User talk:Alex 21/Archive 16

Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates

I can't figure out why Backstage (2016 TV series) is in Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates, as far as I can see it does not use any unformatted air dates in |OriginalAirDate=, only |AltDate= which the module doesn't check because it shouldn't use that template anyway. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems my edit in the sandbox fixes it, though there's a bug with the preview, as it was still showing up as being in the category – when I used the "Preview page with this module" on my sandbox (with the main namespace check removed), it behaved as expected, and categorized without the empty field the check but not with. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Nyuszika7H: I am somewhat confused now. Is it working as its meant to now? Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the sandbox version works correctly now. nyuszika7h (talk) 05:38, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Agents of SHIELD (season 4) colour theme

Would you mind weighing in here. Thanks, LLArrow (talk) 22:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Fear the Walking Dead

Hello AlexTheWhovian, There is something wrong with the Template:Fear the Walking Dead ratings. I can't figure out what it is. Look at the latest edit by User:Wellington190 on that Template. AffeL (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wiki loves women montly contest- September

	Wiki Loves Women- Monthly Contest (September)!
	Hello, this is to notify you about a monthly article writing contest organized by Wikimedia User Group Nigeria in collaboration with Wiki Loves Women to increase the coverage of Nigerian women on Wikipedia! The theme for the month of September is Women in Entertainment. See the contest page here. Thank you. Delivered: 12:52, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Fan4Life

Alex, you may be interested to know that less than a week later, Fan4Life did a series of reverts on the Doctor Who story arcs article (they've since been re-reverted), despite having been told explicitly not to do that sort of thing (he's done it before) without consensus, and to come to the talk page if he thinks all or any of the old unsourced material (pages of it) needs to come back. I've let DQ know, decided to have a look at F4F's talk page just now, and noticed the small thread between yourself and him agreeing to let something similar go by the sound of it. Is this something to be added to that or a broader discussion? It sounds like some sort of intervention is needed. I don't know much at all about admin procedures with respect to this sort of thing, but when you put all this together with the behaviour over the 2 and 3 part issue months ago (which had dragged on over a year), there is a pattern of OCD-like disruption emerging here. It's like F4F is losing what self-control he had; you would think by now the need for, at minimum, any references at all, would be self-evident. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Just finished tracing what the other discussion was about and was shocked to discover it was the same one I'd been involved with last spring. I thought that was finally done, but ... God, this person really does have serious problems.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@ZarhanFastfire: Ah, yes, the discussion on his talk page was indeed about him continuously resurrecting the "should these episodes be single or grouped discussion", enough so that I made a list on the article's talk page of all of these discussions, to dissuade other editors from starting it up again. This required me to start the topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Requiring direction. Be glad you weren't aware of it! I have had headache after headache over it. I wasn't ware of the reverts (strangely, I haven't added the story-arc article(s) to my watchlist). It would recommend adding the thread on his talk page from me to the discussion you've started (care to link me?), as well as the one I just linked on WP:AN (be aware that it may archive sooner rather than later) as it shows that his behaviour does not relate to just one article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Signatures

It was closed as I was about to comment, but copying signature styles is not a policy violation. Copying the name would be, but not the style. Many steal styles from each other, typically without incident. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Really? Interesting. Thanks for letting me know! I feel like starting a new discussion about that at Wikipedia talk:Signatures. That's just unacceptable. They copied the entire thing, letter for letter, and only changed the names. That's identical to copying the signature itself. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

It has to do with your contribution being under the CC BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. As long as they don't have a similar name or use your name, it is just style. Several people here use the same style. Think about it, most people use the default sig, which is all the same style. I use a bolded blue sig, so do many others (although I have a cooler talk link). Best to ignore the ANI, we don't need more drama there. I'm trying to calm him down. It might be helpful if you capitulated a bit and admitted the error, but I can't force the issue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:49, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your civil words, but I've nothing to admit. It may be allowable under the license, but a thief is a thief whether they copy original content under a license or not. Just my opinion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker)- Just my 2¢ but I've had my signature copied about 2 weeks ago & ended up ranting at that editor ... and they changed it!, As sad and pathetic as it may sound or be I absolutely hate anyone copying my sig I really do especially when it's blatantly been copied from me (not by complete accident),
  

In all fairness i'd imagine it's 10 times frustrating for you because compared to me yours is extremely unique and certainly something that isn't just thought of just like that,

Think of it like this tho - Someone takes your signature so basically they really like it and think it's cool .... so in a subtle way tell them they should be cool, creative & unique by having a different one here too and that having the same one makes you(them) boring I guess .... Ofcourse if it doesn't all go to plan then you're screwed lol, Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 12:17, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

September 2016

Hi, Alex|The|Whovian^?, I was copying the table from Gotham and I accidentally copied a paragraph from the page by mistake. I'm sorry I forgot to explain that. -Brianis19 1:50 21 September 2016.

