User talk:Alex 21/Archive 26

Fixing up the Template:Further universe

Hi, I noticed you'd shuffled around the template that's now called Template:Further, along with its two alternate identities. I just wanted to call your attention to what looks like a side-effect that's breaking Template:See transclusions. See e.g. Wikipedia:Citing sources#Inline_citations.

I left an edit request at Template talk:Further with more details, perhaps you could take a look at it if you're able? Thanks. -- FeRD_NYC (talk) 05:33, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

@FeRD NYC: All fixed. -- Alex^TW 06:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

The Walking Dead: Michonne infobox

Hi Alex, how would you fix the formatting on the "release" line of The Walking Dead: Michonne's infobox? Because to me it looks wrong, maybe the platforms should be in a plainlist, rather than separated with comas, and the & should be an and. But I'm not really familiar with video game infoboxes, so would you say it needs fixing, and if so where please? Cheers. Theo (edits) 05:20, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Gotham Episodes

Hello. I see you support my decision to remove the season subtitles for Gotham. If you can manage to put a message on every episode page besides season 1 with a possible new title, I'd appreciate it. However, I realize that may take up a lot of time, so if you can't, that's okay. I would also like to interest you in Draft:Gotham (season 2). I would really like that article to replace the season 2 section of the episode list, and I found the rejection reason to be very poor. So please message me if you are interested in helping organize Gotham on Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. JE98 (talk) 15:56, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

seriously...

Your unnecessarily snippy reply aside, was there really a need to just arbitrarily remove useful and sourced content? We list episodes before they air, so what's wrong with noting this one? You have the ref, add it to the table if want, but better to have it somewhere then nowhere at all. Jeez guy, try an work with people instead of tromping all over everything, making it 'your way', mmkay? Have a nice day Nevermind. I took care of it. (Don't know why you just couldn't have done that, but whatever). Have a nice day - ^theWOLFchild 10:34, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: My apologies that I didn't soften my reply for you. Wikipedia is not a television guide. We only add episodes once there are two pieces of information - e.g. title and air date, director and writer, etc. Nor is your most recent addition acceptable either - Google Translate and Actucine.com are not considered reliable sources. When you say that it is better to have it somewhere then nowhere at all, this is wrong - there is no rush to add it. Please wait for a reliable source to re-add the information, and familiarize yourself with the guidelines of the Television WikiProject. This all applies to Designated Survivor as well. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 11:15, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Actucine is "not reliable"? That's been determined at RSN? The info was quite clear. We allow sources from other languages, and while I didn't intent to add the translate pre-link, it only helps, not hinders, (so accidental bonus). I don't see the problem. There was 2 pieces of info - date & title. It's only a few weeks away. I see no harm in letting the Blindspot addition remain on the table, it did not look at all out of place. As for the other show. DS, if the table requires 2 pieces of info, then fine... you have a RS ref for the date of the next episode, so why not add that to the prose somewhere? Again, there is no harm, its simply providing info... info that people are looking for (isn't that why we're here?). Seems you would rather have all shows only be added after they've aired, basically in a historical context. But, go ahead, keep ripping out sourced, useful info. Keep up the good work. - ^theWOLFchild 11:35, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

its simply providing info... info that people are looking for (isn't that why we're here?) No, actually, it's not. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Keep up the good work Thanks, I will! -- Alex^TW 12:51, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

wow

So I add some useful and sourced info, which you immediately removed because, (how did you put it? oh yeah...) "Wikipedia is not a tv guide", and "there is no rush". Then today, on The Gifted (TV series) page, I see an identical edit was made, way back on Nov 23. And despite you being very active on that page, having edited it no less than 12 times since Nov. 23, you allowed that edit to remain. In fact, when at one point it was removed by someone else, you restored it. I have no idea how you could possibly justify such hypocrisy, but seeing you try might just be entertaining. Meanwhile, I think I'll go re-add my edits. Have a nice day. - ^theWOLFchild 06:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

@Thewolfchild: The finale is a special episode, and it does indeed state two items of information - two-hour special, and date. One date for another episode does not equate to the date for a season finale. Bit obvious. -- Alex^TW 07:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Ah, so I am free to re-add the episode info you removed, as long as it has "two items of information". Got it. - ^theWOLFchild 01:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Production numbers of Last Ship

Please do not remove the production numbers again. I know they are not the episode numbers. The reason why I noticed that you had deleted them is that I need them.

