{{#expr:{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 1
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 2
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 3
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 4
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 5
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 6
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 7
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 8
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 9
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 10
}}+{{NUMBEROFSECTIONS
|User talk:AlexTheWhovian/Archive 11
}}}}

works. fredgandt 09:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it does! Great work! Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:54, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I figured 10 at a time is plenty. If I get my mind to behave and figure out how to do arbitrary numbers (some sort of delimitation) I'll do that; a missing pipe just kicked my behind though, so I'm watching TV instead. fredgandt 10:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Fred Gandt: Made a small edit to it, which returns 0 for a non-existent article. Means I can include up to Archive 20+, it still counts 319, and I don't have to update it every time I make a new archive. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Huh! You highlighted that the test for bad requests I already built in was not working as expected (my bad). I've fixed the test; still learning. fredgandt 04:32, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotham

Hi, I've reverted that problematic editor twice now because his edits are erroneous, and a third time would probably draw undue attention to me as I'm an IP user, but I think I should bring it to your attention that Harper9979 and 110.171.182.13 are the same user. Check their edit history, their wording is pretty much the same. See these edit summaries for example. [1] and [2] it's such blatant and obvious sockpuppetry to try and force his opinion onto a page that I'm disengaging from this editor as I don't think it will solve anything. If anything he needs reporting. 81.106.156.18 (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I did notice the similarities between their edits, and said as much on the talk page, so I'll file a report for sockpuppetry. I've already filed for page protection for the article to prevent further disruptive edits. You may only be an IP editor, as you've said, but you've done great work reverting these edits and providing evidence for the investigation (now at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Harper9979). Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Help from a new user

You used the {{Help me}} template, but you wanted an answer from a specific editor. If you still need help, please add your question to that editor's talk page instead. Alternatively, you can ask your question at the Teahouse, the help desk, or join Wikipedia's Live Help IRC channel to get real-time assistance. Click here for instant access.

Hi, AlexTheWhovian. By the advise of a user, I seek help from someone with TV experience. I'm currently creating new pages for Grimm and Gotham episodes and I would be happy if you and/or other people help me add information or something like that to make my pages work as I'm the only one editing them and planning the pages to be professionally made. I'm planning on creating more pages in the days to come like in the case of Gotham, to be each week while I'm working on the delayed episodes of Grimm. So please send me a message back with your answer. Thank you. Universe1609 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2016 (PTD)

Pending changer reviewer

Hi. I added this to your account, so you can accept or reject changes. If you don't want it, let me know. Widr (talk) 14:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Widr: Thanks for that. It'll come in handy on the Clarke Griffin article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I thought. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 14:49, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Invitation for discussion on the proposal

You are invited in the discussion here regarding episode appearance count in TV show franchise pages. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

My Edit

Hello, you reverted my edit on Once Upon a Time (season 5), but I wanted to let you know that I made the image bigger because it is 250px on every other season page, so I wanted to make it consist. --24.47.231.127 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Using the format [[File:XXX|XXX]] is actually deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore, per the documentation at Template:Infobox television season. The other seasons will be updated to reflect this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

star wars rebels shorts

I see that you undid my change. What is changed was simply that i removed the shorts from the "episodes" section, and created their own section for them. The reason why i did this was because the shorts isn't episodes. And i have seen other series that have shorts, where the shorts have their own category.

They were introductory to the series and hence belong at the start. I was more reverting how you changed the Series Overview from template to raw code, and the colour changes per WP:COLOR. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I know they were used to indroduce us to the series, but i still think that it would make more sense for them to have their own catergory since they technically aren't episodes. And if i created a problem with the code i'm very sorry. I honestly don't know alot about wikipedia and coding.

You should discuss it on the talk to see if other editors concur and gain a consensus for moving them to their own category. If there is a consensus, then kindly ask another editor to follow out the edits so that nothing else is disturbed. (And please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments on a talk page to save them.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

so i have to enter ~~~~ at the end of my comment before anyone can see them?

No, it's so people know who's commenting. I'll post some information on your talk page about it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, i just saw it. thanks :) --83.93.114.80 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, i didn't remove anything from the series overveiw. I simply moved everything that has to do with shorts to it's own category. If i did anything else, it wasn't on purpose so please tell me if i did. --83.93.114.80 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Look at this: see the third line onwards? You're changing the series overview. And you're changing the shorts to different colour (look at this (yours) compared to this (mine) - the first colour does not comply with WP:COLOR. And I'd also note that your discussion was removed because you're under suspicion of evading a ban. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But why should the shorts be in the series overveiw? They aren't a part of the actual series. They are seperate shorts that was ment to tease the actual show before it started. We don't see the doctor who series 9 prelude shorts on "list of doctor who seriels" either, do we? The only logical thing is if the shorts gets it's own category and is removed from the series overveiw. And you said something about colors. I can't see any difference in the colors and i didn't change anything (at least not on purpose). As i said, if im chaning anything on the code im very sorry. I don't know alot about wikipedia coding. --83.93.114.80 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am discussing your conflicting edits, not the layout of the page and what should be where. Take it elsewhere, please. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bowdenford

It seems Bowdenford is again determined to change the ands on Doctor Who (series 9) into ampersands. Just though I would let you know. Theoosmond (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

American

Oh!! Let's see if it works. I figured it was something you'd done accidentally. --Drmargi (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably should've explained it first. Hope so. Because then if they removed it, it means they've obviously read the note and proceeded with disruptive editing. I've done the same thing when editors update series to "... was a television series" after it's concluded, though it should remain "is", so I put the note between the i and the s. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No harm in giving it a whirl. It's long past time that a good few PBS co-productions are accurately identified. --Drmargi (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wayward Pines' showrunner

Hello AlexTheWhovian

Wayward Pines' showrunner is changed. Can you update the page?

Source: http://deadline.com/2015/12/m-night-shyamalan-wayward-pines-renewed-season-2-fox-new-showrunner-1201663497/

Best regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanpure (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oceanpure: The page is not protected, you can just as easily do it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Scorpion revert

What do mean "Not necessary for the ratings table, since it's already sourced"? Actually, episodes that haven't aired shouldn't even be listed in the ratings table at all, but especially not without a source. Sure, it's sourced in the episodes table, but it also needs to be cited in the ratings table as well. There's no reason not to. If you have a link to an MOS that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. WP:REVEXP says, "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." But, actually, a reversion should only be done when there's vandalism or as a last resort. It would have been much better if you had left a message on my talk page first (WP:ROWN). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Perhaps this is better brought up at WT:TV. I have eighteen different series going on right now, most with ratings table, and there have been no issues requiring sources in the ratings table when it's already source in the episodes table, and a good deal of these are edited by experienced editors who have been hear far longer than I. What guideline or (even better) policy are you running by to state that certain episodes shouldn't be listed in the ratings table? Alex|The|Whovian^? 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot script

Can you modify it to work for film plots too? My thought would be for it too look to see if the page uses {{Infobox film}} (and if not then it will be an episode plot search). And if it is a film article, it would look for sections titled "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", "Summary" etc. and check the number to see if it is between 400-700 words (per WP:FILMPLOT). Finally, the pop up boxes should notify the user of the two guidelines, should it be out of range for the plots. Think this is doable? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I shall see what I can do! I can already check with JS to see if {{Infobox film}} is used (different classes between different infoboxes) {{#lsth:The Avengers (2012 film)|Plot}} gets the entire subsection of the page entitled "Plot", so I just need to mimic this in Javascript. I'll let you know how it works out. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This may not be possible, but is there anyway to make the script to take into account when you have two episodes with one plot summary? Like the season 2 and season 3 finales of Agent of SHIELD?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that too. It can check if the episode number the summary belongs to is two numbers instead of one, and double the limit. (By the way, the Season 3 finale of Agents is going to have separate rows and summaries, since it has separate titles, just a heads up.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't seen the episode titles had been release, so I still thought they were on the TBA that spread across both rows.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ditto51:

Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Section markers

Would you be so kind as to restore all the section markers in all DW episode lists? They were specifically designed to replace the <noinclude>...</noinclude> hacks, who were never intended for article space. They also allow transcluding multiple sections to one page. Why did you remove them? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: No. Why? There are no <noinclude>...</noinclude> hacks. I changed them to <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>, as per every other season/series page (except the split Seasons 4/21, which do use the section marks, given that they're transcluded twice differently on the LoS page). Multiple sections aren't being transcluded from the Series 9 page, just the episode table. Please show what's different between the section tags and onlyinclude in this example. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Same thing. Don't use them, section markers are specifically desinged to deal with article transclusions. The old tags are for templates. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

They are specifically designed to transclude multiple sections onto one page, as you stated yourself. This is not the case for these pages. Even {{Episode list}} states that <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> should be used. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't mince words... Use the proper tools: include tags are for templates (and abused for articles), and section markers are for articles. See mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion for a more detailed explanation. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! All series pages once had section markers, and I intend to restore them all. Just because you don't understand some wioki syntax, is no reason to remove them. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

But why can't you put in simpler templates, that are easier for editors to deal with? And I agree with AlexTheWhovian, there is no need unless the season has to be split, for when there are two Doctors. Theoosmond (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC) And if a tag works, what's wrong with it. Theoosmond (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: How on Earth am I mincing words? The documentation of {{Episode list}} states, and I quote: For the purpose of transclusion, each sublist must make use of <onlyinclude> tags, with the opening tag just before the WikiTable, and the closing tag at the very end of the table. I recommend checking some of the more common series that have season pages, and checking what they use. (I know I have several talk-page-stalkers that are involved in the television project, perhaps they'd care to weigh in.) The Doctor Who "List of Serials" page is almost the only one to use the LST tags, for the two special cases. And you're talking about hacks in your edit summary - having a tag you need to name, and the method of transclusion using another tag instead of the regular {{:NAME}} format. is more of a hack than a simple use of <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> is. And what's this about all of them containing section markers? When we changed the page layout from separate tables on the LoS page and the season/series pages, to transclusion, it was the traditional method of transclusion used. See? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We switched all moders series to named sections (#lst) to accomodate for specials, and was done long before you came aboard. What is the reason to switch back? I know new methods are weird and stuff, but we have to adapt one day... There was nothing wrong, so again, why step back? I still intend to reinstate the lst tags. Get used to it instead of continueing to renounce new methods. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

New methods? List a dozen pages that use LST and not onlyinclude. I can very easily do it the other way, for several dozen. And also where it dictates that LST has to be used and onlyinclude is deprecated, because if you can't, then there's nothing to base your changes on. There is no recent consensus to use the "newer" tags, so implementing them while this is still in discussion can be seen as edits of bad faith; being an admin doesn't change that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter:Also, what are the properties of LST are so good compared to onlyinclude? Theoosmond (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Frogs with Dirty Little Lips

User:AlexTheWhovian, I noticed some notable Frank Zappa songs don't have articles of their own on Wikipedia. Such as "Frogs with Dirty Little Lips" which is on Them or Us instead of it's own article and "Catholic Girls" is on Joe's Garage. Do you think they should have their own articles?

Plus: Does the image of Elvis on this article class as "mutton-chops"? Or are they just large sideburns, thanks.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Blindspot

What was wrong with the "Interesting Fact" I added? I used a reliable source (Yahoo TV). While it's true my second source was a blog, but it was merely to show the crossword puzzle in question; you can plainly see the message mention in the episode, exactly where it's supposed to be. Please explain why you deleted it. Puzzle1022

@Puzzle1022: It is trivial and not actually part of the episode summary, and labeling it as an "interesting fact" is your own personal opinion. Adding what you have to the character description is perfectly fine. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I place in a different part of the article. Maybe where that footnote that mentions that the titles are anagrams. And just not call it an interesting fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzle1022 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it really needed? It's trivial, given that once you get down to the basics, it's just saying that a message on the show appeared in a crossword puzzle. What does this contribute? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotham summaries

Regarding the episode summaries at List of Gotham episodes, could you be more specific as to which summaries need to be rewritten? Most of them seem to be within reasonable length (at least where Season 2 is concerned). DarkKnight2149 17:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Use User:AlexTheWhovian/script-plotlength and the script will show you which summaries need shortening. The longest summary is 1x21 (304 words); the longest summary for Season 2 is 2x05 (269 words). Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that edit and a question

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

I was very surprised that it looked ok when I previewed it. That is very nifty code.

I am having trouble archiving references and I am looking for help with it/them. I have read extensively about it and I suspect that I am not using the proper template. Do you know anyone I could ask for assistance? Regards, BobDog54 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@BobDog54: No problems. It was still alright, it's just easier and better to link them with spaces instead of underscores. And perhaps read what's listed at Template:Cite web#URL and the four links provided there on how to use web archives. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am going to quibble about the coding style. I am copying the information from the address bar so I am guaranteed that I am linking to the correct part of the page. Theoretically, the free-hand syntax should work but the one time someone assumes that each word was separated by an underscore will be the time they forget to preview their code and there you go - broken links and the user unable to get the information they were looking for. Sad experience has taught me to follow a 'belt and suspenders' methodology - copy and paste is pretty much a guarantee that at least that part is good. I have to say that I will be continuing to do what has worked for me for a very long time. We both end up in the same place and all is good. BobDog54 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No problems. All to their own. We'll be there to correct it to the proper form. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it a question of personal preference? Both accomplish the same thing. I understand that everything is up for editing but to my mind, my coding's only fault is the conservative method used to create it. There are so many things that are needed in Wikipedia that imposing one's personal preferences seems a waste of valuable time and knowledge. It would never occur to me to change your coding that was working. Please leave my functioning code alone. There are vandals to revert and real big problems to solve. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." BobDog54 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No. It's a question of doing it correctly, not personal preference. Just because one way works, doesn't mean it's the right way. What would make more sense to an inexperienced editor: "Roy_Harper_%28comics%29" or "Roy Harper (comics)"? The latter. We'll be here to fix this for you while we also do the "real big problems". This discussion is now closed. (And by the way, you're welcome for the suggestion on further information on archiving, since I never got a thanks.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Thank you!

Now I understand the difference in the coding. That piece of information made it all clear to me. My vision was clouded by too many years of not having to think about making things easy for all levels of users. Your explanation was succinct and to the point. I neglected to say thank you re: more things to read because I have read so much about how to archive that more reading like that did not help me, but I did forget my manners. Thank you! I will go away now, a little battered but pleased that I lived through my first Wiki-smackdown. BobDog54 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

AWB and Episode Table

Hi ATW! You mentioned you were interested in my ridiculous AWB regex. Not sure how to share other than copy-paste them or share the .xml file with you. Which do you prefer? Ping me in reply. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Great! If you could, copy-paste them here between {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

AWB Regex EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Parent Rules

Grandparent Rule - Episode list (meant to avoid replacing other tables, but at this point redundant with parent rule; AWB is a pain in the butt about moving rules by point-and-click with the mouse so I just leave it.)

Regex (find): \=\=\s*(Episode|Season|Series).*\=\=)
Replacement: $1
If contains: \{\{Episode\slist

Parent Rule - Episode table

Regex (find): \=*\s*(Episode|Story|Movie|Film|Season|Short|Pilot|Series[^\soverview]).*\=*)([^=]*)(?:\{\|\s*class\s*\=\"\s*wikit.*).*(\n\s*\|\+.*)?(\n\s*\|\-.*)?
Replacement: $1$3{{Episode table

Children Rules - Table headers (This is still really buggy...)

Rule: Headers - Overall

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!\!\s?).*(\#)(?:[^\|\!])*
Replacement: |overall=

Rule: Headers - Title

Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?).*(Title)(?:[^\|\!])*
Replacement: |title=

Rule: Headers - Director

Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Directed|Director)(?:[^\|\!])*
Replacement: |director=

Rule: Headers - Writers

Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Written|Writer)(?:[^\|\!])*
Replacement: |writer=

Rule: Headers - Airdate

Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!?\s?).*(Original air date|Original airdate)(?:[^\|\!|\{])*
Replacement: |airdate=

Rule: Headers - Prodcode

Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Production|ProdCode|Prod.*code|Code)(?:[^\|\!])*
Replacement: |prodcode=

Rule: Headers - Aux4

Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Villain)(?:[^\|\!])*
Replacement: |aux4=|aux4T=$1(s)

Rule: Headers - Background

Regex (find): (?:\|\-)?(?:\n)?(?:\s?\|\s?colspan.*(background|background-color)\:\s*)(\#?\w{3,})\;(?:[^\{\{])*
Replacement: |background=$2|episodes=

Children Rules - Main set

Rule: Background

Regex (find): (\{\{Episode table)(\n?\s*\!.*)(?:background\:\s*|background-color\:\s*)(\#\w{3,})(.*)
Replacement: $1|background=$3$2$4

Rule: Overall

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(No\.?.*in.*series|№|No\.|\#)\s*(\n)
Replacement: |overall=$2

Rule: Season number

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(No\..*in.*season|Episode\s*number).*
Replacement: |season=

Rule: Title

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(Title|Episode\stitle).*
Replacement: |title=
If doesn't contain: n\!.*\|?.*\s*(Title|Episode\stitle)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Title with ref

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(Title|Episode\stitle)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>)
Replacement: |title=|titleR=$2
If contains: \n\!.*\|?.*\s*(Title|Episode\stitle)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Director

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Direction|Directed|Director|Director$s$).*
Replacement: |director=
If doesn't contain: \n\!.*\|?.*\s*(Direction|Directed|Director|Director$s$)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Director with ref

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(Direction|Directed|Director|Director$s$)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>)
Replacement: |director=|directorR=$2
If contains: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Direction|Directed|Director|Director$s$)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Writer

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Written|Writer).*
Replacement: |writer=

Rule: Storyboard

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Storyboard).*
Replacement: |aux2=|aux2T=Storyboarded by

Rule: Airdate

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate$s$).*
Replacement: |airdate=
If doesn't contain: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate$s$)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Release Date

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Release date).*
Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=$1

Rule: Airdate with ref

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate$s$)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>)
Replacement: |airdate=|airdateR=$2
If contains: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate$s$)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Australian airdate

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Australian air date)
Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=Australian air date

Rule: US airdate

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(U.S. air date|US air date)
Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=U.S. air date

Rule: UK airdate

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(UK air date|U.K. air date)
Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=U.K. air date

Rule: Multilingual airdate

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|\s?)(Spanish.*|French.*|American.*)(\s?)(airdate|air date)
Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=$1$2$3

Rule: French airdate

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(French air date)
Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=French air date

Rule: Production code

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code).*
Replacement: |prodcode=
If doesn't contain: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Production code w/ ref

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>)
Replacement: |prodcode=|prodcodeR=$2
If contains: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code)\s*\<ref.*

Rule: Viewership

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(U.S.|U.K.|US|UK)\s?(Viewers|viewers|households)(?:(\<br\s*\/\>|\<br\>)$(in\s*)?millions$)
Replacement: |viewers=|country=$1

Rule: Guests

Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Guest.*)(\|.*)
Replacement: |aux2|aux2T=Guest(s)$2

Rule: Episodes parameter

Regex (find): (.*\|\s*airdate\s*=.*)(\n\|\-)?(\n*\{\{Episode list.*)
Replacement: $1|episodes=$3

Rule: Aux

Regex (find): (?:\n\!+.*\"\s*\|)(.*)(airdate)(\=.*)
Replacement: |aux2=|aux2T=$1$2$3

Rule: Aux with ref

Regex (find): (?:\n\!+.*\"\s*\|\s*)(([^<])*)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>)?(\s*\|\s*)(airdate)(\=.*)
Replacement: |aux2=|aux2T=$1|aux2R=$3$4$5$6

