User talk:Alex 21/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Prose in all sections

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

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

@Nyuszika7H: I had one or two discussions on it with a number of other editors at some point; this discussion was based on guidelines I was given by another user in another discussion, which I'll find the link for here. There were suggestions to place it in the Broadcast section instead, which makes more sense. Alex|The|Whovian? 15:22, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Maybe it's just me, but it really annoys me when the series overview is placed lower down (like in the "Broadcast" section) or worse, completely missing, expecting me to find the link to the episode list in the infobox, which is much less intuitive. WP:TVOVERVIEW does suggest having an "Episodes" section ("If a separate List of episodes article exists, the series overview table should be presented at the top of that article below the lead, in a section labeled "Series overview", then transcluded to the episodes section at the main article."), but it does not seem to specify where it should be placed unless I'm missing something. Though requiring prose in all sections is a different issue... nyuszika7h (talk) 15:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, having read that, I disagree with Bignole on the point that there is no summary, as the series overview serves as one, but if this has to be done, I'd much rather see it merged with the "Plot" / "Premise" section, as it was done in the article in question, 12 Monkeys (TV series), rather than moved lower down on the page. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
OK, after reading the guideline in question (I'm assuming MOS:PARAGRAPHS was meant), nowhere does it say that sections must contain prose. It only states that "Sections usually consist of paragraphs of running prose" (emphasis mine). And a section with a link and a series overview is far more aesthetically pleasing than a single-sentence section, so that argument does not hold here, either. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

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

I just want to say that I'm not set-in-concrete on this issue. If it's better and allowable, then by all means. I've just gotten used to merging the section into other prose-containing sections. Perhaps a discussion of it at WP:TV would be better, rather than having it here. Alex|The|Whovian? 16:54, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
FTR, on my end, I'm not saying that 'series overview' tables "have" to go in their own separate section. But I am saying that it's not against "guidelines" to do so, and I agree with Nyuszika7H that it generally "looks better" when they are in their own section... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to throw my 3 cents worth in, there is a lot of confusion with editors over this. A section should definitely not contain just a link. e.g.:
== Characters ==
{{main|List of TV show characters}}

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

Red link removal from 2016 in Australian television

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

Doctor Who Minecraft

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

@Aidan0007: No. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:03, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Well if make one with reliable sources will you not delete the page? Aidan0007 (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
@Aidan0007: What? I haven't deleted any pages. And your topic is not notable for an article - if it's been deleted before, then perhaps you should get the hint. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:06, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Legends of Tomorrow

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

List of Running Man episodes

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

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

Martin 1887

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

Seriously? What's the point of socking just to change genres? Thanks for letting me know; I've added the SPI page to my watchlist. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:08, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
I've seen socks do more stupid stuff. There's one IP who keeps making the same changes to articles despite being reverted every time. They don't seem to understand that they aren't really upsetting anyone and are happy to completely waste their time. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:17, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Date formats

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

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

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

@Whpq: The book is by an American author. Hence, American format. Doesn't explain why you removed the extra content I added. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies for removal of the extra content. I missed that looking at the diffs. As for strong national ties, I wouldn't expect that a book like this is considered an American topic for the purposes of strong national ties, but if you feel very strongly about it, I won't object any further. Regards. -- Whpq (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Help with Template:Submarines of Indian Navy

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

@Krishna Chaitanya Velaga:  Done Alex|The|Whovian? 08:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Special Guest Star

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

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

Template:Game of Thrones ratings

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

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

@Hzh: It gets added to the template once it is sourced within the season article. ALL of the ratings references are sourced in the season articles - check the episode tables for this. It is not up to other editors to "check" for the source - if you have it, add it. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:13, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The rating is in the season article. Hzh (talk) 14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hzh: Now it is. After another editor had to do your work. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:16, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
It's the kind of ridiculous and indiscriminate revert that gives Wikipedia a bad name. The main article is the Game of Thrones, not the season article. YOU ARE giving spurious reason. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@Hzh: So, at the point of adding it to the template, where on Wikipedia was your information sourced? Nowhere? My point exactly. Don't be smart and try to turn this discussion on me with "The main article is the Game of Thrones, not the season article", when you knew what I was talking about. This discussion is over. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:23, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mr. Robot S2 titles

