User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2025

Can you please rearrange the list by the order of broadcast? Rollbacker Geraldo Perez and Magical Golden Whip want it to be per broadcast company as aired, which I believe refers to broadcast order. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan Is there a reason you are unable to do so yourself? I'm not sure how this is a complicated edit. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

As it would be for me. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you please fix it and see what the problem is? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Ahecht has introduced new code; I am awaiting them to fix the issue they have introduced. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed that the term "original air date" retired from the main table in favor of "original release date". Was it due to the rise of streaming? The viewer table was lucky enough to be kept though. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@BaldiBasicsFan If we were going by airing vs. streaming, it would need to be "Original air date" and "Original streaming date". "Original release date" covers every format of release, and it now conforms with every other table we use, especially infoboxes. By viewer table, do you mean {{Television episode ratings}}? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to just randomly barge in, but I'd like to ask a question regarding this new episode table change. Would it still be technically correct as to keep the AltDate parameter listed as "[Blank] air date" if it syndicated on television, such as being out of its original country of origin? This is a common parameter used for anime that would still have to be defined as such, especially now because of streaming. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55 No worries! I don't see why not. For example, {{Television episode ratings}} is still using "Air date", as that template is designed for episodes that actually aired. "Original air date" or "UK air date" (for example) are still completely valid alternatives. We're not completely phasing out the word "air", just developing a sense of conformity across most articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding this, you can't make up a justification a posteriori about an edition made arbitrarily by a bot. You should explain why the bot made that edition and defend it on its own merit.

I'm honestly sick and tired of bots treating well-intentioned editions as vandalism. And more to the point, it's also rather disrespectful to undo a legitimate edition rather than correct it to keep the additional information. If someone takes some time to add information that isn't presented in the place or manner it should, the responsibility of the person that notices it is to either flag it for edition with the appropriate marker so someone else fixes it, or to fix it themselves.

This sort of incompetence and indifference just deters spontaneous participation, which is why Wikipedia has become more and more a collection of ghettos that monopolize content in their respective areas of interest, with editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified.

2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean your edit I reverted here, that another editor also reverted here? Look at the edit summary, I gave a reason. There was no salvagable additional information, thus by removing it, I did fix the article. Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made. Ta. (Oh, and editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified? That's not a thing.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made.

I'm talking about this edit here []. It's supposedly your bot. Why the edit? Who the hell knows.

(Oh, and editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified? That's not a thing.)

Don't play dumb because you know full well what I meant.

But I made my point and I'm not gonna waste another second looking at this page. Up to you to be constructive or join the horde of petty editors reigning over their little hills. Have a good life.

2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated bot? Would you have said the same if I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated editor? You clearly don't know what you're talking about. (If you look at User:GreenC bot, you'll even see exactly who owns the bot!) Still also don't know "full well" what you mean. Nobody gets notifications whenever "their" content is modified. That's made up.

Have a good life! Happy editing! Be careful of WP:UGC! -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I am having a very difficult time with the user who we have both asked not to bludgeon.

The renaming discussion led me to think that perhaps we need further guidelines for the future, because as fires increase, we will run into this issue more often.Because I am relatively new to editing, I left a message in teahouse about future guidelines, here.

They began to bludgeon me there, too, accused me of bad behavior, and then specifically said something to me that I asked them not to and then accused me of casting aspersions.

What can I do? Does this rise to the level of ANI?

Thank you,

delecto

Delectopierre (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

This is my first interaction with the editor in question, but if you believe you are being harassed, I strongly recommend you take it to ANI, yes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you for your reply.

I fear I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia. Delectopierre (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I am super confused as to what they just did here: Talk:Palisades Fire (2025)#c-Jasper Deng-20250110034700-Requested move 9 January 2025

Did they close their own comment thread with a note that it was necessary? I've never seen that before, but again, am new. Delectopierre (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I believe they realized their back/forth arguing was more than what was needed, and hid the discussion, since it was unnecessary for the RM. Our oppositions still remain. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks again! Delectopierre (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21 I ended up doing so, here. Delectopierre (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey, back again. I wasn't aware of this until it was just brought up in the FLC, but apparently in the series 2 episode table, episodes 6-12 list combine ratings from BBC Two and BBC Three. I don't know if that's necessarily the best ay to handle the situation, as we're listing figures from an original broadcast and a repeat, while all other episodes only list an original broadcast. By traditional methods we only list from the initial broadcast, but that would mean significantly scaled down numbers. Episode 6 for example, only received 0.849 million on BBC3, the other 3.22 are from BBC2. At the same time, it feels odd to list the BBC3 date and the BBC2 figures. One option would just be to swap the entire table over to BBC2 data (dates and figures) and denote BBC3 data with footnotes, but I wasn't sure if you had any other alternatives I might consider first? TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Hm, that's definitely an interesting situation. Personally, I would definitely just swap it over to BBC2, as that's what the series overview table originally had, just BBC2. Another way could be looking at how List of Humans episodes is listed, with separate rows for UK/US, but in this case, separate rows for BBC2/BBB2, though I feel that would make the table overly cluttered. If you do update it to BBC2, I'd recommend updating the episode articles as well; for example, "Reset" would be listed as 20 February 2008, but its article currently lists 13 February 2008. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

 Done Both the episode tables and individual Infoboxes have been updated to the BBC2 data with BBC3 broadcast/figures explained in footnotes and prose where necessary. I'd be more inclined to use separate rows (or columns like I did for the dates at Miracle Day) if it were every episode, but with it barely being half, this seemed like the better option. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Good job! (It's always Who that has to be complicated somehow...) Perhaps one day we can also look at developing Series 1 and 2 article pages for Torchwood; only the latter two have articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Making articles for the first two series is something that's been on my to do list for several years 😅. Perhaps I'll get around to it this year (hopefully), I can't imagine they'd be too difficult with the information that's already in the show's article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I noticed you strongly support the fact that images can not exceed the limit of 100,000 pixels, also known as 0.1 megapixels. You also wrote a script for automatically making images stay below this limit. However, right below the part that states this in WP:IMAGERES, they tell you if one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or if the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, they tell you reducing is not needed. TheOnlyNomis (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

@TheOnlyNomis Okay, thanks? I'm not sure what you're pointing to here. My script is simply a matter of convenience. (Also, it actually says that the image will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution). -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

The series is limited series so i think it an end date should be added.