Rule: Closing brackets

Regex (find): (\n\}\}\n)(\-\|)?(?:\|\})
Replacement: $1}}

@EvergreenFir: Very nicely done! I'll be saving these for future use. Since it appears that you're rather proficient with regex (I am myself, but not at that level), might I request your help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Infobox television season granularity edits? Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure! I want to make sure I understand the changes right: We're changing {{Infobox television season}} so that the season_name parameter is deprecated and replaced with show_name, season_number, season_type, and season_qualifier? (I think we need to update the template usage examples in the documentation if that's the case as they still show show_name and don't use the other parameters). If I'm understanding it right, the regex shouldn't be too hard for it. Just a lot of contingency rules like with the stuff above. (Ping me in reply) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've updated if further. And yes, that's right. So, for a few examples:

|season_name = NCIS (season 12) becomes |show_name = NCIS |season_number = 12
|season_name = Doctor Who (series 9) becomes |show_name = Doctor Who |season_type = series |season_number = 9
|season_name = The Apprentice (U.S. season 2) becomes |show_name = The Apprentice |season_qualifier = U.S. |season_number = 2
|season_name = Road Rules: South Pacific remains the same.
Archer (season 5) becomes |season_name = Archer: Vice |show_name = Archer |season_number = 5

Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay! I think I can put something together. It will take some testing to get it working decent though. The first three are straight forward enough, but I know there are a few "standard formattings" to contend with (use of colors, use of mid-string de-bolding wiki syntax, etc.) The only problem I foresee is the last example you gave. I cannot think of a way to get it to know "Archer: Vice" easily... might be able to take it from the lead sentence, but I'd have to see a few examples to try to get a regex that will capture more instances. I'll start on it tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Archer: Vice is just one case of a named season where Archer (season 4) and Archer (season 6) articles exist as their season-name, so perhaps checking "prev_season" and "next_season" would be a help here? Some infoboxes are titled also title as "Show Season 7", so lack of brackets also come into play, and occurrences of "Show '' Season 7". There's so many variations, that's why I requested help on this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll fiddle around with it. There are 3742 pages that transclude the {{Infobox television season}}. We might want to ask for bot permission and have it run through and convert the majority of cases that aren't like Archer: Vice. Working on putting together regex now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the pages have quantifiers in the title, but not in the infobox (e.g., Being Human (North American season 4). Do we want "North American included even if it wasn't in the original infobox? (If so, that makes it harder) (Ping me in reply) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Probably, yes, since the infobox shouldn't be titled "Being Human: Season 4", but "Being Human (North American season 4)", and since the main article is titled "Being Human (North American TV series)". I'm pretty sure that AWB has a keyword that can be used for the page title. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Aside from that part, I think I got it pretty well complete. Below is what I got so far:

Regex for Infobox granulation

Parent rule (inside templates; not case sensitive)

Find: \n(\s*\|\s*)season_name(\s*\=\s*)([^(:'1234567890]*)(($|\'\'\s*|\:\s)?(.*)(season|series)\s(\d{1,2})($)?|(\:\D*))?\s*\n
Replace:

\n$1show_name$2$3$10\n $1season_qualifier$2$6\n $1season_type$2$7\n $1season_number$2$8\n

Subrule - Convert capital Season/Series to lowercase season/series (inside templates; case sensitive)

Find: (.*season_type.*)S(eason|eries)
Replace: $1s$2

Subrule - Remove empty parameters (inside templates; case sensitive; repeated 3 times)

Find: .*(season_qualifier|season_type|season_number)\s*\=\s*\n
Replace: (null)

Any suggestions or comments, let me know! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That is amazing work! I loaded it into AWB and tested it on a few pages without saving, and it seems to work well. A few things:

1) I did, however, modify the first replacement slightly to include the \n line breaks so it can be copy/pasted directly from the page to AWB.
2) The other granularity edit that needs attention is that once the season_number parameter is implemented, then the prev_season/prev_series and next_season/next_series parameters are deprecated, as the links for the next/previous seasons are now generated automatically. However, they need to remain for pages such as Road Rules: South Pacific.
3) |season_type = season can also be replaced with null, as "season" is automatically the default for season_type.
4) And finally. I also plan on removing deprecated fields after all of this (many pages still use the regionA, regionB, fgcolour, etc parameters), which just clog the template up, meaning any parameter that's not listed at {{Infobox television season}} needs to be deleted. Hopefully I'm not burdening you - think you could help with this too?

Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. #2 shouldn't be too hard if we use "if contains" statements. #3 is an easy addon to the current stuff. I'd be happy to help with #4 too when the time comes. Still thinking we might want a bot since there are so many pages to deal with. I've never asked for one before though and it seems like a lengthy process. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}}

PS - For some reason I thought I couldn't put /n in the replace section... had trouble with it once. But I was wrong. That's much easier to copy-paste now. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Qualified) Success! Thanks for the tip about %%title%%. If I add that into the infobox first and then parse that out, it's much easier. It's glitching on page titles starting with numerals and I'm not sure why yet. (Will reply to your other comment in a moment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you make the following grandnparent(?) rule above the parent rule in the code from above, it works well:

Find: (\n\s*\|\s*season_name\s*\=)(\s*.*)
Replace: $1 %%title%%

Also, to address #3 in your comments above, change the (sub-)subrule that eliminates blank parameters to the find .*(season_qualifier|season_type|season_number)\s*\=\s*(season)?\n EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Prev/next Deprecated

Making sure I understand correctly: if season_number parameter is present, prev/next season/series parameter is deprecated, correct? If so, the following sub-subrule can be added to the stuff above to remove them:

Inside template; not case sensitive
If contains: \n\s*\|\s*season_number.*
Find: \n\s*\|\s*(prev|next)_(season|series)\s*\=.*(season\s\d{1,2}|series\s\d{1,2}).*
Replace: (null)

I added the part after the equal sign in the find regex because of cases like 24 (season 8) where the next article doesn't follow the FOOBAR (season ###) patter. See [3] as an example. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So, I think I've summed everything up below. It seems to be working perfectly in AWB (once I remember to tick "regex" for find/replace). It also turns out we've been naming one of the parameters wrong; it's season_qualifier rather than season_quantifier (I've replaced all occurrences of it). Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Regex for Infobox granulation (UPDATE 20 April)

Grandparent rule

Find: (\n\s*\|\s*season_name\s*\=)(\s*.*)
Replace: $1 %%title%%

Parent rule (inside templates; not case sensitive) - Remove existing show_name parameters to avoid double parameters

Find: \n(\s*\|\s*)show_name.*
Replace: (null)

Parent rule (inside templates; not case sensitive)

Find: \n(\s*\|\s*)season_name(\s*\=\s*)([^(]*)((($|\'\'\s*|\:\s)(.*)(season|series|cycle)\s(\d{1,2}))($)?|(\:\D*))?\s*\n
Replace: \n$1show_name$2$3$11\n$1season_qualifier$2$7\n$1season_type$2$8\n$1season_number$2$9\n

Subrule - Convert capital Season/Series to lowercase season/series (inside templates; case sensitive)

Find: (.*season_type.*)Series
Replace: $1series

Subrule - Convert capital Cycle to lowercase cycle (inside templates; case sensitive)

Find: (.*season_type.*)Cycle
Replace: $1cycle

Subrule - Remove empty parameters (inside templates; case sensitive)

Find: .*(season_qualifier|season_type|season_number|prev_season|prev_series|next_season|next_series)\s*\=\s*(season)?\n
Replace: (null)

Subrule - Prev/next Deprecated

If contains: \n\s*\|\s*season_number.*
Find: \n\s*\|\s*(prev|next)_(season|series)\s*\=.*(season\s\d{1,2}|series\s\d{1,2}|cycle\s\d{1,2}|none|N\/A).*
Replace: (null)

Subrule - Remove fgcolor/fgcolor parameter (inside templates; not case sensitive)

Find: \n\s*\|\s*(fgcolor|fgcolour)\s*\=.*
Replace: (null)

Awesome! I think that just about does it. We going to just recruit WP:TV users to convert stuff? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks to the code above: (1) making it remove empty prev/next season/series params. Also removing fgcolor/fgcolour as deprecated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Also repetition of subrule appears to be unnecessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I was just planning on running AWB on my spare laptop with a automatic clicker to run through them all. And the modifications have been noted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I got a few more... give me a minute. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated to include "cycle" as an option (see [4]). Also removed apostrophe and colon from the main replacement code as those get in the way of articles like Mission: Impossible (1988 TV series season 1) and Africa's Next Top Model (cycle 1). For the former of the two just linked, the code will put "1988 TV series" as a qualifier.

Recommend you remove all articles starting with "List of" from your AWB edit list as the code will not work right on them. There are still a few goofy ones that the code doesn't handle (e.g., MythBusters (2005 season) or anything that the title of the show isn't in standard formatting). Looks like those are less than 5% of the list though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Small update to code... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Thanks for all the hard work on this. Question/comment to you both. Seeing all the work that was done to the template, I believe |episode_list= should be depreciated in the same vein as |prev_season= and |next_season=. I say this because the way Alex(?) coded it, for "List of X episodes" to appear at the bottom of the template, one just needs to put the show name in the field. IE, to get List of NCIS episodes, one just has to do |episode_list= NCIS. So they don't even have to do that, because it can be coded to just grab the data from |show_name= (and then check to see if the resulting LoE page isn't a redirect). Thoughts? (Sorry if this will require extra passes over all the articles you did Evergreen.) - 05:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That may not necessarily work. Sure, there's pages such as "NCIS" / "List of NCIS episodes", but then there is "Teen Wolf (2011 TV series)" / "List of Teen Wolf episodes". And then "Agent Carter (TV series)#Episodes". "List of Doctor Who serials". I think that |episode_list= is alright as it is for now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess. But wouldn't it be a similar situation to prev/next though? You can use them if the data can't easily be pulled from the granularity fields. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please ignore this request. I was misreading how the coding actually works and my thought was incorrect. Carry on! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Adding important rule that takes place prior to main rule. Remove existing show_name parameters if they exist. This was causing an issue when there was already that parameter and the script added an additional one (see [5]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"10th" versus "tenth"

Hi! I noticed you edited my recent edit on The Big Bang Theory, where you changed "10th" to "tenth". On Wikipedia's Manual of Style page about numbers, it says any number above nine can be expressed either in number format or in word format. So I'm just wondering, was my edit actually incorrect in some way, or was your edit a personal preference of yours? LocalNet (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@LocalNet: Neither. It was for uniformity. If the 9th season is spelled as "ninth", then the 10th season should match this and be spelled as "tenth". That's typically the consensus in the Television WikiProject. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Ohhhh. I didn't even think about that. Thank you for the explanation! :) Oh, and replying to someone in their talk page is new to me, so please excuse this lack of proper formatting :P LocalNet (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@LocalNet: No problems! Since it's new to you, here's a few tips for you: The colon (:) is used at the start of replies to indent them on talk pages. The more colons, the further the indent. Check how many colons were used by the previous editor, then use the same number plus one. Also, there's no need to ping an editor when replying on their own talk page. Hope that helps! Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Misdirected PROD notifications

Hi Alex. You just left PROD notifications regarding Scott McCall and Lydia Martin on my talk page. I did originally create these as redirects back in 2012, but the actual articles were create last month by Judor92 (talk · contribs). You might want to notify him as well. Regards, Favonian (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: I'll do just that, thanks for informing me. It was actually Twinkle that informed you, as the notices were automated edits by the program. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian:i just have createdScott McCall. Why is it going to be deleted. Judor92 (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Judor92: You need to re-read the above. Alex made the nomination, not I. Favonian (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Judor92: Read the reason provided in the deletion tag on why. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Musketeers episode updates

I'd like to update the season 3 pages with the LA Netflix info (episode names not summaries). Is that ok? I rarely edit wiki pages (so pardon my faux pas), but I'd like to add info that's apparently only available in a limited way right now. And I don't want to misstep or start an edit war. I'm also not offay with the tables and formatting, so let me know what's easiest for you to maintain. I can either update the table or find a way to provide you with the titles (since you're not in LA to see them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.227.39 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a public source that states the titles (Netflix is not a public source), so if such a source cannot be provided, then that's just that, they'll have to stay listed as TBA. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There's got to be one out there! I'll try to track one down and update accordingly when I do for the full 10 episodes. If you don't mind me asking, why is Netflix not considered a valid source, when they're the ones doing the primary public release to the public? I'm watching the series now and I'd be happy to update again if I can keep it Wiki-appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.227.39 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've got a Tumblr screen cap of the LA Netflix titles and summaries. It's not a primary source (as far as my limited understanding of what constitutes one on Wikipedia)--and I hate using Tumblr as a reference--but it is a corroborating shot of the primary Netflix source. I could also link directly to the episodes as they're posted on Netflix, I think (and not just to the front page). It looks like that might satisfy WP primary source criteria, at least to my understanding of the quick read through of the policy, but I don't know if there's a subsequent blanket policy here on streaming sites as sources etc. Also, I clearly don't know how to tab these replies...so mea culpa all round. Let me know whats appropriate and I'll act accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.227.39 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tomorrow, When the War Began (TV series).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tomorrow, When the War Began (TV series).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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Arrow genres

When you are reverted by two different editors, it's time to stop reverting and head on over to the talk page, as you were advised to do. I know you can be reasonable and calm; you should endeavor to act that way now. - 02:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: 1) You will sign your posts properly on my talk page, else your posts will be reverted. 2) I did head over to the talk page, something you failed to do. There is no consensus to add it - three editors have added it, three have reverted it. The initial edit that started this was the addition of the unsourced genres; per WP:BRD, it was a bold edit to add them, it was reverted, and you should have discussed it from the get-go. And you dare say that I am skirting the edge? Please. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is against you Jack. I have removed those disputed genres. Please join the discussion at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#New genres and try to convince the editors there before readding. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for missing the extra tilde which would have added my name. Oops. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Episode summaries

Just a note that, even though the parameter doesn't work, you can add |reason= to {{plot}} instead of adding the notes as hidden comments. I've advised the editor who removed the templates from List of The Flash (2014 TV series) episodes that summary lengths should be 100-200 words, not 250 as he seems to think. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Got it; updated. And I see the message. Was the limit at 250 at one point, and the editor hadn't realized it'd been updated? I remember that that particular guideline underwent some updating some time ago. After those three summaries are shortened, there's 18 summaries that are only a few words over the limit that could do with some trimming; might work on it tonight. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember the limit ever being 250. There was some confusion of wording that said "350" though. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that the section about 350 words was going to be removed? Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been slack. However, I've now removed it. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sense8

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sense8 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) 04:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Alex, just giving you a wee reminder of this. You absolutely have no obligation to address the concerns I've raised, but if you can find the time (as the nominator) or find someone else to, within the next few days, then that would be great. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Thanks for taking the time to look at it! I'll definitely find the time to cover the concerns raised. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you use a template?

Do you have a template that you used when you created the reference based on the one that I made? I copied the format of another reference from the article and verified that it was linked properly, i.e. worked, before I stopped editing. The archived copy that I pulled from the Wayback Machine was dated Jan. 2, 2015 (I just went into my history and double-checked).

I am trying to use the correct code and include the information that it appears WP policy asks for. It is not a case of my knowing another way to do it and choosing to use an incorrect format.

Thank you BobDog54 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@BobDog54: Yes. The (mostly) correct template to use for referencing (depending on the situation) is {{cite web}}; documentation on the template is available at the link provided. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it BobDog54 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection

You might want to consider asking for semi-protection of your user page at WP:RPP. Though they could also vandalize your talk page, I don't know if they protect those. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, I might, thanks. No idea what's going on there. I guess some editors don't know how to deal with being reverted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Summaries

Calling me out in the edit summary for being a few words over the limit is being a dick about it. First, if you wanted to be polite, as you claim, you'd come to my talk page. Second, it's a few words over. It can simply be cleaned up. You went at me after it being there for a few hours. Please don't act like I'm bloating out the plot for these things. I write in the moment and they are cleaned up later, whether by me or other people. Next time, feel free to trim a few words off the plot instead of calling me out and tagging it as too long. Again, we're talking about a few words here that could have been trimmed by you in the same amount of time it took you to call me out and tag the damn thing. Cheers. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 13:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bignole: When I tagged the summary, it was at 223 words, which isn't a "few" words over the limit. You write it in the moment and have the chance after you've finished to shrink it - there's no rush, it's not a race, you don't need to add the plot straight away. And given that I haven't yet watched the episode myself, I had and have no intention of shrinking it. Not all of us can sit down and watch what we want, whenever we want. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering the "green" level for plot is at like 210, I would say that 13 words is a few over. We're not talking about 50 words here. I also write it late at night because I don't watch it in the moment. Given that we're not in a rush, you could also take the time to watch it and trim the "few" words that were over. The point isn't about the number of words, the point was the unnecessary calling out about it, and trying to hide behind "please" as if you're were just doing some friendly reminder. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 06:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Were you talking to me?

Found this note in the Blindspot edit history. "You've been told again and AGAIN that Reddit is not a reliable source. I will file a report against you if you continue to add it. 2) Why were the title references removed?"

Were you talking to me? Because all I did was remove the anagrams that the source wasn't sure about. I didn't add then, nor the source.

PS. Another User and I have tried to add the fact that the message Patterson discovered at the end of Blindspot Season 1, Episode 16, "Any Wounded Thief" actually appeared in the NY Times Crossword puzzle on April 4, 2016 (same as the episode's airdate). But it keeps getting taken down; even though there are reliable sources such as these:

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/39-blindspot-39-how-patterson-appeared-in-1405115832492086.html http://www.nytimes.com/crosswords/game/daily/2016/04/04 http://www.nytcrossword.com/2016/04/0404-16-new-york-times-crossword.html

The first time it got taken down the reason stated was that it "was a matter of opinion". In the first source listed; the creator of the crossword in question, David Kwong actually states that the message: "Got One Patterson" was placed in there intentionally as a tie-in to the series.

Why is this still not allowed on the Blindspot Wikipedia Page?

Puzzle1022

Doctor Who

Hey Alex! Not sure if i'm doing this right, but on the DW page, you removed the fact that Paul Mcgann is 2013 as well as 1996. You should really include it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Clawraich (Dalek): There have been multiple discussions on why McGann is not listed as 2013 as well. Please check the talk page archives. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The 100 Cast and Characters

Hello ATW, I appreciate your help regarding the 100 and I hope that we can work together to create a better page for all. However, being an avid supporter of the show, it is my belief that A.L.I.E. can indeed be considered a main character. The main plot in season 3 revolves around the issue of the "City of Light" and her chipped army. She appears in almost every episode and is certainly an important part of the story line.

I hope you understand, RealGryphon — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealGryphon (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@RealGryphon: No. We are not based on your belief. Do not add Erica Cerra as A.L.I.E. as a main character: she is not in the opening credits, hence she is not a main character. That's the only basis on whether a character is main or not. Nothing else. There's nothing to discuss here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Episodes table color question

Hi Alex. Could you explain this edit? I specifically checked that the color I used in the Episodes table at Bizaardvark was triple-A compliant (it was just over a contrast ratio of 9.00), so I'm not sure why the color needed to be changed. Could you explain that? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Damn – never mind: I somehow grabbed a color code for one of the ones that wasn't ratio >9.00. Dunno how I did that... Anyway, thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

About List of Tanglin episodes

Hi Alex, thank for adjusting the color contrasts for my episode list articles. I noticed your recent edit on List of Tanglin episodes. I don't think #A13000 is the best, I wanted a green colour. Hope this suggestion helps. thanks! 2679D (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@2679D: Firstly, the page isn't yours, as no-one owns any article per WP:OWN. Secondly, I'm not worried about what colour is used, as long as it complies with WP:COLOR and is WCAG AAA Compliant (use this to determine whether it is or not). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Ah, sorry about that. A slip of the tongue. Even though I created them, those weren't mine. 2679D (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sense8

The article Sense8 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sense8 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) 23:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Big Bang schedule discussion

Just as an FYI, I started the discussion on Talk:The Big Bang Theory about the inclusion of single episode scheduling on the ratings template. You were involved with the reverts. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 19:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Vikings season 4

The TVShowsonDVD link to the DVD cover does not state when its coming out since the remaining eps of this season have yet to air this year. It will definately follow The Walking Dead where they split up a season and then release the DVD after all the eps aired instead of releasing a DVD for each part.S hannon434 (talk) 03:09, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

@S hannon434: Nonetheless, when a season is marketed split such as this, the overview and episode table are always split. I'm not sure how the DVD release affects this? A few examples following this would be Teen Wolf (season 5), Doctor Who (series 7), List of Atlantis episodes, Heroes (season 3), Lost Girl (season 5), etc. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:15, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Probably it will end up like Rookie Blue where the remaining eps of s5 have been rebranded as season 6. Lost Girl's final season on the other hand was screwed up by their North American distributor who billed both parts as seasons 5 and 6 instead of season 5.S hannon434 (talk) 19:39, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

@S hannon434: Doubtful, given that it's already been renewed for a fifth season. One can't exactly have two fifth seasons. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Blindspot anagram

You yourself have repeatedly reverted the reddit source of the anagram for episode 20. The vulture reference itself references that reddit source and is no closer to the proper answer. How is this better? Also, the IP's edit has two title parameters for the episode. Ryan8374 (talk) 06:18, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ryan8374: As I said in my edit summary: it's good enough now until another source is found. The two anagrams for the episode in question are the same, except for two switched words - any of the listed anagrams for all of the episodes could have this done to them. For example, episode 17's is "In Almost the Last Place You Look" - how do we know it's not something like "In the Last Place You Almost Look"? Theoretically, there's no need for the anagrams to be there anyways, since they're not episode titles. (The duplicate parameters are now fixed.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...

Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon

Host: Women in Red

June 2016
#wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 10:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

List of The Americans episodes

Alex, someone's been screwing with the colors on the List of The Americans episodes article. I started to fix them, then realized I might make it worse, given the contrast requirements. Would you take a look and see what needs to be done, so that it's done properly? --Drmargi (talk) 03:15, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: All done; adjusted the colour contrasts to be AAA compliant. If you're not aware of it, you can adjust colours to be AAA compliant with this script I created, if you wish.

@S hannon434:, please make sure that all colours you use on Wikipedia comply with WP:COLOR by being AAA Compliant (you can check here) - this was also an issue at The Vampire Diaries (season 7). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Good man! Thank you. I keep wishing I had time to get a handle on how this all works. Someday... --Drmargi (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: No problems! Always happy to help out. I'm currently dealing with my own issues on colour usage at the moment. Aaaand LLArrow has reverted my fixes. Not surprised. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:24, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I was picking a color from the wiki page not WP:Color or whatever you call it.S hannon434 (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

I just threw an edit warring warning on LLArrow's talk page. He's got a bit of a history in recent days, as you may have noticed. Let's see if we can get him on the talk page, at least. --Drmargi (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

List of OUAT characters

Hey there, I would like to ask, is there any way to block an IP user or maybe warn a user regarding vandalism or disruptive edits? this user 185.22.173.146 (talk) had done 3 edits to the List of Once Upon a Time characters page and it's all inappropriate and been reverted 3 times by a user. Thanks Naveenruben97 (talk) 07:35, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Naveenruben97: You can report them at WP:ANI (incidents) or WP:ANV (vandalism). Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

RE Flash Apology

I'd like to apologize for my edit on The Flash episode list. I couldn't figure out when the crossover occurred, so I had assumed it occurred sometime during his travels in Flash Back. This was seemingly confirmed by other sources like CinemaBlend and IGN that said the crossover would be explained in Flash Back. However, after your revision, I realized that small moment in the beginning of Versus Zoom where he went through a portal and came back was when the crossover had occurred. My apologies my friend.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Valkyrie Red: Yeah, no problems. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Template:Australian politics/party colours/National Labor

Hey, sorry to have messed up the PMs table, but the way it is now is messing up tables at places like Division of Werriwa. Any idea why? Frickeg (talk) 08:22, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait, now I see, the others all use the meta templates. You'll need to make a meta template for Nat Labor too, then, because hundreds of pages are using this template and it breaks them all. Frickeg (talk) 08:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Wait again, there already is one! I'll switch it over. Frickeg (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Frickeg: No problems, glad it's been solved! Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:27, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Game of Thrones redirect speedies

Original research or even speculation - and I think the problem here is really more of a question of source reliability - aren't a valid reason for speedy deletion. It's true that there's administrators who are willing to delete just about anything that gets tagged, but that doesn't make it right. They aren't speedyable as obvious hoaxes, and it would require some serious doublethink to shoehorn them into the next closest speedy deletion criterion, R3; this isn't the sort of implausible misnomer that that refers to.

Meanwhile, it's entirely proper to unlink these from articles. Simply disappearing the redirects themselves is likely to do more harm than good, since they'll already have been picked up and cached by Google and other search engines. Giving them a week tagged for deletion on WP:RFD will ensure that secondary copies are seen as the probable hoaxes that they are. —Cryptic 09:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Capitalization of "season"

I saw your correction to my recent capitalization edit on the article Wayward Pines. Unless I'm mistaken, the following capitalization formatting should be used:

"Season 1" is capitalized as it's the name of the period of the TV series;

whereas,

"the first season" or "the next season" or "initial season", etc. etc. does not capitalize the word, because it is not the name, merely a time period like "year" or "month".

Judging by what I've seen on WP over the years, this seems to be the style. If you have further information indicating otherwise, please do share with me so I can retain and maintain consistency. --SidP (talk) 03:15, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

@SidP: Really? Individual season pages are always linked as lower case (e.g. Game of Thrones (season 6), Haven (season 1), The Big Bang Theory (season 7), etc.); I also follow a multitude of television series pages (the Television WikiProject is the main area I edit in), and "season" is always lowercase when determine what status a cast member is in each season. Just a dozen examples I can list are iZombie, Once Upon a Time, Quantico, Scorpion, 12 Monkeys, The Musketeers, Dark Matter, Mr. Robot, Teen Wolf (2011 TV series), Vikings, The 100, Haven. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:00, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 2

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Wayward Pines episodes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Brad Turner. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:56, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

Talk:11.22.63

I have started three new sections at Talk:11.22.63 to discuss the three edits I made to the article that you objected to. Your input there is welcome. 99.192.89.121 (talk) 14:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Quantico (removal of information) reasoning???

Hi, I do not understand why you removed the information that I posted below about Russell Tovey joining Quantico in the series regular role of Harry Doyle for season 2. I have backed up the evidence to support my claim with an online source reference yet you have not provided me with a proper reasoning as to why you removed the following information. Please explain why you removed it from the Quantico wiki page. For now, I have undid your previous revision as I have already provided my explanation as to why that information should be up on the page. Thanks!

@Elainasla: I did not remove it. I moved it. Hence the edit summary of "Relocate". Sign your posts on my talk page, else risk being reverted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:33, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Thank you for your candid response. I will make sure to let you know before I post anything on this page. Have a great day! Elainasla (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

The full service sex worker issue

Is there a better link for this than WP:COMMONTERM? That's for titles, but I can't find anything else. It certainly makes sense to me that the best terms for the titles are also the best terms to use in the articles. Meters (talk) 07:41, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Harper9979

This user is socking again... this time on The Martian (film). They're also using this IP again: 110.171.182.13 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Perhaps an indef-block on the account is needed now + long-term block on the IP? Vensco (T / C) 17:10, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

@Vensco: Ugh. Of course they are. I'm not an admin, but it seems they've been blocked for a month. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:44, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Agents of Shield (season 3) revert

Thanks. I was looking at a couple articles and got lost. I thought I was looking at the main article for the show and so deleted the episode summaries.

For what it's worth, I did explain my decision in the edit summary. Your note on my user page suggested that I hadn't left an edit summary; I had.

But that's a nitpick. Thanks for correcting my mistake.

@Begnome: No problems. I used an automatic notice template using Twinkle, so I didn't actually type out/add the bit about the edit summary. Probably should have read over that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:43, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Series 10

Cheers, I was just in the process of working that out :) However weirdly - and possibly why the prev_series was added by the other editor - there was a period of time where it wasn't displaying (first thing I did was check out the previous version). Then I saw the template page lists those attributes as "required" so I added them and it came back - but then I was wondering why so was playing around more. Not sure why it disappeared for a bit. Strange. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Dresken: No problems! The issue was because of an edit requested at Template talk:Infobox television season#Granulation of disambig by years (my bad). The issue is all fixed, though. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Redirect

I was trying to find the draft button but clicked on save page by accident after my laptop keeps acting up.S hannon434 (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Just create it at Draft:Arrow (season 4). Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Oops

I was copying your username, and instead of clicking "Copy" I must have accidentally clicked "Cut". Softlavender (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@Softlavender: I thought that that may have been the issue. No problems! Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:40, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

To be quite honest I somehow do this frequently. I don't know why -- maybe it's because "Cut" is at the top LOL. Softlavender (talk) 07:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Written by/Teleplay by

That is how it was listed in the end credits (re Annedroids 4x13), so I transcribed it as-is to be safe, ~~I guess your edit is correct since "Written by" is for those who get both credits. Works for me, it's shorter this way,~~ but might be worth asking at WT:TV. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:58, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I got a bit confused here. Actually, Amanda Spagnolo got both a "written by" and a "teleplay by" credit, so maybe not. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, following the WGA's rules, the "Teleplay by" credit would be redundant, but I'm not sure if Canadian shows follow that, since they also use "," in that credit which is neither "&" nor "and". nyuszika7h (talk) 13:07, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I opened a discussion at WT:TV#"Written by" and "Teleplay by" in the same episode. – nyuszika7h (talk) 13:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

12 Monkeys disambiguation

You moved 12 Monkeys to 12 Monkeys (film) without discussion. Please revert the changes so a proper discussion can take place, per Wikipedia policy. BrightRoundCircle (talk) 19:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

@BrightRoundCircle: The film is no longer the primary topic. No discussion needed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia policies literally state that a discussion is needed:

In particular, use this process before moving any existing page with incoming links to create a disambiguation page at that title.

BrightRoundCircle (talk) 15:33, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Game of Thrones (season 8) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Game of Thrones (season 8). Since you had some involvement with the Game of Thrones (season 8) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Additional note Speedy deletion is inappropriate in that situation, thus I have taken to RfD, leaving it to you to make your case for deletion there. Safiel (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Teen Wolf (season 6), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ross Butler. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Signpost

Hi! Would you be interested in being interviewed for the Signpost? I'd like to write about WikiProject Doctor Who. Please ping me if you're interested. :) Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

@Megalibrarygirl: Sure! Send the questions my way, and I will answer them ASAP. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Legends of Tomorrow Intertitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Legends of Tomorrow 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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

TE

Alex, I will give you template editor if you agree to the terms proposed by MSGJ: The right will be immediately revoked upon any future blocks. If you agree, please ping me. Thanks. Biblio (talk) 19:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I just gave you the right, but understand that any use of this right to edit war is unacceptable and will be followed by an immediate revocation. Just be careful, and avoid any future blocks. Thanks! Biblio (talk) 06:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you; I accept and understand the conditions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Template editor granted

Your account has been granted the "template editor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

All template-protected pages
User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! Biblio (talk) 06:29, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

You can't have meant this ..

[6]. Something wrong with a script? Philip Trueman (talk) 12:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@Philip Trueman: Yes, apologies about that. Not sure why it occurred. I'll take a look at the script. I've fixed the colours manually instead. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:21, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Arrow

Did you know about Arrow (season 5)? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:41, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I did not. That's far too early, especially for a season article where articles don't even exist for the seasons before it. Seems they did it at Supernatural (season 12) (history link) too. I only reverted their edit to the Arrow series overview table. Also, just out of curiosity, what more needs to be added to Draft:Arrow (season 1) and Draft:Arrow (season 2) to make them legit articles? I've seen season articles with less than what those two drafts contain. Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:48, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

At first look, both articles require granularity edits to the infobox and some pruning of episode summaries. Draft:Arrow (season 1) also has a couple of citation errors. Other than that, both are more comprehensive than most season articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Prose in all sections

That's news to me, could you link me to the appropriate MOS page/section? I'm not going to insist, at least on that particular article and others that already don't have it that way, but many articles I edit have an episodes section like that, and this may be a WP:ILIKEIT argument but well, I like it.

Doesn't seem like a particularly good fit for the "Premise" section, but I don't have a better suggestion, as otherwise the location is good. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I had one or two discussions on it with a number of other editors at some point; this discussion was based on guidelines I was given by another user in another discussion, ~~which I'll find the link for~~ here. There were suggestions to place it in the Broadcast section instead, which makes more sense. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Maybe it's just me, but it really annoys me when the series overview is placed lower down (like in the "Broadcast" section) or worse, completely missing, expecting me to find the link to the episode list in the infobox, which is much less intuitive. WP:TVOVERVIEW does suggest having an "Episodes" section ("If a separate List of episodes article exists, the series overview table should be presented at the top of that article below the lead, in a section labeled "Series overview", then transcluded to the episodes section at the main article."), but it does not seem to specify where it should be placed unless I'm missing something. Though requiring prose in all sections is a different issue... nyuszika7h (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, having read that, I disagree with Bignole on the point that there is no summary, as the series overview serves as one, but if this has to be done, I'd much rather see it merged with the "Plot" / "Premise" section, as it was done in the article in question, 12 Monkeys (TV series), rather than moved lower down on the page. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

OK, after reading the guideline in question (I'm assuming MOS:PARAGRAPHS was meant), nowhere does it say that sections must contain prose. It only states that "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose" (emphasis mine). And a section with a link and a series overview is far more aesthetically pleasing than a single-sentence section, so that argument does not hold here, either. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I've had this discussion/argument with Alex before, and I am fully onboard with Nyuszika7H's position – there is a consistent use of 'Episodes' or 'Series overview' sections at various television series articles that contain nothing more than a link to the main "List of [..] episodes" page and the transcluded 'series overview' table. When we had this discussion before, I believe Geraldo Perez pointed out that having a section made up of nothing but a table (i.e. "no prose") is fully consistent with en Wiki guidelines and policies – for example, that's usually what 'Filmography' and 'Discography' sections contain: a table, and nothing else. Now, I haven't wanted to get into edit warring situations with Alex over this, and so I haven't made a stink about it. But I'm wondering if we need to have (another) discussion at WT:TV about this – it seems like most editors are fine with my and Nyuszika7H's position, but there are a few that strongly share Alex's view. It may be worth it to get all of WP:TV on the same page about this... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I just want to say that I'm not set-in-concrete on this issue. If it's better and allowable, then by all means. I've just gotten used to merging the section into other prose-containing sections. Perhaps a discussion of it at WP:TV would be better, rather than having it here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

FTR, on my end, I'm not saying that 'series overview' tables "have" to go in their own separate section. But I am saying that it's not against "guidelines" to do so, and I agree with Nyuszika7H that it generally "looks better" when they are in their own section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to throw my 3 cents worth in, there is a lot of confusion with editors over this. A section should definitely not contain just a link. e.g.:

== Characters ==
{{main|List of TV show characters}}

== The next section ==

When you have that, the link should be moved into the "See also" section. That's what it's there for. However, some editors mistakenly see {{:List of TV show episodes}} as just a link and think that therefore that shouldn't be in a section with just links in it. However, it's not a link, it's code that causes content from one page to be transcluded to another. This thinking only seems to have effect with the series overview table. It doesn't seem to be a problem at episode list articles where most sections are just sections with links. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Red link removal from 2016 in Australian television

Hello, I notice that in this edit, via a script, you removed 60 red links from the article 2016 in Australian television. While I accept that excessive red links within the article are discouraged, consider the context that this article contains a number of newly launched shows that may either have not premiered or only recently premiered, and thus many of the titles may not have had an article created as yet or there may not be enough credible references to sustain an article until the program is launched or a sufficent number of episodes have aired. WP:RED does encourage red links to remain if the term "could plausibly sustain an article," and I would argue new or upcoming television programs meet this criteria. If an article hasn't been created, say, months after it has aired, then I completely agree with the removal of the red links. But I think your script has acted too hastily in this case, and a revert should be considered. -- Whats new?^(talk) 12:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who Minecraft

Hello Alex, can you do an article for my Doctor Who Minecraft animated series please? Aidan0007 (talk) 12:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aidan0007: No. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Well if make one with reliable sources will you not delete the page? Aidan0007 (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@Aidan0007: What? I haven't deleted any pages. And your topic is not notable for an article - if it's been deleted before, then perhaps you should get the hint. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Legends of Tomorrow

Is this edit ok to stay https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justice_Society_members#Arrowverse_Members Aidan0007 (talk) 23:38, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

List of Running Man episodes

Thank you so much. This is what I want. Thank you again :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheIronBoy17 (talk • contribs) 11:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

@TheIronBoy17: No problems. Glad to help out. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Martin 1887

Martin 1887 was blocked for 31 hours and has not edited since. However, he has been replaced by Buddieboy 93 so I have opened an SPI case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Buddieboy 93. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? What's the point of socking just to change genres? Thanks for letting me know; I've added the SPI page to my watchlist. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I've seen socks do more stupid stuff. There's one IP who keeps making the same changes to articles despite being reverted every time. They don't seem to understand that they aren't really upsetting anyone and are happy to completely waste their time. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Date formats

Please don't change the format of dates, as you did to Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children. As a general rule, if an article has evolved using predominantly one format, the dates should be left in the format they were originally written in, unless there are reasons for changing it based on strong national ties to the topic. Please also note that Wikipedia does not use ordinal suffixes (e.g., st, nd, th), articles, or leading zeros on dates.