@Brianis19: Yeah, saw your explanation in your next revert. Might have been a good idea to explain it straight off. I thought you were removing valid content, but I see that I was wrong. No problems. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:51, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is good Wikiquette and a courtesy to other editors to always leave an explanatory edit summary (not here, here, or here) or at least checkbox minor edits. Thanks for your continued contributions to improve the encyclopedia! - Reidgreg (talk) 13:17, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

I believe that requesting edit summaries for copyedits and minor formatting is just nitpicking. But that's just my opinion. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:27, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

Hi

Could you please help me out. I am trying to add in Maleficent to the Once upon a time season 6 page but it keeps getting deleted even when i site and refrence. help? Lol Awesomeguy0001 (talk) 02:31, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Tracking cat

Did you make a tracking cat to see if an article is using raw header code over {{Episode table}}? Just curious because I thought there was one and I can't seem to find it. I also just converted Little Women: LA so that got me curious again. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Not exactly a tracking category, as we can't track raw code, but there was this list. Given that it was created six months ago, however, it's probably horribly out of date. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:47, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Oh right! That's what I was thinking of. Because that list was looking at articles that used {{Episode list}} and not Episode Table, yeah? We should see if we can get that updated again.... And I think I was going to work through that some and then forgot o.O - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:55, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd forgotten how we created the list, but yes, that's correct! With that, I've updated the list with AWB's list comparer, of articles that use {{Episode list}} but don't use {{Episode table}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:04, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Close to 5,800 articles is very daunting. Slowly but surely it will be cut down. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

If we take it to WP:TV, and inform members of the project of the list, and possibly the script I created for it, then we might get it done quicker. Much like how we cleared out the non-compliant colour category. Maybe get others onto Category:Episode lists with unformatted air dates as well. Alex|The|Whovian^? 16:25, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Quantico cast table

Hi, you reverted my edit about adding the cast table for the mains page of Quantico, and I just want to know why. I saw you wrote that the table "has been deprecated per discussions", but I have noticed that several go even multiple tv series' main page use the cast table. I personally think the table is good to have on the page as it easily shows who is a series regular on the show, and the progression of the cast through the show's history. One example is Grey's Anatomy which has been using the table in the last 13 years, and you get a good view of how much the cast has changed over the years. The show is even a Good article, and it still uses the cast table! Other shows like Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder, Pretty Little Liars, Modern Family and Empire uses the cast table to showcase the main cast of the show. Why has there been a discussion about not using these anymore? Is it because some people think they don't fit into the main page? I for one think they are a great addition, so I just wanted to know why I can't add the cast table for Quantico now that the show has added several new series regulars for the second season. Twotimer17 (talk) 13:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

@Twotimer17: Yes, the table may be beneficial for series like Grey's Anatomy (and while it may list 13 seasons, I highly doubt that it's been in use for 13 years), which has been airing for years and has had many cast changes, but not for a series that only has two seasons, the latter season of which only just premiered. Read the discussions in the archives of MOS:TV and WT:TV - you'll find more reasons and thorough discussions there. There's also related discussions about the same topic that were held on the talk pages of the Arrow and The Flash series. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:39, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Stop now

Stop now, the next inflammatory comment or personal attack will likely get you a block. If you can't interact civilly with each other than don't interact. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:44, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Sure thing. I'll avoid the editor when possible. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:50, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Callanecc; I don't want to get in-between these petty arguements, but I did want to make sure you are aware of other editors, not just AlexTheWhovian, who have encountered this user and been attacked by them. So if every editor had to stop interacting with this user, the Wikipedia would not improve because of this. Not including me, there is a long list. I forsee a long future of this non-stop behavior and actually have tried to civillaly talk to him about it on behalf of those editors he has created conflict with, but he refused to listen. Chase (talk) 03:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
  • Hi Chase, LLArrow has been blocked for not stopping as I asked them to. So we'll see what happens when the block expires. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 03:27, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Callanecc: Please see the editor's contribution history (specifically the history of the Shameless season/list-of-episode articles, and also the American Horror Story articles), as to how they continue to revert the edits of both myself and other editors (with the reason related to "non-consensus edit" or something similiar), and continues to leave snarky comments in their edit summaries. The editor simply refuses to stop edit-warring over such trivial content, and will continue to attempt to force their preferred revision, justifying their edits as "the most recent consensus". Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:44, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Small poke