Source: https://gamerant.com/star-wars-skeleton-crew-season-1-ending-explained/ 122.55.235.120 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no source within the article stating that it is a limited series. Your source states [w]hile a second season is unlikely, meaning that is it not confirmed that a second series will not happen. Thus, per WP:TV standards, it stays as present until we find out otherwise, or a year passes, whichever happens first. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It is after [w]hile a second season is unlikely, the limited series wraps up neatly with no pressing need for continuation. That's what it says in the source. 122.55.235.120 (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, so it's not actually confirmed that the series has concluded. The "present" will remain per WP:TV standards, thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Hello Alex, shouldn't the color of the You season 5 article be an orange-red like the poster released today along with the date teaser? Thank you Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 Can you link me to this new poster? The current colour of the article matches the colour of the current poster, per TinEye. The previous colour, per Snook, was also not AAA compliant as per WP:COLOR. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course, in this article you can find the new poster that Netlfix has published: https://www.cbr.com/you-season-5-footage-netflix-premiere-date/ I would have included it myself, but I don't know how to add images with Copyright in Wikipedia Marco camino 10 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 Thanks for that! I'll upload it for us. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Alex, could you explain the process or point me to an article that explains how to upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia if you don't mind? So you know how to do it on future occasions. Thank you Marco camino 10 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 You can either find information on how to upload at Wikipedia:Uploading images (relevant policies/guidelines are Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content), or the file uploading page can be found at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

On 19 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doctor Who series 14, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Susan Twist portrayed seven different roles in the eight episodes of Doctor Who's fourteenth series? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doctor Who series 14. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Doctor Who series 14), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

On 21 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joy to the World (Doctor Who), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Disney+ released a promotional poster for the Doctor Who Christmas special "Joy to the World" with the title spelled incorrectly? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy to the World (Doctor Who). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joy to the World (Doctor Who)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,044 views (670.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You are actually purposefully ignoring and misrepresenting multiple guidelines. There is no consensus here to remove the hatnotes, and you were supposed to open further discussion if the consensus had changed, which you didn't. Additionally, there is no violation of WP:HATNOTE despite you stating so, hatnotes are cheap and the purpose of a hatnote is to provide further or other disambiguated articles that readers are likely to be looking for from this target. Continually adding the season 11 article link to the lead instead of the hatnote is actually against the concise, short nature of MOS:LEAD.

Adding a season link hatnote to a series article isn't anywhere near the same as a TV guide, and even if it was, that policy doesn't apply here as WP:TVGUIDE applies to only "an article on a broadcaster" (meaning articles like CBS, BBC and Network 10), and not applying to series/season articles themselves at all. Also, per WP:NCDAB/WP:NATURALDAB, this is a further disambiguation as even if the season number is not in brackets it is still a natural disambiguation and still provides disambiguation from other articles. Happily888 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Happily888 Are you aware that you have now violated the core WP:3RR policy by reverting more than three times over 24 hours? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The first revert was reverting infobox vandalism and isn't counted per 3RR. Happily888 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not "obvious" vandalism per WP:3RRNO #4. Please be aware that in the face of guidelines, you have violated a major policy. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll self revert then if you want the lead to have that so much. Happily888 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, a standalone table on the series articles for the specials may not be terrible per se. I understand that it's still not ideal by any means, but we're already running standalone tables on articles like Doctor Who specials (2023) where there's only one supplemental episode, or three tables already exist on Doctor Who series 2, so these articles wouldn't look that different. I assume we'd also break out an additional table on series 6 and 7 (over and above the specials) for parts 1 and 2.

We would just need to decide 1) where to place the new tables (chronological would make some sense, but for articles with multiple specials (series 7, 10), one special would be out of place if we put both specials in the same table, so one option would be to just default to below the series itself since it's a special outside of said series); and 2) how to handle transclusions to the episode list (whether it simply be additional subheaders or coming up with some convoluted method using noinclude/includeonly/onlyinclude tags to force the separated tables to join themselves back together on the list). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for uploading File:Criminal Minds (season 16) DVD cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 00:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Vikings Season 4 Volume 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Seems like I'm becoming a regular visitor here lately I was hoping to add a television ratings graph to List of Station 19 episodes. Unfortunately it's five episodes over the limit, so I split in into two. |legend= allows you to change what's displayed in the table but the graph remains the same. This is a problem particularly for the later seasons where the graph still says "Season 1"/"Season 2"/Season 3" when it's actually supposed to represent 5/6/7. Could the template potentially be updated to also allow the legend parameter to change what's listed in the graph itself (or alternatively just let you start with say |color5= without throwing an error)? TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I did see this, completely forgot to respond! That should definitely be an easy fix, I'll see what I can implement. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done With the parameters already included in that particular graph - no changes needed! -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you so much, I appreciate it!!! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, why are you always so passive-aggressive? Do you think the Doctor Who WP has something against you or something? Would you like me to ask at the reliable sources talk page if CultBox can be considered reliable? Or if we can keep using DWN until we find a reliable source for information? (In case you have a issue with me bringing this to your talk apge, we can shift this to my talk page instead) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No passive-agressiveness here. I simply recommend not brushing off, attacking, and ignoring, any advice that an experienced editor who knows what they're doing might give you to help your time here, which seems to have become a very common occurrence. Happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I do take advice from experienced editors, including you, and have thanked them for it, including you. What I don't care about is your "I'm more experienced than you, so I'm right, and you're wrong" attitude. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21, I'm here from that ANI thread. If you genuinely believe you are not being passive aggressive, here is your reality check: this is passive aggressive as hell. If DoctorWhoFan91 hadn't eaten a self-inflicted IBAN and closed the thread, I think it could have gone very badly for you. Please reconsider how you interact with other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you for your opinion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Witcher Title Card.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 03:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hey Alex. When using conditional parser functions (such as {{#:if}}) is there a good way to include line breaks returns in the true/false sections, particularly if you're trying to have the parameters return wikitable code that relies on such breaks? I've read that the parser functions strip the new lines so I tried using br tags in something I'm working, which seemed to be largely ok. However, I came across an issue that said br tag was being considered as an additional list item for a cell adding unintended white space. Thanks for any insight. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep! Don't use the parser function, use the equivalent template, so {{if}}, as it does not strip spaces and newlines. Here's an example:

{{If||x|a

b

c || d

e

f}}

And it produces: a

b

c

Let me know if that works! -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't seem to get that template to function as I intend to. I seem to have followed your example. This is what I'm looking for it to render:

{{If||{{{1|}}}|<!-- True -->
{{!-}}
{{!}} scope="row" style="text-align:right; border-style: dotted; padding-left:20px;" {{!}} {{{year|}}}
{{!}} style="background:#000000; text-align:right; border:1px solid white;" {{!}} 
{{!}} style="border:none; padding-right:20px;" {{!}} {{{1|}}} | <!-- Else -->}}