Production numbers re particularly import for the Last Ship TV series because the series never displays the episode name anywhere. The only way to go from a recording to identifying the episode is to look at the last frame of the end credits, which has the production numbers, and then go to wikipedia to map production number to episode number.

Again, please don't tell me I don't need these numbers. I noticed you nuked them is because I needed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MartinCracauer (talk • contribs) 04:00, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@MartinCracauer: It doesn't matter what you need, Wikipedia does not base its content on the requirements of out editor out of thousands. I'll repeat myself again: Per previous discussions held at the Television WikiProject, season designation numbers (in the form of "season"x"episode") are not considered production numbers. They do not belong there. And please sign your posts with ~~~~, else risk your posts being deleted from my talk page. -- Alex^TW 04:07, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

This information is useful. You on the other hand seem to be on a power trip to remove random information that you personally don't see the use for. This doesn't seem to be the first time you did that. Again, in the case of The Last Ship, that number (whatever the proper designation might be) is the only way to identify an episode from a video. The number appears in the credits. Asking the other way round, what harm do you see in this information? MartinCracauer (talk) 20171214T232345 —Preceding undated comment added 04:24, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand what I am saying, so I'll make it simple for you. Other editors appeared. Not just me. Discussed this topic. Finished their discussion. Got a consensus. Concluded that SxEE numbers are not production codes. Make sense? -- Alex^TW 04:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

More Gotham Stuff

Hello. Just wanted to let you know I created Gotham (season 2) myself, finding the reason for the rejection not to be a good one. Also, if this move passes, we have to start tomorrow. Thanks again for reading. JE98 (talk) 16:38, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

@JE98: I've reverted the move. The article is not yet complete, and does not have nearly enough real-world information after the episode table. Look at the Season 3 and 4 articles for examples. And we don't have to start tomorrow - read WP:NORUSH. There is no rush. -- Alex^TW 22:59, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

I can understand why you reverted the move, but I still do not like the reason why it was rejected though. I apologize if I sound like I am rushing, but I really want these moves to start as soon as possible because there are 55 pages we have to worry about renaming right now, which is a lot. JE98 (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

Goat-star of Determination

I bestow upon you a Goat-star of Determination, for completing the big hassle of converting all of MOS:TV to use "MOS:" instead of "WP:" shortcuts. I do a lot this migration myself, so I know what tedium it is.

 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  14:00, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: No problems. As a programmer, I typically use regex find-and-replace to make repetitive edits that would otherwise be tedious, so it wasn't at all difficult. -- Alex^TW 04:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking more of the work of creating the redirects; most of the more topical MoS pages use "WP:" shortcuts and don't even have "MOS:" equivalents yet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  11:36, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Ahh. Still no problem, it was mostly copy and pasting the code you put in your message. If you've any other MoS's that need updating, let me know, I'd be happy to work on them. -- Alex^TW 11:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, Alex 21. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Category emptying of 2018 television debuts

Hello,

I don't agree with your emptying of this category (which renders it temporarily worthless). There are tons of categories that describe things that might change, but probably won't. If somehow some Act of God / disaster / other event means that an expected premiere is pushed back, then for that particular article, the category can just be removed or updated - same as for the many, many other categories that can change. Yes, premieres that already happened are special in that they can't really change, but that doesn't matter; future premieres is still a useful and verifiable category.

Would you complain if I reverted you on this? Or any other thoughts / want to bring this to a wider discussion somewhere? SnowFire (talk) 04:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I recommend starting this discussion at WT:TV; you'll find a multitude of editors who will agree on not adding the category until the series premieres. The category is meant to be worthless until 2018; also see the deletion of Category:2018 American television seasons. -- Alex^TW 04:45, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Sure, done. Take a look. SnowFire (talk) 05:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Two-way IBAN

Per the ANI thread, you are now subject to a two-way interaction ban with User:Jack Sebastian. Please be sure to read WP:IBAN to familiarize yourself with what you may and may not do under the terms of this measure. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:24, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Hello AlexTheWhovian: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 17:06, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

adamstom97 (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas Alex 21!!