Just want you to know that a few small changes will be implement to MOS:TV, based on the most recent rewrite discussion, in case you would like to voice any opinions regarding them before they are implemented. Once those are done, the next section to cover will be the first "Image" section, with the first "Lead" section and everyone's favorite topic, "Plot", on deck. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:43, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Question

I saw you helping out with my color on the episode tables and also noticed you are prominent in the Television WikiProject, I can't seem to figure out why on Draft:List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes the summaries are still showing up. Could you help me with this or tell me what I did wrong? Or is it because it is in the draft space? Thank you. Chase (talk) 18:24, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@CCamp2013: Doesn't seem like the summaries are showing up anymore, seems to be fixed. In usages of {{Episode list/sublist|****}}, the part labelled **** should be the list-of-episodes article, and the season tables should only be transcluded to the article - anything different (in either the **** or where it's transcluded to) will cause the summaries to appear. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:49, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD Question.

Hey! I noticed you reverted my edit on the Vixen article, which is completely fine, but I'm a tad confused about WP:CITELEAD. Your reasoning was to prevent citation in the lead, but why is it that an article like American Horror Story is allowed to have 17? It's considered a good article, but if it violates that rule then shouldn't that be an issue? Keeping in the universe of Vixen; Arrow, The Flash and Legends of Tomorrow also all contain citations in their lead. Kelege (talk) 05:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kelege: Per WP:CITELEAD, if it is cited in the body of the article, then it shouldn't be cited in the lead. If it's not included and/or cited in the body, then it should be cited in the lead. If other articles do it, then that doesn't make it right, per WP:OTHER, and the articles offending the guideline should be adjusted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Ohhh that makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining it. Kelege (talk) 11:36, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Whose Line

I'm pretty sure the edits you recently made on Whose Line episodes for Season 12 are incorrect. It doesn't make sense for there to be a huge gap between October 2015 and May 2016 within the same season. And then have Season 11 end in July 2016 and season 12 to start up in July 2016 as well. Clearly the futon critic website is incorrect.

The Season 12 summary also mentions that Wayne Brady was out for the Episode 20 taping. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C02:6020:75BA:F549:4E7C:3D02 (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm not sure how familiar you are with WikiProject Television, but The Futon Critic always has and always will be considered as a reliable source, given that it uses information from press releases that it receives from networking companies. That is, where it states that Whose Line Season 12 has 12 episodes, is not original research on The Futon Critic's part. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

colors

I did not realize the color issue so do as you feel is best for that. I am mainly interested in updating the actual content anyway. Thanks for the heads-up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexianUSA (talk • contribs) 04:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@TexianUSA: I reverted and warned you multiple times, and you didn't realize it? Right. In any case, I've revoked the report; please self-revert the edits concerning the non-compliant colours. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:09, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what the "non-compliant" colors are. Is there a list somewhere? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexianUSA (talk • contribs) 07:04, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Read WP:COLOR, and the first post I posted on your talk page, then reinstate the edits I implemented. (And just click "Edit" when replying, instead of creating a new section again). Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:08, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what colors you prefer or which ones you chose to implement for the episode list sections. I was simply using basic red, green, blue, etc. Maybe just black and white would simplify it and eliminate the issue altogether? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TexianUSA (talk • contribs) 09:43, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Never mind. I'll fix the article tomorrow. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:53, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Re:IP talk page

Heh, you beat me to it again (edit conflicts). Thanks. DonQuixote (talk) 23:39, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

@DonQuixote: Hah, no problems. If the editor forces their edit again, I'll revert, so that you don't violate 3RR. I'm not sure how they think it's grammatically correct at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

A Piraat for you!

