User talk:Alex 21/Archive 8

Template:TableTBA
The new color you selected still doesn't work against Wikipedia's standard background color. I say with just make it black. What do you think? Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:34, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's background colour is white, though? What part of it is #F2F2F2?  Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:53, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The background color in the episode tables is #F2F2F2. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:16, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It is when a summary for the episode is present, but if there is a summary then the episode has aired, and the credits should have been filled in by then. A row without a summary is #F9F9F9, and this matches the contrast compliancy. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:25, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I still say we should change it. In several cases (like this, this and this) the ratings are never made available to the public and therefore we are forced to have it listed as "N/A" permanently, even after the short summary is added. Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:13, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair point there. How's #4F4F4F?  Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that we pick something darker that would also work with Template:Unknown, Template:Dunno, and Template:N/a so all these templates of a similar nature would match. Grapesoda22 (talk) 23:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You have a point there; I've changed it to #2C2C2C, given that the first two templates you linked to use that colour. Technically, N/a fails the contrast scheme, but changing it to #2C2C2C would satisfy it . I've made an edit request on the template to have it changed, given its protection level. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  00:39, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I had messaged an admin about Template:N/a a few days ago with no response. There are two other color issues I wanted to bring up. Neither Template:Ya or Template:Na work. They are both technically images placed on a solid back drop, but they don't read as images when used in an article and they also can't be clicked on. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I've adjusted Ya. I've also adjusted Na. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 01:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Grapesoda22 (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Episode templates for List of Curb Your Enthusiasm episodes
Hi Alex, I wanted to replace the raw codes with templates on the Curb episodes, but theres a "Story by" column I don't know how to replace and I can't get the length right. Can you do it plz? Also theres no colour on the HBO special and the first series has a white #FFFFFF colour that might need to be changed, thanks. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 13:30, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The use of Episode list uses "WrittenBy", so just use "|writer=WIDTH |writerT=Story by". This will include the writer column, set a width to it, and change the text to "Story by". Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks, but what do I do about white colour and the no colour? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Just pick another colour for Season 1, replacing all occurrences of FFFFFF, and for the Special, look at how colour is added for the other tables, and do the same for that table. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but what colours do you think they should be? Because I don't want the colours to inappropriate for the series. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 13:47, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Look up the DVD covers for the season/special, and use the main colour of that (adjust if necessary). If none exist, use a random colour. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:50, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Alright, cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 13:55, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * All done, I made the Season 1 colour #8F212E to match "THE COMPLETE FIRST SEASON" and "THE MANY MOODS OF LARRY DAVID" texts on the Season 1 DVD cover and I couldn't find a DVD cover for the HBO special, so it is a yellow colour that I got from the text in the series' title card, but this could be changed. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Top job! I've also templated the Series Overview, and added a row for the HBO Special. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  14:40, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Alex, User:Drovethrughosts has reverted the Season 1 colour to white, is this ok? Because although I've seen Black used as a colour on many other episode lists articles I've never seen white and I had the impression it wasn't to be used. If I change it back to #8F212E, which matches the coloured texts on the DVD cover Drovethrughosts will probably revert my edit, so could you explain the situation to Drovethrughosts? Cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You were also reverting his edits of adding widths to the first two columns, so I've gone and restored just the colours for Season 1. Also, please use the edit summary when making edits, as requested that you do. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 23:27, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2015
I did not say I owned the pages on The Magician's Apprentice (Doctor Who) and The Witch's Familiar. I was saying I didn't agree, and if you want me to agree, persuade me you're right about what the Boy/Young Davros character should be credited as.Theoosmond (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC) Also, I only talk to wikipedians if I feel they are willing to talk, and you did not seem willing to talk at all.Theoosmond (talk) 21:59, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You obviously didn't pay attention to the warning I posted on your wall. Firstly, I never said that you said that you owned the article. However, reverting with a summary of "I disagree with this, so convince me before you add it into the article" is a very "I own this article"-manner of speaking. Take note: manner. Secondly, you're the one wanting to change from the status quo, so it's up to you to start the discussion. I'm simply keeping it how it's always been on every television episode article on Wikipedia. If you start the discussion as required, I will reply. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian
 * Alright, I understand and I'll continue this dicussion on the talk page for The Magician's Apprentice (Doctor Who), under the sub-heading Boy/Young Davros and there we can settle on what the character in question should be credited as.Theoosmond (talk) 18:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, no need to go to the section of the 'Talk:The Magician's Apprentice' page. I'm keeping him credited as 'boy'. And FYI I've changed Sandeep's credit to 'Little Boy', as credited by BBC, on The Zygon Invasion page.Theoosmond (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Arrow subsection proposal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arrow_(TV_series)#New_subsection_for_Arrowverse Thought you might be interested in putting in your 2-cents worth, if not that's fine too. Thanks! LLArrow (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion
Since we're aiming at consistency throughout the project, I've started a discussion about episode count templates at WT:TV. Your comments would be appreciated. The discussion is here -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism at Template:Series overview/doc
Just in case you weren't aware, the vandalism at Template:Series overview/doc is being carried out elsewhere by multiple, related editors so I've opened an SPI at Sockpuppet investigations/Genorobinson455. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:18, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that, I wasn't aware. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  07:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

