User talk:Alex 21/Archive 41

Valhalla
I don't believe I have that button as I am using a mobile device. Perhaps I'm wrong but I don't think so. Can you explain your tag to me? At this point is it contrary to Wikipedia policy?, because it looks pretty good to me. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I just checked. I definitely don't have that button. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Vikings season 6B release
Hi, Alex. I went to the official History website in Canada and discovered that Vikings season 6B will premiere on January 1, 2021, as can be read here. Since the series is Canadian, how should we deal with this broadcast date on the season six article? The Prime Video exclusive does not apply to Canada and is for the US and other countries including Ireland (the series is also Irish), so I am confused on what the primary date should be on the article. As an example, the third season of Victoria (British TV series) premiered on PBS in the US before airing on the original network ITV in the UK, and the table on the article shows the British dates only. Is Vikings a similar case? Also, Prime Video is not a commissioner of the series and Amazon bought the US exclusive (which is limited to a period of time that goes from Dec. 30 to March 30 as shown in the trailer) from MGM Television and not from History. Let me know what you think. Thanks. --TheVampire (talk) 00:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC) January 1, 2021 (Can.) -- / Alex /21  13:18, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , good spot on the airdates for Victoria, as I was actually the editor that made the major details for the laying out for the dates in the overview and season tables. I assumed British only series, British dates only for the overview, but included the earlier dates in the table itself.
 * However, Vikings is similar to the above case but different as well, for several reasons. One, we can't have two airdate columns in Season 6B and only one airdate column for 6A, as they're the same table. Two, the fact is that the series is both Canadian and Irish, and Canada will be airing it weekly and Ireland having it release at once, so they need to be given equal weight. Given that the series is still Irish, the season and series will indeed conclude in Ireland on December 30, so that will be its definite conclusion date, but we can also make an inclusion in the episode table of both dates; e.g. December 30, 2020 (Ire.)
 * Yes, that is what I was thinking, because History Canada is still an original network so those dates should be in the table, as well. We could put a note in the overview as we did for Victoria, but instead of putting the earlier dates we can put the History dates in the note and leave December 30 as the end date for the series. What shouldn't matter is that the series concludes on December 30 in the US as the show is not from the US but Irish/Canadian.--TheVampire (talk) 16:31, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed, as the earlier dates are completely valid, however. Not due to any relation to the US, but to Ireland, because the season will be released and thus conclude in Ireland on December 30, 2020. So: December 30, 2020 for the infobox end date, for the overview table, and for the episode table; January 1, 2021-weekly dates for the episode table as well; and a note for the overview, detailing why we list December 30, 2020 (because that's the Irish date, we need not make any mention of the US) and add mention of the January 1, 2021-weekly dates for the Canadian airings.
 * Has a source actually reported the January 1, 2021 airdate on History yet? I know the website says it, but has a secondary source made mention of it? -- / Alex /21  00:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * here's one--TheVampire (talk) 01:17, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Perfect; I've added it and the date to both the parent and season articles. -- / Alex /21  03:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

In the Blood audiobook
apparently can't post the screenshot link in the edit summary. Here it is

Also here is the direct link but I'm not sure if it will work for you

Etron81 (talk) 01:31, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery
Could you take a look at the season pages that R2Mar is modifying with splitting the double episodes in two? 2001:470:1F2D:C:78EF:4AF3:28D2:17F7 (talk) 05:27, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