Thanks! DonQuixote (talk) 00:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Once Upon a Production Code

Would you mind adding your view to my growing collection? LLArrow (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox on The Husbands of River Song

Could I ask you what the issue with putting the name of the next episode (The Return of Doctor Mysterio) on the infobox is just because there is no article? It's just, I can't see one. TedEdwards (talk) 19:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Following infoboxes such as {{Infobox television season}}, which doesn't allow links or text to/for the next season until the article for it exists. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Promotional poster for season articles

Hello there! How've you been? There's something bothering me for a little while now, someone has been deleting a number of season posters and uploading the DVD cover instead, with the spine showing and sometimes even the DVD case. I'm reaching you because I wanted to know if it's a new police or guideline that says to prefer DVD covers over posters or if it's a newbie changing it out of his own will... Thanks a bunch!

P.S.: some of the seasons the user has changed are The Walking Dead and American Horror Story — Artmanha (talk) 18:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) WP:TVIMAGE (which actually is going through a rewrite now here) says that a poster or DVD cover should be used. I've seen editors decide to reupload the DVD cover, even if it is exactly the same as the promotional poster, just because it is the DVD cover. Preferably, an image without the spine or the case should be used. However, if a promotional poster for the season and the DVD cover are completely distinct, it may be worth having a discussion regarding which to use. And in my opinion, the end result should be the image that is most representative of the season and also has variance to the main article (for an example see the poster for Daredevil season 1 versus the home media cover, which is almost exactly the same as the title card. Thus the poster should be used in this situation). Hope that helps. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 01:36, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: I really can't add anything to what Favre1fan93 has said; he has covered it perfectly. On the topic of the files, I have reverted and restored them back as far as possible; the previous files for The Walking Dead still existed, but the American Horror Story files had been deleted, so I cropped the covers and re-uploaded them to their previous file names. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:@Favre1fan93: you guys are the absolute best!! It's safe to say Wikipedia is a better place because of you guys. Thanks a lot! — Artmanha (talk) 23:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Dummy

In this case, in particular, I am the one completely at fault here. I'm not getting enough sleep. You don't have to fork off, just spoon a little ;). LLArrow (talk) 04:27, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Whose Line Season 12

http://www.thefutoncritic.com/showatch/whose-line-is-it-anyway/ http://www.thefutoncritic.com/news/2016/04/05/the-cw-network-announces-additional-2016-summer-premieres-1414/20160405cw01/

Those two links from thefutoncritic specify that the new Season 12 season started May 23rd, 2016. It also contradicts itself saying it only has 12 episodes in season 12. Not so "reliable" to be flawless I think.

It does not make sense for the last episode of Season 11 to be July 27th, 2016; and the first episodes of Season 12 to be July 26th, 2016 (one day previous).

Plenty of other sources using that same CW press release that show that season 12 started on May 23rd, 2016: http://tvseriesfinale.com/tv-show/whose-line-anyway-season-12-cw-series-returns-may/ http://www.yourentertainmentcorner.com/?p=85616 http://cwpittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2016/04/20/2016-summer-premieres/

I think it is more conclusive to go off a date to specify when a season started, instead of using a # of episodes measure. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4C02:6020:C99B:7C25:FCC1:D29E (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Arrow episode reverts

Greetings, Alex.

Don't worry, I am not going to self-revert my reversion of Jack Sebastian's edit. I left my justifications on both Talk pages for & against the argument, but I firmly believe that matters should be left alone.

Anyway, thanks for the support on this.

Ooznoz (talk) 10:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)Ooznoz

The Walking Dead season images

Hello again, the user reverted your reverts and re-added the DVD covers with the slip cases, using the nonsense argument that it represents better the season while the poster represents only the premiere episode... Could you take a look at it? Thanks a lot! — Artmanha (talk) 00:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: All articles reverted and files requested for speedy deletion. I'll post on the editor's talk page about this; they've been told multiple times as it is. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! U DA BEST! — Artmanha (talk) 02:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@Artmanha: No problems! You might be interested in seeing the discussion on the editor's talk page. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:19, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Changes to color tables on RWBY Episode List

Hello!