Hi Alex 21, I wish you and your family a very Merry Christmas and a very Happy New Year,
Thanks for all your help and contributions on the 'pedia! ,
   –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 13:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Heddwch ac ewyllys da

		Compliments of the season Wishing you all the best for 2018 — good health, sufficient wealth, peace and contentment
		Cheers! ‑ ‑ Gareth Griffith‑Jones The Welsh Buzzard ‑ ‑ 19:48, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays

From Stave one of Dickens A Christmas Carol Old Marley was as dead as a door-nail. Mind! I don’t mean to say that I know, of my own knowledge, what there is particularly dead about a door-nail. I might have been inclined, myself, to regard a coffin-nail as the deadest piece of ironmongery in the trade. But the wisdom of our ancestors is in the simile; and my unhallowed hands shall not disturb it, or the Country’s done for. You will therefore permit me to repeat, emphatically, that Marley was as dead as a door-nail. So you see even Charles was looking for a reliable source :-) Thank you for your contributions to the 'pedia. ~ MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

Change is almost here :-)

Hi DQ. I know there are lots of nice compilations of the Xmass episodes out there. This is my favorite because it includes the First Doctor's lines from "The Feast of Steven." Enjoy Monday's (wait is it on Monday for you?) episode! MarnetteD|Talk 22:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

DQ? And it's Tuesday at 6am for me. You can be I'll be awake for it! Sad but excited for it. -- Alex^TW 02:18, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

1000 apologies for my copy paste error ATW. After a 100+ Xmas messages I went a little bleary eyed and forgetful. Best wishes for your 2018. MarnetteD|Talk 04:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The Walking Dead RT scores S1

Template:The Walking Dead RT scores S1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 14:43, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The X-Files RT scores S10

Template:The X-Files RT scores S10 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Alex 21. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,636 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 01:42, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, AlexTheWhovian!

Happy New Year!

AlexTheWhovian,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Obsolete category

Hello. This category is obsolete and even has wrong content. Could you delete it? Regards, Akocsg (talk) 08:36, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

@Akocsg: Apologies, but since I'm not an admin, I cannot delete categories. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

War Doctor

On the aforementioned article's infobox, it has the heading "chronology", with nothing under it. Is there any way of getting rid of this heading you know of? Btw Happy Christmas. TedEdwards 23:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: A belated Merry Christmas! I'll take a look at what I can do. -- Alex^TW 15:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: It seems that one of my talk page followers as fixed it. -- Alex^TW 02:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Victoria Series Overview

I thought I'd ask before I reverted but has Victoria been renewed for 'Six more specials'??? TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho: ITV administration expects Victoria to run for a total of six series. However, even though we're only on on our second series and first special, it doesn't hurt to use a less expanded layout early on. See List of Call the Midwife episodes and List of Downton Abbey episodes for similar layouts. -- Alex^TW 02:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

'Expects' is not confirmed. And then even if it does run for six series there is no guarantee that there will be a Christmas special for all of those. This would eventually be WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. For now I think it would be best to leave it with the special as separate and if it gets to the point that it is crowded then we can use the less expanded layout. TheDoctorWho (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it doesn't hurt to use a more compact version earlier on, nor are we including anything that states that it will definitely run for six series, so no, it's not CRYSTAL. We are simply using a version now that other articles have used without any issue. What is wrong with this version? What's "best" with the separated version? -- Alex^TW 03:04, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