Alex,

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

@Drmargi: Zap2It often has episode titles far before any other website (e.g. Zap2It and Futon for Dark Matter). The format of the episode names may be differing between the two seasons (much like the titles for the show I just linked); however, Season 2's still appear to resolve to real words (unm4sk/unmask, k3rnel-pan1c/kernel panic, init1 is "Single user mode run level"). Also, as a side note, specials always get listed in a separate section if they are not part of the canon events (e.g. List of Once Upon a Time episodes#Specials shows specials that have aired throughout the series as real-world specials, whereas the special listed at List of Sherlock episodes#Special (2016) is part of the series.) Alex|The|Whovian? 01:57, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
And you may be right. It's just that the inconsistency worries me. My inclination is to trust NBCUMV more than any of the others, and they haven't posted any episode names yet. I think Zap2It is like SpoilerTV; they get their titles from casting sides, which are early drafts of episodes. That's the only explanation I can think of for their having earlier titles than anyone else. Bottom line: we would do well to keep an eye on other media sources as we get closer to July 13. --Drmargi (talk) 21:47, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

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

@Drmargi: Agreed. It's getting confusing, especially when Zap started listing "Eps2.0unm4sk-pt.tc; eps2.0unm4sk-pt2.tc" without explanation about a week ago, and Kernel/Init are still listed as Episode 2/3. TFC has already had a press release on the new number of episodes, so it'll definitely update soon. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to see Decoded yet, given that I'm in the middle of my University final exams, but I've definitely got it ready to watch! Alex|The|Whovian? 06:33, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
@Drmargi: Coming back to this, it appears as it TFC hasn't updated their listings. Should we remove the dates? Alex|The|Whovian? 01:58, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

File mover granted

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

Sherlock

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

The discussion has links in it that prove that the series is an American co-production. Your personal views of disagreement do not change facts. We apologize if this causes you any personal inconvenience. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:17, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
This isn't a personal view and the links show nothing about this show having any American involvement in it's production. Please stop ignoring facts because of your own personal views. It is made by the BBC. British Broadcasting Company, within Great Britain. It's "An Original British Drama". I am not in any kind of editing war but I was being ignored and clearly anyone who tries to point out these things are being ignored also. Whatcha2016 (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Whatcha2016: That doesn't allow you to edit war over it. You have been reported to the administrators. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:49, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I am being talked by administrators for trying to edit a page on a site that claims I would be able to do so? I was ignored, clearly it thankfully enabled me to be able to talk to someone about this again. Whatcha2016 (talk) 13:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Whatcha2016: Yes. You violated Wikipedia policies by forcing your edits over and over again, instead of leaving it at the status quo and discussing it until you gained a consensus. More information about this is available on your talk page. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:55, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
I tried this and since the system on here is complicated, I was berated by you. People have said again and again within the discussion that it is a British-made show, but nothing has come of that. This is about facts, not a "consensus". You would not do a consensus about whether the sky is blue or not. Facts are facts. Whatcha2016 (talk) 13:57, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Whatcha2016: It's not complicated. Doesn't matter - you forced your edits in the face of evidence and proof, you pay the price. Facts are facts - it is co-produced by PBS, an American company. Alex|The|Whovian? 13:59, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
It's not co-produced at all. It's distributed by them over in America, so that Americans can watch it. PBS plays no part in it's production. So sorry that I find it complicated. Whatcha2016 (talk) 14:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
@Whatcha2016: Obviously, by what you just posted, you have no idea what you are talking about. Someone else posted on the Sherlock talk page, supporting that is is American-produced as well. Discuss it there, not here, while you wait for the administrators to determine your fate on Wikipedia. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:05, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

The Simpsons series overview

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

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

Top Gear (series 24)

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

Module:Series overview

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

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thanks for starting it off! We can definitely coordinate our efforts, if one of us works in one area, and another works on another section? Alex|The|Whovian? 08:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
That could work, although I'm guessing that there will still be quite a bit of overlap as we decide on the interfaces between the different classes. Maybe if we make the interfaces really solid now it might be easier. Talking of which, I have been thinking of moving Template:Series overview/special and Template:Series overview/split inside the main template (hence it being possible to have multiple EpisodeGroup objects inside each SeriesEntry object, to deal with split seasons). However, to do this, we need to think of argument names for things inside split seasons. I have been thinking along the lines of using |episodes1=, |episodes1A=, |color1A=, |episodes1B=, |color1B=, etc. What do you think? Also, I was thinking of maybe increasing the number of possible info headers to 26 - we could have |infoA=, |infoB=, ... |infoZ= instead of finishing at E, and calculate the column spans based on the number of headers that were specified. I guess that might be overkill though? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 08:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius: So, the following replacements could take place:
Extended content
Replace
{{Series overview/special
 | color     = 
 | link      = 
 | linkT     = 
 | episodes  = 
 | start     = 
 | end       = 
}}
With
{{Series overview
| color*    = 
| link*     = 
| link*T    = 
| episodes* = 
| start*    = 
| end*      = 
}}
Replace
{{Series overview/split
 | num       = 
 | link      = 
 | episodes  = 
 