WP:TVCAST
WP:TVCAST is not, as you claim, a "policy". It is a guideline, and, as such, it is not mandatory, ArBCom has been quite clear that MOS guidelines are not an excuse for WP:edit warring. Per WP:BRD, when your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. So, please, do as you have been asked and discuss your edit on the article's talk page. Thanks, BMK (talk) 04:33, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Firstly, I wonder what you don't get about the header of this page: "If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it." And yes, they're not an excuse for edit warring, as you've now done (3 reverts compared to my 2 - that is edit warring). It is far from a "bold" edit - guidelines exist for a reason, and you could go around all day and argue that you don't need to follow guidelines at all. In that case, why do guidelines exist at all? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  04:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The article has been in the state you found it for quite a long time, so, yes, your edit was a bold change, and you still need to discuss it on the talk page. If a guideline isn't mandatory, which they aren't, they are subject to consensus discussions between editors. (Also, my comment here was not in response to your unwarranted 3RR warning, I began writing it before I read that.) BMK (talk) 04:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, obviously the decision to not include episode counts was a recent move, so it would have been a bit hard to remove the counts per guidelines before this date. So far, I'm only seeing one editor against the removal of the counts, so consensus should only be required once the number of opposing editors has risen. Given that it's only you so far, I see no reason as to why it shouldn't be you gaining the consensus on why we shouldn't follow deliberately-created guidelines. (On a side-note, even as it stands at the moment, the format of the counts is extremely poor formatting, using (X episodes) then (X) for subsequent cast.) Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  04:47, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was recent, in this edit from November 4th and, in my opinion, was not adequately discussed. It's been a very clear community consensus for years that WikiProjects do not automatically have control over the formatting of articles they claim in their domain, and cannot hold dominion over MOS sections dealing with those articles.  When guidelines such as these are questioned, they need to be re-examined by a broader section of the community. In any case, this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page and not here. BMK (talk) 04:55, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * How is this not adequately discussed? It was discussed by a multitude of editors to a great length. Yes, they may not have control, but when a discussion like that has taken place, there is more than obviously consensus between many editors, and it's up to you to discuss why you disagree with it instead of removing it. You decided that this was to be discussed here by posting on my talk page, so for myself, it'll continue here. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  04:58, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that another editor has reverted you, there are more for the removal of the information than there are for keeping it, so it's now up to you to gain consensus to keep it. Consensus is for the more challenged edit, and this is yours, given that you are now the only editor against the removal of it. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited 11.22.63, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deadline. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Danish airing
All other series are usually listed in aired countries. This is not "at TV-guide" even if the second series aired now. We can't have one rule for one article and other rules for all other similar series. Boeing720 (talk) 11:17, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Can you clarify which series you are talking about? I'm somewhat confused here. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:19, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, now I realize which series. Firstly, it's unsourced. Secondly, WP:TVINTL states we only list countries where English is the main language. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * In a hast - Midsomer Murders Boeing720 (talk) 11:37, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * A Touch of Frost Boeing720 (talk) 11:39, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * The Shadow Line (TV series) Boeing720 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't find any which does not contain international sales, or "overseas". They are never sourcered. But You can'tr simply impose new rules. Why should the sell of for instance Columbo be limited to countries where English is spoken ? We are obliged to use a global style. Boeing720 (talk) 11:46, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If those series include countries where English is not the main language, then they are in the wrong and need to be fixed accordingly. Obviously, international English-speaking countries are fine. Who said that I am imposing new rules? Did you even read the policy? Just because other articles do something, doesn't make it correct. And EVERYTHING needs to be sourced. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well in the 90th something eposode of Midsummer Murders, begins in Copenhagen. But English is the only language spoken. No episode og A Touch of Frost deals with any other language than English. But both these TV-series are sold across most of Europe as well as at other continents. And this is indeed of encyclopedical value. I think you are attempting to impose new, and lowers standards, by removing list of countries where Black Sails (and other TV-series) have been aired. And what language (or languages) that are official in those countries are of next to no encyclopedical value at all. Boeing720 (talk) 01:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Take it to the Talk Page of WP:TVINTL if you disagree with it. I'm simply putting the correct policy across. Which is not, as you believe, forcing new and lower-standard policies across. As I appear to need to tell you again and again and again, because you simply cannot understand, as per the policy, countries where English is not the main language do not get added to international broadcast sections. Get it yet? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for providing links on John's talk page to articles that violate WP:TVINTL, I cleaned them up for you. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 01:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