No you're version is not including anything that states that it will definitely however it is implying it because you're writing it now how it would be written if it ran for six series. Yes I agree after six specials it would be cluttered. But from the same view it doesn't hurt to use a more expanded view earlier. It's not that hard to change later on. The template is specifically made to be used with specials if specials are aired. It's not made to put the special in the same row as the season and use '(+1)'. It wouldn't make sense to wash your hands in the shower when there is a sink right next to you. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:12, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm displaying it as such now because it's more compact. I'd recommended it be kept as such even if the series had been cancelled with two series. Please do not put words into my mouth. Thanks. Three articles, and nobody has raised an issue with this layout - perhaps it'd best if this be taken to the article's talk page now, and not my personal one? I'm not sure how the template is not "made" to display it this way, but it's acceptable if there were more seasons? Does the template suddenly become acceptable to use in that way? Your analogy is also lost on me... (Although, a sink is smaller and more compact than a shower, and if that's what we're going for...) -- Alex^TW 03:23, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Does being more compact help anything. The first time I looked at it, it confused me which gives me more reason why it should be expanded (for now). I'd especially expect it to be expanded if cancelled after two series. I don't recall putting words into your mouth so.... And I believe in a case like this three articles means nothing that it needs to be decided on an article by article basis. Also you almost made me spit my drink out with the edit summary on your second edit to this last response. But no you didn't get it, my point was that a sink is made for handwashing not a shower which leads to my point about series overview being made for specials not your compact version. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:00, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, yes, Wikipedia is all about removing clutter and whitespace and the like. The series overview was made to include anything - I could put in a picture of an elephant for the episodes if I so wanted. There is no way that it was "made". A sink's also made for brushing your teeth, but I brush mine in the shower, so. It's all up to personal interpretation. If it needs to be decided on an article by article basis, then again, I recommend it be taken to the article talk page, not a user's talk page. If more editors come out of the woodworks and agree with the expanded version, then by all means. -- Alex^TW 04:08, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Well I believe that clearer information is better than being compact. And that's true I guess the next time I have disagreement on a series overview table I'll make sure to put a picture of David Tennant and Billie Piper in there (Those are the best in my opinion). Also that's interesting to know although it's a little TMI. And your wish is my command I'll take this to the article talk page and see how it goes. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

Legion

Well, I think I'm back. I'm trying to cut down on what I am focusing on and just do some bits and pieces where I can, but probably spend less time on Wiki than I had been ... call it a New Year's resolution. I have started by addressing your GA review comments, so my changes and replies to you are waiting for you over there. Thanks for the review and general support, hopefully this year progresses better than the last did. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back. After my wikibrek over the holidays, my resolution's exactly the same; I cut down my watchlist from 800+ to about 390. Spent too much time here. I'll take a look at the review soon. Best wishes for the new year. -- Alex^TW 08:19, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Game of Thrones season 8

Hi Alex, in your edit summary you said that according to the source the whole eighth season of GoT will air in 2019. However, all i can read there is: The epic fantasy series Game of Thrones will return for its six-episode, eighth and final season in 2019. I believe "will return" only refers to the season premiere. Am i missing something? Thanks. -- Radiphus 01:48, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I guess we're interpreting it differently, yes... When it says that the show returns for its final season in 2019, I assumed that this means that the whole season will return in 2019, as it specifies the season, not just the show returning in 2019. If not, the same then applies to the Season 8 episode table. -- Alex^TW 05:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Though i believe the end date is not specified in the source, i guess it's not damaging the article for now, unless we start hearing of news about a possible "late 2019 release". -- Radiphus 05:35, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Black Lightning (TV series)

From https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/06/26/black-lightning-cast-gives-insights-season-one/ :"They also mention that both Jennifer and Anissa are starting to get their powers, as their comic book counterparts do." Also noted on the official FB page by CW. --AlisonW (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Fear the Walking Dead (season 4)

Hello AlexTheWhovian. I noticed that you created the redirect Fear the Walking Dead (season 4) and have been editing Fear the Walking Dead-related articles recently, and I was wondering if you could provide a second opinion on the draft at Draft:Fear the Walking Dead (season 4). I was thinking that it's currently too soon for a standalone article about the season at this time, but apparently a premiere date was announced earlier today, and the creator of the draft has asked me to reconsider. Do you have any thoughts on whether this article should be created? Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 04:04, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Pinging Hurricane Seth in this as well, so they see my reply and agreement with Mz7.

There is not enough to make a separate article in the mainspace for the season yet. A premiere date does not mean that the article needs to exist, much like how a premiere date does not mean a row should exist in the series overview table per WP:TVOVERVIEW. All the article contains at the moment is a short lead, a cast list found on any other season article or the parent article, and very minimal production information. Not even an episode table or ratings table exists, meaning that the article should be moved to the article space only when we're a lot closer to it actually premiering. There is no information on that page that is unique to that page, that cannot be found anywhere else.