 | color1    = 
 | episodes1 = 
 | start1    = 
 | end1      = 
 
 | color2    = 
 | episodes2 = 
 | start2    = 
 | end2      = 
}}
With
{{Series overview
| link*      = 
| episodes*  =
| color*A    = 
| episodes*A = 
| start*A    = 
| end*A      = 
| color*B    = 
| episodes*B = 
| start*B    = 
| end*B      = 
}}
This could allow for custom name links for all seasons (that is, link*T for all seasons), which could come in useful. Also, instead of starting from {parameter}1, we'd need to start from {parameter}0, etc. for pilot rows, initial specials, etc. Also, implementing specials into this would kick out the numbering (e.g. for Sherlock, Season 3 would use {parameter}3, the special would use {parameter}4, Season 4 would use {parameter}5, and so on). There be need to be a fix to this - perhaps having the specials as {parameter}*S/{parameter}*S (e.g. for Sherlock, Season 3 would use {parameter}3, the special would use {parameter}S3 or {parameter}3S, Season 4 would use {parameter}4)? Adding more headers would be easy, with:
Extended content
Replace
for i = string.byte('A'), string.byte('E') do
With
for i = string.byte('A'), string.byte('Z') do
And also redefining how we define the hasInfoCells variable. I'm definitely glad you started it, as you've got a more object-oriented model in mind than what I did. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:46, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

We Bare Bears Shorts Color Codes

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

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

Re: Series Overview Update

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

Issues:

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

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

@Amaury: I am well aware, and am in the process of updating as necessary. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha! Thanks for responding. Hope I wasn't a bother. Just trying to be helpful. :) Amaury (talk | contribs) 02:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Amaury: All fixed. :) Alex|The|Whovian? 06:32, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

We've got a problem...

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

List of The Simpsons episodes too. And presumably any other series that has more than 9 seasons. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Yep, already aware. I'm attempting a fix for it at this very moment. The Simpsons is where I noticed it. Hopefully I'll get it done soon. Alex|The|Whovian? 04:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Okay great! I don't know the language for Lua, by my knowledge of coding practices made me think it would be with your "Order table by season number" code. Maybe it's the table.sort function and the need to define the type of sorting? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Favre1fan93: Fixed. It was the sorting function, it was because the "numbers" of the seasons were "strings", so it determined it by the first character first. Converted it to actual numbers, and now it's fixed. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Great. Thanks! Good work btw on all of this! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:54, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey AlexTheWhovian, both the series overview tables on List of Scrubs episodes and List of Twin Peaks episodes are showing errors, with "rowspan=" displaying in the table itself. Thought I'd let you know. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
@Drovethrughosts: That's because the tables were coded incorrectly; this has been fixed on both pages now. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