For more information about how dates should be written on Wikipedia, please see this page.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. Whpq (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Whpq: The book is by an American author. Hence, American format. Doesn't explain why you removed the extra content I added. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for removal of the extra content. I missed that looking at the diffs. As for strong national ties, I wouldn't expect that a book like this is considered an American topic for the purposes of strong national ties, but if you feel very strongly about it, I won't object any further. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with Template:Submarines of Indian Navy

In the under construction and de-commissioned submarines sections, the Nuclear-powered submarines and Conventionally-powered submarines sections are joined without any white separation strip. I was unable to fix the issue, please correct that. KCVelaga _{☚╣✉╠☛} 08:07, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:

Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Special Guest Star

Why are you against it? There so many TV shows that have the Special Guest Star bill, not just one plus you don't have to follow the guidelines.S hannon434 (talk) 05:50, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

@S hannon434: "you don't have to follow the guidelines" is such a plain excuse. MOS:TV doesn't support having any "custom" sections for cast (I actually believe it doesn't even support the Guest section), and a Special Guest is a Guest nonetheless. Just because other articles do it, doesn't make it right. By the way, I've nominated your uploaded file for the page for deletion - images do not get used outside the namespace. That's a policy, by the way. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:55, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Template:Game of Thrones ratings

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

I have no idea why you reverted the edit. None of the ratings references are in the main article (except for season averages), and that is the fault of the way it is set up. You are giving spurious reason for the revert. Given that I have said where the source is, you can simply check by going to Showbuzzdaily (which is where most of the ratings come from, TVbythenumbers don't publish their ratings until later). Hzh (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: It gets added to the template once it is sourced within the season article. ALL of the ratings references are sourced in the season articles - check the episode tables for this. It is not up to other editors to "check" for the source - if you have it, add it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

The rating is in the season article. Hzh (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: Now it is. After another editor had to do your work. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

It's the kind of ridiculous and indiscriminate revert that gives Wikipedia a bad name. The main article is the Game of Thrones, not the season article. YOU ARE giving spurious reason. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Hzh: So, at the point of adding it to the template, where on Wikipedia was your information sourced? Nowhere? My point exactly. Don't be smart and try to turn this discussion on me with "The main article is the Game of Thrones, not the season article", when you knew what I was talking about. This discussion is over. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Mr. Robot S2 titles

Alex,

I've got my doubts that the S2 titles are accurate. We've got a reliable source, but they don't match the titles I've seen elsewhere, and neither NBC Universal Media Village nor Futon Critic has them. Zap2It is generally reliable, but the titles usually resolve to real words and only one does. 201 should be "unmasked", which that title clearly isn't. We probably need to keep an eye on other sources as we get closer to the broadcast dates. --Drmargi (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Zap2It often has episode titles far before any other website (e.g. Zap2It and Futon for Dark Matter). The format of the episode names may be differing between the two seasons (much like the titles for the show I just linked); however, Season 2's still appear to resolve to real words (unm4sk/unmask, k3rnel-pan1c/kernel panic, init1 is "Single user mode run level"). Also, as a side note, specials always get listed in a separate section if they are not part of the canon events (e.g. List of Once Upon a Time episodes#Specials shows specials that have aired throughout the series as real-world specials, whereas the special listed at List of Sherlock episodes#Special (2016) is part of the series.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And you may be right. It's just that the inconsistency worries me. My inclination is to trust NBCUMV more than any of the others, and they haven't posted any episode names yet. I think Zap2It is like SpoilerTV; they get their titles from casting sides, which are early drafts of episodes. That's the only explanation I can think of for their having earlier titles than anyone else. Bottom line: we would do well to keep an eye on other media sources as we get closer to July 13. --Drmargi (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

And now it gets more complicated. They've added two episodes, but are staying with a ten-episode run. So where's the second two-parter? We can't be sure any dates are accurate until they're announced now, even though common sense says the other two-parter will be the finale. Sigh... FC should update tomorrow or Monday, I would imagine. If not, we probably need to remove dates and add them as the episodes are announced until FC does update. Double-sigh... BTW, were you able to see Mr. Robot Decoded? Very interesting! --Drmargi (talk) 06:26, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Agreed. It's getting confusing, especially when Zap started listing "Eps2.0unm4sk-pt.tc; eps2.0unm4sk-pt2.tc" without explanation about a week ago, and Kernel/Init are still listed as Episode 2/3. TFC has already had a press release on the new number of episodes, so it'll definitely update soon. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to see Decoded yet, given that I'm in the middle of my University final exams, but I've definitely got it ready to watch! Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Coming back to this, it appears as it TFC hasn't updated their listings. Should we remove the dates? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File mover granted

Hello AlexTheWhovian. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Widr (talk) 14:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Sherlock

Look, I apologise for not knowing how to use a complicated system like this. Please don't get like that with me because I got something wrong or didn't do anything. I read the discussion and I still know it to be false and yet no amount of ANYONE disagreeing or giving facts seem to get anything changed. I was under the impression that this was a site allowing people to edit posts to ensure they are correct but apparently not. 86.149.19.130 (talk) 12:14, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The discussion has links in it that prove that the series is an American co-production. Your personal views of disagreement do not change facts. We apologize if this causes you any personal inconvenience. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

This isn't a personal view and the links show nothing about this show having any American involvement in it's production. Please stop ignoring facts because of your own personal views. It is made by the BBC. British Broadcasting Company, within Great Britain. It's "An Original British Drama". I am not in any kind of editing war but I was being ignored and clearly anyone who tries to point out these things are being ignored also. Whatcha2016 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Whatcha2016: That doesn't allow you to edit war over it. You have been reported to the administrators. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I am being talked by administrators for trying to edit a page on a site that claims I would be able to do so? I was ignored, clearly it thankfully enabled me to be able to talk to someone about this again. Whatcha2016 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Whatcha2016: Yes. You violated Wikipedia policies by forcing your edits over and over again, instead of leaving it at the status quo and discussing it until you gained a consensus. More information about this is available on your talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

I tried this and since the system on here is complicated, I was berated by you. People have said again and again within the discussion that it is a British-made show, but nothing has come of that. This is about facts, not a "consensus". You would not do a consensus about whether the sky is blue or not. Facts are facts. Whatcha2016 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Whatcha2016: It's not complicated. Doesn't matter - you forced your edits in the face of evidence and proof, you pay the price. Facts are facts - it is co-produced by PBS, an American company. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not co-produced at all. It's distributed by them over in America, so that Americans can watch it. PBS plays no part in it's production. So sorry that I find it complicated. Whatcha2016 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

@Whatcha2016: Obviously, by what you just posted, you have no idea what you are talking about. Someone else posted on the Sherlock talk page, supporting that is is American-produced as well. Discuss it there, not here, while you wait for the administrators to determine your fate on Wikipedia. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Simpsons series overview

Something seems to be broken at List of The Simpsons episodes § Series overview, in the "Film" row after season 18. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Thanks for that; it's now fixed. Small issue of implementing a new/modified feature into {{Series overview}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:24, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Top Gear (series 24)

If you haven't noticed already, Draft:Top Gear (series 24) also exists. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Module:Series overview

Hi, and thanks for your work on Module:Series overview! Are you thinking of finishing it off yourself? If you want, feel free. :) We should probably coordinate our efforts there, though, as edit conflicts on modules can be painful (trust me on this one). Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks for starting it off! We can definitely coordinate our efforts, if one of us works in one area, and another works on another section? Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

That could work, although I'm guessing that there will still be quite a bit of overlap as we decide on the interfaces between the different classes. Maybe if we make the interfaces really solid now it might be easier. Talking of which, I have been thinking of moving Template:Series overview/special and Template:Series overview/split inside the main template (hence it being possible to have multiple EpisodeGroup objects inside each SeriesEntry object, to deal with split seasons). However, to do this, we need to think of argument names for things inside split seasons. I have been thinking along the lines of using |episodes1=, |episodes1A=, |color1A=, |episodes1B=, |color1B=, etc. What do you think? Also, I was thinking of maybe increasing the number of possible info headers to 26 - we could have |infoA=, |infoB=, ... |infoZ= instead of finishing at E, and calculate the column spans based on the number of headers that were specified. I guess that might be overkill though? — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 08:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: So, the following replacements could take place:

Extended content

Replace

{{Series overview/special
 | color     = 
 | link      = 
 | linkT     = 
 | episodes  = 
 | start     = 
 | end       = 
}}

With

{{Series overview
| color*    = 
| link*     = 
| link*T    = 
| episodes* = 
| start*    = 
| end*      = 
}}

Replace

{{Series overview/split
 | num       = 
 | link      = 
 | episodes  = 
 
 | color1    = 
 | episodes1 = 
 | start1    = 
 | end1      = 
 
 | color2    = 
 | episodes2 = 
 | start2    = 
 | end2      = 
}}

With

{{Series overview
| link*      = 
| episodes*  =
| color*A    = 
| episodes*A = 
| start*A    = 
| end*A      = 
| color*B    = 
| episodes*B = 
| start*B    = 
| end*B      = 
}}

This could allow for custom name links for all seasons (that is, link*T for all seasons), which could come in useful. Also, instead of starting from {parameter}1, we'd need to start from {parameter}0, etc. for pilot rows, initial specials, etc. Also, implementing specials into this would kick out the numbering (e.g. for Sherlock, Season 3 would use {parameter}3, the special would use {parameter}4, Season 4 would use {parameter}5, and so on). There be need to be a fix to this - perhaps having the specials as {parameter}*S/{parameter}*S (e.g. for Sherlock, Season 3 would use {parameter}3, the special would use {parameter}S3 or {parameter}3S, Season 4 would use {parameter}4)? Adding more headers would be easy, with:

Extended content

Replace

for i = string.byte('A'), string.byte('E') do

With

for i = string.byte('A'), string.byte('Z') do

And also redefining how we define the hasInfoCells variable. I'm definitely glad you started it, as you've got a more object-oriented model in mind than what I did. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We Bare Bears Shorts Color Codes

I only was trying to change the color codes back to the original, you know dark green and dark red? What's the problem?Icebear244 (talk)Icebear244Icebear244 (talk)

@Icebear244: Why? They're fine as they are. And they don't comply with WP:COLOR, as they're getting tagged under Category:Episode lists with invalid line colors. Once compliant colours have been established, they should only be changed after discussion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Series Overview Update

Just a heads up that you may want to review your changes. Look here, for example.

Issues:

The table appears to be leaking. Look under the purple-colored box to see this.
Empty cells are not displaying TBA.
Cells with TBA don't have the darker gray background they had before, and I think the TBA text might have been just a bit smaller as well, but I can't remember, though this one might have been intentional.

Regards. Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:50, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: I am well aware, and am in the process of updating as necessary. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha! Thanks for responding. Hope I wasn't a bother. Just trying to be helpful. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: All fixed. :) Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We've got a problem...

With the change over of {{Series overview}} to the module. Look at the table at List of South Park episodes. It is listing I guess "numerically". So it's 1, 10, 11, etc. up to 19, then it goes to 2, 3, the film, and continues normal. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes too. And presumably any other series that has more than 9 seasons. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Yep, already aware. I'm attempting a fix for it at this very moment. The Simpsons is where I noticed it. Hopefully I'll get it done soon. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Okay great! I don't know the language for Lua, by my knowledge of coding practices made me think it would be with your "Order table by season number" code. Maybe it's the table.sort function and the need to define the type of sorting? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Fixed. It was the sorting function, it was because the "numbers" of the seasons were "strings", so it determined it by the first character first. Converted it to actual numbers, and now it's fixed. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Great. Thanks! Good work btw on all of this! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Hey AlexTheWhovian, both the series overview tables on List of Scrubs episodes and List of Twin Peaks episodes are showing errors, with "rowspan=" displaying in the table itself. Thought I'd let you know. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

@Drovethrughosts: That's because the tables were coded incorrectly; this has been fixed on both pages now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERET

You know Alex, one of the few perks of being a Wikipedia content creator is that original authors get to chose the formatting for the articles they create – things like date formats and author styles. So I'm going to ask you nicely, as the original author of the article (an article I was actually asked to create by another editor), to please self-revert at Legendary Dudas. To quote the documentation at {{Use mdy dates}}: In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. However, it is common practice for archive and access dates to use the alternative ymd format. This usage is valid and is specifically mentioned at MOSDATE. In those cases, the archive and access date formats should not be altered when fixing dates. (emphasis mine). IOW, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the original date fomatting at the article, and should be maintained under MOS:DATERET. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

One more thing – I see that your edit summary said "In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body." Yes, that's correct for publication dates (i.e. the date parameter), but not true of the accessdate (and archivedate) parameters. I know ref date formatting can be confusing – you're not the first editor I've run across to be confused by the finer points of MOS:DATEUNIFY... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

While I think using ISO dates is just stupid unless you are a computer (see User:AussieLegend#ISO dates - Just say NO!, IJBall is quite correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@IJBall: Amazing - that's some serious "I own this article" behavior you're exhibiting there. You do not own any articles you create, nor get to dictate how it's edited, and hence anyone can change it. You might want to keep that in check, else risk being faced with the admins. The "however ..." section seems to have been added as a second thought, and hence I run by what the sentence starts with: In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. And also at MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates in article body text should all use the same format. When talking about access dates, "yyyy-mm-dd" is the third option after the format used for publication dates in the article and the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article. So, no self-reverting will be occurring from this editor in this particular instance. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you seriously going to go down this road? You arguing that you can ignore MOS guidelines on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. MOS:DATERET exists for a reason, and it's not a WP:OWN thing. Why are you ignoring both the template documentation, and what an experienced editor like AussieLegend is telling you? (And, FTR, I've never been blocked on this project.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

No. I am arguing that everything you've put across has been second- or third-preference compared to everything else in the guidelines you've linked. You link to somewhere, and it's all "however", "or this", "or that", the third in a list of options, etc. It also most certainly is a WP:OWN thing with your behaviour; you are dictating that since you created the article, every edit is subject to your opinion, that you get to choose what does and does not get added (in your very first post). And asking another user to revert me? Extremely bad faith edits there. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

See MOS:DATERET: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." This isn't WP:OWN – it's right there in the guideline. And there's no "first", "second", "third"-preferencing on date formats – if it's in the guideline, it's allowed. Period. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

If it's allowable when its listed in a guideline, then I am glad that you find the current format suitable. And I'm definitely going to have to question that elsewhere, as while it may be present and listed as a guideline, it does conflict with WP:OWN and one that I am going to file under WP:IAR. Also, it's noted how you dodged how I saw your request for another editor to revert me. :) Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Is convinced he's always right. Impossible to work with. Got it. Noted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Do attempt to remain civil during conversations. The same could be said for yourself. Doesn't every editor in opposing sides of a discussion think he or she is right? If we continue to post comments such as the above that does not move to helping the discussion, then nothing will get done. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

Hi, I saw your position on Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 3)#Why Johnson not Daisy. There is a similar dispute in Arrow (season 1) and I'd like to know your opinion. --HamedH94 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Please do join the talk if you intend to make a change that is under dispute. --HamedH94 (talk) 13:53, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

@HamedH94: By the looks of it, my arguments would be the same as those opposing yours. No point adding repeating opinions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Most of them have been answered. So if you have nothing new to say, take a look at the answers; and either add something new or don't edit something already under dispute, as they may be reverted after a consensus. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, given that I was thanked by multiple editors for reinstating the edit, I can see that the consensus is clear. Technically, it was reverting to the status quo while under discussion. Keep the discussion there, not here. You requested my comment, I commented. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Splitting Articles

Hi, I'm Brianis19 and I seen you split an article for Lucifer and I'm asking how to split an article properly for The Odd Couple or could help split it. I would love your feedback thanks. Brianis19 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2016 (UTC).

(talk page stalker) @Brianis19:

Done I have performed the split. (You may want to fix your signature as your username is not visible. I have corrected it for you in this comment.) nyuszika7h (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Quantico page

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

I was the one that changed the pages for Quantico recently. I had a look at other Wikipedia pages and I saw that the cast tables were presented in a manner that made them easier to read. I did not know that cast tables were deprecated. Could you please refer me to the Wikipedia guidelines that corroborates your statement? If you can, that would be much appreciated. Also, I sincerely apologize for causing any issues on your side. I just wanted to get clarification on why the current page is protected. Toddst1 reverted your edits previously under the guise of 'good faith' and my response to you should be evidence that I have not committed 'vandalism' when I wanted to contribute my efforts to help increase the visibility of the page. Please, if you have any concerns about what I said above, let me know as I would be happy to hear them out. Thank you. Elainasla (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elainasla: These cast tables have become deprecated per many and multiple discussions at MOS:TV and WT:TV, the discussions of which are archived in the archives of the respective talk pages, and the tables at the pages you've seen should have also been converted. I have posted on Toddst1's talk page, given that his revert was from misunderstanding, as I reverted the editor who removed much of the coding required for List of Quantico episodes, with no reason. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Can you point us to the resulting WP:MOS that says they're deprecated? MOS:TVCAST says nothing about tables. As it is, you appear to be WP:edit warring on that page and maybe even WP:OWNing it. Toddst1 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Your accusations of WP:EW and WP:OWN will get you nowhere in this discussion, and are falsely thrown about in this case. You will find the answer for the deprecation in the very reply above yours - first sentence, even. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear then: nothing in MOS:TVCAST that says they're deprecated. Great.

You do not have consensus for your revert. at least 3 editors have now objected to it. Please stop reverting. Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Correction: 2 users object. One simply added the initial edits, reverting my splits in the process, and has not been heard from since. I know that I have a couple of talk page stalkers that I've worked closely with at MOS:TV and WP:TV, editors that actually know what they're talking about - would they like to add a few words? I will be listing this discussion for further input, to gain the opinion of more experience editors. Any further additions from Toddst1 at this point will be reverted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Adding to this, see the user's revert - see how they 1) deliberately remove the formatting that was initially (and should still be) required for the List of Episodes page, 2) add unsourced genre changes, 3) reinstate duplicate production information that already exists on the individual season pages, 4) adds a manual series overview to the article instead of transcluding it from the List of Episodes page and hence keeping only one instance of it, 5) adds redirecting links (Yasmine Al Masri to Yasmine Al Massri). He complains that his only issue here is the cast tables, and yet is too lazy, and would rather revert everything instead of just reinstating the one thing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Care to comment on your mistakes and attempted ownership, Toddst1? Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure do. Your behavior including attempting to squelch my participation in the discussion above are being discussed on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Let's be clear then: nothing in MOS:TVCAST that says they're deprecated. That's true, but there is a good reason, and that's because they were never endorsed. WP:TVCAST presents two ways of presenting the cast, and both are prose. Tables have never been supported. I raised the matter of tables at WT:TV in September 2014 (see discussion), and then again in November 2014 (discussion). It was then the subject of a much longer discussion in August 2015 at MOS:TV (discussion). MOS:TV says to use prose and the consensus was not to add support for tables, so they should not be used. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I think it would have been best if you at-least, referred to me (my actual username) in the above discussion with the username Toddst1 on this page, rather than calling me a 'user'. I would have appreciated that. Also, don't be disrespectful to others. In your above commentary, you indicated that I was 'lazy' and that I complained about the issue of cast tables to you. That is incorrect. I voiced my concern but that is different to a complaint. Please, know the difference. Have a nice day! Elainasla (talk) 09:42, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

@Elainasla: I will refer to others who I best see fit; we are all users. And the part about being lazy wasn't even, in fact, about you, it was about Toddst1. So, please know what you are actually talking about before you accuse other editors. This discussion on this page is over. Have a nice day! Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with invalid colour combination

Is this category still being used? I can't seem to find it in the code of Module:Series overview. – nyuszika7h (talk) 11:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I initially implemented it in {{Series overview/row}}, but then deleted it from there once it didn't work. The category could probably be deleted, given that no text overlays the coloured cells in an overview table, and hence WP:COLOR does not apply, given that there's no colour combinations to be invalid. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Exclusion from discussion. Thank you. Blackmane (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Scorpion edit warring

How was i clearly edit warring, all I did was try to change some things because it didn't made sense, but because of a previous scuffle, you come back at me with this attitude saying I was edit warring? I'm sorry but clearly edit warring happens If i continue reverting it minutes to hours for no end at any user, but did I edit warring no I did not. I could talk all day but personally enough is enough and I got one final saying to you: My Message.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: Please educate yourself by reading up on edit warring, and then take it to the article's talk page. I am reverting you on your actions and edits, not based on previous encounters. And great view of collaborative editing - once I get around to it, I will be reporting you to the administrators for edit warring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --HamedH94 (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Template:Infobox television episode

For some reason my brain read this edit summary completely the opposite way. Once I rebooted, I realised I agree with you. Of course you could have made the spaced version the alias and it wouldn't have affected anything. It seems only logical to make this template consistent with Infobox television and Infobox television season. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my thoughts, to make them consistent with the other two. I've always found the capitalized parameters with spaces in them non-conforming to every other template (and as a programmer myself, parameters/variables with spaces just doesn't happen). I'm planning to go through and update them correctly with AWB, though that might be a job for a bot, since the template is used on 8,000+ articles. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

I usually do these sorts of things while watching TV, susbsting the original template in each article with a cleanup template like Template:Infobox television/cleanup. 9,000 articles can go very quickly, especially if you're not the only one doing it, and it ensures that articles have a proper version of the infobox. Some can be really bad. I fixed one article that had 10 invalid fields in it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Same, I'll have my TV shows running on my laptop while I fix the articles on my spare. Subst'ing the templates is actually a good idea, not one that had crossed my mind, since I was looking into how to just convert each of them to lowercase, or replace them all individually with one pass. I may post at the talk page of WP:AWB/Tasks to get others to help. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Ruff

Why did you revert the edits I put in on the Michelle Ruff Page?????--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: Your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. Learn what that means, leave the edits be, and take it to the talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: How am I going to talk this on the talk page of Michelle Ruff If you might see it as another repeated question, and no offense but all I did was change the web page for Michelle Ruff because of some url errors!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Also this is Outrageous, regarding the three revert rule and also on personal attacks, yes I did them but those were on personal disagreements and even If I don't do it for days better yet months and years you still are going to say that's still part of my edit warring, so please leave me alone.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: Perhaps you need to sit back for a while and try to understand the consequences of your own actions. Personal disagreements doesn't allow for violation of Wikipedia policies. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I do it on my own accords, but I don't want to have to deal with you in another one of your accusations (e.g. Edit warring, three revert rule, "personal attacks" on other users) at me ever again, because it's going back to the same behavior I'm seeing: person pissisng me off, leading myself to getting upset and attacking you and getting away with it by taking advantage over me and having myself being blocked for what I did. So personally, enough is enough from you Alex!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: Then if you're going back to the same behaviour, you will be reported to the administrators and blocked from editing. I hoped yo enjoyed your brief time at Wikipedia! Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to be reported Alex, please I will behave!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: Best of luck with the future. :) Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:I did not appreciate the threat/warning that you gave me Alex. :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@AnimeDisneylover95: I don't appreciate your edit warring or personal attacks. See where this is going? Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:Wouldn't it be easier if this discussion just blew away!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time Season 6