It doesn't seem to be hitting the true part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The specific error I'm trying to solve can be seen in my sandbox User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/9 with the row for Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, which is using {{Indented plainlist}} and is causing an additional break to be added to that cell. Each row of the template is being generated from code in User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/8, which is where I was wondering if switching to {{if}} would help me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, in User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/8, TRUE only runs if |break= is set, right? There doesn't seem to be any such parameter in User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/9. Wouldn't the line break be coming from the line beneath the {{#if:{{{4_multiverse|}}} | line in sandbox 8? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I spent a good amount of time yesterday looking at this and switching my code from the parser to the template, and yes, in the specific instance of |break= and that portion of the code (which for ease I just replicated above with |1=), even if I called that parameter and set a value to it, the "TRUE" code would not run. I would expect the table code to just return as text, but that's not happening. I'm just getting nothing. The line break in question is with this: {{#if:{{{5|}}} |<br /> (I've bolded the break), which is just below the building of the fourth row of the group, should it exist. I think the template if would work if I could make it do what it should, but I can't seem to. I also have realized this code may be similar to what you did years ago with {{Series overview/row}} before it was made a module, or that this whole thing is likely much better as a module, but I don't have the Lua knowledge set to make that happen so I'm trying to go forward with wikicode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm the worst at responding... Just confirming it's all working at {{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline}} now? -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21: sorry, just seeing your response as well. Not necessarily. You can see at Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline#Timeline there is an extra line space return under Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. In addition to that issue I'm trying to solve, if one were to call the row content like this:

{{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline/row|span=3|year=2010
| project A
| project B
| project C
}}

instead of:

{{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline/row|span=3|year=2010|project A|project B|project C}}

that first version also creates issues with line breaks and formatting. I've been trying to play around now in {{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline/row/sandbox}} trying {{if}} again and even trying a single set of { } within the parser if true statement by the {{!}} code (which seemed to maybe be helpful?), but I for the life of me can't figure out what else to do. If you have any time (and by no means feel obligated to do so) and want to look, I'd be grateful. I probably was going to make a post at WP:VPT at some point to see if someone can help. Or convert it to Lua which very likely is the way to go about all this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So, testing it out, the issue is definitely the line break. When the line break is after a standard non-wrapped line, it doesn't show visible whitespace. When it's after the indented plainlist, it does, as that particular entry is surrounded by a div, which is a break in itself, so we're double-breaking the content. Implementing a check to add the break only if the previous is not an indented plainlist seems to be the way to go - I'll do some more dabbling and see if that's an option.

I'm very curious about the second issue, as to why whitespace within a template is causing output whitespace, this isn't a standard issue. I'll let you know if I find anything; glad to know it's semi working in the meantime. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the examination! I'm going to be offline for a few days, but yes, currently all is working if things are presented in a certain way so no major bugs or page breaking issues. I will be curious if you figure anything out. Also very open to recoding the whole thing if there's a better way to go about what I'm trying to accomplish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so I've fixed the first issue! The code must include a line break using <br />; however, if the previous entry is an indented plainlist, that line break tag is set to not display, this now prevents the double line-break from the indented <div>...</div> element. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Second issue fixed! See the code layout at User:Alex 21/sandbox2 - simply needed to {{trim}} the whitespace out of each displayed entry. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Many, many, many thank yous Alex! Really appreciate you helping me out with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to! It's a great template, great work. If you do still want me to convert it to Lua, I can take a look at it some time down the track. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Took some trial and error (outside the few snags I brought to you), but I thought it came out quite well to do what was needed. I'm just assuming, given the essentially looping nature of the coding, that Lua would be beneficial. Do you agree, or am I off base? If so, yeah, a future, very bottom of the priority list project to go that route should you choose to want to do that. And then I think it'd be easier to modify it in the future, for example if we'd ever need to span the multiverse color cells. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know if you follow You, but I don't remember if Kate Galvin formally reverts to her original surname Lockwood as that IP claimed while editing You season 5. I found this which says, "If you're looking for the core of Kate Lockwood, that's it." So should the name be changed at s5 and the characters list? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I definitely follow it, very keen for the final season. As she was credited as Galvin in the last episode, she should remain listed as such, up until she is credited otherwise, or a reliable secondary source says otherwise. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

The redirect Empire of Death (Doctor Who) 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/2025 February 26 § Empire of Death (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached. --woodensuperman 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Can you please consider this edit of mine that was then reverted by DoctorWhoFan91 (an editor who's IBAN against me you enforced), who has then started a new discussion concerning my edit, asking another editor to revert it? What should be enforced here? Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The editor has claimed that it is not an IBAN violation, and yet is still continuing to discuss an edit I have made. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Listing this here as a timeline of events, the editor has once more reverted/moved my edit. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've posted to their User talk page, here. I hope this resolves the situation. By the way, I don't check my "pings" so thanks for coming to my User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm back again, who could've guessed . Seems like there's a new accessibility issue with one of these templates every time a take a list to FLC. You can see the drive-by comment about the correct scope being rowgroup here and the relevant usage of {{Series overview}} at List of Stranger Things episodes. Hoping this is a simple fix, but I'm not a template editor (and don't know Lua) so I'm hoping you can take care of it for me? TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again! Should be all fixed now; I looked at the HTML, and the scope for Season 4 is indeed now rowgroup. Good luck with the FLC! -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much! I (somewhat) know my way around a few languages, but Lua wasn't included in my three-years of comp sci programming courses 😅. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I started self-learning PHP/SQL, Uni's first languages were JavaScript then C++, now I teach Python, so it's definitely been a curve! And all of these FLC finding accessibility issues is great, helps us find the fixes that we never knew we needed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I attended a three-year computer science college prep academy in high school. We started with Java and eventually moved on to SQL, Python, XHTML, C, and C#; doing everything from game development and robotics to web design and A.I. I decided when applying for college I didn't wanna pursue that as a career though, and ended up studying Photographic Arts (pay no attention to the crappy photos on my user page, if those are the only images you've seen of mine; most of those were spur of the moment/low effort with my phone rather than proper images) 😂.

Anyways, I absolutely agree, just find it slightly funny how many other FLC's of mine probably had that same issue. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I appealed my iban, so this is a msg to inform you. DWF91 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Alex21,

I saw that you were the last editor to edit American Satan (franchise) which I stumbled upon. My question is can this unsuccessful movie and a TV series really be considered a "franchise"? What do you think of merging this back to the original movie? This seems like a stretch. Let me know what you think. If there is a better place to ask this question but I don't think many editors have this film watchlisted and wouldn't see a talk page message. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Liz. From what I'm looking at in the article, I definitely wouldn't consider it a franchise; it's one or two sequels at best. Looking at how it was created, I see that it was made by an editor I've come across before who has a history of mass-creating franchise articles. It's definitely something I would recommend be merged back into the original article (i.e. the movie). -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Liz. I've found that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Satan (franchise) exists, created 13 minutes after my last reply to you here, likely created by one of my talk page watchers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21,

Well, thank you for letting me know. I'll look in on the AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello Alex 21,

You are named in a recently filed request to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Please review the request at meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Alex 21.

