User talk:Alex 21/Archive 28

Better Call Saul (season 3)

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

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

A Series of Unfortunate Events

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

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

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

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

Krypton Episodes

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

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

List of episodes split

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

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

Quantico (season 3)

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

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

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

April 2018

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Re:

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

Stranger Things rv

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

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

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

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

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

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

Possible Conflict of Interest

Hi @AlexTheWhovian:,

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

Constantine: City of Demons

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

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

Westworld

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jerry O'Connell

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

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

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

A Series of Unfortunate Events

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

Soundtrack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question for you

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

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

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

Confederate TV series

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drafts as mainspace articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Magnum P.I.

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

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

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

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

Riverdale Episode Titles

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

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

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 3)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 3) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:40, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 3)

The article Doctor Who (series 3) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 3) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

First Ladies - Article for Deletion

Hey AlexTheWhovian,

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

X-Men

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

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

Mr. Robot

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

Corner Gas Animated Ratings

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

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

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

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

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

The End of the F***ing World

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

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

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

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

Rating

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

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

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

Re: Ang Probinsyano (season 3)

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

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

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

Didn't mean to offend

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

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

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