User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2023

I know you already updated the formatting in 2019, but I want you to update again due to episode table updates. Here is a concept I came up with for the update:

BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC) BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 21:38, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan: Yeah, I can do that, I have an offsite script that updates the parameters automatically, I'll look into it when I can. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:38, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan  Done I've done most of the parameter usage updates, you may just want to go through for general cleanup for things like duplicate entries (especially wikilinked/non-wikilinked credits, viewers, etc), single-episode rows with multiple production codes, that sort of thing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:17, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Did the clean-up for the first season so far, and may do other seasons when I have the time. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 00:53, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This seems to have created a problem; redirects pointing to anchors, such as Squid on StrikeSquid on Strike, no longer point to the proper episode. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:26, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There are two ways to fix this; 1) remove the letters from the redirects (e.g. updates #ep40a to #ep40), or 2) add {{anchor}} to each episode entry (e.g. |EpisodeNumber=40{{anchor|40a}}{{anchor|40b}}). -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You reverted my edit regarding the character of Robert Singer, stating that he is not a "main" character. The category listing in the article says nothing about main characters, just characters. More to the point, the Singer character has appeared prominently in more episodes than some of the characters currently on the list, and is at the heart of much of the upcoming season. Therefore I have re-reverted your revert, respectfully. Monkeyzpop (talk) 06:46, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

When a separate characters page exists, the only characters listed on the parent article are the main characters. This is a WP:TV standard practice. Recurring and guest characters are listed on a series' parent article only when a separate characters article does not exist. How often he has appeared is irrelevant; the character has never been credited in the starring cast, whereas all that are listed on the parent article have been. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

If you say so.Monkeyzpop (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 2) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

If you were to use the {{Series overview}} template for the series overview table at List of Super Friends episodes, how would you do it?... The current (non-template) version is a mess, but I figured I'd ask someone knowledgeable about the {{Series overview}} template and how it works before attempting to tackle it myself. Any idea or advice? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Happy to help! Here's a standardized template version:

-- Alex_21 _TALK 23:23, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the list a bit further, I think it needs a bit of a cleanup, especially with the headers, and moving the episode tables to their respective articles.

I know it's not common to have separate series form an LoE article, and for episode tables from series articles transcluded to an LoE article, but it's very similar to the two LoE articles at Lists of Power Rangers episodes, where each "season" is a series.

If we wanted to treat each as a separate series to an overall franchise, and stop referring to them as seasons, we could use the following format:

-- Alex_21 _TALK 00:21, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, this version is more what I was thinking of – much better! The original version contains poor use of rowspan. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

And, FWIW, I'd probably argue that The Power Rangers overview table adopt this same kind of formatting as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

In the case of the Power Rangers table, I believe the separate entries are actually considered separate seasons of the one series; for some reason, they're just formatted using {{Infobox television}} rather than {{Infobox television season}}, over some sort of community conesnsus, I'm guessing. This would mean that the former table is more appropriate. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:05, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

With all due respect Alex 21, I added a grey-out in a WP:BOLD to further distinguish from the reader that they're not real episodes (edited recap compilations only aired in Japan in a vast majority of cases), since most of the time in anime television series it's just used to give more time to the animation production staff. If you don't agree with the grey-out decision, there is the possibility we could simply separate them from the real episode tables in these articles under something along the lines like "Specials" or "Recap Specials" sections, along the same or similar vein as both of these? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:23, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55 Duly noted. In that case, the colour needs to be adjusted, as  #D3D3D3  is triggering the template to list the articles under Category:Episode lists with invalid top colors. The closest colour needed to be WCAG AAA compliant is  #E9E9E9 ; I would recommend changing the former colour to the latter. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Thanks for understanding. I just felt there was a need to further distinguish them for readers. I'm still currently considering doing what you suggested to single page articles without article episode lists and splitting off the recap specials on season pages. I'll be on it!--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21 Done. Here's an example.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:55, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Can you please make the episode list look similar to Star Wars: Young Jedi Adventures, where the shorts are listed first before the episodes, in this case real-world chronological info. After all, they came first and are even titled Meet Spidey and His Amazing Friends.