Hi! I have recently just made a contribution to the page, Once Upon a Time (season 6), like I have been for the past few years (by that I mean other seasons), and I deleted Sinbad & Scheherazade coming because they were just casting call names for Aladdin and Jasmine and apparently it was deemed incorrect. I'll supply proof if so. Also, I made the season 6 page and when I went to change the color code it was also deemed incorrect. Come on, don't I get any say? And with the Sinbad & Scheherazade thing, I'll give proof they were just casting call names as they always use this. I mean, seriously!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.40.79.148 (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes. Seriously. You seem unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Provide proof, in the form of a reliable source, preferably on the talk page of the article itself; until then, they remain, as they are reliably sourced. It also doesn't matter if you made the page or not - no-one owns any article here on Wikipedia, and there may be consequences further on if you keep up that outlook. Next: Per the guidelines of season pages, once a colour has been picked from promotional art or DVD releases, unless there is a valid reason to change it, the colour stays as it is. Hope this informed you! Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

change to thew Zoo (TV series) page

My changes to the Zoo (TV series) page have been undone, it says because they did not appear constructive. The reason for the is to fix the feel and over all look of the page. In the "original" and what the page get reset to there is a huge gap in the section that shows the cast. The change is not add or adjust content, just to adjust over all flow and look of the page so you do not have to scroll thru 27 lines of blank page. Enclosed is a screen capture of this page showing the huge gap when viewing the page with firefox 48. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBy67 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. Robert Burns ARBy67 (talk) 22:49, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by ARBy67 (talk • contribs) 22:56, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Arrow (season 2)

hi, i wanted to know what's the current problem with moving the draft to the article namespace. --HamedH94 (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

12 Monkeys

An episode of 12 Monkeys season 2 aired in Australia ahead of the USA. I linked the official Syfy Australia webpage showing the scheduling but you removed the edit. Not sure why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.99.13 (talk) 13:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Come again? The notes are still there. At List of 12 Monkeys episodes, for 2x12, 2x13, and the notes are listed beneath. What are you on about? Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:08, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Line color script

Your line color script is not working at List of Galis episodes, perhaps because it does not use |LineColor=, but the episode tables have non-compliant colors that need fixing. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Which tables aren't compliant? They all seem to be... And when it's just episode tables that need fixing, and not the line colours, you can use this script. A full list of my available scripts are listed here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I already fixed them manually in meantime, check the history. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Template help

Hey Alex. Could you help look at and code {{Film date}}? Currently, the template will categorize a film article with "Upcoming films" and "YYYY films" if the date input is greater than the current date. Once the date in the template is equal or less than the current date, it will only categorize the article with "YYYY films". What needs to be changed, due to a CfD discussion and some talk page discussion (see the last section of Template talk:Film date), the template should only categorize upcoming films with "YYYY films" if it is in the immediate future and the cat has been created. I did some work in the template sandbox and got some acceptable results in the test cases, but putting the sandbox template on 100 Years (film) (the article that stemmed this issue), I did not get the results I wanted. Let me know if you need more clarification and hopefully you can help out. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

the 100

Your recent editing history at The 100 (TV series) shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:16, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

why it is the other version that has been saved and not mine (mine with "zach mcgowan")??? the others are always right on wikipedia pffff Judor92 (talk) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

@Judor92: Do not falsely accuse editors of edit-warring; you may be faced with a report of yourself to the administrators. Please take this topic to the talk page of the article, and not here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi there...

Thought you might like to contribute your two-cents worth to this talk page disscussion. LLArrow (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

@LLArrow: I would, but Adam's basically said everything that I would have. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:28, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

LLArrow

The current discussion at Talk:Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. (season 4) might interest you. DarkKnight2149 20:32, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Please see the very post directly about this one. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:38, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk:Agents_of_S.H.I.E.L.D._(season_4)#Ridiculous_user_established_rules_called_into_question. DarkKnight2149 00:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Yes. I know where it is. And again: Please see the very post directly about this one. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:46, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you talking about the diffs of the edits that caused the discussion? DarkKnight2149 00:48, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. I think I know what you're talking about now. I just saw the message above this one. My mistake. DarkKnight2149 00:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Talk:Quantico. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Chriswillclark (talk) 12:23, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

@Chriswillclark: The DRN for a discussion that only just started? I don't think you understand the use of the noticeboard. It even states: Editors are expected to have had extensive discussion on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) to work out the issues before coming to DRN. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:41, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Was there a particular reason for this revert? Do you doubt that Chriswillclark was the IP editor, or do you think there's some advantage to keeping the records separate? I'm not sure I see the point in not allowing someone to claim edits they made before creating their account. Huon (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Input

Hello Alex! If you have a minute, I would really appreciate your input here on a small but unusual issue. Thanks in advance! -- S ^talk/_contribs 19:10, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, given you participated in the discussion and/or expressed interest in the discussion seen here. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Zoo tv series Summary Changes

Just saying that i didnt knew i could do it and i copy/paste the summary from other site's so you get some info about the serie's and what happens on season 2 of Zoo . Most people want some info about it before seeing the show so i was just trying to help to get some info about a tv show i love to watch . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingaboutshows (talk • contribs) 04:38, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Talkingaboutshows: That's nice, but copy-pasting from other sites to Wikipedia is against the policies of this site due to legal reasons. You are more than welcome to add summaries that you have made from scratch. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:45, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok thats good to know . Thank you for your quick reply on that matter . — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talkingaboutshows (talk • contribs) 04:48, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANI Post

I keep trying to edit the ip-added post and it keeps getting whacked, so I'll just ask here: who is this and why are we not AGF-ing here? I assume there's a good reason, but since I can't get a word in edge wise I can't tell whose half of the story holds the greater legitimacy here. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:02, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Please read the reports at WP:AN3 - the first and third. The editor is an edit-warring sockpuppet who is currently evading their ban by using different routers to get different IPs (their own claim). Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so this is a case where its just the ip editors? No sockpuppet investigation report page and no blocked master account? TomStar81 (Talk) 08:09, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@TomStar81: It's just one IP editor, per their claims of their own editors, going over a half-dozen addresses. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:10, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Well that explains alot! I kept looking for an SPI page to compare to and when I couldn't find one I figured I'd just ask at the ANI post, when that evaporated I assumed there was a good reason for it, and so it does appear there is. I'm glad that little voice in my head told me to wait until I heard from both parties before drawing any conclusions. On that note, if this is going to be a problem, I can semi-protect the relevant pages for a couple of days/weeks so you and yours can get some piece. From the looks of things you do appear to need it... TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Honestly, if you could, that would be a godsend. I've got assignments I should be working on, and I've found myself hitting the revert button over and over again as soon as the IP makes another ban-evading edit. Thank you! Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:15, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I've locked down the ANI page and the Sherlock page (those two were in your immediate history). If any others need a lock-down for the sake of peace lemme know and I'll put semi protection up for the affected articles a few weeks. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:21, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Again, thanks a ton! The only other page is their own talk page, but that doesn't overly matter. It does seem, however, that they've taken it to your talk page and will revert my edits there now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:27, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, you keep a dozen open Mozilla windows and sooner or later things get criss-crossed... Anyway, that was m'bad, sorry :) TomStar81 (Talk) 08:38, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

We all make mistakes! And it now seems that they've taken it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard as well, unfortunately. Update: Nevermind, they've been blocked! Now for their next IP... Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

On it. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Blanking

Per WP:BLANKING users are generally free to blank their own talk pages, so please don't edit war over it. Widr (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

@Widr: Blanking comes under editing, and in this case, editing as a result of evading a block. So, editors are more than allowed to revert when an IP editor changes IPs. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Star in her Eye

How reliable are sources stating the name of episode titles this early (at least 6 months beforehand) before the series is actually broadcast, because Doctor Who has been known to change episode titles before they're broadcast, and since the source cultbox got the episode title from seems to be a photo of a clapboard on an (unverified) twitter account, all "Star in her Eye" could be is a working title. TedEdwards (talk) 11:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: CultBox has always been a reliable source, and anything that is a definite rumour is marked with an asterisks on the site. 9x02's title was available seven months before its series premiered, so it's not that out of the ordinary. Also with Series 9, Invasion of the Zygons/Inversion of the Zygons were the original titles of The Zygon Invasion/The Zygon Inversion; the former original titles were listed first, and then the page was updated to list latter pair. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:07, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

But then the other thing I'm concerned about is how the Twitter account which CultBox got the title from is, I assume, an unverified source. The Twitter post mentioned can be found by clicking on 'Star in her Eye', where a header states "Episode 1 - Star in her Eye" in the Cultbox source. TedEdwards (talk) 12:28, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: If it wasn't reliable, CultBox wouldn't have used it, or at the very least, marked it as a rumour. I guess that means it's reliable then, that they're done their own research. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:58, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Date formats

You need to read MOS:DATERANGE more closely. It only allows that for "two consecutive years" (for some, that may be the case, but not all, so it's better to standardize), and in "infoboxes and tables" (neither is the case, the series overview table is only referring to those as links). Your argument is basically WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS because a large number of articles need to be fixed after the RfC in July was closed with consensus to deprecate two-digit endings except for a few special cases. (Though for shows which never go beyond two consecutive years for a single season, two-digit endings are probably still allowed.) Regarding the redirect, the article should be moved – I overlooked that. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: Ah, I wasn't aware that MOS:DATERANGE had changed; I've self-reverted. I can't seem to find the RfC - care to link me? Thanks for letting me know! Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:47, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

It's linked at the top of MOS:DATERANGE in a hatnote: Special:Permalink/731874769#WP:DATERANGE ambiguity and stylistic concerns. – nyuszika7h (talk) 08:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Community (TV series)

What was the thinking behind this edit? You removed the artists from the track listing – perfectly valid and useful information – but didn't delete the column heading. You didn't explain it in your edit summary. I'm reverting your change (but keeping the minor formatting changes you made in the same edit). McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:04, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mclay1: Maybe if you clicked the "AWB" bit in the edit summary, you might just find that it was an automatic edit by a third-party program. Obviously, that particular edit was a mistake, given that the intended usage was to remove any parameters of the form |extra*= from all usages of {{Series overview}} when it was updated. No need to revert, I've restored the content myself. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:12, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I know what AWB is, having used it myself. It's semi-automated. You're still fully responsible for all your edits. No need to be snarky about it. I pointed out a mistake you made. You've fixed it now. No big deal. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:19, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mclay1: I could have said the same about your own snarky introduction, but now that the issue is fixed, I guess this conversation is dealt with. Happy editing! Alex|The|Whovian^?

Sorry if that came off as snarky. It was a genuine question. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:37, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

MOSTV updates

Hey Alex. I'm sure you're aware of the discussions going on, but I just wanted to let you know now that we are close to a consensus for changes to the first section, Naming conventions. In case you weren't following the happenings, just wanted to make sure you'd have a chance to comment, if you chose, before we implemented the changes. You can find all the info, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: Brilliant, thanks! I actually wasn't aware of the discussion, so I'll read through it later and voice my opinions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:29, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I left a notice about starting the discussions for each section here on your talk and a few other places. But no worries. That's why I made this post because I thought it was a bit strange you had not stated anything yet.

- Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I completely missed that... And yeah, I'll have a response for it soon now that I actually know of it! Looks like everything I'd have already said has pretty much been covered. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

No need to add anything if you don't feel the need. Just wanted to make sure you were aware of what was happening, since you are one of the more active TV project members. Be sure to add that discussion and main intro page to your watchlist so you know when we move on and such. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:20, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

created page for Season 1 of ABC's Castle

Hey, I was wondering you could take a look at my draft for Castle: Season 1? Please let me know what you think. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.166.159 (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Good job on getting a start. However, it's going to need a lot more content than that to pass as a valid article; proper lead, premise, production information, casting, reception, accolades, etc. Take a look at Arrow (season 2), which until only the other day was still a draft. (Also, I've moved the draft to Draft:Castle (season 1), per the proper naming procedures). Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, could you ban User:Hesam1323 and also his IP(2.177.72.214). He keeps putting information in the main article for Ramin Djawadi. Even though those informaions are already in List of works by Ramin Djawadi. - AffeL (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

@AffeL: I'm not an administrator, I can't block anyone. Report him at the Administrator Noticeboards. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:19, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Annedroids season 4

Re this, the article uses the Amazon release dates, and it hasn't been released on Amazon yet, only aired on TVOKids, so your edit is incorrect. Maybe we should change it to use the TVOKids air dates, as usually if not always they seem to air earlier, but need to find those air dates somewhere. Their website has the episodes so that pretty much confirms the fact that they aired, but need to find the actual air dates. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Dead of Summer (TV series)

Hey Alex, may I ask why you keep on reverting my edits for Dead of Summer? I am trying to help out this article. My edits are not vandalism at all and they are definitely constructive based on the storyline of the series. I am just trying to make the episode summaries more informative than the one already given. So what gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeldaLudwig (talk • contribs) 03:37, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@ZeldaLudwig: You would know if you read the edit summaries of my reverts. Firstly, nothing in the MoS supports adding cast names into the episode table. And you are completely violating WP:TVPLOT. For constantly completely ignoring my reverts, and reverting them with no explanation, you may face being reported to the administrators. Please understand the guidelines in place at WP:TV and MOS:TV before taking it upon yourself to violate these guidelines. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:10, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian: take care, you had 5 reverts on this article yesterday so you have well exceeded 3RR. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:13, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 10)

What the hell have you edited Series 10 for? That was confirmed by a couple of sources. But you went ahead and went bigheaded and removed it!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiGeek1233 (talk • contribs) 12:45, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @WikiGeek1233: Please see WP:SEASON. – nyuszika7h (talk) 12:51, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@WikiGeek1233: Exactly what Nyuszika said. Per WP:SEASON, [u]sing seasons to refer to a particular time of year (winter 1995) is ambiguous, and hence, air dates do not get listed as such. Also, links do not get added directly to an article, but as a reference (and the content you were adding is already in the article). Finally, please remain civil when dealing with editors who's edits you disagree with. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Prod. code doesn't give details

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

Do not use the non-linked ep template header on guides with ISAN prod codes as the link gives the reader a idea on the meaning of the field. Also stop enforcing template usage as there is NOTHING stating a user MUST use them in guides. 119.224.39.131 (talk) 00:15, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss in the link on your talk page. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

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

American Horror Story: Murder House

Please help Alex! Someone went and screwed the American Horror Story: Murder House article all up by trying to enforce an anti-consensus move; creating multiple new pages/redirects. I'm totally out of my depth here, and am hoping you might know the requisite steps to take... Please and thank you, LLArrow (talk) 04:17, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

@LLArrow: I'll see what I can do. Copy-pasting the content between the pages probably wasn't the best move. Already requested deletion of several pages and request for history to be moved from "season 1" page to "Murder House" page. Updated: All done. American Horror Story (season ) and American Horror Story (season one) are deleted, American Horror Story (season 1) redirected to American Horror Story: Murder House, and Murder House has its history back and its original content restored. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:13, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Your assistance is greatly appreciated. I realize it probably wasn't the most prudent route to take, it just felt like all I was capable of doing at the time. Despite our differences and squabbles I do respect you as an editor. I have quite the flaring temper and can snap like a rabid turtle, usually to my detriment. You can totally remind that I'm being an a$$hole, when I am, and call me on my bull$h!te. I'm the type of editor that needs a little reigning in from time to time. That being said, I've sorta grown fond of our little tiffs ;P. LLArrow (talk) 05:50, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Regarding

...this, somehow the rollback must have got clicked since using my phone now. Sorry for that I definitely did not mean to revert it. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 11:33, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

No problems. We all make accidents. Was just making sure you knew that editors are allowed to clear their own talkpages. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:36, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

data-sort-TBA in series overview

Something broke with {{Series overview}}, it's showing "data-sort-TBA" instead of "TBA" (see for example List of Soy Luna episodes). It appears on other pages after an edit/purge. nyuszika7h (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

{{N/A}} was recently edited, so I'll be sure to add support for that into the module ASAP. I'll also get around to fixing manual usages of {{N/A}} in the template. I wasn't aware of this; thanks for letting me know! Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:25, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H:

Fixed Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Broken instance of template

The template {{Series overview}} is not working at List of The Dumping Ground episodes, probably a problem with the data but I had a look and there’s nothing obvious. Can you have a look at it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@JohnBlackburne:

Fixed Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Blindspot (TV series) into List of Blindspot episodes. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:30, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Pardon me? I gave proper attribution of both talk pages, as is necessary. Perhaps you should do your research before warning editors about something that they have already done. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:31, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for posting this before checking the talk page; could you please in the future also make sure you mention in your edit summary at the destination page where you got the content from? Sample edit summary. The talk page templates are optional, but the edit summary is mandatory. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Diannaa: Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia states that an edit summary should be used at a minimum and the simplest form, but given that that page is only a guideline, and that I've already attributed fairly enough with {{copied}}, it is unnecessary. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The page says that you need to at a minimum do the edit summary, and the talk page stuff is optional. They don't use the word "mandatory", but that's what it means. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:51, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No where does it imply the edit summary is "mandatory"; that seems to be your opinion on the matter, not what it actually is. Alex fully satisfied WP:PATT with the talk page templates added. The "spirit" of it if you were is to include a hyperlink somewhere for the attribution, and WP:PATT even says the edit summary way is disadvantageous. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Favre. I knew there was a link for proper attribution guidelines, but I couldn't remember what it was. This definitely seems like a personal view; I've never had other editors display any issues when splitting pages before. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

~~Thanks, Favre. It looks like it was me that was misinterpreting. Sorry, AlexTheWhovian~~ — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No problems. I will endeavor to add links into both edit summaries when splitting, though, like I did with the main article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Looks like I goofed again: Taking a closer read of the material at the link, in both scenarios they are talking about what the content of the edit summary should be: hyperlink in the edit summary, or a list of contributor names in the edit summary. In neither instance does it say that the edit summary can be replaced by the {copied} template. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 13:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I have always interpreted that as attribution in the edit summary being required, though the terms of use don't say edit summary is required, just "sufficient". Might be best to ask the WMF about this. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward Brayshaw needs to be recognized for his contribution to Doctor Who as being The First Master. See War Games episodes.

Edward Brayshaw was known as the first actor to play The Master, in the Science Fiction Series, Doctor Who. Patrick Troughton played the Doctor, and The Master was referred to as the War Chief. Please refer to the show title War Games, staring Patrick Troughton as the Doctor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.162.127 (talk) 23:28, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Source it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:29, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how this works. I don't know how to contact you. Go see the show War Games and see the Master you forgot. Edward Brayshaw needs to have his picture on top. You left him out! Why? Do a youtube search for The Master A Life of Evil, I found 3 of them showing Edward Brayshaw as the first Master. Do an AOL Search, under the name Edward Brayshaw, you will see that he listed in a few places as the First Master. Go rent or buy the show. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.162.127 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Edward Brayshaw was known as the first actor to play the Master in the Science Fiction Series, Doctor Who. Patrick Troughton played the Doctor, and the Master was referred to as the War Chief. I tried 3 times to add this information, and each time someone had removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.162.175 (talk) 02:15, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Maybe I will try again tomorrow to fix the missing information about Edward Brayshaw being known as the first actor to play the Master. It is important for historical reference. Someone keeps removing my addendum. I would suggest you get a picture and put it on top, and put back the information that I had supplied. This is history. You can't just leave somebody out because you don't like him as an actor. I am going to be complaining to Wikipedia for leaving him out, and the numerous erasing of the added information provided. I am wasting my time trying to help the wiki community when someone keeps side stepping my efforts every time I try to provide the needed information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.140.162.175 (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

1) Stop making a new section on this page every time you leave a comment. Click the edit button at the top of the section to add a new comment to this discussion.

2) Please sign your posts with ~~~~, else your edits here will also be removed.

3) Check the article history by clicking the History tab at the top of the article to see why your edits are being reverted. The reason that your edits are being reverted is because it goes against the history of the show, and your claims are entirely unsourced by any third-party reference. They are entirely your own views, and not based at all on the events of the series.