RE: Craig Owen
Hi, Alex. Although I agree with you about Craig, it was sourced to a Doctor Who Confidential episode (which I thought was a rather weak source, to be honest). Just a heads up. DonQuixote (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

List of Nowhere Boys episodes
Hi there, could you please explain why you removed this in the List of Nowhere Boys episodes article? I thought DVD release dates are included in these tables. Lesahna01 (talk) 22:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
 * They're not, as per WP:TVOVERVIEW. Quote: "Home media releases do not belong in the series overview tables. Such data can quickly overload a simple table and are not germane to our understanding of the series." Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  00:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who The Wedding of River Song.png
 Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who The Wedding of River Song.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Oops!
Didn't see that. Thanks for changing that! GabeIglesia (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. ^^ Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:31, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Me
Maisie Williams has been credited as Me for her last two appearances, surely one may safely assume she will use it this time? It's been made abundantly clear she has abandoned the name "Ashildr" - she recalls the name in neither of her last two appearances, and she's hardly going to be called "Frank" or "Gunhilda", is she?

I come in peace,

Thanks,

Gotha &#x262d; Talk 00:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be safe to say from an original research viewpoint, but it's unsourced, given that within the story itself the Doctor calls her Ashildr. Best to wait until the episode airs
 * Alright, then.
 * Thanks very much for the prompt reply,
 * Gotha &#x262d; Talk 00:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

help me understand how this works!
Ok, I guess I get now that you need a third party reference or an edit will be "undone." What I don't understand is WHY. If something is a DIRECT QUOTE from a primary source, especially a well-known, public source that is easily accessible, why would you need (for example) an interview with Steve Moffett saying, "Remember where I say, 'to be or not to be, that is the question,' well, that is from Shakespeare's play Hamlet." Why can't you just point directly to Hamlet? It would seem to me that many, many external references would be left out otherwise and people would A) wrongly imagine that something that is a quote is new, and B) would be deprived of the richness of the source material. Tone of voice is not available in a message like this, but I am not asking belligerently.... I am truly perplexed!

Thank you for your time and the work you do here.

Renata Byrne
 * Everything on Wikipedia must be sourced, including continuity and quotes. Wikipedia editors could simply add a load of incorrect quotes without sources, and many would assume that it's correct. Adding sources prevents this. Also, please make sure you sign your posts with ~ . Thank you! Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:26, 30 November 2015 (UTC)


 * OK, yes, I understand. But my point was slightly different. I had asked why you cannot link to Macbeth (primary source) rather than to a secondary source interview, as on the "Sleep No More" page for Doctor Who, where there are TWO Macbeth links, NEITHER to the primary source! So as you said, it could have been misquoted (by one of those secondary or tertiary sources). For the direct quote part, wouldn't it have made more sense to link to the play rather than writers from British newspapers?


 * I added the quote from the song in the musical Oliver and then linked (or tried to) directly to the Wikipedia article for the exact song within the musical (they have entries for the musical OLIVER as well as a specific entry for the song "Consider Yourself." Would I have had to instead linked to SOMEONE ELSE saying it was from Oliver - again, for example, and article in the Guardian? Or if the article had had the lyrics, would that have been good enough?


 * I apologize for these newbie questions, but seriously, as someone with a PhD I would have been laughed out of the academy if in my dissertation I had relied on secondary and tertiary sources when I could have quoted the primary source, so I am trying to understand the rationale!