You are requested to enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit, so that the U4C can get a better overview of the situation. All writing should be complete, but also as concise as possible. Please ensure that you make all comments in your own section and in the discussion section only. If the U4C makes a decision, this will be binding for you and so your participation is recommended.

Please do not reply here, but on the linked case page, or on the associated talk page. If you would like to contact the U4C directly, you will find an e-mail address here. Please use the email only if privacy is necessary (e.g. personal information). 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Category:Black Mirror episode redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:12, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Looks like we may have two options for images this year. This one would be closer to what we did for series 14 but this one would definitely be a far more identifiable poster. Just wanted to point them both out in case you hadn't seen them. Either way, the article is probably ready for mainspace, it's only missing ratings, but the section could be hidden 'til we have them (in about 12 hours). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:33, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I know we don't use CultBox as a source as such anymore, but I've had this bookmarked since it was published, as it gives screencaps of the initial titles, same as what we did for Series 14. I'd much prefer that for consistency. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:04, 13 April 2025 (UTC)

I have no issue with that. Technically, Den of Geek has links to the Twitter posts that those images are from, screencaps from those tweets would serve the same purpose and could hypothetically look the exact same as those from the Cultbox source TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:10, 14 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, when I uploaded the image of Wilson Fisk, I entered Vincent D'Onofrio's last name incorrectly. I was wondering if I could correct it, since I can't find the option to do so. Thanks. Marco camino 10 (talk) 19:52, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I have corrected the file name. Trailblazer101 (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. Rambling Rambler (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully this is where I should be doing this? I apologise if I'm meant to contact someone else or make a talk page somewhere else.

I was basing my 'Mr.' to 'Mr' edit off the page for Mister. Is the 'Use British English' category only for spelling? I thought it would be for honorifics too for consistency haha.

Thank you – I'm still very new so this will be useful to keep in mind for the future :) Axispedia (talk) 01:50, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

You're all good! I wasn't aware that the Mr. article actually specified a difference, while the MoS doesn't specify any. That's definitely a conflict. I'd recommend maybe asking at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography, which is the talk page of MOS:MR. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Tagging DonQuixote in the above. I feel like an MoS supersedes an article. We don't use articles as content guidelines. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:09, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Literally just showing you that British English doesn't use a full stop. See also DonQuixote (talk) 05:16, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Should this not be brought to attention for MOS:MR elsewhere then? Otherwise, there is no guideline actually supporting this. Articles still aren't content guidelines. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:18, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR DonQuixote (talk) 05:22, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, don't worry, I can see where this discussion is going. Happy for whatever. Maybe implement it into the guidelines if it's actually important. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:56, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

Would you have any objection to me persuing a FLC for the article List of How I Met Your Mother episodes I ask as you are the fourth highest editor behind me, an IP, and a retired editor. Olliefant (she/her) 20:25, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant Go for it. My last non-AWB edit to the article was seven years ago in 2018. Good luck with your FLC. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:18, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

First, both of you need to stop edit warring. You are both very close to being blocked. Another thing which isn't helping is that you are reverting without explaining the reason for your edits. Long before this point, you should be using talk pages to discuss the disagreement with the other editor (because the other user is an IP editor, it can help to use their talk page or at least leave them a link to any article talk page discussions). And that doesn't mean leaving them multiple vandalism warnings. Overall, this is pretty bitey stuff so it's not surprising that you're being reverted in return. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 03:36, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

@Daniel Quinlan Thanks for this post. Concerning you should be using talk pages to discuss the disagreement with the other editor (because the other user is an IP editor, it can help to use their talk page [...]) I'm sure that you checked the relevant contributions and that you're aware that I did exactly that. Check their talk page history, and you'll see the detailed posts and quoting of relevant guidelines. Thus, given their clear WP:NOTHERE behaviour, I reverted the evident vandalism across a multitude of articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:30, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

You're right that you did eventually engage on the talk page and I appreciate you participating in that discussion. That said, the conversation was actually started by a third editor and not as a result of your warnings or reverts. It's still concerning that you made a large number of reverts using default edit summaries without explaining your reasoning and you left vandalism warnings even though this appears to be a dispute involving an area of the MOS that often causes friction. That kind of approach comes across as bitey especially toward less experienced editors and can make it more likely that things escalate into an edit war. Going forward, please try to use edit summaries that explain your changes and try to assume good faith in talk page comments when there's room to do that. Thank you. Daniel Quinlan (talk) 06:57, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from, but as another editor stated, defending the encyclopedia and getting a bad rapport from others truly is a thankless task. I will continue to revert evident vandalism (i.e. where an editor has a direct intent to disrupt articles for their own personal agenda) as needed. No further replies are necessary here. Thank you for your work. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:01, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello! I believe your edit to Module:Episode list this evening is causing Lua errors on a few hundred pages stating "Lua error in Module:Table_empty_cell at line 43: attempt to concatenate local 'titleText' (a nil value)." Module:Table_empty_cell hasn't been edited since 2022, and your edit is the only one I've seen relating to Episode list that's been edited this year. Hennesey is one example article displaying the errors. Would you have a second look? Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

@Zinnober9 Thanks for the message! It's definitely my edit causing it, so I've reverted it for the time being. I spent a few minutes trying to debug why it was happening. but to no avail just yet; I'll take a more detailed look into it later today. Apologies! -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I frequently use your User:Alex 21/script-redlinks. I noticed that it adds a header called "TV Tools", but there doesn’t seem to be any functionality under it. It also appears quite large. Would it be possible to remove or fix this? আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 01:25, 20 May 2025 (UTC)

@আফতাবুজ্জামান My apologies for this very late reply. I think you can remove the "User:Alex 21/script-functions.js" from your common.js; this is what implements this, as I have a lot of television-based scripts that use the same joint header. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:06, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alex 21, why are you so adamant on retaining the default short description on Star Trek: Discovery? Is it a TV series or a program? Surely it would be helpful to shorten the s/d and remove the redundancy, no? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

If you disagree with the automatic generated short description that is used across thousands of articles, should you not be taking it up at the relevant template? Why is Discovery a unique example that requires changing? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:06, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

The template is generic and can be improved—that's why it comes with an "override" option. Why are you opposed to that? Is mere precedent more important to you than individual quality?

Can you tell me why you think "2017 American TV series or program" is superior to "American science fiction television series"? Revirvlkodlaku (talk) 12:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Quick facts Seven years! ...

