User talk:Alex 21/Archive 44

Inspector Gadget 1983

Hello, I hope you are well.

Um, I hope I'm not bothering you but is there any way you could fix the airdates on the page List of Inspector Gadget 1983 episodes? All of the airdates are wrong.

The series overview is correct but when you look at the episode lists, all of the airdates have been changed to 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Could you please change the dates to the correct airdates?

Thank you in advance. Kaybugg1 (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Season 2 DVD.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Season 2 DVD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:House of the Dragon episode redirects to lists

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove redlink script

Hello Alex! Your Remove redlink script has a bug and it is not working. ~ KHATTAB TALK 17:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"War of the Worlds (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect War of the Worlds (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#War of the Worlds (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Colin Baker Complete Season One US

according to BBC Shop US The American version of Doctor Who: The Collection Season 22 on Blu-ray region A, Will be released on 10/18/22 (which is October 18, 2022).

Here is the website address: https:shop.bbc.com/products/doctor-who-colin-baker-complete-season-1-blu-ray/

Unfortunately I don’t know how to add references, I never actually do any editing whatsoever on Wikipedia. I only read the articles. i’m looking forward to when it comes out. 2A00:23C5:6307:7F01:F574:112A:5818:3AD9 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding next DW episode before article created

Hi Alex, I've just been reverted by Indagate (talk · contribs) here at Legend of the Sea Devils with the edit summary Template:Infobox television episode/doc, description of parameter "next" says "if an article or redirect exist, link to it", so seems it should be included even though just redirect. Where is your mentioned consensus please?. Obviously their point about Infobox television episode is flimsy as the article doesn't use that infobox, but regarding the consensus on Doctor Who episodes to not include links to redirects to series articles, do you know where that came from? I've found evidence of it in 2016 here but I can't figure how that consensus came to be? Thanks --TedEdwards 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ted, why a user's talk page and not the article or project talk page for wider participation? Don't think that point is "flimsy" as that infobox seems like a fork of that template which has the much more developed doc. Recent major examples which link to redirects are The Lord of the Rings and She-Hulk. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked Alex the question above because you asked me Where is your mentioned consensus please?. I do not know where that consensus comes from, I just know it exists, but I thought Alex might know the answer, hence I asked him. I'm not starting a discussion here, but before I start the discussion elsewhere, funnily enough I need to know the reasoning for the consensus. In short, I'm trying to find the answer to exactly what you asked so I really can't see why you're complaining. --TedEdwards 23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably wouldn't hold up as a full consensus but there was a brief discussion about it here that you may find useful . TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that TheDoctorWho. It does appear the consensus changed without me noticing (if it hasn't, I'm sure Indagate's edit, or similar edits in the future, will be disputed at some point), which seems fair enough (although I will point out Doctor Who does not necessarily have to do the same as other articles if there's a reason not to). That said, I won't remove the link to the redirect. --TedEdwards 19:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Updates to Series overview for specials

Hey, wanted to take this out of the MCU Phase Four discussion. I was looking at the table, and was curious if it'd be easiest to make the new parameter |special= which would take the place of |series=, changing the column name from "Series" to "Special", and then if that's used, not have the need for |color#S=, |episodes#S=, or |link#S=. Is that what you may have been thinking too? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

So, instead of what we're currently using:

{{Series overview
| series      = ''[[Werewolf by Night (TV special)|Werewolf by Night]]''
| infoA       = y
| infoB       = y
| infoC       = y

| color1S     = #C95219
| linkT1S     = Special
| start1S     = {{Start date|2022|10|7}}
| infoA1S     = Heather Quinn and Peter Cameron
| infoB1S     = [[Michael Giacchino]]
| infoC1S     = Released
}}

You'd be looking for something more like this?