 * PS I have been a Doctor Who fan since the 60's! I am a bit older than the show!


 * Thank you again.
 * Renata Byrne (Your last comment - do you mean sign your name with 96.39.117.86 (talk) 10:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC) INSTEAD OF a name or IN ADDITION? Thank you!)


 * The links to Macbeth are simply because it is mentioned within the sentence in question; the content is then expanded upon outside of the linking Linking to the play itself is not the point here. The need for a third-party source is to show that it is actually notable to the episode. How do we know that the writers deliberately pulled that line from the song to use in the episode? How do we know that it wasn't a coincidence? We don't, and hence the need for tertiary sources, so yes, you would need to reference a reliable article written by someone who noted the similarity and that it was actually noteworthy.
 * Wikipedia is not the same as a PhD, nowhere near it. Everything must be source reliably, so that we actually know that if something appears to have come from somewhere else, we know that that's what actually happened. There's plenty of more information concerning this at Verifiability. And yes, that's what I meant by signing your name (more information on this at Signatures). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  10:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed response - I get it now! But I can't help but say that it does seem counter-intuitive; if someone clearly quotes Shakespeare, the question of whether he MEANT to or intended to seems odd, because the ONLY other option would be that the writer stole the line and meant to pass it off as his own, that is, he plagiarized it! There's not a snowball's chance in heck that it was a random coincidence (and that is certainly true of quoting a very well-known British musical; Moffett, Gatiss and and the whole current crew have both quoted to and referred to famous musicals in the past, from "Les Mis" to "Oklahoma" -  Sherlock  - and "Consider Yourself" is really the most famous song in the musical. There is no other source for the line....)

It would seem to make sense to have some sort of other category of reference in addition to the one there already is, so that, if someone quotes, say, Lincoln's Gettysburg address, but there is no newspaper article MENTIONING that the episode contained Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, one could still say, "This s Lincoln's Gettysburg Address; however, the writers of Doctor Who have never publicly acknowledged it!" Again - people are misled by imagining the writers made it up! :-)

I do get there are some references that COULD have been accidental coincidences, like having to go the "long way around" in Heaven Sent.... And I do get that the requirements for a PhD are far, far stricter than Wikipedia - one CANNOT ignore primary sources or it would be plagiarism.

Anyway thanks again! I promise I get it and have no more questions! Renata 96.39.117.86 (talk) 13:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Appreciation
Thanks for your work bro

supergirl episodes
if the episodes section of supergirl keeps getting changed to reflect actual information by multiple people you should take the hint. i dont care about continuity just fact and fact is episode # 4 of super is labeled as Episode 5 when the production number clearly shows it is intended to be 4. who cares how it aired, thats what the air date is for. episode 4 of super girl is episode 4 (solidified when they release the dvd/blurays) and that is not shown by the wiki page. nonameonpurpose.
 * It's also getting reverted by multiple and more experienced editors. It has been discussed on the talk page. You don't care about it, but the guidelines of editing Wikipedia do. The production codes already indicate the episodes were swapped, as does the note at the bottom of the episode table. Episodes are listed in the order of their airdate, and not continuity. It's that simple. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  06:26, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Supergirl Summary
dude you have any idea how wrong what you just did was - you just called me a plaguirist - i wrote the most of that summary right out of my own head except the part were someone else added "disapproves of his daughter getting back together with Jimmy" thus as usual the internet stole from me not the fuking other way around!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 10:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do attempt to remain civil. And what solid proof can you provide that you wrote it from scratch, when identical copies of it exist elsewhere? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  10:56, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * dude you continute to slander me - continue and we will move this discussion over to the admins!!!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 10:58, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No proof and avoiding the topic. Typical. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  10:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * out right slander!!!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 10:59, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And again. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * 68.231.26.111 - AlexTheWhovian's reversions to your edits appear justified. You're putting words in his mouth by accusing him of "slandering" you and calling you a "plaguirist" [sic] - he's not attacking you; he's following policy. If you continue this behavior, as well as your edits that were made against consensus and despite being asked to stop, you will be blocked from editing.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * dude you have slandered me - show what you think is evidence and it will prove by time stamp that mine was written first otherwise you had better back down with such unfounded accusations or i WILL take up you conduct on the admin boards!!!--68.231.26.111 (talk) 11:05, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're more than welcome to do so. I think this discussion is over :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:06, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead. Please, right now, take it to ANI. I'll follow you there and repeat everything I have said. Firstly, it's not your show nor your page. Secondly, other sites don't show timestamps of when their summaries were added. You still provide no solid proof that you made the summary first. This is Wikipedia policy - learn it and follow it. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AlexTheWhovian - His response to my AIV report, "i wrote something out of my own head". No further questions, your honor! LOL.  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Saw that, added my own. Thanks for the report and your support! Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  11:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * AlexTheWhovian - Any time :-)  ~Oshwah~  (talk) (contribs)   11:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Alex: you appear to have 7 reverts within 24 hours on this article. I make no comment on the merits, but you have broken WP:3RR many times over. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:45, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