And if adding the NumParts format in the mix here is what I think the list would look like:

Season 1:

Season 2:

Please note that the director table is absent as every episode has the same director. Storyboard artists would also be in the opening credits and it has room to have its own column since the director table is gone. The first season doesn't have a storyboard column though, as every episode in that season had the same storyboard artist. If you want to combine columns, go ahead, though since the episodes have different writers and storyboard artists I would rather have them as their own columns as I said before, though I wouldn't do any split as you do you, since your a rollbacker. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan I can easily implement the parted accessiblity parameters, I'll do so over the weekend for you, no problems.

However, I would note that there's no standard for excluding a column solely due to the contents being the same between each episode. For example, note the following articles with colums of identical data:

• Airdates at You (season 4) and The Umbrella Academy (season 1) (and every other binge-released series)
• Writing credits between all seasons at List of Vikings episodes
• Director credits at Obi-Wan Kenobi (TV series)
• Writing and directing credits at Good Omens (TV series) and Les Misérables (British TV series)
• Writing credits and airdates at Sense8
• Directing credits and airdates at Midnight Mass (miniseries)
• BOTH credits and airdates at Squid Game

However, given that I'm not a regular editor of the above article, I'll leave this particular issue to the discretion of its regular editors and to simply recommend taking note of the above examples. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a two-part episode for that show, that being the first season finale, but unfortunately the accessibility table keeps on getting revert by the page creator just because they’re separate. That is personal edit bias that annoys me so much, and having an excuse they’re always right and everyone else is wrong. You know that two-parts always have connections and as a result I want you to put accessibility on the page. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:51, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with accessibility. They are two separate episodes that aired two different dates (not back-to-back episodes) just many many TV series such as Stargirl#Season 1 (2020) the last two episodes with separate entries for part 1 and part 2 on season 1, The Flash (season 9)#Episodes which has two episodes with separate entries for part 1 and part 2 and also four episodes with separate entries for part 1, part 2, part 3, and part 4. — YoungForever^(talk) 04:03, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Honestly, examples like this are up to local consensus. There's the above examples from YF, where Part 1/Part 2/etc. are separate and these examples are all completely valid in their display of information, then there's examples where they're merged despite separate airdates, such as List of Legends of Tomorrow episodes, List of Star Trek: Discovery episodes, Star Trek: Picard, List of SpongeBob SquarePants episodes, List of Power Rangers episodes (seasons 1–15), so there's no clear standard practice here. The "accessibility" parameters were not created for the merging of multi-part episodes, but rather to make multi-part episode entries comply with MOS:ACCESS (previous, they used to separate entries in a cell with <hr> in each cell, like this, but now they're hardcoded table rows). -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:06, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

So I was lookign for an article to work on and I added a critical reception section to Doctor Who series two. I will look for further articles and I think it is fit for resubmittion to a good article OLI 04:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant That would be so greatly appreciated! I've recently started fulltime work, so I get a lot less downtime than normal to update articles with such detail. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:42, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Proof? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Of what? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:39, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Where is the source of said claim? Back it up with a consensus section.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ, The Futon Critic is listed as a reliable source. It is also used in over 8,000 articles, and as a WP:TV editor of almost a decade, TFC has been used for airdates for that entire time. I have also posted your opinion on TFC at WT:TV. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:43, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: It seems you've all agreed on a consensus regarding the situation on the show's production codes and the release dates sourced from TFC. We're all done now.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 01:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I want the episode list cleaned-up for the show for the accessibility tables to be in use. The separate a, b and c separating is outdated on episode lists nowadays. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 02:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Quick facts Five years! ...