I made the edits as I felt that they matched the importance of color in the show. I do now see how that they can cause issues with for people with visual impairments. For that I apologize, and I will update the colors on the tables as soon as feasibly possible. I am in the process of reviewing the document you provided to find colors that will work for the table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IPat8 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Last warning

If I find you wikihounding me again, as you did here, you aren't going to like the results. (Redacted) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: False claim on the hounding, to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor The fact that you think that was about you says a lot about your ego. That article was being used as a battleground for the edit-war of multiple editors. Perhaps if you weren't an uncivil, edit-warring and disruptive editor, this wouldn't have been the case. You typically get defensive when you know you're in the wrong. Go ahead, report me again - see if you don't get blocked again for your actions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: Aw. I'm your hound. So sweet, especially when the page is on my watchlist. Such hound, much stalk, plenty of lol. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have removed your 'warning' regarding me undoing your refactoring of my posts. Of course you know you aren't supposed to do that, but you could argue that you didn't know that you couldn't alter the posts of others who post to your page. Of course, you can say you just so happen to be editing the same pages as I am , and just happen to reverting posts that I made with marked frequency. Some people come here to improve the encyclopedia or maybe to learn something new. Clearly, that isn't what you are here for. I will ask you to leave me alone. Do not refactor my posts, revert my edits or post to my page. You have nothing to say to me that I want to hear. If you have a burning need to revert me, you'd best find an admin or someone else to do it for you. I am deeply concerned that you find your wikistalking of me to be a funny little game. The next time it occurs, I will treat it with all the seriousness it actually deserves. This will be my last post to you, unless you make it necessary in the future for me to request your block or ban. This is as far as you will push me, Alex. You will not stalk me any further. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 08:50, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: I'm an editor with over 40k edits over two years, and apparently it's me who's the one who's not here to edit. Says the one who mass deletes content disruptively. Did I mention hypocritical? "Your page and edits are now watchlisted." I wonder who's the stalker now. Enjoy watching me run, kiddo. My talk page, my rules. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Arrow

The executive producers have said on multiple occasions that they want to do something different to the comics. In fact, they do not like comic book fans at all. A thorough examination of all episodes of this series shows that while characters trademarked by DC are used, there really isn't any proper signs that this is a Green Arrow adaptation (the tones and messages are vastly different to the comics). Hence, "loosely based", like the Jonah Hex film of 2010.

Edit: What I say might come across as conjecture, but there's plenty of proof. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.152.173.70 (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

When I said to discuss it on the talk page, I did mean the article's talk page. And it's not a matter of who/what the producers like, or the "messages"; the adaptation is based on the character of Green Arrow and those that appear in DC comics. If it's based on that character, with background adapted from the comics, and (as you put it) the shows that are DC trademarks, then it's not "loosely based" at all. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Episode Tables and "TBA"

The 'float-over' the "TBA" in episode tables says "To be announced", not "To be added". If the float-over was changed to "To be added", then that would be an acceptable alternative to "N/A". But "To be announced" is not a viable alternative to "N/A" for long-past-aired shows where just a few individual episode writer or director credits are missing – for those, either "N/A" or a "TBA" with a "To be added" float-over are appropriate. Just thought this is worth bring up, as you are a template guy and probably can fix the float-over text... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:21, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I think that TBA has always meant "To be announced". "To be added" is redundant, because it is obvious that the information hasn't already been added yet. For past shows where the information has likely been announced but we don't actually know what it is, we should be using N/A, which means "Not available". - adamstom97 (talk) 21:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Try this: TBA (it has the correct float-over). And it's not that the credits aren't "not available", they are. It's just that someone has yet to get around to adding it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: The point is that "To be announced" is not correct for shows that have already aired. (It would be fine for yet-to-have-aired episodes of TV series, because "To be announced" would be strictly accurate in those cases.) But in shows that have already aired, "To be announced" is in fact not accurate, because the credits for those episodes have already aired, it's just that no editor here has added them yet. For already aired shows, "To be added" or "N/A" ("Not available") is a much more accurate table entry. (And, FTR, I don't think there's really any difference between using "TBA/To be added" vs. "N/A/Not available" – they're equivalent in my book in terms of missing info in episode tables for already aired episodes...) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Can You Please Change The Name of my Page Back?

I know my page started out pretty rough, but it's getting bigger, in fact bigger than a few pages on Wikipedia! While your are on it, can you just rename my page from "Draft:List of Gems Across the Cosmos episodes" to "Gems Across the Cosmos" instead? Please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Breaking Point (talk • contribs)

No, as there is not sufficient content for the article to be in the main space. Work on it as a draft, then when you're finished, only then should it be moved back. Also, no-one owns pages, per WP:OWN. And please sign your posts on talk pages with ~~~~. Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)