Marvel TV list - Guardians special and rowspans
I don't know if saw that the Guardians Holiday special moved up in the Disney+ table because it has a release window. With this change, and since it is a special, I don't think the infoA or infoB can be spanned, which would be great to do. I didn't think being a special would prevent the span parameters from working but I guess it does. Can you confirm this currently can't be done? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:52, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * All done, it works. Remember, the parameter should go [name][season], so just like [infoB][1S], we would use [infoBspan][1S] (as I've used in the Guardians entry) rather than [infoB][1S][span] (as was used in the Secret Invasion entry). -- / Alex /21  04:13, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yup, I see how I messed that up. I though the [1S] was attached to [infoB]. Thanks for the assist! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Restored article
You removed the article on Pure, starting that it's non notable, however the episode has received multiple reviews and other coverage. This is by itself enough to pass either NFILM or NEPISODE, as it's been the focus of in-depth coverage. It's still in the small end of things but it can be further improved. If you think it truly fails notability guidelines, take it to AfD. --ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Essentially, I will expand it further but felt that it had enough to be moved live and that others may help expand in the meantime, as well as help with the summary. It should be improved, not deleted. Notability has been met. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  16:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , you deliberately moved it back even though I explained why it was draftified? A very bad faith move on your part. Per WP:TV consensus, episode articles need more than a summary that's too long and two or three reviews, as it does not make the episode otherwise notable. There is no in-depth coverage of the episode, and the rest of the article is just a plot, that's in-universe content. Why do you believe that you are better than a consensus of a WikiProject? Is this the administrator priviledge I've heard about? -- / Alex /21  23:53, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:NEPISODE simply states "A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." It also states that stub articles are fine - this would qualify as a stub or start class article in my opinion, as there are reviews and other coverage from Bloody Disgusting, RogerEbert.com, Vulture, /Film, io9, The Verge, and The Daily Dot, enough to assert notability. I also don't see on WP:TV or NEPISODE where reviews and a plot invalidate the notability of an episode, particularly as this would be enough to pass GNG quite easily. There is mention of too little information, but the way it's written it looks like it's meant to cover articles where there is perhaps 1-2 or no sources and just a large plot section. Also, Television article review process also recommends tagging articles before merging, redirecting, or other forms of deletion - you simply moved the article without any discussion, attempts to improve the article, or broach the subject on my talk page. This is not my exercising any fictional admin privilege, just that there should have been more attempts to improve the article and if you didn't wish to do it yourself, discussing it on the article or my talk page before moving it. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I will, however, bring this up at WP:TV. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  03:43, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Correct, it does say that. For this episode, there is not significant coverage. There are two or three reviews in the article, and that's it. You are welcome to search the discussion archives on the multitude of discussions on the topic; I myself have had to draftify/redirect several episode articles for popular shows only in the last few days for the exact same reason. GNG is a guideline, as is NEPISODE, and for a television-related article, a television-related guideline takes precedence.
 * Concerning "it's meant to cover articles where there is perhaps 1-2 or no sources and just a large plot section" - that's exactly what the Pure article is. A large plot section, and several sources on reception. "This is not my exercising any fictional admin privilege" Did you not delete the redirect twice so that you could move it back? That's admin privilege, as a regular editor would not have been able to do so. What you should have done is initiated discussion instead of move-warring over the article. Moving it to the draftspace was the attempt to improve it, so that it could be expanded on outside of the mainspace and not continue to create sub-part articles. -- / Alex /21  03:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I could also argue that you should have initiated discussion rather than unilaterally decided that discussion was not needed before moving the article to the draftspace. I must also note that the move to have more than what was initially there is something that is still in development and is not yet an official guideline. It's still very much in discussion and seems to be fairly contentious as well. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  04:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Moved/draftified/redirected dozens of articles before with no issues, this one was no different, and editors who are happy to discuss have never used administrator rights (which are granted for administrative reasons) to advance their own movements. G6 clearly states that such deletion is for uncontroversial maintenance; if the article was moved, clearly it was not "uncontroversial". Do you realize this? -- / Alex /21  04:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I also wanted to keep the article history intact - I could have also just copy/pasted. The bottom line here from my perspective is that you moved an article that meets current notability guidelines, based on something that has yet to gain official consensus on the WikiProject and looks unlikely to do so any time soon. You did not bring up any discussion on the talk page of the article or my talk page, you moved it without discussion or attempts to improve the page on your own, something that honestly could have been fairly easily done. If you want me to do a histmerge so that the redirects are still there, that's fine. If you want me to remove my content and then do a cut/paste instead, that's fine. I do not view what I did as a violation since the article met notability guidelines as they currently stand and was easily improved. Any other discussion on whether or not the guidelines for episodes should be changed should be done on the TV WP talk page, but should not be used as official consensus before it's made official. ReaderofthePack (formerly Tokyogirl79)  (｡◕‿◕｡)  05:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
 * "I could have also just copy/pasted"? No, you couldn't have. That violates Wikipedia policies, and you know that as an administrator. Are you aware that G6 is for uncontroversial maintenance or not? It's interesting how you refuse to answer this. Your actions are subject to higher scrutiny as an administrator than mine. I gave a reason for my move. You have not provided a reason for your adminstrative abuse and move-warring. Until you do so, or answer any of the questions presented to you, further excuses on my talk page will be reverted. -- / Alex /21  05:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings!
Happy Holidays! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:36, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I wish you Happy Holidays! Trailblazer101 (talk) 17:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays! Starzoner (talk) 17:44, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!
Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year! adamstom97 (talk) 19:32, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Dr Who Xmas fun
Hello A21. I stumbled on this delightful Dr Who parody. They know the show well. That is Petra Elliott and I spent some time looking at other songs she has sung and she is quite the sassy and bawdy entertainer. The question is have you ever met her at a convention or seen her perform? Enjoy :-) and best wishes for your 2021. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

 * Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Happy New Year elves}} to send this message

I wish you a prosperous 2021! Starzoner (talk) 15:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

John Bishop
Blimey that was quick off the mark, mate - even the news source is only 4 mintues old! Romomusicfan (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , had to get in quick, before IPs make any disruptive edits! There'll be a better source come out within the next day, but the sooner we can verify the information, the better. -- / Alex /21  20:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Dammit, I was just about to do the Series 13 article too! Oh well ...Romomusicfan (talk) 20:26, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

About Consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Jack to move Finding Jack to this draft, but was copy-pasted over rather than moved.]]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Consensus at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Jack to move Finding Jack to this draft, but was copy-pasted over rather than moved.]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Draft:Finding Jack. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Requests for history merge. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * , huh? I haven't copy-pasted anything. Are you wanting to move the article back to the draftspace but can't because it exists? If so, I can move it if required, but it seems to be going through an AFD right now. -- / Alex /21  23:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * My apologies, I'm not sure why this auto message was sent to you. I put the article up for hist merge with its draft that had copied over content before that draft was reverted and it is currently awaiting deletion to make way for the move to draftspace. Looks like it was sent to you because you moved Finding Jack to draftspace before it was reverted, and I am trying to reverse it back to draftspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Phase Four critical response table
Hey, saw your edit converting the table I added, and your edit summary. Just wanted you to know my thought process with what I did hardcoding, was to eventually include the films in the same table, separated by rowspans saying "Films" and "Television series". The content also needs to be able to be transcluded, as that's how we get the film content to the list of films article, and what I wanted to set up at the TV list, but I could seem to do that with the given template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I assumed so. I was hoping to convert it all to template and still have the same functionality (just like the series overviews, which can be transcluded separately), while being able to implement both films and television series, but apparently it's going to take a bit more work. For now, I've restored the raw-code table and see how we go.
 * Do you think you'd be able to sandbox up a film/television critical reception table for me to see how you'd intended to implement it? From there, I can convert it to the module code. -- / Alex /21  04:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I can make something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * This is what I'm envisioning. I've made a full table that I think should be used at the Phase Four article, and then the content that would need to be transcluded to the films list and the TV list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Take a look at User:Alex 21/sandbox and User:Alex 21/sandbox3. Sandbox 1 are the live tables as they'd exist at the articles (Phase 3 and 4 respectively), and Sandbox 3 is the transcluded formats, all in the form of templates. -- / Alex /21  12:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
 * 99% there I think! The TV series will not have CinemaScores (those are just for the films), so I think by looking at the flag parameters this is possible? Also I see the template is called "Television critical response". Given we're dealing with films and TV series, would a more neutral template name be better suited? Especially as mentioned, if we've got CinemaScore inclusion, TV series don't deal with that at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Mind of the Hodiac / BIG Finish
I've added this title under the specials of Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures. There is no such listing available with Big Finish yet, however, RTD announced it today while appearing on The One Show and a referential article has been placed with the reference.