4) Discuss this on the talk page of The Master's article by clicking the Talk tab in the top left of the article, not here.

5) If you continue to add these edits without discussing on the aforementioned talk page, you will be reported for edit warring, and possibly blocked by the administrators from editing. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:32, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Alex,

Will you please check out the show War Games??? Please? Edward Brayshaw is the first actor to play the Master. If you will check it out, you can see it for yourself. If you put the name Edward Brayshaw in Google, you will see a picture of the Master. You will recognize him instantly. It does NOT go against the history of the show. It predates your first entry. 19 April 1969 to 21 June 1969. Will you please check it out, and please update.

Alex,

I am still waiting for you to update this page as requested. Do you agree that Edward Brayshaw needs to be included or are you opposed to my suggestion? If you disagree, I want you to say so, or say that you will update later this week or whenever convenient, something like that would be appreciated. Wikipedia was never intended for one person to hog the way information is to be presented. If something is left out, it needs to at least be considered.

Signed 47.140.162.175 (talk) 03:27, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes. I disagree. Now, discuss at it at Talk:The Master (Doctor Who), and not here. User talk pages are for personal requests/discussions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:36, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates

I can't figure out why Backstage (2016 TV series) is in Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates, as far as I can see it does not use any unformatted air dates in |OriginalAirDate=, only |AltDate= which the module doesn't check because it shouldn't use that template anyway. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems my edit in the sandbox fixes it, though there's a bug with the preview, as it was still showing up as being in the category – when I used the "Preview page with this module" on my sandbox (with the main namespace check removed), it behaved as expected, and categorized without the empty field the check but not with. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I am somewhat confused now. Is it working as its meant to now? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the sandbox version works correctly now. nyuszika7h (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD (season 4) colour theme

Would you mind weighing in here. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Fear the Walking Dead

Hello AlexTheWhovian, There is something wrong with the Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings. I can't figure out what it is. Look at the latest edit by User:Wellington190 on that Template. AffeL (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki loves women montly contest- September

	Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest (September)!
	Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fan4Life

Alex, you may be interested to know that less than a week later, Fan4Life did a series of reverts on the Doctor Who story arcs article (they've since been re-reverted), despite having been told explicitly not to do that sort of thing (he's done it before) without consensus, and to come to the talk page if he thinks all or any of the old unsourced material (pages of it) needs to come back. I've let DQ know, decided to have a look at F4F's talk page just now, and noticed the small thread between yourself and him agreeing to let something similar go by the sound of it. Is this something to be added to that or a broader discussion? It sounds like some sort of intervention is needed. I don't know much at all about admin procedures with respect to this sort of thing, but when you put all this together with the behaviour over the 2 and 3 part issue months ago (which had dragged on over a year), there is a pattern of OCD-like disruption emerging here. It's like F4F is losing what self-control he had; you would think by now the need for, at minimum, any references at all, would be self-evident. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Just finished tracing what the other discussion was about and was shocked to discover it was the same one I'd been involved with last spring. I thought that was finally done, but ... God, this person really does have serious problems.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: Ah, yes, the discussion on his talk page was indeed about him continuously resurrecting the "should these episodes be single or grouped discussion", enough so that I made a list on the article's talk page of all of these discussions, to dissuade other editors from starting it up again. This required me to start the topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requiring direction. Be glad you weren't aware of it! I have had headache after headache over it. I wasn't ware of the reverts (strangely, I haven't added the story-arc article(s) to my watchlist). It would recommend adding the thread on his talk page from me to the discussion you've started (care to link me?), as well as the one I just linked on WP:AN (be aware that it may archive sooner rather than later) as it shows that his behaviour does not relate to just one article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Signatures

It was closed as I was about to comment, but copying signature styles is not a policy violation. Copying the name would be, but not the style. Many steal styles from each other, typically without incident. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Interesting. Thanks for letting me know! I feel like starting a new discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. That's just unacceptable. They copied the entire thing, letter for letter, and only changed the names. That's identical to copying the signature itself. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It has to do with your contribution being under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. As long as they don't have a similar name or use your name, it is just style. Several people here use the same style. Think about it, most people use the default sig, which is all the same style. I use a bolded blue sig, so do many others (although I have a cooler talk link). Best to ignore the ANI, we don't need more drama there. I'm trying to calm him down. It might be helpful if you capitulated a bit and admitted the error, but I can't force the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil words, but I've nothing to admit. It may be allowable under the license, but a thief is a thief whether they copy original content under a license or not. Just my opinion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)- Just my 2¢ but I've had my signature copied about 2 weeks ago & ended up ranting at that editor ... and they changed it!, As sad and pathetic as it may sound or be I absolutely hate anyone copying my sig I really do especially when it's blatantly been copied from me (not by complete accident),

In all fairness i'd imagine it's 10 times frustrating for you because compared to me yours is extremely unique and certainly something that isn't just thought of just like that,

Think of it like this tho - Someone takes your signature so basically they really like it and think it's cool .... so in a subtle way tell them they should be cool, creative & unique by having a different one here too and that having the same one makes you(them) boring I guess .... Ofcourse if it doesn't all go to plan then you're screwed lol, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 12:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hi, Alex|The|Whovian^?, I was copying the table from Gotham and I accidentally copied a paragraph from the page by mistake. I'm sorry I forgot to explain that. -Brianis19 1:50 21 September 2016.

@Brianis19: Yeah, saw your explanation in your next revert. Might have been a good idea to explain it straight off. I thought you were removing valid content, but I see that I was wrong. No problems. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is good Wikiquette and a courtesy to other editors to always leave an explanatory edit summary (not here, here, or here) or at least checkbox minor edits. Thanks for your continued contributions to improve the encyclopedia! - Reidgreg (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that requesting edit summaries for copyedits and minor formatting is just nitpicking. But that's just my opinion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please help me out. I am trying to add in Maleficent to the Once upon a time season 6 page but it keeps getting deleted even when i site and refrence. help? Lol Awesomeguy0001 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tracking cat

Did you make a tracking cat to see if an article is using raw header code over {{Episode table}}? Just curious because I thought there was one and I can't seem to find it. I also just converted Little Women: LA so that got me curious again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly a tracking category, as we can't track raw code, but there was this list. Given that it was created six months ago, however, it's probably horribly out of date. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh right! That's what I was thinking of. Because that list was looking at articles that used {{Episode list}} and not Episode Table, yeah? We should see if we can get that updated again.... And I think I was going to work through that some and then forgot o.O - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd forgotten how we created the list, but yes, that's correct! With that, I've updated the list with AWB's list comparer, of articles that use {{Episode list}} but don't use {{Episode table}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Close to 5,800 articles is very daunting. Slowly but surely it will be cut down. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If we take it to WP:TV, and inform members of the project of the list, and possibly the script I created for it, then we might get it done quicker. Much like how we cleared out the non-compliant colour category. Maybe get others onto Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates as well. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Quantico cast table

Hi, you reverted my edit about adding the cast table for the mains page of Quantico, and I just want to know why. I saw you wrote that the table "has been deprecated per discussions", but I have noticed that several go even multiple tv series' main page use the cast table. I personally think the table is good to have on the page as it easily shows who is a series regular on the show, and the progression of the cast through the show's history. One example is Grey's Anatomy which has been using the table in the last 13 years, and you get a good view of how much the cast has changed over the years. The show is even a Good article, and it still uses the cast table! Other shows like Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder, Pretty Little Liars, Modern Family and Empire uses the cast table to showcase the main cast of the show. Why has there been a discussion about not using these anymore? Is it because some people think they don't fit into the main page? I for one think they are a great addition, so I just wanted to know why I can't add the cast table for Quantico now that the show has added several new series regulars for the second season. Twotimer17 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Twotimer17: Yes, the table may be beneficial for series like Grey's Anatomy (and while it may list 13 seasons, I highly doubt that it's been in use for 13 years), which has been airing for years and has had many cast changes, but not for a series that only has two seasons, the latter season of which only just premiered. Read the discussions in the archives of MOS:TV and WT:TV - you'll find more reasons and thorough discussions there. There's also related discussions about the same topic that were held on the talk pages of the Arrow and The Flash series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop now

Stop now, the next inflammatory comment or personal attack will likely get you a block. If you can't interact civilly with each other than don't interact. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Sure thing. I'll avoid the editor when possible. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Comment: Callanecc; I don't want to get in-between these petty arguements, but I did want to make sure you are aware of other editors, not just AlexTheWhovian, who have encountered this user and been attacked by them. So if every editor had to stop interacting with this user, the Wikipedia would not improve because of this. Not including me, there is a long list. I forsee a long future of this non-stop behavior and actually have tried to civillaly talk to him about it on behalf of those editors he has created conflict with, but he refused to listen. Chase (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
- Hi Chase, LLArrow has been blocked for not stopping as I asked them to. So we'll see what happens when the block expires. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Please see the editor's contribution history (specifically the history of the Shameless season/list-of-episode articles, and also the American Horror Story articles), as to how they continue to revert the edits of both myself and other editors (with the reason related to "non-consensus edit" or something similiar), and continues to leave snarky comments in their edit summaries. The editor simply refuses to stop edit-warring over such trivial content, and will continue to attempt to force their preferred revision, justifying their edits as "the most recent consensus". Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Small poke

Just want you to know that a few small changes will be implement to MOS:TV, based on the most recent rewrite discussion, in case you would like to voice any opinions regarding them before they are implemented. Once those are done, the next section to cover will be the first "Image" section, with the first "Lead" section and everyone's favorite topic, "Plot", on deck. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

I saw you helping out with my color on the episode tables and also noticed you are prominent in the Television WikiProject, I can't seem to figure out why on Draft:List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes the summaries are still showing up. Could you help me with this or tell me what I did wrong? Or is it because it is in the draft space? Thank you. Chase (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Doesn't seem like the summaries are showing up anymore, seems to be fixed. In usages of {{Episode list/sublist|****}}, the part labelled **** should be the list-of-episodes article, and the season tables should only be transcluded to the article - anything different (in either the **** or where it's transcluded to) will cause the summaries to appear. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD Question.

Hey! I noticed you reverted my edit on the Vixen article, which is completely fine, but I'm a tad confused about WP:CITELEAD. Your reasoning was to prevent citation in the lead, but why is it that an article like American Horror Story is allowed to have 17? It's considered a good article, but if it violates that rule then shouldn't that be an issue? Keeping in the universe of Vixen; Arrow, The Flash and Legends of Tomorrow also all contain citations in their lead. Kelege (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kelege: Per WP:CITELEAD, if it is cited in the body of the article, then it shouldn't be cited in the lead. If it's not included and/or cited in the body, then it should be cited in the lead. If other articles do it, then that doesn't make it right, per WP:OTHER, and the articles offending the guideline should be adjusted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ohhh that makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining it. Kelege (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Whose Line

I'm pretty sure the edits you recently made on Whose Line episodes for Season 12 are incorrect. It doesn't make sense for there to be a huge gap between October 2015 and May 2016 within the same season. And then have Season 11 end in July 2016 and season 12 to start up in July 2016 as well. Clearly the futon critic website is incorrect.

The Season 12 summary also mentions that Wayne Brady was out for the Episode 20 taping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C02:6020:75BA:F549:4E7C:3D02 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm not sure how familiar you are with WikiProject Television, but The Futon Critic always has and always will be considered as a reliable source, given that it uses information from press releases that it receives from networking companies. That is, where it states that Whose Line Season 12 has 12 episodes, is not original research on The Futon Critic's part. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

colors

I did not realize the color issue so do as you feel is best for that. I am mainly interested in updating the actual content anyway. Thanks for the heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexianUSA (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@TexianUSA: I reverted and warned you multiple times, and you didn't realize it? Right. In any case, I've revoked the report; please self-revert the edits concerning the non-compliant colours. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "non-compliant" colors are. Is there a list somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexianUSA (talk • contribs) 07:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:COLOR, and the first post I posted on your talk page, then reinstate the edits I implemented. (And just click "Edit" when replying, instead of creating a new section again). Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what colors you prefer or which ones you chose to implement for the episode list sections. I was simply using basic red, green, blue, etc. Maybe just black and white would simplify it and eliminate the issue altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexianUSA (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll fix the article tomorrow. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:IP talk page

Heh, you beat me to it again (edit conflicts). Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Hah, no problems. If the editor forces their edit again, I'll revert, so that you don't violate 3RR. I'm not sure how they think it's grammatically correct at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A Piraat for you!

Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Once Upon a Production Code

Would you mind adding your view to my growing collection? LLArrow (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox on The Husbands of River Song

Could I ask you what the issue with putting the name of the next episode (The Return of Doctor Mysterio) on the infobox is just because there is no article? It's just, I can't see one. TedEdwards (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Following infoboxes such as {{Infobox television season}}, which doesn't allow links or text to/for the next season until the article for it exists. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Promotional poster for season articles

Hello there! How've you been? There's something bothering me for a little while now, someone has been deleting a number of season posters and uploading the DVD cover instead, with the spine showing and sometimes even the DVD case. I'm reaching you because I wanted to know if it's a new police or guideline that says to prefer DVD covers over posters or if it's a newbie changing it out of his own will... Thanks a bunch!

P.S.: some of the seasons the user has changed are The Walking Dead and American Horror Story — Artmanha (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:TVIMAGE (which actually is going through a rewrite now here) says that a poster or DVD cover should be used. I've seen editors decide to reupload the DVD cover, even if it is exactly the same as the promotional poster, just because it is the DVD cover. Preferably, an image without the spine or the case should be used. However, if a promotional poster for the season and the DVD cover are completely distinct, it may be worth having a discussion regarding which to use. And in my opinion, the end result should be the image that is most representative of the season and also has variance to the main article (for an example see the poster for Daredevil season 1 versus the home media cover, which is almost exactly the same as the title card. Thus the poster should be used in this situation). Hope that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: I really can't add anything to what Favre1fan93 has said; he has covered it perfectly. On the topic of the files, I have reverted and restored them back as far as possible; the previous files for The Walking Dead still existed, but the American Horror Story files had been deleted, so I cropped the covers and re-uploaded them to their previous file names. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:@Favre1fan93: you guys are the absolute best!! It's safe to say Wikipedia is a better place because of you guys. Thanks a lot! — Artmanha (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dummy

In this case, in particular, I am the one completely at fault here. I'm not getting enough sleep. You don't have to fork off, just spoon a little ;). LLArrow (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Whose Line Season 12

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/whose-line-is-it-anyway/ http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2016/04/05/the-cw-network-announces-additional-2016-summer-premieres-1414/20160405cw01/

Those two links from thefutoncritic specify that the new Season 12 season started May 23rd, 2016. It also contradicts itself saying it only has 12 episodes in season 12. Not so "reliable" to be flawless I think.

It does not make sense for the last episode of Season 11 to be July 27th, 2016; and the first episodes of Season 12 to be July 26th, 2016 (one day previous).

Plenty of other sources using that same CW press release that show that season 12 started on May 23rd, 2016: http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/whose-line-anyway-season-12-cw-series-returns-may/ http://www.yourentertainmentcorner.com/?p=85616 http://cwpittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/04/20/2016-summer-premieres/

I think it is more conclusive to go off a date to specify when a season started, instead of using a # of episodes measure. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C02:6020:C99B:7C25:FCC1:D29E (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Arrow episode reverts

Greetings, Alex.

Don't worry, I am not going to self-revert my reversion of Jack Sebastian's edit. I left my justifications on both Talk pages for & against the argument, but I firmly believe that matters should be left alone.

Anyway, thanks for the support on this.

Ooznoz (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Ooznoz

The Walking Dead season images

Hello again, the user reverted your reverts and re-added the DVD covers with the slip cases, using the nonsense argument that it represents better the season while the poster represents only the premiere episode... Could you take a look at it? Thanks a lot! — Artmanha (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: All articles reverted and files requested for speedy deletion. I'll post on the editor's talk page about this; they've been told multiple times as it is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! U DA BEST! — Artmanha (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: No problems! You might be interested in seeing the discussion on the editor's talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes to color tables on RWBY Episode List

Hello!

I made the edits as I felt that they matched the importance of color in the show. I do now see how that they can cause issues with for people with visual impairments. For that I apologize, and I will update the colors on the tables as soon as feasibly possible. I am in the process of reviewing the document you provided to find colors that will work for the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPat8 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Last warning

If I find you wikihounding me again, as you did here, you aren't going to like the results. (Redacted) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: False claim on the hounding, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor The fact that you think that was about you says a lot about your ego. That article was being used as a battleground for the edit-war of multiple editors. Perhaps if you weren't an uncivil, edit-warring and disruptive editor, this wouldn't have been the case. You typically get defensive when you know you're in the wrong. Go ahead, report me again - see if you don't get blocked again for your actions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Aw. I'm your hound. So sweet, especially when the page is on my watchlist. Such hound, much stalk, plenty of lol. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed your 'warning' regarding me undoing your refactoring of my posts. Of course you know you aren't supposed to do that, but you could argue that you didn't know that you couldn't alter the posts of others who post to your page. Of course, you can say you just so happen to be editing the same pages as I am , and just happen to reverting posts that I made with marked frequency. Some people come here to improve the encyclopedia or maybe to learn something new. Clearly, that isn't what you are here for. I will ask you to leave me alone. Do not refactor my posts, revert my edits or post to my page. You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. If you have a burning need to revert me, you'd best find an admin or someone else to do it for you. I am deeply concerned that you find your wikistalking of me to be a funny little game. The next time it occurs, I will treat it with all the seriousness it actually deserves. This will be my last post to you, unless you make it necessary in the future for me to request your block or ban. This is as far as you will push me, Alex. You will not stalk me any further. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I'm an editor with over 40k edits over two years, and apparently it's me who's the one who's not here to edit. Says the one who mass deletes content disruptively. Did I mention hypocritical? "Your page and edits are now watchlisted." I wonder who's the stalker now. Enjoy watching me run, kiddo. My talk page, my rules. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Arrow

The executive producers have said on multiple occasions that they want to do something different to the comics. In fact, they do not like comic book fans at all. A thorough examination of all episodes of this series shows that while characters trademarked by DC are used, there really isn't any proper signs that this is a Green Arrow adaptation (the tones and messages are vastly different to the comics). Hence, "loosely based", like the Jonah Hex film of 2010.

Edit: What I say might come across as conjecture, but there's plenty of proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.173.70 (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

When I said to discuss it on the talk page, I did mean the article's talk page. And it's not a matter of who/what the producers like, or the "messages"; the adaptation is based on the character of Green Arrow and those that appear in DC comics. If it's based on that character, with background adapted from the comics, and (as you put it) the shows that are DC trademarks, then it's not "loosely based" at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode Tables and "TBA"

The 'float-over' the "TBA" in episode tables says "To be announced", not "To be added". If the float-over was changed to "To be added", then that would be an acceptable alternative to "N/A". But "To be announced" is not a viable alternative to "N/A" for long-past-aired shows where just a few individual episode writer or director credits are missing – for those, either "N/A" or a "TBA" with a "To be added" float-over are appropriate. Just thought this is worth bring up, as you are a template guy and probably can fix the float-over text... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think that TBA has always meant "To be announced". "To be added" is redundant, because it is obvious that the information hasn't already been added yet. For past shows where the information has likely been announced but we don't actually know what it is, we should be using N/A, which means "Not available". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Try this: TBA (it has the correct float-over). And it's not that the credits aren't "not available", they are. It's just that someone has yet to get around to adding it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: The point is that "To be announced" is not correct for shows that have already aired. (It would be fine for yet-to-have-aired episodes of TV series, because "To be announced" would be strictly accurate in those cases.) But in shows that have already aired, "To be announced" is in fact not accurate, because the credits for those episodes have already aired, it's just that no editor here has added them yet. For already aired shows, "To be added" or "N/A" ("Not available") is a much more accurate table entry. (And, FTR, I don't think there's really any difference between using "TBA/To be added" vs. "N/A/Not available" – they're equivalent in my book in terms of missing info in episode tables for already aired episodes...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Can You Please Change The Name of my Page Back?