{{Series overview
| special     = ''[[Werewolf by Night (TV special)|Werewolf by Night]]''
| infoA       = y
| infoB       = y
| infoC       = y

| start1      = {{Start date|2022|10|7}}
| infoA1      = Heather Quinn and Peter Cameron
| infoB1      = [[Michael Giacchino]]
| infoC1      = Released
}}

If so, I could look into it. My comment related to the table at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four#Television specials, where the Season and Episodes columns really aren't necessary at all, but then removing those would also remove the colour. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. The color for the specials aren't really necessary because we aren't using episodes table (since the plot is more following a film at that point with just a summary), so I say that's fine to also be lost. I think we just used the colors because when in the same table with the TV series, it was necessary. I don't know if this gets adapted by other users in other instances if they'd want color to remain, but at least for what the MCU will be using them for, I don't think we need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, as was done on the Phase Four article, I think just hardcoding the table like the films is the way to go, and thus we don't need a change to Series overview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourteenth Doctor

Hi Alex. Regarding your revert of my edit, I believe you have made a misapprehension. When I said the BBC News article was a secondary source, this meant it was not the original announcement, it instead reported on that announcement, and therefore the "BBC News" article should not be taken as the "BBC Media Centre" saying Gatwa was playing the "14th Time Lord", as it is not BBC News' responsibility or right to announce information about BBC shows. It is instead the Media Centre that does that, and I have pointed out their announcement made no mention of the "Fourteenth Doctor" or the like. BBC News is not privy to information about shows produced by the BBC anymore than any other news company or producer in the UK, so when BBC News mentioned the "14th Time Lord", they were making the same false assumption fans and other sources made, as it wasn't mentioned in the announcement. --TedEdwards 22:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. However, given that it is a reliable source, the content can be used without issue; making personal assumptions on their "assumptions" is WP:OR. Primary sources are not the only acceptable sources, nor must they take precedence; in fact, Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not making any assumptions, I am saying how BBC News is basically entirely separate from Doctor Who production, and how they are just like any other secondary source. Also that sentence about Gatwa being explicitly said as playing the 14th Time Lord can only be used if it is the primary source that said that, otherwise it's misleading as that sentence suggests the official announcement described him as the 14th, which it didn't. Thank you for your consideration. --TedEdwards 23:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, the "official announcement" does not take precedence. BBC News is a verifiable source, thus its contents can be used and sourced in Wikipedia articles; no primary sources supersedes it. Per WP:PST, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. If you need to reword the sentence to take away any assumption that the primary source explicitly referred to him as the "14th Time Lord" (which it doesn't), go for it. However, the quote is perfectly acceptable to remain. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Having been on Wikipedia for several years Alex, I understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia, and that quote you quoted is there because primary sources can't be used for discussing analysis/interpretation in articles or establishing notability, so articles should end up using more often than not secondary sources which can do those things. However primary sources can be used to cite basic facts (from PST A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts) e.g. who's playing the Doctor, just as well as secondary sources. My point is not that secondary sources shouldn't be used to cite that Gatwa was announced as playing the Doctor earlier this year, my point is using secondary sources to say something that wasn't actually mentioned in the secondary sources' primary source is not OK. It may be worth mentioning that secondary sources e.g. BBC News or The Guardian said he would play the 14th, but the article implies something incorrect when the sentence doesn't mention who explicitly referred [Gatwa] to as the "14th Time Lord", and the only assumption a reader will make is that is the was the official announcement that made the quote "14th Time Lord", which it didn't. --TedEdwards 23:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used to cite basic facts, that's correct. And articles do end up using secondary sources primarily, yes. However, that is not the say that the primary sources contain only the information that can be used and cited. Secondary sources can then analyze the primary sources and introduce new and further information, and this is exactly what PST says is the purpose secondary sources. So, I argue against that the point is using secondary sources to say something that wasn't actually mentioned in the secondary sources' primary source is not OK, because based on that, this is where we get the "14th Time Lord" quote. Was it originally said by the BBC? No. Was it later introduced in secondary sources? Yes, and that's perfectly acceptable for usage. If you want to change it to Ncuti Gatwa had previously been announced [...], and explicitly referred to by BBC News as the "14th Time Lord", then that's perfectly fine, because that's clarifiying who said it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

OK I made a bold edit in light of what you've said. I've removed the quote, since I don't think it's essential, and I've replaced it with a sentence saying many reports said he'd play the 14th Doctor etc. I also added another source (same Guardian source I cited earlier in this discussion) so I could say "many reports".