MOS:DATERET

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

One more thing – I see that your edit summary said "In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body." Yes, that's correct for publication dates (i.e. the date parameter), but not true of the accessdate (and archivedate) parameters. I know ref date formatting can be confusing – you're not the first editor I've run across to be confused by the finer points of MOS:DATEUNIFY... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:04, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
While I think using ISO dates is just stupid unless you are a computer (see User:AussieLegend#ISO dates - Just say NO!, IJBall is quite correct. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:10, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@IJBall: Amazing - that's some serious "I own this article" behavior you're exhibiting there. You do not own any articles you create, nor get to dictate how it's edited, and hence anyone can change it. You might want to keep that in check, else risk being faced with the admins. The "however ..." section seems to have been added as a second thought, and hence I run by what the sentence starts with: In general, the date format used for publication dates within references should match that used within the article body. And also at MOS:DATEUNIFY, dates in article body text should all use the same format. When talking about access dates, "yyyy-mm-dd" is the third option after the format used for publication dates in the article and the format expected in the citation style adopted in the article. So, no self-reverting will be occurring from this editor in this particular instance. Alex|The|Whovian? 01:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Are you seriously going to go down this road? You arguing that you can ignore MOS guidelines on a WP:IDONTLIKEIT basis. MOS:DATERET exists for a reason, and it's not a WP:OWN thing. Why are you ignoring both the template documentation, and what an experienced editor like AussieLegend is telling you? (And, FTR, I've never been blocked on this project.) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:32, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
No. I am arguing that everything you've put across has been second- or third-preference compared to everything else in the guidelines you've linked. You link to somewhere, and it's all "however", "or this", "or that", the third in a list of options, etc. It also most certainly is a WP:OWN thing with your behaviour; you are dictating that since you created the article, every edit is subject to your opinion, that you get to choose what does and does not get added (in your very first post). And asking another user to revert me? Extremely bad faith edits there. Alex|The|Whovian? 02:43, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
See MOS:DATERET: "The date format chosen by the first major contributor in the early stages of an article should continue to be used, unless there is reason to change it based on strong national ties to the topic or consensus on the article's talk page." This isn't WP:OWN – it's right there in the guideline. And there's no "first", "second", "third"-preferencing on date formats – if it's in the guideline, it's allowed. Period. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:46, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
If it's allowable when its listed in a guideline, then I am glad that you find the current format suitable. And I'm definitely going to have to question that elsewhere, as while it may be present and listed as a guideline, it does conflict with WP:OWN and one that I am going to file under WP:IAR. Also, it's noted how you dodged how I saw your request for another editor to revert me. :) Alex|The|Whovian? 02:50, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Is convinced he's always right. Impossible to work with. Got it. Noted. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Do attempt to remain civil during conversations. The same could be said for yourself. Doesn't every editor in opposing sides of a discussion think he or she is right? If we continue to post comments such as the above that does not move to helping the discussion, then nothing will get done. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:03, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment

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

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

@HamedH94: By the looks of it, my arguments would be the same as those opposing yours. No point adding repeating opinions. Alex|The|Whovian? 05:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Most of them have been answered. So if you have nothing new to say, take a look at the answers; and either add something new or don't edit something already under dispute, as they may be reverted after a consensus. --HamedH94 (talk) 05:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Well, given that I was thanked by multiple editors for reinstating the edit, I can see that the consensus is clear. Technically, it was reverting to the status quo while under discussion. Keep the discussion there, not here. You requested my comment, I commented. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian? 06:03, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Splitting Articles

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

(talk page stalker) @Brianis19:  Done I have performed the split. (You may want to fix your signature as your username is not visible. I have corrected it for you in this comment.) nyuszika7h (talk) 14:03, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Quantico page

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

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

@Elainasla: These cast tables have become deprecated per many and multiple discussions at MOS:TV and WT:TV, the discussions of which are archived in the archives of the respective talk pages, and the tables at the pages you've seen should have also been converted. I have posted on Toddst1's talk page, given that his revert was from misunderstanding, as I reverted the editor who removed much of the coding required for List of Quantico episodes, with no reason. Alex|The|Whovian? 07:58, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Can you point us to the resulting WP:MOS that says they're deprecated? MOS:TVCAST says nothing about tables. As it is, you appear to be WP:edit warring on that page and maybe even WP:OWNing it. Toddst1 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Your accusations of WP:EW and WP:OWN will get you nowhere in this discussion, and are falsely thrown about in this case. You will find the answer for the deprecation in the very reply above yours - first sentence, even. Alex|The|Whovian? 12:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's be clear then: nothing in MOS:TVCAST that says they're deprecated. Great.
You do not have consensus for your revert. at least 3 editors have now objected to it. Please stop reverting. Toddst1 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Correction: 2 users object. One simply added the initial edits, reverting my splits in the process, and has not been heard from since. I know that I have a couple of talk page stalkers that I've worked closely with at MOS:TV and WP:TV, editors that actually know what they're talking about - would they like to add a few words? I will be listing this discussion for further input, to gain the opinion of more experience editors. Any further additions from Toddst1 at this point will be reverted. Alex|The|Whovian? 22:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