Precious

Five years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, and how are you? For a recent draft of an article, I have been attempting to find out how to construct a table for episodes and format it correctly. I was looking for users on this site who had at least some expertise with and knowledge of every function to utilize when they were working on their articles. However, the real reason I am writing to you is to request that you at the very least provide me with a visual (video) instruction or screenshots showing me step-by-step how to set up a table with templates for episode creation, or you may edit it. I will provide you with a link to the draft I produced, and if you could structure the episode part in the same manner that you do, that would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Link: Draft:Small Town Potential Russell7890 (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

@Russell7890 You can view the template documentation and how to use them at Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Your "proper indentation" edit made too many indentation levels, obscuring the fact that two people were in conversation. Please revert your change so I don't have to. Thanks. David Spector (talk) 10:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify policy: WP suggests that we never edit other people's Talk postings. David Spector (talk) 10:29, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect. Per WP:TPO, which is a behavioral guideline and not a policy, indentation is listed under "Examples of appropriately editing others' comments", then "Fixing format errors", which concernss issues "that render material difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Examples include: fixing indentation levels".

Glad I could provide clarification for you on that. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:40, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing your confusing edit. David Spector (talk) 10:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, there you have it; my first edit was correct and not confusing at all. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:43, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to disturb you. I know that there hasn't been any official announcements yet but do you really think the Christmas Special will air on an other date than Christmas Day ?

Have a nice day, Spectritus (talk) 13:54, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Do you have a source that explicitly states so? -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Season 20 DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:DoctorWhoTV has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:21, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

What’s your deal? You could argue that you going out of your way to undo them is such a minor thing to worry about in of itself, yet here you are removing them. And your additional claim on editing templates means absolutely nothing. The template source says it’s ok to have zeros in it, you have no solid grounding for your revert. There are much better things you can be doing than reverting such superficial edits.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 17:43, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

What I’m getting at here, you aren’t basing your reverts off anything solid like a WP or MOS, only that it's “unnecessary and extraneous padding”, which is a preposterous reason. Template:Start date which is only accessible by administrators allows it (and even exemplifies it) and the season pages are done in this way. I think you should just sit this one out and let me keep it in.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 19:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Are you actually trying to argue over extraneous zeroes? There are much better things you can be doing than forcing such superficial edits. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:56, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

So therefore, there should be no problem with it. Got it!--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 21:21, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually; you are right, this is silly. I’ll just remove them from season pages instead later for consistency. I mean no ill intent in my actions, I simply believed I was doing right.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 21:42, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Alex 21, the first 5 episodes of the new Futurama season have aired and no one made the articles, can you at least tell the story of "The Impossible Stream". PLEASE?! PowerRanger200 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@PowerRanger200 I don't actually watch Futurama, I just edit the recent articles on it to keep them up to WP:TV standard given its popularity. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Giving Minus Reverting. 2601:240:4101:7350:AC39:F692:50F9:F539 (talk) 00:40, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Again in English? Use your words. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh, sure. Stop reverting and you can fix it.

Nobody's fixed them in at least four years. The onus is on those adding/restoring them - that's you, bud. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:27, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Me?

Yep. Or any other editor that feels the need to keep the summaries. You want them? Fix them. Else I'm removing content that's been tagged for years - tags are not an indefinite "let's just keep that tag and the material" sort of thing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

You've now also been reverted by another editor. I recommend taking the advice. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I do not mean to be harsh, but in light of this two-word(?) edit message, I can only read the NPOV message you left on my talk page as sanctimonious in the extreme. I would guess that you either have some great emotional investment in a children’s cartoon (possible) or have just become addicted to some feeling of online point-scoring (very likely) but I regret to inform you that neither of these is enough to un-cancel Star Trek Prodigy, and that I am restoring the updated version of that page. John Ralston Galt (talk) 09:22, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@John Ralston Galt It massively violates WP:NPOV. You have provided no reason as to why you should be able to violate a fundamental Wikipedia policy. The series was indeed cancelled by Paramount+, but the second season is still continuing to be produced, this is very well-sourced. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hey there. Is there any way to have the script automatically mark its edits as minor? Either for everyone or as a custom setting. Thanks! InfiniteNexus (talk) 19:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus  Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:07, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Alex! InfiniteNexus (talk) 21:21, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