I know my page started out pretty rough, but it's getting bigger, in fact bigger than a few pages on Wikipedia! While your are on it, can you just rename my page from "Draft:List of Gems Across the Cosmos episodes" to "Gems Across the Cosmos" instead? Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Breaking Point (talk • contribs)

No, as there is not sufficient content for the article to be in the main space. Work on it as a draft, then when you're finished, only then should it be moved back. Also, no-one owns pages, per WP:OWN. And please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Have a pint on me

Have a pint on me,

69.50.70.9 (talk) 04:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Jack Sebastian

Regarding the first part of your response from WP:ANI, the fact that you're open to a resolve is a step in the right direction. Looking from @Jack Sebastian's perspective, he seems to think that you're the one hounding him, while in your eyes, he's the one actively attacking you. And judging from your edit histories, you both seem genuinely committed to the Wiki. Whatever edit disputes you two are currently having, perhaps there could be a constructive way to discuss the issues without you two making threats and filing reports on each other? I'm not choosing any sides here, but this conflict does seem to be getting a bit too heated. DarkKnight2149 07:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Obviously he has no plans to, since he plans to oppose me at every single possible turn. The newest example? Talk:Arrow (TV series) § Protected edit request. Requesting an admin to increment the number of aired episodes. And he opposes this. The most uncontroversial of edits. Enjoy. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:29, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

And yet again, the editor has attempted to come to my talk page with false accusations and an attempt at superiority over me, at both his length of time editing and the fact that he thinks that I'm following him around, when the pages in question are on my watchlist and have been for years (what is even more amusing is that the editor stopped being a major contributor to the protected article in question in 2013[7], then only started editing it again 25 days after I first edited it[8], and more actively after me - who's following who now?). They obviously plan to oppose me at every turn. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:32, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 October

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the Draft:Arrow (season 5) page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

What's safe and what's not

Why is a certain webcolor not a safe? Everytime I used Snook, the color I made is either too dark or too light cause I don't control a certain slider. I was looking at the WP Color page and there are more than just one link. Plus, why am I on your watchlist? S hannon434 (talk) 04:36, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@S hannon434: What colour are you trying to adjust? Simply slide the saturation and value bars to increment the contrast ratio, until it's greater than 7. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi ATW. Is it safe?. I am sorry for the hassle that you are having to put up with so I hope this brings a smile or two. Keep the bottle of "oil of cloves" handy. Cheers and have a spooktacular Halloween weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 04:13, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Marnette, as always, you're amazing. Thanks for the link, it brought a laugh. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I did that with red but I wanted a true color out of it but they always turn lighter salmon red. How come you don't accept the web colors on wikipedia? S hannon434 (talk) 04:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) S hannon434 As Alex asked, what color/what article are you looking to adjust the color to be compliant? I can look at it to see what can be done if you still aren't getting it as you want and compliant. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

@S hannon434: How come you don't accept the web colors on wikipedia? Because #FF0000 / #FF0000 is not compliant with WCAG 2 AAA Compliancy, and by extension, WP:COLOR. No website, either it is Wikipedia or not, should use red as a background colour with black or white foreground text. The nearest colours are either #FF5F5F or #B60000 . Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agents of shield ratings

I have seen a few sources say that 2.47million people watched locked up even tv by the numbers. All you have to do is google agents of shield ratings click news, then search tools, and change sort by relevance to sort by date, and scroll down tv by the numbers will come up and it will say 2.47 million people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.1.199.18 (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Those are not the final ratings, and hence, those are not the ratings used on Wikipedia. Discuss it on the article's talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Start date in AltDate parameter

Please note that the |AltDate= parameter should not use {{Start date}} if |OriginalAirDate= is also present, per the documentation of {{Episode list}} and {{Start date}}. – nyuszika7h (talk) 15:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Noted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode ratings template

I've actually been meaning to write to you on a seperate topic. I recently created Template:Australian television episode ratings, based somewhat on your Template:Television episode ratings. Your existing template isn't particularily adaptable to Australian television series (demo ratings/share aren't the common metric in Australia - total viewers are, our ratings are released with rankings, we don't use 'consolidated' or 'timeshift' as opposed to 'DVR', Australian ratings these days typically don't exceed one million viewers thus don't always need rounding, etc). However, as a relatively novice template editor, if you got a chance would you mind just casting your eye over it for any technical issues or related problems with it I may have overlooked. I've transcluded it on a few pages now just to test it with real data, and so far things are smooth, but a neutral opinion wouldn't hurt. The main reason I created the template was because multiple editors were making wikitables from scratch and there was no consistency across Australian television program articles, and a template seemed an easy solution to the issue. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:59, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Whats new?: Yeah, that's the reason I initially created {{Television episode ratings}}, to create some sort of standard and consistency; same with the other templates I've created for television articles. I have noticed that Australian shows use different tables, but I never really looked into it; while I'm Australian myself, I don't actually watch many Aussie series, just the occasional one and the American series. Just looking over the documentation, it seems alright; however, I would remove the coloured header background and text, and stick to the default background and black text, else WP:COLOR compliancy issues come into play (there's an entire discussion about this at Template talk:Infobox television season/Archive 3). Perhaps add the sortable class to the table as well (except for the references column), per the original template? Overall, it looks like a well-functioning template. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:13, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. There's a lot of issues with the way Australian ratings are released that mean custom tables are sometimes necessary (for example, split ratings for the same episode, meaning merging rows - which I haven't figured out yet how to do in a template, its my next challenge). I only added the colour functionality because some of the custom Wikitables used colours and wanted to retain the option. I also deliberately removed sortable, so if merged rows in some columns could be added in the future without destroying functionality. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Whats new?: Yeah, no problems. Can you give me an example on what you mean by split ratings in regular wikitable format? I might be able to come up with something for you, that you can adapt for the template. And colours are all well and good, but if you're going to keep the usage of them, add tracking so that editors can track non-compliant colour usages and fix them. For example, {{Infobox television season}} uses the following code:

{{#if: {{{bgcolour|}}}{{{bgcolor|}}}{{{headercolour|}}}{{{headercolor|}}}|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base={{ifempty|{{{bgcolour|}}}|{{{bgcolor|}}}|{{{headercolour|}}}|{{{headercolor|}}}}}|category=[[Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination]]}}}}

, which then adds non compliant usages to Category:Articles using Template:Infobox television season with invalid colour combination. Something that could be used for this template would be

{{#if: {{{backgroundcolour|}}}|{{Ensure AAA contrast ratio|base={{ifempty|{{{backgroundcolour|}}}|||}}|category=[[Category:Articles using Template:Australian television episode ratings with invalid colour combination]]}}}}

. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Ah, thanks for the tip on the colours, might look to work that in at some stage. Split table example could be something like The Block (season 11)#Ratings, where you'll note the final episode at the bottom of the table is one episode, but has two ratings - the first is the bulk of the program, the second is for the last 10 or 15 minutes when the winner of the show is announced. Networks code the end portion seperately of reality show finales so they can get media headlines of a higher peak figure, but it means merging columns like date, timeslot, episode number, etc. I also quite like the week far-left Week column on articles where episodes air multiple times a week, but there's the same merging issue when attempting to incorporate into a template. -- Whats new?^(talk) 02:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Whats new?: I think that perhaps a separate template would be best for an example like that, instead of trying to merge it into the currently-existing template. Perhaps {{Australian television episode ratings/split}}; copy the code across and modify it as a separate template, and rather than using title{1-30}, use title{1-30}{A-E} (for example). So, that is, have title1A, title1B, title1C, title2A, title2B, etc. It's how I originally created {{Series overview}}, with {{Series overview/split}} and {{Series overview/special}}, but they've since been deleted when I converted the template to WP:Lua. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah that might be a workable solution. The issue of course with Australian television is the scheduling is so erratic, so one week you could have two eps, the next four eps, the next just one, so you can't pre-plan and you need that flexibility to modify the table. I had considered setting a variable to include how many episodes per week, but because it changes, it couldn't work pre-set. I might have a go at incorporating some of your suggestions though when I have the time to play around with it properly. Thank goodness for those template sandboxes! Thanks for the advice, appreciate it. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Amen to the sandboxes. I'd be lost without them; I mean, look at the history of my module sandbox. And perhaps allow up to E for lettered parameters (e.g. title1E), but only include them if they're set. So, as an example and going by your examples of 2/4/1 for the number of episodes each week, you can set title1A, title1B (2 one week), title2A, title2B, title2C, title2D (4 next week), title3A (1 the week after), and all related parameters, but in the code itself, check for the existence of title1A through title1E using {{#if:{{{title1A|}}}|<INSERT ROW CODE HERE>}} (repeated for each lettered parameter), and include them if they're set. Hope that makes sense! Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:10, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha, quite the rich history you have there! I think that does make sense, but you never really know until you start playing around with it in reality as to whether these things work or not. It took me hours to work out why something wasn't displaying correctly on the template, and after countless major rewrites and restructuring, turns out it was a one-letter typo! If I do start working on this template extension and get stuck, I might consult you for advice again. -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

No problems. I'll be here when you do, I'm not running away anytime soon. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:27, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@Whats new?: Not related to this, but you may be amused that the edit-war'er at Divorce (TV series) has decided to take a smoothly uncivil tone here in regards to a recent edit-warring report I've filed (not against them), trying to turn it back on me after having been reverted by the two of us. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh that's unfortunante. If only some editors would discuss, engage and learn. -- Whats new?^(talk) 04:54, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Britney Spears videography

Hello again! I've been having some trouble recently with an IP address who can't seem to respect the Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. The user keeps removing sourced material from the article and "fixing" it by its own mind, with no reliable sources and with no regards for what does have reliable sources confirming what's in the article. I've warned it that if it continues to revert my edits, with no sources, it would eventually break the WP:3RR and face a potential block and the user has ignored every warning. I don't know what to do... Please help me. Thanks a bunch! — Artmanha (talk) 12:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: I've template-warned both IPs on their respective talk pages and reverted the edits; if they continue, then file a report at WP:AN3. I can do it myself, if you'd prefer? It'd be no hassle. And please do be careful that you don't violate 3RR yourself by reverting, great editors being blocked is an upsetting event. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:34, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Once again, thanks a lot! The user have undone your edit, and I don't know how to file a report at WP:AN3, so if you could do that, I'd be very grateful. — Artmanha (talk) 12:47, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: No problems at all. I've pinged you in the report. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:24, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

As ALWAYS, you are the best of the best! Thanks a lot lot lot!! Hope it solves the issue for good. — Artmanha (talk) 14:08, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The IP address doesn't seem to have any respect for the Wikipedia community... It has once again reverted my edits. — Artmanha (talk) 20:35, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I was unfairly warned by you. The user @Artmanha keeps adding unsourced information to Britney Spears Videography section. As if it wasn't enough, he keeps removing "What's Going On", which was an official video, and messing up with the chronological order of said videos. You can check yourself that the videos were always presented in the way I edited until this user came along and started messing up the article. Amilliondeadstars (talk) 21:13, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's set the record straight, you should pay closer attention the page's history to realize I'm not the one removing "What's Going On" and that I added a source to every single information I added to the page. I'm not messing any chronology. And the fact that the videos were always presented in the way I edited until this user came along and started messing up the article does not mean it should stay that way as per WP:EDIT and WP:STATUSQUO. Thanks — Artmanha (talk) 21:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm thinking about filing a protection request for the page... What do you say? — Artmanha (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Amilliondeadstars, You were warned enough. If you are both IP editors (obvious, as you posted as 201 here then change the signature, and reverted identical content to the 93 IP editor), then the 3RR report applies against your logged-in account as well. And that might be an idea, Artmanha, but do let me know if the page ends up being protected, as the admins take a only-block-or-only-protect approach; that is, if the page is protected, the report against the editor will cease from their standpoint. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems as the editor stopped edit warring, so I believe it won't be necessary to request a protection for the page anymore. Once again, thanks for the support — Artmanha (talk) 00:23, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I just created this account today to reply to you. Sorry, I don't really know how to use Wikipedia talk pages properly yet so I thought creating an account might be easier for us both. I'm not sure why you want to protect the page against ME, if it is other users who keeps changing the entire article, adding wrong information! For instance, there is absolutely no need to indicate "Break The Ice" and "Kill The Lights" as "animated videos". They are official videos as per Britney's VEVO, no need to indicate they are animated, let alone in lowercase. They also keeps removing "What's Going On", which is an official video. Another point, there isn't any "When Your Eyes Say It" video. His source is an unofficial website which hasn't been updated in ages and is unreliable. There isn't any official mention of said video anywhere. Also I contacted the directors and they said they have no knowledge of this video. I hope this user stop messing up with the article. Thanks for your time. Amilliondeadstars (talk) 00:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Look, you've learned how to actually start a discussion. And "contacting the directors", if you ever even did, is original research and not able to be used. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:31, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The source for "When Your Eyes Say It" is reliable and was taken from the "Oops!... I Did It Again" article from when the video was being produced; you find no mention to this video because the project was dropped out and never released, but that doesn't mean it never existed (the same thing happened with the first "Make Me..." video). As for the "What's Going On" video, I'm not the one removing it. I kind of agree with you on the animated mentions, for only for the "Break the Ice" video, since the "Kill the Lights" is indeed a promotional animated video, official, but promotional (KtL is not a single). And last but not least, the protection would not be against you, but against any editor with disruptive behavior (which includes edit warring). Hope we reached a consensus. — Artmanha (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

TV flag waiving

I see the "if it's British it's only British" flag waiving is back on a couple TV articles. I just weighed in on The Crown. Good lord, how they can kid themselves that this show isn't principally American is beyond me, but they do. I've been doing the same thing with Poldark, which is produced in the same manner as Sherlock and Downton. Thanks for fighting the good fight. --Drmargi (talk) 17:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Thank you for your well-put views on the article, they're always greatly appreciated, and I couldn't have put it better myself. It's Sherlock and Downton Abbey all over again, but in this case, the series is more American than it is British, hence, American-British. But the flag-waving continues even after a direct quote is pulled that names it American. By the way, a small typo; "Downton Abbey would exist if Masterpiece hadn't co-produced"? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:09, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on the typo! Honestly, the British editors have got to get over ownership of these co-productions. It's been widely and broadly publicized that Netflix is the producer and ordered this show. The numpty who thinks the only source we should believe is the BBC is way off the mark. Like the BBC doesn't have an agenda... --Drmargi (talk) 00:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Many other sources exist other than the BBC; there's even articles stating how the BBC were rather annoyed at not being able to produce the series themselves. Even as you said, British/America collaborations are becoming more common nowadays. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:21, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey @AlexTheWhovian and Drmargi:. Sort of related to this, as you may or may not know, the TV MOS is being updated section by section, and we are currently working on WP:TVLEAD. I'm brought up the idea to maybe include wording like WP:FILMLEAD has regarding if a film has multiple production nationalities, that it does not get mentioned in the opening sentence of the lead. Would love for you both to comment on this particularly, or any other ideas/concerns you may have, if you so choose. You can find the discussion here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Broadcast (Frequency)

I read the linked style guide but I'm not sure how the broadcast section is supposed to be written based on it. It just basically says it shouldn't be overdetailed, but what should it be replaced with? "Parts of Asia"?--occono (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Occono: Consensus at WP:TV is that per WP:TVINTL, articles should only describe the release dates of a series in major English-speaking countries (for example, America, Canada, Australia, UK, New Zealand, etc.). Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Disrupt behavior

Hi, still regarding that Britney Spears videography problem, a user is using disruptive behavior against me at my talk page. He has been warned about edit warring. How to proceed? — Artmanha (talk) 00:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: Are you talking about Marco Gerola? It seems that the editor in question has actually already been banned, six hours ago; see their talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment for Artmanha: Hello! I think the major problem that is causing this situation is the format of the page. If you look at the article Lady Gaga videography, which is a featured article, you will understand what I mean. If you want we both can work on this in the coming days. Seeing as though the user is only blocked for 31 hours, I am sure this problem will persist until we find a solution or compromise with the editor. Fixing it before they come back will be optimal. Chase (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: I saw your edits and I'm on board with the changes. I did some editing there to add some information. I was thinking if it wasn't better to put the repetitive information together?

Extended content

Title	Year	Other credited performer(s)	Director(s)	Album	Notes
"...Baby One More Time"	1998	None	Nigel Dick	...Baby One More Time
"Sometimes"	1999	None
"(You Drive Me) Crazy"		None			The Stop Remix!
"Born to Make You Happy"		None	Bille Woodruff
"From the Bottom of My Broken Heart"		None	Gregory Dark

Like the example above? — Artmanha (talk) 22:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Artmanha: If you look at WP:MOS they prefer to not have "rowspans". Chase|^talk 03:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013:Okay by me. But is there a particular reason? Because the way I see it, it makes the table a lot cleaner — Artmanha (talk) 04:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply to Artmanha: It states "The powerful and useful sorting feature can be enabled by adding class="sortable" to the top row. Extreme caution should be applied if rowspan or colspan is used. It is also possible to combine classes, as in class="wikitable sortable"." It is just for better accessability. Chase|^talk 04:29, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Not at all trying to be rude, but could this be continued on either of your talk pages, or the article's talk page? Please and thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Reign

Hi,

Per our edits on Reign, I disagree with the character tenure tables. From what I've seen on other TV show articles pages, many shows still use this format (a cleaner and more accessible) style of formatting for character tenures, again, also on the main article pages. Why can this not be used here?

Example;

Gilmore Girls

B.Davis2003 (talk) 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@B.Davis2003: I have replied to your post on the article's talk page. Keep the discussion in one place. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Whose Line (again)

Didn't respond to my last message, and the page still looks erroneous. Posting again:

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/whose-line-is-it-anyway/ http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2016/04/05/the-cw-network-announces-additional-2016-summer-premieres-1414/20160405cw01/

Those two links from thefutoncritic specify that the new Season 12 season started May 23rd, 2016. It also contradicts itself saying it only has 12 episodes in season 12. Not so "reliable" to be flawless I think.

It does not make sense for the last episode of Season 11 to be July 27th, 2016; and the first episodes of Season 12 to be July 26th, 2016 (one day previous).

Plenty of other sources using that same CW press release that show that season 12 started on May 23rd, 2016: http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/whose-line-anyway-season-12-cw-series-returns-may/ http://www.yourentertainmentcorner.com/?p=85616 http://cwpittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/04/20/2016-summer-premieres/

I think it is more conclusive to go off a date to specify when a season started, instead of using a # of episodes measure. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C02:6020:8162:78A8:5F95:8AEC (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

My thoughts are that you should take this to the article's talk page, not here. No other editor seems to have had an issue with it, or reverted me, since I implemented the edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Help with a draft, if interested

Hey Alex. I started a draft for the upcoming Arrowverse crossover at Draft:Invasion! (Arrowverse). Would love help/feedback on it if you're interested. I got some of the basics down, including a modified version of {{Infobox television episode}}, which I'd love your opinion on regardless of the best way to implement, if not how I did it. I'm going to keep expanding it over the next few weeks to have it ready before it airs, or while it is airing. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:00, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll definitely take a look at it for you! The infobox looks pretty good so far. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Awesome! Let me know too, if you think there is any info missing. With the crossover on EW's cover this week, most of the search results are centered on that, but I think I got all the major news points that were revealed since May. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Would we be linking the episode entries in the episode tables for the separate series to this page? And if so, would we then be adding the plot for all three series into the one article? And is the cast table necessary? Not that I blatantly disagree with it, but I've always found prose-listings far tidier. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The plan is to link the episode entries to this article, yes. The thought is to make one large plot, more inline with WP:FILMPLOT guidelines for length, and not make three separate plots. That way everything can flow nicely. The reason I went with the cast table, at least for the main cast, was I felt that would be easiest to visualize how each actor is credited, and would be the easiest way to order and represent them all, if ordered by the main cast for each series, over actual order. Because, for example, Stephen Amell, will be a guest first in The Flash, and then starring in Arrow. I guess an alternative could be list as prose, and then include text like "Gustin guest stars in the Arrow and Legends episodes." but that felt clunky to me. I'm also thinking that once the Futon sources come out for each episode, that would be a good time to move to the mainspace. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey guys, I've just caught up on the Arrowverse and had a look over the page (I gave it a bit of a c/e). I think we could manage with just a prose cast list, but if we are using the table then I think it should be for everyone who appears in multiple episodes, not just the main cast, as the point of it seems to be showing who is credited, how, and when. So Supergirl could go in the table, and the prose would just be for the individual episode guests then. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:12, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that listing all recurring characters in the table, and singular appearance characters in prose, would work perfectly fine. It would give a more definitive view on which character crossover to each series during the event. When adding the plot, I would recommend sub-sectioning the events of the separate episodes, and to include the ending of the Supergirl episode.