Precious

Seven years!

Close

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:36, 22 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Alex, User:Alex 21/script-tablecolour.js hasn't got the bg_color parameter that is used in {{Infobox television season}}. Any chance of it being added to the script? Thanks - X201 (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

@X201  Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:20, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - X201 (talk) 07:13, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pain; can you add the alternate spelling, bg_colour, as well please. Thanks - X201 (talk) 07:40, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

@X201 Also done! -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello. I see you have reverted my edit that added the ^[when?] template to the article A Court of Thorns and Roses. I was under the impression that phrases like "as of right now" and "currently" were to be avoided. Could you please explain why you reverted me? Yyannako (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the term "currently". While I agree they should be avoided, they're not necessarily forbidden. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:03, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'm writing to ask if it's verifiable enough to put Ada Scott's name portraying Franklin Richards in The Fantastic Four: First Steps coming from Bleeding Cool. Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:27, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't know, best to ask at the talk page of that article. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:37, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Daleks!, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:10, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doctor Who Extra, to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who Extra until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, hope you're well. I've noticed just now that your User:Alex 21/script-plotlength.js script compares the length the length of plot summaries in TV episodes to WP:FILMPLOT (or at least it says "The main plot summary is sufficiently short per WP:FILMPLOT"). I don't think you've made any changes to the script any time soon (nor have any changes been made to Template:Infobox television episode), but I'm sure this wasn't the case a couple months ago, so unfortunately I have no idea where this bug has come from. I notice the documentation doesn't imply that the 400 word limit is ever checked against (except for double episodes in season articles), but I can clearly see the code is meant to check against it. Thanks --TedEdwards 00:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, yes I see the issue! Line 19 of the code determines whether it's film or television, and apparently when I created the code in 2016, television episode articles still used colour in their infoboxes, and that was how I determined what type of article it was. Let's see how I can change it up. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:42, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Should all be fixed now! Television episode infoboxes have their own custom class, so I've checked for that. (This has definitely been a fix years in the making.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:47, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah brilliant well done and thank you for fixing it. Looks like it's working well now. --TedEdwards 01:18, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

RunningTiger123 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Hey, realized I was getting a bit confrontational at the episode title discussion – this was a good response to keep things calm and I appreciate that you're looking for common ground even when I was getting heated.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

@RunningTiger123: Thanks, and yeah no worries! I've had a habit of getting confrontational over the past ten years as well (that's gotten me into a bit of trouble), so it's always nice to find common ground! -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'm wondering if you could upload a smaller version of the current poster. I'm asking because with my computer, it's difficult for me to upload a smaller one that meets the standard. Sometimes I can, but other times it's difficult, and in this case, it's becoming difficult. I'd appreciate it if you could. Thanks. Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:46, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 Seems to have already been done by a bot. Feel free to use User:Alex 21/script-imageres in the future. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:16, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi there @Alex 21!

I see that you've turned my article on A Court of Thorns and Roses into a draft, but your edit summary isn't very informative: "Please expand upon properly". The article cites a couple of reviews, which demonstrates that the topic is notable, and it contains an accurate summary of the novel, within the word-count guidelines. I recognise that much more could be said about this novel, but why not mark the article as a stub if you're concerned that it needs expanding, rather than removing it from the mainspace? What, in your view, does a Wikipedia article about a novel need to do to be accepted in the mainspace?

Thanks! Alarichall (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alarichall Two reviews an article does not make, especially when the only other addition is an in-universe plot summary. You are welcome to read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Novels for further detailing on how to create an article for a novel (perhaps some detail on background, production, release history, themes, etc/), as well as peruse Wikipedia:Notability (books) for notability. Here are 800+ articles that concern novels and are listed as good articles, if you want to have a look at what they include. Hope that helps! -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:49, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. Still, I'd encourage you to be less heavy-handed in future. If an article is incomplete but on a notable subject then I'd suggest you tag it as a stub: we don't go around Wikipedia removing articles from the mainspace just because they don't do everything that they could or because they don't meet GA standards. Alarichall (talk) 01:29, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alarichall Thank you for your opinion. I will continue to draftify articles that are not at an article level, and continue to mark articles as stubs when they are at a stub level. Cheers! -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:09, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume III, Issue II — June 2025 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who People assume that a newsletters are a strict progression of stuff happening to author's writing, but, actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint, it's more like a big ball of spacey-timey teley-graphy... stuff This is my Space-Time Telegraph Detector: 🕹️ It goes *ding* when there's a new newsletter out Welcome to the second 2025 issue of the Space-Time Telegraph. Apologies that we're a little late, sometimes this newsletter takes us when we need to go instead of when we want to go. In this edition you'll find everything that you need to keep you updated on things going on around the project as well as within the Whoniverse. Am I a good (or featured) man Wikipedia article? Since last Newsletter, many new GAs have been added to the Project. These include every individual episode in Doctor Who series 15 and a number of fictional characters, including Belinda Chandra, the companion of Series 15. A full list of Good promoted content can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Doctor Who#Articles with Good Article status. So far, we've promoted 33 GAs this year, and we're on track to beat our previous record of GAs promoted in a year (36 in 2012). In terms of Good Topics, Wikipedia:Featured topics/List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) and Wikipedia:Good topics/Doctor Who series 14 were both promoted in May. Additionally, with the promotion of Yeti (Doctor Who) to FA status just this past month, the project has gotten its first FA status article in nearly a decade, with the last FA promotion being From The Doctor to my son Thomas in November 2015. Congratulations to all involved with these articles, and keep up the good work! Space-Time Telegraph Materialization Schedule With uncertainty surrounding when production of the parent show will resume, newsletter editors have decided to shift the publication schedule from quarterly to triannually for the time being. This means that the next issue will be published in December, and then every April, August, and December thereafter. When the future of the series is more certain, the schedule may update once more at that time. Their songs have ended... but their stories, never end 🌹 Since the previous issue was published, some people related to Doctor Who have sadly passed away: 29 April - Sue Stapely, 78, director's assistant (The Invasion, The Curse of Peladon) 4 May - Michael Allaby, 91, actor (Ice Soldier and Larn in The Keys of Marinus) 11 May - Michael McStay, 92, actor (Derek Moberley in The Seeds of Doom) 13 May - Sandra Exelby, 82, make-up artist (The Time Warrior) 24 May - Alan Yentob, 78, controller of BBC One (1993–1996) 24 May - Peter David, 68, writer (It's complicated, go on the TARDIS Wiki for details) 30 May - Prentis Hancock, 83, actor (Spearhead from Space, Planet of the Daleks, Planet of Evil, The Ribos Operation, and Big Finish Productions audio story Bernice Summerfield - Private Enemy No. 1) 5 June - Mary Husband, 91, costume designer (Day of the Daleks) 9 June - Pik-Sen Lim, 80, actress (Captain Chin Lee in The Mind of Evil and multiple characters in Big Finish Productions audio stories) 30 June - Kenneth Colley, 87, actor (Cristophe Zarodnix in Big Finish Productions' The Eighth Doctor Adventures audio stories Sisters of the Flame and The Vengeance of Morbius) 4 July - David Killick, 86 or 87, actor (Professor Cornelius Perkins in the Big Finish Productions audio story The Valley of Death) Intelligence Bulletin from the Subwave Network The War Between the Land and the Sea, an upcoming Doctor Who spin-off released its first trailer at the conclusion of series 15. The 5-part mini-series is expected to be broadcast later this year. The BBC has also commissioned an animated Doctor Who spin-off series targeted towards younger audiences. The 52-part programme is set to air in two parts of 26-episodes each between 2027 and 2029. In home media, the fifteenth series will be released on DVD, Blu-ray, and Steelbook in August. The Peter Cushing spin-off films, Dr Who And The Daleks and Daleks' Invasion Earth 2150 A.D., were recently colourised and re-released in June/July in 4K, along with new special features. Season 13 will be the next season to receive release in "The Collection" format, featuring remastered episodes and new special features. In print, three new Doctor Who novels, written by Emily Cook, Hannah Fergesen, Kalynn Byron came out in May. Another, authored by Esmie Jikiemi-Pearson is due out in November. Dan Watters and Sami Kivelä are also collaborating on a new series featuring for Titan Coomics. Finally, Pete McTighe and Carole Ann Ford are authoring new shorts to expand on previously unseen stories to be released in August and November in larger collections. Big Finish Productions have released several new Who-related audio dramas, and announced many more set to enter production soon. An audio vinyl release of The Moonbase, of which two episodes are missing, is expected to be out in September. New action figure sets taking on the appearance of Fourteenth Doctor and the Meep became available in June. Mattel also collaborated with the BBC to create Barbie dolls taking on the appearance of the Fifteenth Doctor and Belinda, first making their appearance in May at MCM Comic Con. Doctor Who will also once again have a presence at the 2025 San Diego Comic Con, featuring photo-ops and other new exclusive products. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Spectritus (talk) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I know it was probably my mistake, but Entertainment Weekly reported in its Comic-Con and Gen V trailer article that Sean Patrick Thomas had been promoted to a lead role for the second season. Should I provide a source to corroborate the promotion? Thanks in advance. Marco camino 10 (talk) 23:27, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 New main cast shouldn't be added to the cast list until they are credited so (as we're just giving them an arbitrary order at this point), but they can absolutely be added to the Casting section in the prose with a source. Hope that makes sense! -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:28, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:35, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

