User talk:Alex 21/Archive 46

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Can you please clean-up this episode list to make it look more like broadcast order and the episode segments combined into half-hours via the accessibility NumParts table. Its summaries were removed due to

Not sure why the submitted titles for Gen V are considered from a "fan site." While KSiteTV does run some associated fan sites, KSiteTV is a Google News accredited website that has covered series of all genres. It is no different than linking, say, The Futon Critic or TV Line. I've been visiting the site for years, and it has been cited on other Wikipedia pages, it seems. 104.48.87.200 (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally, any site that is not

WP:NOTABLE for an article on en.wiki, is already a subpar source. KSiteTV does not have an article. Gonnym (talk

) 10:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

Your last edit [1] seems controversial. Zen – Grogu and Dust Bunnies (2022) is a stand-alone short, not a series episode. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 16:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

@

MOS:TITLE. -- Alex_21 _TALK

21:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

No,

MOS:TITLE actually states that italic also applies to Films (including short films) and documentaries, hence shorts like Zen – Grogu and Dust Bunnies too. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs

) 20:26, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not a film. By your own wording, it's a stand-alone short, which comes under

MOS:QUOTETITLE: "Short stories (textual or graphic)". -- Alex_21 _TALK

06:44, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi Alex, could you change the episode list colours to match their cover art please?
Series 1
Series 2
Series 3
Regards, Franbegbi (talk) 18:47, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21. Thank you for your work on

Thank you for the list!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Bruxton}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Bruxton (talk) 17:09, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the series overview section, the 2 The Final Chapters specials don't actually seem to count towards the actual TV series episode count, it would appear. <<"TV anime “Attack on Titan” The Final Season Final Chapter (Each Episode Version) / Final Chapter (Second Part)">> Putting that into consideration, I will not be modifying the edit you performed today for the time being until we get further information to move forward with and perhaps come to a group-based user consensus on the talk page. I believe it will definitely be something to be noted someway or another on there. I'd like for you to keep that in mind. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Noted. If you feel a discussion is needed on the talk page, by all means. Until then, listing it as three separate episodes having aired on March 4, 2023, or that four separate episodes will have aired on November 5, 2023, would be factually incorrect. An identical situation would be the one at List of Money Heist episodes, where the first season of 9 and 6 episodes were later split into 13 and 9 episodes by Netflix, yet we retain the original airing format. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Yes, and I completely understand where you're coming from. I was actually thinking about adding a notation to the airing dates but I couldn't figure out what exactly I should write due to the unprecedented formatting of a TV special and then having that cut up into individual TV size episodes. But the fact remains that they're designating these individual episode cuts as episodes 88–94 of the TV series with an original OP/ED set to go along with it, so we will surely have some figuring out to do in November. Your current comparison is a good measuring stick on what we could do, so it will be noted in any potential talk page discussion.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Please check out my current revision of the episode table; I think I have found some common grounding using explanatory notes based on your suggestion. Please keep in mind that the 2 specials have never been officially referred to as "episodes", so I think I've settled the problem pretty straightforwardly. Review this and this for citation evidence. Thank you.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:35, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I am a very occasional contributor. I wondered how it was you with your location and background ended up making contributions to Rust Valley Restorers. Or perhaps yours were only minor edits? Looking again, I think they were. Bah most recent edits are either by red link users or IP addresses. --SportWagon (talk) 22:25, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@

automated edits with AWB, I've never actually visited or manually edited that article. -- Alex_21 _TALK

23:43, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Eventually I determined the apparent creator. Perhaps contacting them will work better. --SportWagon (talk) 05:58, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain your revert? What do you mean by "the standard"? Your own Template:Series overview even states The link to the season in question, which in this case is individual articles. All you're doing with that link format is making another table of contents template on the page and not giving me a real reason. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:18, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, I have an additional question for you if you don't mind answering: Is it ok to copy and paste a series overview to the TV series page of an article if said article has a conflicting date format from the episodes list page instead of invoking it?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:35, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

All of the links currently go to the season in question. I guarantee you can find a hundred articles, that all use the same format.

That would cause unnecessary duplication. If you need something to appear in one article and not another, just use the relevant inclusion tags. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Ok, I understand the top answer, despite it being kind of regressive. Regarding the bottom answer, how would I do that for conflicting date formats? Please take a look at the coding and the change in date formats on Spy × Family (TV series)#Series overview and List of Spy × Family episodes#Series overview. I would very much appreciate any help you could bring to the table as I don't know the coding to fix such a thing.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 06:50, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Night and the Doctor 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/Night and the Doctor 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.

Hektor (talk) 08:20, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

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 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk

) 00:45, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Hi! I see you’re a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Television and I’m reaching out for help on a page I’m trying to improve: Talk:Ovation (American TV channel)#Updating this page. Would you be willing to weigh in on the suggestions I’ve made? I’d really appreciate the assistance. Thanks so much! Brennon16 (talk) 22:09, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. Could you tweak User:Alex 21/script-categoriessort so that it doesn't add an unnecessary line break between {{DEFAULTSORT}} and the categories below? You can test it out here. Thanks. InfiniteNexus (talk) 02:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

@InfiniteNexus  Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:06, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. InfiniteNexus (talk) 22:46, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

We need to meet a consensus or else the review fails. Why do you think the source should remain. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

I have yet to see an instance where the source has been unreliable. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:57, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

That the point of the question Fran you explain to me why it's reliable tell me about the source itself and not that "they've been used before" Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. Is there evidence of reliability? Have other reliable sources ever cited them for facts, or acknowledged Doctor Who News' reporting? Have their reporters been described as journalists in reliable sources? Is there evidence it's something other than a fansite mostly staffed by volunteers? I'm not on a vendetta here; I just don't think Doctor Who News is reliable. Without a clear consensus that it is, it should be removed from the article. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:51, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