If you disagree this is the wrong section of the page please change where necessary. For now, this seemed the most suitable place to include it. I've included RTD as the writer as well until more details emerge on whether its an adaptation or otherwise. R2Mar (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * To prevent any further deletions or moves to draftspace. I have now added a history section to Doctor Who: The Fifth Doctor Adventures, Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures, and Doctor Who: The Seventh Doctor Adventures. If you feel this satisfies notability, the tag can be removed. R2Mar (talk)

Template:Netflix original upcoming series
Hello, I noticed that you have removed Sonic Prime from the template for being a redlink a few times now. And while redlinks are normally avoided, WP:EXISTING states that articles that are very likley to be developed can be redlinked in navboxes. And with reliable sources such as: forbes stating that this series is coming in 2022, and a draft of the article being created. Linking here might be appropriate. Terasail &#91;✉&#93; 11:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * In EXISTING, it is further noted that [r]ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data[...], where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first. The result is far from incomplete, and while an article for the series is likely, there's no given timespan on when production is set to actually begin. If there was, I'd be more inclined to include it. -- / Alex /21  12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Arrowverse
Hi. You left a reference error after your edit to Arrowverse. Could you take a look? --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 10)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 10) you nominated for GA-status according to the 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Greatly appreciated! -- / Alex /21  03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A Court of Thorns and Roses
What is the point of reverting everything all the time? Genuinely speaking you really need to stop. ACOTAR is a five book series with around 700+ pages and three more books coming. Do you really think the series has only 5 characters? There are numerous characters in the series but I have literally only added the important ones. None of it is fancruft. What is not clicking? You are disrupting the page and not letting anyone update the page what is the problem? Before reverting pls have a conversation. Check through the edits. There is nothing disrupting the rules. It is merely getting annoying. There are summarised descriptions of only the important characters of this long series and character info is not sourced. You can get checked by someone who has read the series but pls stop disrupting. You also reverted the summary of the recently released book. Everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia. These are only updates based on the series, not opinions or theories. Thank you. Vucien (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you can see that the content has been reverted before and the page has been protected directly after removing the fancruft, for reasons of vandalism, disruptive editing and fancruft, by multiple administrators, then you are deliberately not paying attention. I never said the series has five characters, nor are five listed here, are you not able to count? I removed the constant addition of unsourced, trivial content. If you want to add such pointless content, might I direct you to the Fandom site, they're responsible for all your fan-ish needs, not Wikipedia. I've requested further protection for the page, and will once again revert once the protection is in place. Happy editing! -- / Alex /21  12:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned this before but I will say it again, none of this is fancruft. A series has characters that need to be described a little. All the characters mentioned are important to the five book series [+ 3 more in the future]. These are 700+ page novels do you really think it will have only a few main characters? The latest books are spin offs with stories about other characters becoming the main ones. There are main villains for each one. Of course they will be mentioned. There are seven High Lords who are extremely crucial to the story. I don’t understand what’s not clicking. None of this is fancruft, it merely informative and is mentioning important characters to the whole series. Vucien (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also characters cannot be sourced. There are no articles describing characters and their highlights. How are you expecting sourcing for characters? You can ask somebody who has read the series to verify the info if you want. Vucien (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , if you can't source it, you can't add it. Is that really so hard to understand? Have you not read WP:V or WP:RS? Still not sure if you can count, where did you get five from? -- / Alex /21  08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 10)
The article Doctor Who (series 10) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 10) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 11)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 11) you nominated for GA-status according to the 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 Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 14:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 11)
The article Doctor Who (series 11) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 11) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:02, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