"Disney" is a conglomerate and head of the former Fox, Hulu, Marvel, Lucasfilm, much of National Geographic, and so on, so what exactly is the Disney studio or production company making Doctor Who with BBC Studios and Bad Wolf? Disney Branded Television? Disney+ itself? I'm a reasonable defender of RTD, but I'm not going to argue he's never misspoken or contradicted either. (This is the only citation I could find any such comment among various Doctor Who related pages on Wikipedia that use any wording like co-production). Can't find any post-distribution-deal discussion or consensus since October 2022 on Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present). I see a discussion, but found very little if any consensus on Talk:Doctor Who series 14 and Talk:Doctor Who specials (2023). An unclear unlinked to trailer mentioned by Simon Cursitor. You yourself seeming to go no it's not in December 2023 and January 2024 and then yes it is in May 2024. Additionally, as per my edit reason "not in the sources". Sources 1 and 2 in the relevant paragraph do not use the word Disney. At all. Number 2 is the night of The Power of the Doctor's broadcast, and not even Disney+ is referred to yet. TardisTybort (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@TardisTybort The discussion you're looking for is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who/Archive 34#Time to change the infobox "original network" parameters per the closing logos at last, in which an RFC was held, and a multitude of long-reliable sources provided calling Disney a co-producer. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:10, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Rambling Rambler (talk) 01:22, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

@Rambling Rambler Thank you for your notification. I have responded accordingly. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:33, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Your revert yesterday of the Rotten Tomatoes citation; it is considered a reliable source and should be added back. One link for Eps 8 is in your revert, other link for Eps 7 is here: . ErnestKrause (talk) 13:57, 16 August 2025 (UTC)

No answer; I'll replace the cites with Rotten Tomatoes for the article today. ErnestKrause (talk) 14:11, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'm writing about the photos. I already know how to add photos in their correct size without any problem, but when I search for an episode in the search engine, some photos appear that wouldn't normally appear. Did I do something wrong, or will this change automatically? All the photos I've added these days are for Dexter series. Thanks. Marco camino 10 (talk) 13:41, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 I'm sorry but I'm not sure what you're talking about. What photos? What articles are they appearing/not appearing in? -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:04, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in the end, the error I mentioned will be fixed in a few days. And another question, this page: https://www.tvtime.com/es/show/355567, serves as a reliable source for episodes of the fifth season of The Boys. Marco camino 10 (talk) 12:10, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Category:Episode lists with incorrectly formatted alternate air dates has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it 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. Mclay1 (talk) 09:09, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alex 21:, I'm wondering if this link: https://www.tvtime.com/es/show/355567, is reliable to add the title names on The Boys season 5 Marco camino 10 (talk) 16:21, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

I would not classify that as a reliable source, as it has no editorial back-end. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:10, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alex 21:, I don't understand what's going on with The Boys titles. The source posted by the user didn't even lead to The Boys credits, and when you go to The Boys data, there are no episode titles. So, if you're going to add a source, wouldn't the one I posted here be better? I've deleted the information until I clarify this. Thanks. Marco camino 10 (talk) 12:15, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

You are confusing the link I'm sourcing (a database of WGA covered projects) with a different site that just contains the episode credits/writers for the new season. I am NOT citing the link you claim I am. I am linking the DATABASE, which shows the titles of the upcoming edits. STOP edit warring and actually LOOK AT THE SOURCES PROVIDED before reverting. THANK YOU. IzzySwag (talk) 16:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

To lay it out for you, THIS is the site I am citing: https://apps.wga.org/coveredprojects/. And THIS is the site you FALSELY CLAIM I am citing: https://directories.wga.org/project/1156739/the-boys. Are you now able to see that these are DIFFERENT WEBSITES? IzzySwag (talk) 16:02, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 Izzy is correct about this. There are multiple databases for WGA, for covered projects, and specific entries for shows. Both are acceptable. We typically use the latter for writing credits. The only difference is, is that you need to search for The Boys in the former database; that still makes it an acceptable source. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:38, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex 21, I'd like to offer to co-edit Stranger things season 5 with you as the season enters its premiere state. I believe that I can make a number of contributions to the article which are related to the deeper lore and overall premise/summary sections of the season in addition to the episode summaries.