Also, relating to the Arrowverse, but not to the draft, something else has been brought to my attention. None of the show-runners in the series table at Arrowverse § Main series are sourced; however, the show-runners in the three tables at List of Marvel Cinematic Universe television series are sourced. This should probably be fixed as soon as possible. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey Adam. Thanks for joining (I forgot to ping you earlier). I'm fine with moving recurring up to the table, and leaving the guest as prose. The only reason I didn't, was for this reason (at the moment): would Supergirl get {{CRecurring}} spanned across the three rows, or {{CGuest}}? "Guest" is technically the correct credit, but she is recurring; hence my confusion. Also, how would we order to satisfy WP:TVCAST? Keep them grouped by the main actors of the three series, inserting between as needed, or a literal, this is how the were ordered in The Flash, with us tacking on the bottom as we go to the Arrow and LoT eps? Alex, regarding plot. I definitely felt including the end of the Supergirl episode was a definite must. However, I don't think we need to subsection the three plots. But that isn't a bit issue in my eyes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:21, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, showrunner sources for the Arrowverse should be on each main article. If there is a change per season, that might be a bit trickier. But at least the starting ones are there, which can be copied over. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree about the Arrowverse showrunners, that is an issue I have already had with the article. For the cast table, I think we should just use {{CMain}} or {{CGuest}} for each episode depending on how they are credited (so Supergirl would be indicated as recurring by having {{CGuest}} spanning multiple rows). To satisfy TVCAST, we should use the order in which each actor is credited onscreen, starting with the main cast of Flash, then the special guests and guests on Flash, then the main cast of Arrow who were not guests in the Flash episode, etc. As for the plot, I agree that we should start with the end of the Supergirl episode, but I'm not sure about subsectioning yet. I think that is something that will be more clear once the episodes start airing. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Adjusted the cast table. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Only just getting around to replying. The cast table looks perfectly fine now, and should stick to Main and Guest. Favre, when you wanted the Futon releases to come out before moving to the mainspace, you meant the actual press releases, yes? Because links have been released for the three series for the Invasion! episodes, but they're only placeholder links, with no information. Regarding the Arrowverse showrunners, I've somewhat confused - the Marvel tables require them, but the Arrowverse tables do not, and only need them in their main articles? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:31, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I meant once the Futon links have the actual press material - I see how they are just placeholder right now. Once those get updated, we can add the missing Flash creative info, and write up a premise between the three episodes for the lead and premise section, and cite any remaining castings. Then I think we're good to get it in the mainspace, if that's allowed for future episodes. Is it? And for the showrunners, what I meant is, yes, they should probably be sourced in the Arrowverse article table, and that the sources for the showrunners can be found on the main articles of each series, to copy over. If there are any changes, those might not necessarily be reflected on the main articles to copy over. Hope that clarified it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thought so. And I see no issue with moving it to the mainspace before it airs. It's a major event with enough production information covering it; I know that many Doctor Who episodes, if not all of them, have been created ahead of their airing. And that did clarify it, thanks; I'll be getting around to copying those references across soon. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

As regards the mishap during my move: I was asked to move Draft:Invasion! (Arrowverse) to Invasion! (Arrowverse), and Invasion! (Arrowverse) already had some redirect edits, and somewhere a Wikipedia buffer had been slow to be flushed. Sorry. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:37, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you seen?

Hi ATW. Working my way through your TV and film lists and I didn't see The Expanse (TV series) - or at least my aging eyes missed it. If you haven't seen it I think it is worth a look. I wavered on how good I thought it is but it has some wonderful acting and that will always keep me coming back for more. Cheers to ya and have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 02:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Hey, Marnette. It's near the top of my To Watch list (massive as that list is), and I'm hoping to watch it before the second season premieres in February. I've just had so much on my plate that I've never got around to it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I sure know how that is. They just added Netflix to my cable package so I am a few episodes into Marvel's Daredevil and will be getting to the others they have as well. MarnetteD|Talk 02:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I've long been up-to-date on the Marvel series. They're brilliant. And The Expanse is finally under User:AlexTheWhovian/TV § To Watch (along with 70+ other series!). Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Marvel's Netflix content is fantastic (Jessica Jones is my favorite). Looking at your to watch list, Alex, a few comments. If you get to Heroes, prepare to be frustrated after the first two seasons. Sadly the show goes downhill really fast, and Reborn wasn't as satisfying as it could have been. Parks and Rec is a must, as is Stranger Things. But that is quite a good list you have! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

So I've heard, in regards to Heroes! I finished watching the first season last year; I've yet to watch the rest. And Stranger Things is actually on top of on my to-watch list, as soon as exams finish, right before The Crown. (Though, if you think that's a large list, you should see my to-read list...) Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Just finished The Crown ATW. Very well done and I think you will enjoy it. When you get to episode five and you see the TV cameras covering the coronation don't forget that you know how millions of viewers lives were saved!!! Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Page mover granted

Hello, AlexTheWhovian. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

Wikipedia:Requested moves
Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! Biblio (talk) Reform project. 20:23, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Twobells

We're going to have out hands full with Twobells. He'll keep pushing for days trying to have his way, so be prepared. --Drmargi (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@Drmargi: Already noted. Some people just can't accept facts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, he'll get on a tear about this occasionally. If you want to see him at his finest, see Battlestar Galactica. He has a triumvirate of arguments he'll fall back on: it's only neutral if it's done his way; hyphenated country names are bad practice, and his edits are non-controversial and thereby shouldn't be challenged. He doesn't see why a marketing source like that British Film Commission one isn't reliable. And he just doesn't accept that consensus has run against him and/or that he has to gain consensus for an edit once it's challenged. It's just tiresome. --Drmargi (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I could name a many number of editors I've met like that in my two years here. I'm sure we'll manage. It's only one editor against the consensus of many. I did find it amusing when they they changed it to "international", obviously indicating the American while simultaneously arguing the British. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:01, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, that's part of his playbook. That's how he makes it "neutral." --Drmargi (talk) 20:15, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

And you see what I mean. He doesn't let go (go back to late-January 2015 to see him at his finest). I warned him this morning. I won't do any good, but at least the "paperwork" is done. BTW, love the picture of you with Nathan Fillion. A friend works on another show on the same lot where Castle used to shoot, so I had free run of the place one day. Good fun! --Drmargi (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

If he continues to force his view on the article, the next time, I'll file a report against him. And thanks! Where they used to shoot... My favourite cop drama that was cancelled and ended on such a bad note. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:01, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're interested...

I was updating some things on my user page and decided to create these userboxes User:Favre1fan93/WestworldHost and User:Favre1fan93/WestworldGuest. Thought you'd might like to include one on yours! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

For sure! You know, once I've actually watched further than the first episode! Exam study got me busy, so I never had time to watch past the premiere. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Really?! I can't wait each week until the next episode is out! I guess by your active editing on the article at times, I thought you were up to date. I hope if you know the spoilers, it doesn't dimish the experience for you. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:54, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I've managed to avoid most of the spoilers so far, minus the one about the new host. That's the only one. Looking forward to catching up on it! Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:15, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Happy Anniversary

Happy 53rd ATW!!! 33 years ago The Five Doctors aired in the US 2 days before it did in the UK. It was fun to get to see it first. I didn't have a VCR yet so a friend recorded it for me. 25 years ago I was living in Ketchikan, AK and spent the day watching my video tapes most of which I had recorded from out local PBS station. Only a few stories had been released on VHS at the time. Today everything is on DVD (and CD for the missing stories) I wonder what technology will replace these in ten or fifteen years time. I probably should have left this last night (my time) as the 23rd is almost over for you. You'd think that a fan of a time traveler would take the difference in our time zones into account wouldn't you :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

RE: Metacrisis

Hi. If you can come up with a better word (or wording) than "clone", then be my guest. But "metacrisis" isn't a real-world term (and it only appeared in one episode, so not widely used either), and so shouldn't be used. DonQuixote (talk) 01:15, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Done; "duplicate" is a far more better-fitting word than "clone", which would mean identical in every way. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:13, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Reply on Talk Page

Hello, Alex 21. You have new messages at MPFitz1968's talk page.
Message added 01:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In case the ping didn't work or you saw it, but then forgot. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 01:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox editing

Let me know if you need help editing {{Infobox television episode}} when you are done with the article fixes. – Jonesey95 (talk) 06:10, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Will do, thanks. The two regex's I provided should cover most if not all transclusions and the updates. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

AN3

I see our esteemed corps d'admin are still ignoring the AN3 report on Twobells, allowing it to go state a second time. Where's the accountability for this? --Drmargi (talk) 17:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing that the report is just getting ignored or marked as stale is simply fueling him to continue edit-warring. Disgraceful. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:17, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Module:Episode list

This edit to Module:Episode list added Category:Episode lists with incorrectly ordered episode numbers, which now has 5,128 members. However, the category does not exist. Is this supposed to be temporary, or did you just forget to create the cat? --AussieLegend (✉) 08:18, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry; forgot to create the category. I actually need to fix my edit, since it seems to have populated it incorrectly. I'll get right on that! Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:45, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just wanted to check whether there should be a category before I created it. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:24, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV Series)

Hello. Thank you for your message. I made a series of edits on A Series of Unfortunate Events (TV series) as a representative from the show so I can verify that they are quite constructive and accurate. Please do not undo them. Thank you very much.Reberin (talk) 00:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

You have no proof to back up your claim, and no sources to add to the article to back up the information. Your word is not an acceptable source. Continue to add this unverified content, and you may be reported and/or blocked for edit warring. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Color name

I was double checking the turquoisey blue color from TinEye Labs and it is billed as #25afbc not #2facba.S hannon434 (talk) 00:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

What image are you using? I get #2facba here. Besides, the two colours are only fractionally different; barely even noticeable. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

http://tvlistings.zap2it.com/tv/vikings/photo-gallery-detail/EP01546890/127307817?aid=zap2it. When I used that pic on TinyEye, it had #25afbc. S hannon434 (talk) 06:57, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Vikings: Credits as reference

Hi. When I add the editors, producers, cinematographers, etc. on Vikings season 4, I use the episodes' credits as reference. How can I reference that information?--TheVampire (talk) 23:43, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If these names are explicitly stated as "Editor [NAME]" etc. you can use the {{Cite episode}} template, with as many of the parameters that are applicable filled in. Be sure to also include the |time= parameter to state the time in the episode when the credits start (generally or the exact time). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

Season's Greetings, Alex 21!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I hope that you are having a delightful time wherever your trip has taken you :-) MarnetteD|Talk 16:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

And to you, Marnette! :) My trip is to a small town of only 1,000 people, but there's family here, so most definitely a delightful time. Have a great Christmas! Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

iZombie character sections

Hello, Alex.

Recently I made some edits to the iZombie page, which you reverted with the reasoning most of it was fancruft. After some reflection, had to admit you were correct, and so I attempted to trim it down. Still, it was reverted. I made my case on the edit page why I would disagree, but just in case my explanation isn't sufficient, may I suggest an alternative compromise?

Perhaps we could make a list of characters as separate page, similar to the wiki entries for shows like Once Upon A Time? Or perhaps Breaking Bad, where those pages have more detailed character information?

I don't wish to start an edit war; especially one where I know my edits would likely be reverted and my IP temporarily banned. I just would like to add more depth to the character descriptions, particularly those that are only a few sentences.

Do you think this could be a possible solution? If not, well, I defer to your experience as a wiki editor when it comes to making such decisions,

Happy Holidays, 70.208.80.4 (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

	Merry Christmas Alex 21!!
	Hi Alex 21, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year, Thanks for all your help on the 'pedia! –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 01:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

And to you, Davey! All the best for Christmas and the upcoming New Year! Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:52, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas/Happy Holidays

Season's Greetings, Alex 21!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! BIGNOLE (Contact me) 14:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Season's greetings

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello AlexTheWhovian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing,
Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2017!

Hello AlexTheWhovian, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2017.
Happy editing,
adamstom97 (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Season's Greetings!

Ho Ho Ho!

You've been visited by the Christmas Trout.

Don't panic! Someone is just wishing you a happy holiday season and a wonderful New Year!

AlexEng^(TALK) 05:26, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Amaury (talk | contribs) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

American Gods - tv

I think that it's important that the article on the tv series makes it clear that Vulcan is both a new character and one created by the author of the book. Just being in the cast list doesn't convey that. Doug Weller talk 12:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays!

Hello AlexTheWhovian: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Doug Weller talk 12:45, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Doctor Who

Give me a chance to actually put a citation in will you? Because it was The Times and printed (not online) I needed to source the ISSN. I've seen rounds leave rifles slower than that. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm sure that you could have waited to add the content until you had a source to back it up. There is no rush. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:22, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

"Timezones"

4:45 plus five hours (GMT to ET) is 9:45 ... It started on BBC One three-quarters of an hour after the special began airing on BBC America. Please show your work if you're going to correct me. I'll wait. 216.15.70.128 (talk) 04:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Firstly, the special premiered in the UK at 5.45pm, which would have been the equivalent of 12.45pm ET. How was it 12.45pm? You just added five hours going from GMT to ET, except that you're meant to be subtracting it - GMT is GMT+0, ET is GMT-5. Please show your work if you're going to correct me. I'll wait. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:55, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

No need. Except to say, the real reason I'm here. After drawing out your attitude in full. Thanks for repeating my words at the end there.

My original edit that you quickly removed was not intended to point out the hour, merely the day, as that was the extent of specificity of the pre-existing (and current) wording of the sentence being discussed. I was just pointing out that BBC America was also premiering it on the exact same day. You quickly took issue with respect to the hour of broadcast. OK, so I left it. No need to over turn any apple carts. ~~Your name lends to your level of commitment here. So I figured that I needed to respect that. Territory and what-not, you understand.~~

And then ... I read your comment to User:The_joy_of_all_things above. Another quick correction about undue haste. When you yourself were too hasty. Do you see the irony? While you can presume that you may be correct, and the other may be wrong ... But what if ... what if ... Please, take your own advice and assume good faith; afterall, there is no deadline. Your sense of time is off, and I mean that in the wibbliest-wobbliest way possible. 216.15.70.128 (talk) 05:16, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You were incorrect, and now you are merely commenting on editors, not content. Your job on my talk page is done. Thank you, continue on. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:18, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just felt the urge to say this fun little tidbit: 9:45 is correct if you add AM to it and are talking about Pacific time. ;) Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

So it would be! Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: 100 Things to Do Before High School

Keep an eye on that for a bit if you wouldn't mind. The IP from above is now stalking me there. The onus is on them to discuss, not me, but I find the whole thing bogus. They just want to cause more trouble. Thanks. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 05:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@Amaury: Added it to my watchlist! How annoying this editor is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I reported them to WP:AIAV, but an administrator refused to take action and to comment on it any further, so I raised a report over at WP:ANI if you want to add anything. It's under Trolling by 216.15.70.128. Amaury (talk | contribs) 08:02, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I just look at his user talk page currently, not the others.

I think he's Game of Thrones fan because he easily accuse every user as "vandal". When he remove my message on his talk page, he accuse me as a "vandal" too.

IreneTandry (talk) 08:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

@IreneTandry: He accuses every editor that he disagrees with as a "vandal", regardless of the discussion that I had with him on that very topic, and he has a very WP:OWN-complex when it comes to articles that he is a major contributor to. Unfortunately, many of us have had to learn to just brush it off. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:06, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I see him accused Taloson as vandal when Taloson give the true information. I see Taloson is good contributor. IreneTandry (talk) 08:11, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Class (2016) Regular Cast Revision

Apologies for the edit revision. While Jordan Renzo (Matteusz) is not listed in the opening credits as are the others he has been treated as main cast by the BBC in a number of publicity mediums and in features of the show. Firstly he is listed as regular cast on the BBC website^[1], Secondly he is featured as one of the shows main cast on its own portal^[2], Thirdly he is credited in all eight episodes as are the other main cast^[3], Lastly in publicity tours of the show he is featured as one of the main cast^[4]. If you feel I have made a mistake in my research I am happy to discuss the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.170.33 (talk) 23:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Per the documentation at Template:Infobox television, the "starring" parameter is "Organized by broadcast credit order, with new main cast added to the end of the list", and "Cast are listed in original credit order followed by order in which new cast joined the show". That is, while other sources may list him as such, he was never credited in the main cast in the episode, and that is what counts. However, a note could be added to Renzo's cast entry in article using {{efn}}, noting that he was advertised as a series regular despite never being credited as such. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:36, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

I will had the note as suggested. I apologise for any confusion on my part due to the multiple inconsistencies in BBC sources regarding his role/ Thank you for your help.

I've now implemented this with three of the sources you provided (IMDb is not considered a reliable source on Wikipedia per WP:CITINGIMDB) - if you feel any edits to this are necessary, please do contribute. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this, I believe this is now correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.170.33 (talk) 23:45, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

DSC cast formatting

What do you mean here by the "correct format"? In my previous edit, I explained how formatting it all on one line was per the guidance at WP:BULLETS and WP:TVCAST. — fourthords | =Λ= | 05:40, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

If the description for a cast member or character wraps around onto a new line, then it is placed into its own paragraph. This method has been used on multiple and many television articles; if you disagree, you should take it to the article's talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, I didn't say anything there at the time since I both started the most-recent discussion on that talk page, and thought you might've been referring to something when you said "correct format". No worries — fourthords | =Λ= | 18:17, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Plot script

Hey Alex. I think you're plot script could use some tweaking. I ran it on The Abominable Bride and it tagged it as too long for WP:FILMPLOT but then said it was fine per WP:TVPLOT. So something seems to be off there. Additionally, I didn't know if it would be possible for it to look at what infobox is used on the article to see what range is used, like as if/else statements. So: If the film infobox is used, then it is FILMPLOT range. If television episode is used, then it should be the range that ultimately is decided from the MOS discussion. And then if neither of those are used, it would be the range for use in the episode table (or conversely, this last one could look for the use of episode table templates). Just a couple of notes to consider, as I'm sure you were going to update anyways after the MOS discussion concludes. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

At the moment, the script reads the prose summary and automatically assumes that it's a film plot, hence it's acceptability per WP:FILMPLOT, where WP:TVPLOT is used for the episode summaries. I can easily determine what sort of infobox is used (episodes have a background colour in the header row, whereas film infoboxes do not), so I'll definitely use that to tweak it. I'll tweak it today with the current limit, see how it works, and then update the limits again once the plot discussion has concluded. Thanks for the tips! Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Great that should hopefully help. Because I notice too when I ran it as I stated, I got an external window for the FILMPLOT check and then one for the TVPLOT check. So it might be less intrusive if you make it to run only once, given the infobox. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

All done and tested. Determines the type of article the script is being run on via the type of infobox being used, then 1) allows a limit of 500 for episodes and 700 for films, 2) no longer runs a test for episode tables per WP:TVPLOT if they don't exist on the table, and 3) now provides just one external alert, summarizing the whole check. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:52, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks for the work as always Alex! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions about User:Alex 21. 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.

[1] The second episode, "The Descent Into Hell Is Easy", was broadcast on January 19, 2016

[2] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5MzbR5LJXbTVKtTR5bn4VHQ/6-things-you-need-to-know-about-class

[3] ttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/profiles/241qwLrgTf2CTfGnQ2rpXk1/matteusz-andrzejewski

[4] ttp://www.imdb.com/title/tt5079788/

[5] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zra_01S8Z8A

[a]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]