Just about secondary sources, I'm pretty sure they can't add facts out of the blue, otherwise they'd be a primary source for that fact (because They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them), only that there able to synthesise facts from facts from one or more primary sources. --TedEdwards 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

They're not adding facts "out of the blue". They are, per PST, "making analytic or evaluative claims about them". Claiming that Gatwa is the Fourteenth Doctor wasn't an "out of the blue" fact, it was an analytic claim. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, but I'm distinguishing between a secondary source saying "The BBC announced Ncuti is playing the 14th Doctor", which is an out-of-the-blue fact because the BBC only announced he'd play the Doctor, they didn't announce he would play the 14th Doctor, so that statement does not align with the primary source. If a secondary source said "The BBC announced Ncuti is playing the Doctor. Ncuti will succeed Jodie to play the 14th Doctor" (this is pretty much how both the BBC News and Guardian sources are written), that was fine before Sunday because the secondary source has inferred from the announcement (as secondary sources should do) that Ncuti was playing the 14th Doctor, but did not say the announcement said something that it didn't (also mentioning these secondary sources is good for the encylopedia because I think we both know Russell T Davies wanted everyone to think Ncuti was playing the Fourteenth Doctor). I know I'm making a subtle distinction, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from. --TedEdwards 17:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:House of the Dragon episode redirects to lists

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:The Boys Season 6 filmed at Pecaut Square Toronto I Want My Compound V.jpg

Files on Commons can't be moved here, this request can't be fulfilled.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Walking Dead: World Beyond (season 1)

Hello, Alex 21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Walking Dead: World Beyond".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Confused about Picard reversion

Hi Alex, just wondering what your edit summary, "The 'visual' split does nothing," means (hyphenation also does nothing?). Horizontal rules are pretty overwhelmingly used for multipart episodes on TV List of episodes pages, including other Star Trek episode lists. And with the specific Picard episodes in question, already with different writers, airdates, and plot summaries split, it makes even more sense to me to also split the episode numbers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What does <hr> do that – does not? The only difference between them is that <hr> "visualizes" the split more, just as the credits and airdates are actually split in their HTML table row. Out of the modern Star Trek episode lists, the dash is more common. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as you said, it visualizes the split more and more closely compliments the other parameters. Seems preferable to me. The dash conversely visualizes the split less. I would add the horizontal rule to the other episode lists too if you're not particularly opposed, though I see you've removed them before, which could be why dashes are more common? -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, it's solely a "visual" split, which harks back to when we used to use <hr> to "visually" split the credits for multi-part episodes as well. This was a severe accessibility issue which was fixed with the |DirectedBy_1=, |DirectedBy_2=, etc. parameters, and now we have actual separate hard-coded rows instead of these "visual" splits. We shouldn't be re-introducting them after removing the accessibility issue. Furthermore, "9–10" also reads as "9 to 10", which is the exact meaning of what we're wanting, and the rowspan'ing |EpisodeNumber= cell should summarize the entirety of the credits row, instead of being separated further. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That explanation makes more sense than your edit summary, but as the visual grammar of episode lists presents numbers vertically, I really don't agree that "9–10" gets that information across (or looks) any better than being consistent with all other episodes. If the accessibility reasoning is your strongest objection, I would propose hard coding rows for multipart episode numbers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

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

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A song for you

Hello Alex 21. I hope you are well. So this is the first time since the Doctor returned to our screens in '05 that we haven't had a Christmas or New Year's episode. Leon sums it up best for me :-) Best wishes for your 2023! MarnetteD|Talk 04:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents for deletion

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

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doctor Who: Philip Hinchcliffe Presents until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:02, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Alex 21!

Happy New Year!

Alex 21,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops ^⋠T⋡ 03:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Script bug

Hi. I am one of the users who use your script to reduce size of non free images. Today, when I uploaded a resized image at Alone (2023 film), the image was not resized. Instead, the size was same. Can you do something to help me? - CallistoR7 (talk) 08:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to have worked at the upload history. Either way, I need more troubleshooting to be able to solve this. For starters, what were the URLs of each of the images (the original, the correctly-resized ones, the faulty-resizes ones)? -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Faulty sources