Hoping you will say yes, I think we can co-operate and make a really great article. (to that end I am largely suggesting that I will create a number of additions potentially on the talk page for inclusion before making direct edits as it will be a large/impactful article for the next few months.)

Let me know, hoping to "cut my teeth" with a bigger article here on Wiki! :) Strongwranglers (talk) 08:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

@Strongwranglers Thanks for your message.

Wikipedia doesn't have any sort of co-editing scheme. It's a free for all - as long as everyone here abides by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, anyone is free to edit and contribute. So please do, make any edits that provide deeper information, as long as it is all sourced.

Happy editing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:41, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Awesome! Check out the updated premise for stranger things season 2, I think I made some constructive and helpful changes there!!! :) Strongwranglers (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hey, I want to be clear, I'm not trying to attack any views – the phrase "expect compliance" made me realize I may be coming across harshly, but I'm simply trying to offer my stance, which I recognize is different from others. If I came across as rude at any point, I apologize. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:22, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

@RunningTiger123 Yeah sorry mate, me too. I've been told I come across very "bitey", which is never intentional, and then we all realize it's words over the internet we've just taken the wrong way. In the same way, I apologize as well. Here's to a productive discussion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:30, 5 September 2025 (UTC)

In case you missed it: Multiple reviews or other reliable, independent, non-trivial commentary demonstrate notability for a television episode. It is preferred (i.e. not a requirement) to have reliable sources discussing production aspects of the episode in question, such as its development and writing; the casting of specific actors; design elements; filming or animation; post-production work; or music, rather than simply recounting the plot.

In any circumstance claim that something is "not notable" without providing evidence of lack of notability, and re-adding a tag that had previously been removed twice, is disruptive. The next step is called AFD. Please, take it to AFD if you believe the article is not notable. Regards. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 03:41, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tbhotch There is an active discussion to mass-nominate many South Park episodes to AFD, I am already aware of the idea, thank you. It is interesting in that you cannot any content related to production, and base your entire argument off of just reception, when most of those are merely plot recaps. Please be aware that the disruptive behaviour of removing a tag without discussion or improvement has also been noted. Regards. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:05, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

A local discussion that doesn't revolve around the subsequent events that occurred to Got a Nut itself. And no, it is disruptive to re-add a tag as you are the sole person claiming it is not notable. Once again, you can continue this discussion at the respective AFDs for Sickofancy and Got a Nut. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 04:07, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

@Tbhotch The discussion regards all South Park episodes, no matter the location of the talk page. Do not remove the notability tags added/restored by multiple editors (try to make sure you're aware of the situation properly before making claims) until the issue is clearly resolved. The discussion will indeed be located at the mass-AFD for South Park articles - no further response is required here. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:31, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Just because a subject meets basic notability requirements does not mean that the best way to cover it is a standalone article, if there is consensus that the same content can be more appropriately covered as part of a different article. That is what NCTVEP is all about: some TV episodes meet basic GNG standards, but don't meet the community's requirements for being covered separately from an existing season or series article. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:48, 12 September 2025 (UTC)

The redirect A Dance of Dragons 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/2025 September 15 § A Dance of Dragons until a consensus is reached. TNstingray (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alex:, after creating the article for the first season and the draft for the almost confirmed second, in the cast section can only the main cast be left, since each season's article will include recurring and guest cast members, as is done in other series that have articles for each season? Marco camino 10 (talk) 12:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I know the last name basis is standard for MOST Mcu articles. I have fixed Agatha's last name for WandaVision. However, here is proof of my edits for Wanda being referred to by first name:

Talk:WandaVision#RFC about what to refer to Wanda Maximoff as

Read this. HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 The majority of participants supported the use of "Wanda" in this article. You do not have support to spread the result for one RFC on one article however you decide. Your decision to deliberately edit-war has been noted. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:23, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. I'm just giving proof HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:24, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 "Proof" that does not support your edits. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:25, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

It does actually, this is from the same show from that article, which DOES support my proof, alex HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Also you disrupted my edit on a DC tv show, which ISN'T an MCU article. What are you trying to do, implement that last name basis for the DCU? HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:29, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 The consensus is for that article, not every article related to WandaVision. Using the last name is the standard across all articles. Whether it's DCU or MCU is irrelevant. Do you understand that? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:30, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Now you're just being petty. What are you gonna do now, call Hughie Campbell "Campbell"? Call Jason Voorhees "Voorhees?" HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 Last name is the standard practice. Do you understand that? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Well guess what? Are you just gonna call Jason Voorhees by last name? HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 MOS:SURNAME: After the initial mention, a person should generally be referred to by surname only. Also: Generally speaking, subjects should not otherwise be referred to by their given name. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:34, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 Did you read the above or not? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:35, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes I did. But by that logic, are you just gonna call Jason Voorhees by last name? Are you just gonna call Dewey Riley or Sidney Prescott or Laurie Strode by last name? HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:36, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Or what about Chris from Resident Evil? HiGuys69420 (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I have quoted to you the relevant MoS. Or do you believe that your examples override any MoS on Wikipedia? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:38, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 Would you like to continue discussing the related content civilly? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:47, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Yes Alex, I have reverted my edit. The only time Wanda is referred to by first name now is when her brother and kids are referred to by name in the same sentence as her HiGuys69420 (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Guy, it does NOT matter what other articles do. The local consensus for MCU articles outlined at WP:MCUSURNAMES should always be followed unless there is a rare exception, which the WandaVision RFC is. As Alex said, that RFC is only for that article, and not to be interpreted unilaterally for all other articles, especially ones not related to it. You have already been told your proposed change to this last name basis have been contested at WT:MCU, yet you are openly ignoring the present consensus in favor of your own opinion. This is disruptive and it needs to stop. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 05:16, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Alrighty, I won't edit the Wandavision articles anymore. HiGuys69420 (talk) 05:20, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Do what you gotta do Alex, but just letting you know would it be okay if two characters with the same surname (EX: Wanda and Pietro, Agatha and Evanora Harkness) appear in the same sentence, could you use first name? Thanks HiGuys69420 (talk) 05:21, 9 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I am a contributor on Turkish Wikipedia. And I try to learn about Modules to translate Modules to my language. To use it on articles. As i saw you know modules. So can you help me to at least translate the parameters or creating new modules. What should i learn for this? Where should i start? It seems little complicated for me right now. Thanks. Nabbegat (talk) 18:55, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Alex 21:, the Tik Tok video would serve as a source to add the appearance of Scott Clark? Is because I haven't found any article talking about his return.