It's a source that has passed 71 good article reviews, and has never shown a case of not being reliable. It currently sources the viewing ratings of 874 separate episodes. Is there a reason you have moved this discussion to my personal talk page, rather than that of the GA review? I know you're both relatively new, but if you're going to cite protocol to me, I recommend you follow protocol. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:30, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I came to this talk page because Oli did. I presume they came here because they wanted to see if you guys could agree on a line of argument to keep or remove the source. I really have no idea why you keep saying I'm "relatively new", my account is older than yours and I've been editing consistently for more than 5 years. It's hardly an important metric anyway. Back on topic: it doesn't look like we're coming to consensus here. You have yet to make a case for reliability based on the characteristics of the site itself, rather than relying on its use in other articles. If the

WP:RSN thread had established reliability, I would have been happy to be overruled by consensus, but it didn't. I don't think there's much chance of this review succeeding, unfortunately. I'll give it another day, but then will likely have to fail the review. The article can always be renominated, of course. —Ganesha811 (talk

) 23:44, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

I have asked that you follow protocol and discuss this in the correct location. I believe this to be a relatively easy request to follow. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:47, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant It was deemed unreliable? Can you show me where the discussion was made where there was a clear conclusion and definitive conclusion on its reliablity? -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:52, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_422#Doctor_Who_News Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:25, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

That discussion was never closed, nor a definitive agreement decided between the members of the discussion. Do you have any others? Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:48, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Look avoiding arguing your point isn't a valid response. Could you just explain why it's a reliable source Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

We have discussed this, and clearly have different viewpoints. The GA nomination has closed, and I see no issue with the source remaining there to support the viewership ratings of the 14 episodes listed there, out of the 874 there are in total. You're welcome to re-nominate it with a different reviewer if that's your choice. Cheers, happy editing, and Merry Christmas! -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is this came up and it might come up again. Why are you so opposed to giving your argument. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:28, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Alex 21, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Trailblazer101 (talk) 20:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2024!

Hello Alex 21, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2024. Happy editing, InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

InfiniteNexus (talk) 07:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What do you think about the quality of the Doctor Who page. Do you think that it could possibly be nominated for GA. Its been a decade since it was last nominated and many changes have arised since then. Recently I made a series of edits to improve it, but as I am not a significant contributor I cant nominate it but you can so I was wondering if you would be willing to co-nominate with me. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@

Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) based on its two citation tags, I'm not sure why you think an article with almost sixty would qualify for GA, so I would recommend a start by fixing those. -- Alex_21 _TALK

04:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Well the citation tags where added after I reached out to another editor. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Whenever they were added, they still need fixing before moving to GA. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant As per Rhain's most recent edit, please do not remove the {{citation needed}} flags without fixing the issue first. Also kindly update the Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) reassessment page if you have no further issues with the article. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21. Thank you for your work on

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn I didn't create the article, just an initial redirect. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that NPP message system didn't understand that. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

The article

) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Wardstone Chronicles.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:The Wardstone Chronicles.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) 03:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Just a quick thought, would it be better to use this version of the poster? I know there's very little difference, and I know this won't remain the image forever once we have a DVD cover, but I do feel the current version without the date gives no indication that it's actually for series 14. It could literally just be work from the graphic design team or a promotion for the programme as a whole. The version with the date indirectly references series 14 and therefore seems like it may be a better option. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I also had that thought when I saw that it was the version RTD posted, though we do tend to stick with the original poster from the primary broadcaster. However, given that it includes May 2024, I definitely wouldn't be opposed to it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In most cases I'd agree with you, but I think an exception makes sense here. I uploaded the alternative version. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'd also say it's best we keep an eye out for anyone adding Disney+ to the |network= parameter given their argument may be "but it's in the poster we use"; that should remain simply BBC One. Hopefully this won't be an issue. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist so I'll check in on it. Although we've had a discussion or two and a few rouge IP's it's not been a huge issue on the main article or on the 2023 specials page. Ideally it'll the same here. A lot of IP's get scared off by a hidden note if it comes to that. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

The article

Hi Alex 21, our group, WikiProject Australian television, is currently recruiting additional editors to help edit the large project that is Australian TV. I was wondering whether you might consider joining us, since you work on TV-related articles anyway... and you're Australian! If you are interested, please add your name to the list of active participants, and see our list of open tasks. Kind regards, Lotsw73 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Why are you purposefully adding false information when the show has aired? And why are you specifically being a jerk towards me for making one edit? Chill out. None of the other shows on the table follow this ruleset. If something has aired, none of the other shows keep their refs. Not for dates, or episode count. Makes no sense. ThatGoodBoi (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHER. "The other stuff doesn't have a source, so this one shouldn't either. -- Alex_21 _TALK

10:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait, so are you agreeing with me? If that's what you want to do that's okay. I was just doing what I thought everybody else does. We could source it, but literally no one else keeps the refs up afterwards, except for like the MCU page. I figured the show existing was the source and that's why everyone drops them.

I'm sorry I bombarded your page, I just thought you came off a bit rude at first. Didn't mean to escalate into a "war." ThatGoodBoi (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

I have re-nominated series 2 for GA if your intrested in moving past some issues Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware; however, as we both recall, the last time I joined a Who GA nomination where I was neither the nominator or reviewer, I was told I was interrupting. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's becuase you were being uncooperative mid review. This time I'm asking at the beginning of the review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Father Brown episodes 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/List of Father Brown episodes 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.

Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.