There needs to be a lot more information to make it a separate article - there is no rush for it to be created, and more time in the draft space means that there's more time to perfect the article and bring it to the standards it needs to be at to be separate. -- Alex^TW 04:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, AlexTheWhovian. @Hurricane Seth: Feel free to continue to work on the article in draft space, and when sufficient information becomes available in the future, feel free to ping us again and we can reevaluate the circumstances. I have no doubts this will be a valid article, but perhaps not now. Mz7 (talk) 06:12, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Editing other editors’ markup

If you would rather have your markup errors preserved, that’s kind of inconsiderate of any problems they might cause for others, but your prerogative. But please do not deliberately restore errors made by other editors that have been corrected—as a perfectly acceptable edit under the WP:talk page guidelines. You may not like the practice, but it has community support, and its reversal does not. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not up to you to correct parts of their messages. If they used that markup, they did so intentionally. Leave them as they are. They are not articles, layout is not as necessary.

You seem to be quoting the WP:TPO section for "Fixing format errors". However, you need to read all of it: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed, but normally you should stop if there is any objection." Reading: It's FUNdamental! Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:31, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

That objection isn’t yours to make when it wasn’t your post. If you disagree with allowing other editors to fix other editors’ formatting and layout errors in discussions, petition to change the guideline. Otherwise, it’s not your concern. And improper threading does have an effect, on screen readers for instance, even if no effects are visible to you. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:38, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for reversing my error, by the way. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 07:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

It's anyone's to revert. When it says you should stop if there is any objection, does it say who? No. And what can I say except you're welcome? -- Alex^TW 07:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want to wikilawyer over it, the page explicitly allows corrective edits that don’t affect content, but it does not allow reversion of such edits. But my non-wikilawyer answer would be: common sense. It makes sense that someone might feel affronted when someone comes along and fixes their mistakes for them, and persisting would start a stupid fight (sorry about that, by the way, seriously, I should have stopped). It doesn’t make sense for an uninvolved editor to object to something that he has nothing to do with and that doesn’t affect him in any way.

Me, I just fix it as a matter of habit when responding to a thread. I’d vastly prefer if talkpages used semantic HTML, but unordered lists and description lists are the closest we’ve got, and frankly it’s just stupid to break a nested list in the middle to start it all over. Not that the user is stupid; it’s stupid that changing the * at the beginning of the line does that. But that’s our system, unless WP:Flow gets off the ground. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 08:01, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Mentions of wikilawyering from the wikilawyering one... Interesting. You know the guidelines and policies (apparently), read them and follow every part of them, not just what you want. You can stop posting on my talk page now. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 08:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

nctv

I mean, I think that the descriptors are helpful people who are unfamiliar with those specific shows. I don't see why its controversial, but at least the examples remain. Can you explain why you think the descriptors are problematic in a way that outweighs their educational value to people outside of the viewing area of those shows? -- Netoholic @ 15:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

The genre of the show is irrelevant in relation to what that section of the guideline is describing, and it doesn't matter if people are unfamiliar with the show or not - if they want to know, that's what the article links are for. Please note that content dispute should be taken to the article's talk page instead of user talk pages. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 15:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

All the other examples later in the page have some explanatory text with them. I mean, if you feel this is important enough to be considered a "content dispute" rather than me just asking a fellow editor their own justification, then so be it, but I was hoping this was just a minor thing we could clear up. -- Netoholic @ 17:02, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Heads up

Thank you for the changes to the structure of the Doctor Who episode lists. Regarding the syntax in the series overview template of both articles, in case you didn't know, the link for the classic Doctors on the 2005 onwards list links to the 2005 onwards article and the same goes for the revived Doctors on the 63-89 article. Unfortunately I can't figure out what's wrong with the syntax but I'm wondering if you could work it out. TedEdwards 18:17, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Cheers for that; all fixed! -- Alex^TW 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The End of the F***ing World intertitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The End of the F***ing World 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 fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. GMG^talk 13:32, 25 January 2018 (UTC)