The redirect Shutdown -r has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 September 5 § Shutdown -r until a consensus is reached. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:38, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on this while I am busy off-wiki! - adamstom97 (talk) 02:30, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

No problems, welcome back! (I'm still very unsure on the position of VST within the canon of Star Trek, but I've done what I can.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:57, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I've seen a couple sources explicitly call it non-canon that we should be able to use to keep it separate from the other TV shows. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

I get that it's doing it the way it should be, but it's literally only 2 episodes, so the reader should already be able to already understand that Part 3 is TFC 1 and Part 4 is TFC 2, wouldn't you agree? If that's the case is there really a reason to divide single special episodes into 2 more separated sections? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 00:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Are they not two distinctly separate parts, is it not exactly the same as the change I made to the series overview table? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: The overview table has technical restrictions so you can't really get away such a thing on that, as it would imply both episodes are Part 3. But, the episode table is different. People can still understand that Parts 3 & 4 are Specials 1 & 2 on a single section header, respectively. I just saw the extra division of 2 single special episodes as no different than padding Start date with 0s, if you catch my drift.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Listing them as "Parts 3 & 4" would mean that both episodes are both categorized under both Part 3 and Part 4 simultaneously, when in fact the first special is only Part 3 and the second special is only Part 4; we don't assume what we think readers might understand. "Padding start dates with 0s" is entirely an editing scenario that results in no difference in visible display; this has a clear difference in visible display. It's no different to example like Doctor Who (series 7); we list the singular specials under their own header, when we could always just assume that the regular reader means an episode number of "–" means it's not a regular episode - but we don't assume that. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but unlike that example you just listed, these are single episodes, back-to-back, not one-off specials before or in the middle of the series. The point I was trying to get across using the 0 padding example was that it works in the same way where it adds another layer of bytes to get the exact same message across. Thinking people can’t understand Parts 3 & 4 are one after the other of single specials is preposterous. Parts 3 & Part 4 simultaneously, are you joking, who in the world would even think that? That doesn’t even make any sense.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:36, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

I’ll let it slide, but your case for it is weak at best.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 18:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

"I’ll let it slide" Aren't you just the sweetest? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

You provided some weak points when I gave you a clear understanding of my case on the part header matter. I gave you a simple explanation that this isn’t like the standard header dividers because it’s 2 single episodes back-to-back and simply decided to discontinue any further discussions regarding the matter because, while it’s not exactly a wrong format as it is now, it looks too cluttered for single individual episodes that are simply listed as Parts, and this is how you reply back? With a WP:RUDE remark assuming I’m asserting ownership? Don’t think you’re character immune here just because you’ve made major editing strides with a handful of TV templates, I want to keep my discussions with you civil, and there’s absolutely no negative undertones in my intentions. The entire point of talk pages is to come to mutual understanding through communication, is it not? Let’s start acting like it here.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 21:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Look, I get it. I may come off as pushy sometimes with my wording, I am not perfect. I have Asperger's Syndrome so even when I try my best to convey something it may not always come out that way. But at the same time, it feels like you are ignoring my very valid points here instead of trying to understand where I am getting at. There's no way you can't see where I was getting at with this. I could have simply reverted your edit, but then we'd be edit warring instead of making any real contribution progress.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:39, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Anyways, section talking done. I know what your next reply would have probably been: "But you're being a hypocrite because why do you think my counterpoints to your own case aren't valid here?" But don't worry; I see them, and I tried processing them through your eyes, but I just don't understand them. I don't understand how the reader would think that Parts 3 & 4 aren't just the two separated episodes below. But hey, maybe that's just me, and that's fair. Wikipedia isn't a cite to be dictated by a individual however they please, so if it has to be a simple format for whomever (which I personally believe, is nobody) might not understand that, then so be it. That's a fair case to be made in of itself.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