Please note that my faulty sources that you have to keep fixing are not my fault, they are done automatically by the source generator after I feed it the URL. Panda815 (talk) 10:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The onus for contributive editing is on the editor adding the content, source generator or not. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes I know and will of course endeavour to check. I was just letting you know that that's how it happens, because otherwise you seem to think I'm being sloppy with doing them. The problem isn't "cite properly" as you said but "check citations and correct if necessary". Panda815 (talk) 10:37, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for merger of Template:Franchise total episodes

Template:Franchise total episodes has been nominated for merging with Template:Television franchise episode count. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Indagate (talk) 20:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Series 11 soundtrack.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Series 11 soundtrack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Series 12 soundtrack.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Series 12 soundtrack.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Series 9 soundtrack.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Series 9 soundtrack.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. --B-bot (talk) 18:10, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Series overview again

Hi Alex, apparently the changes you made to fix the Template:Series overview had been reverted because of linter error(?), so now we are back with broken table for mobile version. I'm not sure if you realise it since you haven't been replying on the talk page, so I post this here to let you know. Happy new year. Lulusword (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lulusword Hey, sorry for the lack of response. I'm definitely aware of it, but my real world job is rather demanding during the holiday season, so it may be some time before I can sit down and look at the coding properly to see what's causing both errors (linter and scrollbar). I do promise that it'll be sooner rather than later, though. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:42, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Lulusword  Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:09, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It is possible

I'm not going to contest your edit on Disenchantment (TV series), but considering it was over a year between the release of part 3 and part 4, and parts 1 and 2, a possible Part 5 could be released sometime this year. On the other hand, Netflix may have just snubbed the whole series entirely. Its really hard to know. Historyday01 (talk) 13:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

@Historyday01 That is very true, but for all of those parts, we had confirmation that those episodes were in production. All we have at the moment is one primary source talking about Part 5, and no wider reports from secondary sources about it at all. If there's nothing new in a month or so, I'd recommend we restore the edits concluding the show, keeping the information about it being in production, and wait for anything further (if there is at all); that is, after all, why we have that specific clause in the template documentation after all, so that the series isn't listed as "present" forever. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That's fair. If its my guess, I doubt Netflix will say anything new in a month or so, but maybe they will. It's hard to know. Historyday01 (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

Carnival Row

The template says “ Please explain your concerns promptly on the article's talk page. If you do not identify the opinions that are missing, then any editor may remove this tag.”. I did that I believe by adding sources. I hope I have time to use them but if you’re concerned please fix it yourself as I don’t have much time left and I’ve got other projects. This obvious gap in the article came to me because I watched the program. It’s a glaring hole. Doug Weller talk 13:03, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

It is not a severe issue to the page, so there is no need to tag the entire article indefinitely. Now that the issue has been reaised on the talk page, any editor may take the time to add the content, though given that you are the one to believe it is an issue, the onus remains on you to do so. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:39, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

It’s a major theme, does that qualify as a severe issue? Doug Weller talk 21:59, 17 February 2023 (UTC)

I have moved the maintenance tag to its relevant section, as it does not affect the entire article as a whole (the only scenario where the tag should be placed above the lead).

Also re: if you’re concerned; I'm not concernced about the lack of content at all. That seems to just be you. So, please fix it yourself as I don’t have much time left and I’ve got other projects. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself [...] In the time it takes to write about the problem, you could instead improve the encyclopedia. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:50, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Problematic editing

I don't know what should be done about PuppyMonkey. They will not stop making unnecessary changes to well written content. They could use some good mentoring from an editor like you. Stoarm (talk) 14:09, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but I'm far too busy IRL to mentor new editors. Unfortunately in my almost-ten years here, editors like this are just a fact of life. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:19, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Every editor is unique; we are all special, some are just more special than others. PuppyMonkey (talk) 01:12, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Stargirl TV series.jpeg

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

March 2023

(Redacted)

Note: Your page move is also in violation of WP:RMUM, you obviously knew this move would be controversial and objectionable and yet you still did it. - SanAnMan (talk) 20:25, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

@SanAnMan Given that you've now had two other editors tell you how to proceed, in the same manner as what I have told you, I'd recommend you start listening. Now that I'm aware that the South Park articles are violating notability guideline, sourcing policies and WikiProject standards, I'll be keeping a far stricter eye on them. Happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:44, 2 March 2023 (UTC)