Also, I'm wondering if you could tell me if the source I added it to verify the appearances of the main characters of Gen V on The Boys season 5 is good. To search another one or if it is correct leaving ir there. Marco camino 10 (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hey Alex,

Just letting you know I understand your reasoning for the Peacemaker article revert after reading the WP you mentioned. However there were some grammatical mistakes and unnecessary details so I fixed it. Also, the editor who originally put the section called two guest characters "dickheads" so I removed those characters as that is a derogatory term. HiGuys69420 (talk) 06:41, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

@HiGuys69420 No worries. Happy editing. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:05, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Alex HiGuys69420 (talk) 18:25, 3 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I'm writing to ask if you could explain how your tool works to determine the color to use, as you do in the articles based on the poster, because I sometimes have trouble finding an exact color and sometimes I can't find it at all. Marco camino 10 (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 Use this tool to extract colours from the poster, and this tool to confirm colour compliancy. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:39, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, the first tool is easy to use, but the second one, for checking the compliancy, if the first tool shows me several colors, isn't there an option to put them all on the second tool, or which two colors should I select? And another thing is, when the predominant color is selected in the first tool, do I just use its code as is, or do I need to do something else? Marco camino 10 (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Just pick the most predominant colour from the first tool and use that. Yes, you just need to use the HEX code, that's all. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:10, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the help Alex. Marco camino 10 (talk) 16:25, 22 November 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:The Librarians Premiere Title Card.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 03:37, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

If you edit the 2-Parter with commas, you must edit all 2 parter of the entire series!

But the title in the episode is "Part" writing in (...)!!! -- J. Bauer (talk) 21:42, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

@J. Bauer See the source in the header. CBS clearly title the episodes with commas. Whatever the rest of the episodes do, I'm sure they're included in the same source and can be updated as need be. There is nothing here that I "must" do. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:16, 16 November 2025 (UTC)

I think this is wrong at the CBS site... The title is shown in every episode. And in every 2 Parter episodes is the "part" writing in (). In NCIS: Los Angeles are with commas, yes but not in NCIS mothership series... -- J. Bauer (talk) 11:53, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

@J. Bauer Then go take that up with CBS. Regardless, the CBS source still uses a comma, hence the title is sourced. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:23, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21,

You made this page a redirect to itself. What was the target article that you wanted to point this to? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:31, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

@Liz Apologies, all fixed! Thanks for the heads up. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:02, 21 November 2025 (UTC)

No rush, but could you do a new batch update to User:Alex 21/sandbox/No episode table by the end of the year? With the bot run of adding {{Convert to Episode table}} a few months back, I have a feeling a good number of these could be removed, but we also might find new cases. I also am finding your page more helpful than just going through articles in Category:Articles lacking Episode table templates because that seems to be including some articles that need a full scale switch to {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}}, where as your page is just looking at what already uses Episode list but not table. Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:51, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

 Done Happy to! Latest update took it from 4966 to 4570. Let me know whenever you need an updated batch, I just work it through AWB's list comparer. (Not bad compared to the 8430+ it was at its longest ) -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:28, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Many thanks! I try to do around 50 every now and then. I think batch updates in June/July and December seems fine, gives it a six months window. And I know! Can't believe we've about halved it, and still shocked it's that large. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:52, 8 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex21, I noticed that you reverted some of my edits in the article about It: welcome to Derry. I agree with the removal of the edit where I used TV Guide as a source; however, I noticed that you reverted my edit updating the Rotten Tomatoes reviews. Could you clarify why? Nijun167 (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2025 (UTC)

@Nijun167 Per the ignored note: <!--You MUST update the access-date parameter to the current date when updating any of the below reviewer statistics.-->. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:55, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading File:Supergirl 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 non-free 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) 18:27, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Template:List has been split has been nominated for discussion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. jnestorius^(talk) 19:13, 13 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex, I am writing to you because the user Victor starr03 is massively uploading copyrighted photos as if they were royalty-free and adding them to articles, even removing photos that have already been correctly posted. I am letting you know in case you could remove these photos, as I don't know how to do it myself. Thank you. Marco camino 10 (talk) 16:14, 14 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Marco camino 10: The old photos can be restored, and the ones uploaded that are non-free can be nominated for deletion. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex

I do not have a problem with you partially reverting my edit here, and I am not wedded to having {{#ifexpr:{{#time:U|now}} < {{#time:U|2025-12-21 20:05:00}}|4|5}} in the source text, but I would appreciate understanding of the specific issue or issues you have with it, whether that be an error in it, it being unhelpful or whatever, since you didn't leave an edit summary. Thanks :) --TedEdwards 17:42, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of comment. There's no need for automatic updating values, and there's never been a consensus about including automatic time-based expressions. There is no deadline for updating content, and it makes for awkward and uncomfortable formatting for editors unfamiliar with the expression code. We've managed to update the values to 2 and 4 within the past two weeks within a satisfactory timeframe, I'm sure we can trust editors to update it properly again next week. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:20, 15 December 2025 (UTC)

No worries, and thanks for your reply. --TedEdwards 01:55, 17 December 2025 (UTC)

I want to let you know that the new blu-ray box set image is still showing the Warriors of the Deep DVD cover image on google crome. Could you please fix this, so that the season 21 blu-ray box set image appears on all web browsers. Thank you.~2025-42018-09 (talk) 14:27, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) different images are not shown on different browsers. If your chrome is showing an older image, that is likely a caching issue. - adamstom97 (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

At Doctor Who season 21? I only see the Blu-Ray box set, so Adam's likely right in that it's just a caching issue - clear your cache by using CTRL + SHIFT + R. I have also moved the file to File:Doctor Who Season 21 Blu-ray.jpg (rather than DVD), so that may also force a cache fix. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:05, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

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 2026. Happy editing, adamstom97 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

adamstom97 (talk) 12:22, 24 December 2025 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

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 2026. Happy editing, Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:20, 24 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2026!

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 2026. Happy editing, — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 02:54, 26 December 2025 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Hey, if I'm not wrong I remember you had much input in shaping the current MOS:TVCAST section so I thought this discussion might benefit your input (an edit war has already started sadly..) Talk:Heated_Rivalry#CAST_LIST TheVampire (talk) 20:24, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Alex 21, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! voorts (talk/contributions) 21:44, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

Endorse this 💯! Congrats @Alex 21! Seasons greetings! 🎉 11WB (talk) 22:18, 26 December 2025 (UTC)

The redirect The Green Beret's Guide to Surviving the Apocalypse 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/2025 December 26 § The Green Beret's Guide to Surviving the Apocalypse until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 22:11, 26 December 2025 (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.