So previously I expressed intrest in getting Doctor Who (series 2) relisted as a GA. I have met the last requirement and I would like to know your opinion before it is resubmitted, or if you want you can have the honour of doing it yourself. OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 06:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant I've made some copyedit changes, but by all means, feel welcome to renominate the article. Thanks for your hard work! -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:31, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Its been nominated OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 17:23, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Would you like to work on getting series 13 to a GA, it would be a shame to lose the streak over flux. I'm currently working on getting it to GA OLIfanofmrtennant (she/her) Questions? 01:36, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Can you please clean-up this episode list to make it look more like broadcast order and the episode segments combined into half-hours via the accessibility NumParts table. Its summaries were removed due to WP:COPYVIO, but would you readd the ShortSummary table back with a copyvio notice? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure why the submitted titles for Gen V are considered from a "fan site." While KSiteTV does run some associated fan sites, KSiteTV is a Google News accredited website that has covered series of all genres. It is no different than linking, say, The Futon Critic or TV Line. I've been visiting the site for years, and it has been cited on other Wikipedia pages, it seems. 104.48.87.200 (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, any site that is not WP:NOTABLE for an article on en.wiki, is already a subpar source. KSiteTV does not have an article. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Your last edit seems controversial. Zen – Grogu and Dust Bunnies (2022) is a stand-alone short, not a series episode. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@Est. 2021 Precisely, it is not a series, and thus it does not use italics but rather quotes, per MOS:TITLE. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No, MOS:TITLE actually states that italic also applies to Films (including short films) and documentaries, hence shorts like Zen – Grogu and Dust Bunnies too. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 20:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a film. By your own wording, it's a stand-alone short, which comes under MOS:QUOTETITLE: "Short stories (textual or graphic)". -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alex, could you change the episode list colours to match their cover art please?
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Regards, Franbegbi (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21. Thank you for your work on List of The Mandalorian episodes. User:Bruxton, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thank you for the list!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the series overview section, the 2 The Final Chapters specials don't actually seem to count towards the actual TV series episode count, it would appear. <<"TV anime “Attack on Titan” The Final Season Final Chapter (Each Episode Version) / Final Chapter (Second Part)">> Putting that into consideration, I will not be modifying the edit you performed today for the time being until we get further information to move forward with and perhaps come to a group-based user consensus on the talk page. I believe it will definitely be something to be noted someway or another on there. I'd like for you to keep that in mind. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted. If you feel a discussion is needed on the talk page, by all means. Until then, listing it as three separate episodes having aired on March 4, 2023, or that four separate episodes will have aired on November 5, 2023, would be factually incorrect. An identical situation would be the one at List of Money Heist episodes, where the first season of 9 and 6 episodes were later split into 13 and 9 episodes by Netflix, yet we retain the original airing format. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Yes, and I completely understand where you're coming from. I was actually thinking about adding a notation to the airing dates but I couldn't figure out what exactly I should write due to the unprecedented formatting of a TV special and then having that cut up into individual TV size episodes. But the fact remains that they're designating these individual episode cuts as episodes 88–94 of the TV series with an original OP/ED set to go along with it, so we will surely have some figuring out to do in November. Your current comparison is a good measuring stick on what we could do, so it will be noted in any potential talk page discussion.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Please check out my current revision of the episode table; I think I have found some common grounding using explanatory notes based on your suggestion. Please keep in mind that the 2 specials have never been officially referred to as "episodes", so I think I've settled the problem pretty straightforwardly. Review this and this for citation evidence. Thank you.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a very occasional contributor. I wondered how it was you with your location and background ended up making contributions to Rust Valley Restorers. Or perhaps yours were only minor edits? Looking again, I think they were. Bah most recent edits are either by red link users or IP addresses. --SportWagon (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@SportWagon My only edits to that article were through automated edits with AWB, I've never actually visited or manually edited that article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Eventually I determined the apparent creator. Perhaps contacting them will work better. --SportWagon (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain your revert? What do you mean by "the standard"? Your own Template:Series overview even states The link to the season in question, which in this case is individual articles. All you're doing with that link format is making another table of contents template on the page and not giving me a real reason. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have an additional question for you if you don't mind answering: Is it ok to copy and paste a series overview to the TV series page of an article if said article has a conflicting date format from the episodes list page instead of invoking it?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the links currently go to the season in question. I guarantee you can find a hundred articles, that all use the same format.