"Reflections and Lies"
That is the name of the Eva McCulloch graphic novel which spans from mid-season 6 to the first three episodes of season 7 (sources: EW and this which contains a screenshot of Eric Wallace's tweet which is not visible to me). Which to use? -- <b style="color: black;">Kailash29792</b> (talk)  05:16, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Parse number
Template:Parse number has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. User:GKFXtalk 11:35, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:The Walking Dead (TV series) episode redirects to lists


A tag has been placed on Category:The Walking Dead (TV series) episode redirects to lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more 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 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. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 14:08, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Attack on Titan
I removed the width on the parameters of the episode table for readability purposes, they are not optimals as the text is cut off making the lines longer when there is enough space on the width for them to be consistently on the same size. Custardbandlers (talk) 00:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , please read the header at the top of my talk page: If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it. However, to answer you here, setting column widths is standard practice for WP:TV, as it conforms the columns of the multiple episode tables at the primary episode listing article. Text wrapping in a cell does not affect readability. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  01:09, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * My bad, didn't see the header. What do you mean by standard practice? Is it a guideline which has a written notice that can be seen somewhere or just what you've personnaly saw be done most of the time on other articles? Because that's not what I'm seeing on other articles, here the seasons have different title format and listed staff in the parameters, making the columns irregular, that's the reason I believe they must have a different width for readability purposes. What if one of the parameter has to be removed? Which seems to be the case of the writer parameter for the last season as all the episodes so far have been written by the same artist, or what if an episode has 16 different directors listed which is sometimes the case for some animes, will there be an episode line with 16 rows while the others are on two? My version seems more conform than the current one in my opinion. Custardbandlers (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've been editing television articles for seven years, having edited thousands of articles across thousands of series; yes, it's standard practice that hundreds of editors conform to. Simply because you haven't seen it personally, does not make it invalid. Each episode having the same writer is not a basis for removing a column, it will remain thus even if the entire season has the same writer; I know of a series with the writer column even though every episode of the entire series has the same one writer. Can you provide an existing case for an episode with 16 different directors, or is that simply a ridiculous example? -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  02:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That's the problem with these standard practice, they need to be referenced somewhere because I see plenty of them being contradictory. Anyway I did change the width but kept it the same on all the seasons if that's what must be done. Custardbandlers (talk) 04:00, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have a guideline concerning episode tables and readability?
 * Now, setting the first two columns to 3% does literally nothing different to 5%, as the column already has to fit in the header column text (i.e. "No overall" or "No in season"), and thus the minimum width to do that is 5%. I'd recommend you fix this mistake. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  04:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No I don't have a guideline and that's what I'm asking for or else there is a problem with standardisation. What do you mean by literally nothing different? The first two columns width have been reduced from the last revision as expected. If you're talking about the No. being splitted, that's how the template implemented it by default in the code source of the episode table template no matter the width used. Custardbandlers (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I explained what I mean. "season" and "overall" require at least 5% of the table width to be displayed, so again, visually, there is no difference between 3% and 5%, because the HTML automatically forces the cell to a minimum of 5%. Does that make sense now? Do you think we could set it to 0.1% and it would change? No, because the minimum is 5%. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  02:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Are they not correctly displayed as of right now? I see a difference of width between 3% and 5% when previewing the change. 3% seems to be the minimum if we don't bother with decimals while the default when letting blank is 5%, am I wrong? Custardbandlers (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 * No; as I see it, the lower-than-minimum widths are actually warping the rest of the table and making them not conform with each other. -- / Alex /<sub style="color:#008">21  00:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)