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

Care to comment on your mistakes and attempted ownership, Toddst1? Alex|The|Whovian? 23:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Sure do. Your behavior including attempting to squelch my participation in the discussion above are being discussed on ANI. Toddst1 (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Let's be clear then: nothing in MOS:TVCAST that says they're deprecated. That's true, but there is a good reason, and that's because they were never endorsed. WP:TVCAST presents two ways of presenting the cast, and both are prose. Tables have never been supported. I raised the matter of tables at WT:TV in September 2014 (see discussion), and then again in November 2014 (discussion). It was then the subject of a much longer discussion in August 2015 at MOS:TV (discussion). MOS:TV says to use prose and the consensus was not to add support for tables, so they should not be used. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

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

@Elainasla: I will refer to others who I best see fit; we are all users. And the part about being lazy wasn't even, in fact, about you, it was about Toddst1. So, please know what you are actually talking about before you accuse other editors. This discussion on this page is over. Have a nice day! Alex|The|Whovian? 10:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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

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

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

ANI notification

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


Scorpion edit warring

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

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

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

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

Template:Infobox television episode

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

Exactly my thoughts, to make them consistent with the other two. I've always found the capitalized parameters with spaces in them non-conforming to every other template (and as a programmer myself, parameters/variables with spaces just doesn't happen). I'm planning to go through and update them correctly with AWB, though that might be a job for a bot, since the template is used on 8,000+ articles. Alex|The|Whovian? 10:31, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I usually do these sorts of things while watching TV, susbsting the original template in each article with a cleanup template like Template:Infobox television/cleanup. 9,000 articles can go very quickly, especially if you're not the only one doing it, and it ensures that articles have a proper version of the infobox. Some can be really bad. I fixed one article that had 10 invalid fields in it. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:53, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Same, I'll have my TV shows running on my laptop while I fix the articles on my spare. Subst'ing the templates is actually a good idea, not one that had crossed my mind, since I was looking into how to just convert each of them to lowercase, or replace them all individually with one pass. I may post at the talk page of WP:AWB/Tasks to get others to help. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:50, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Michelle Ruff

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

@AnimeDisneylover95: Your edits have been reverted by multiple editors. Learn what that means, leave the edits be, and take it to the talk page. Alex|The|Whovian? 03:46, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: How am I going to talk this on the talk page of Michelle Ruff If you might see it as another repeated question, and no offense but all I did was change the web page for Michelle Ruff because of some url errors!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 03:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Also this is Outrageous, regarding the three revert rule and also on personal attacks, yes I did them but those were on personal disagreements and even If I don't do it for days better yet months and years you still are going to say that's still part of my edit warring, so please leave me alone.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@AnimeDisneylover95: Perhaps you need to sit back for a while and try to understand the consequences of your own actions. Personal disagreements doesn't allow for violation of Wikipedia policies. Alex|The|Whovian? 14:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian: I do it on my own accords, but I don't want to have to deal with you in another one of your accusations (e.g. Edit warring, three revert rule, "personal attacks" on other users) at me ever again, because it's going back to the same behavior I'm seeing: person pissisng me off, leading myself to getting upset and attacking you and getting away with it by taking advantage over me and having myself being blocked for what I did. So personally, enough is enough from you Alex!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@AnimeDisneylover95: Then if you're going back to the same behaviour, you will be reported to the administrators and blocked from editing. I hoped yo enjoyed your brief time at Wikipedia! Alex|The|Whovian? 22:20, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to be reported Alex, please I will behave!!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@AnimeDisneylover95: Best of luck with the future. :) Alex|The|Whovian? 22:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian:I did not appreciate the threat/warning that you gave me Alex. :(--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 16:55, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@AnimeDisneylover95: I don't appreciate your edit warring or personal attacks. See where this is going? Alex|The|Whovian? 22:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
@AlexTheWhovian:Wouldn't it be easier if this discussion just blew away!!--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Once Upon a Time Season 6

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

Yes. Seriously. You seem unfamiliar with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Provide proof, in the form of a reliable source, preferably on the talk page of the article itself; until then, they remain, as they are reliably sourced. It also doesn't matter if you made the page or not - no-one owns any article here on Wikipedia, and there may be consequences further on if you keep up that outlook. Next: Per the guidelines of season pages, once a colour has been picked from promotional art or DVD releases, unless there is a valid reason to change it, the colour stays as it is. Hope this informed you! Alex|The|Whovian? 09:00, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alex_21/Archive_14&oldid=1141286298"