That would cause unnecessary duplication. If you need something to appear in one article and not another, just use the relevant inclusion tags. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Ok, I understand the top answer, despite it being kind of regressive. Regarding the bottom answer, how would I do that for conflicting date formats? Please take a look at the coding and the change in date formats on Spy × Family (TV series)#Series overview and List of Spy × Family episodes#Series overview. I would very much appreciate any help you could bring to the table as I don't know the coding to fix such a thing.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Night and the Doctor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Night and the Doctor until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Hektor (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I see you’re a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and I’m reaching out for help on a page I’m trying to improve: Talk:Ovation (American TV channel)#Updating this page. Would you be willing to weigh in on the suggestions I’ve made? I’d really appreciate the assistance. Thanks so much! Brennon16 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you tweak User:Alex 21/script-categoriessort so that it doesn't add an unnecessary line break between {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the categories below? You can test it out here. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus  Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to meet a consensus or else the review fails. Why do you think the source should remain. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see an instance where the source has been unreliable. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That the point of the question Fran you explain to me why it's reliable tell me about the source itself and not that "they've been used before" Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there evidence of reliability? Have other reliable sources ever cited them for facts, or acknowledged Doctor Who News' reporting? Have their reporters been described as journalists in reliable sources? Is there evidence it's something other than a fansite mostly staffed by volunteers? I'm not on a vendetta here; I just don't think Doctor Who News is reliable. Without a clear consensus that it is, it should be removed from the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a source that has passed 71 good article reviews, and has never shown a case of not being reliable. It currently sources the viewing ratings of 874 separate episodes. Is there a reason you have moved this discussion to my personal talk page, rather than that of the GA review? I know you're both relatively new, but if you're going to cite protocol to me, I recommend you follow protocol. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I came to this talk page because Oli did. I presume they came here because they wanted to see if you guys could agree on a line of argument to keep or remove the source. I really have no idea why you keep saying I'm "relatively new", my account is older than yours and I've been editing consistently for more than 5 years. It's hardly an important metric anyway. Back on topic: it doesn't look like we're coming to consensus here. You have yet to make a case for reliability based on the characteristics of the site itself, rather than relying on its use in other articles. If the WP:RSN thread had established reliability, I would have been happy to be overruled by consensus, but it didn't. I don't think there's much chance of this review succeeding, unfortunately. I'll give it another day, but then will likely have to fail the review. The article can always be renominated, of course. —Ganesha811 (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I have asked that you follow protocol and discuss this in the correct location. I believe this to be a relatively easy request to follow. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Articles using Template:Background color with invalid color combination has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 01:41, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I would really like to discuss the source with you as I have provided my arguement and you havent. You've been avoiding the issue and saying "Its been used before". I would recomend you bring it up at WP:RSN as I have done so in the past where it was deemed unreliable. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 08:01, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant It was deemed unreliable? Can you show me where the discussion was made where there was a clear conclusion and definitive conclusion on its reliablity? -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Doctor_Who_News Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That discussion was never closed, nor a definitive agreement decided between the members of the discussion. Do you have any others? Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Look avoiding arguing your point isn't a valid response. Could you just explain why it's a reliable source Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We have discussed this, and clearly have different viewpoints. The GA nomination has closed, and I see no issue with the source remaining there to support the viewership ratings of the 14 episodes listed there, out of the 874 there are in total. You're welcome to re-nominate it with a different reviewer if that's your choice. Cheers, happy editing, and Merry Christmas! -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is this came up and it might come up again. Why are you so opposed to giving your argument. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Alex 21, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Alex 21, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 07:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions with 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.