I have closed the AIV report with no action. IP, you need to tone down the aggressiveness in your posts. I have checked the site where the text was allegedly copied from and they have word-for-word copies of Wikipedia synopsis for various shows. I'm inclined to believe that various editors did not copy from this site, but rather the other way around. --Neil N  talk to me 14:11, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The Witch's Familiar
Greetings, Alex.

I've started Talking with Transformeddispute about my reference on this article to The Killing Joke, and I'd like any input you may have. Thanks ahead of time.

Ooznoz (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)Ooznoz

i feel bad
about saying i hate you, i was in a bad mood about something in real life 85.210.81.90 (talk) 10:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

You may want to comment on this
User:68.231.26.111, who previously edit warred against you in a very uncivil manner at Supergirl (U.S. TV series) has been reported for edit warring at another article. I thought you might want to comment on it. Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring DarkKnight2149 03:18, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Doctor_Who#Revelations_about_the_Doctor
Hi, what I wrote seemed directly relevant to 'revelations about the doctor' and 'that the Doctor was more than just an ordinary Time Lord' so wondering why you reverted my edit. crandles (talk) 13:34, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Entirely unsourced (main one), poor format and incorrect styling. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  13:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the prompt reply. Many things seem sourced only to the wikipedia article on the relevant episode. I have since noticed edits around the hybrid is 'me' is more ambiguous than the Doctor proclaiming he is the hybrid. I note that may be difficult to deal with without bringing in OR. I still feel that 'the Doctor was more than just an ordinary Time Lord' section needs expansion given what has happened in the last two episodes. Perhaps you are able to formulate something better than my first attempt? If not I may consider having another attempt unless you reply here with good reason(s) for no such edit. crandles (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

'Episode references'
I'm wondering, what is wrong with 'episode' references, like the ones you removed in the edit .Theoosmond (talk) 21:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That is not how content is sourced or referenced; if necessary, the appropriate template should be used, but preferably a third-party source. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  00:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Blindspot episode 11
I don't understand why episode 11 can't stay in the table, it works just fine for many other series pages. There's no need to do things differently just because the title has not been announced yet – that was already made clear. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Many editors that I've worked with over many series articles have come to the understanding of a standard practice of including a row for an episode once and only once at least two items of information are available for the episode (e.g. director/air date, title/writer, etc.) Much like why Game of Thrones (season 6) has a row for Episode 1 (director/air date), but no rows for other episodes (only director). Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I see. It's not a big deal, just a bit unusual to me. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No problems. Just working on what I've done in the past. If you wish to add it back to the table, there'd be no problems with it. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  12:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to change it back, but yeah, when there's not even an air date, you can't really be sure they will be aired in that order, so I probably wouldn't include them either in that case. nyuszika7h (talk) 12:13, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

WP:PROSPLIT
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Galavant into List of Galavant episodes. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted copied template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. –Dark Cocoa Frosting (talk) 12:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

20.000 edits in 15 months ?
Do you use the official Edit Counter, or is the figure just your own estimation. How many new articles have you initiated ? And how many deletions do you count ? Boeing720 (talk) 20:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please explain your interest and why you need to know this? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Pure curiosity. Do you mind answering ? Boeing720 (talk) 07:35, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll answer once I know why you want to know. Let's call it curiousity. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  08:19, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I said "pure curiosity", and I ment it . You are of cource not obligated to give me an answer. Boeing720 (talk) 02:28, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Click the link in the userbox. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks ! I could for instance see around 30 edits of Doctor Who episodes, all showing "-12 bytes" and done within a single minute. Personally am I not quite in that hurry. But I wish you a Merry Christmas ! By the way, did you know the Crown Prince of Denmark is married to a Tasmanian woman. She's quite good looking too. Boeing720 (talk) 04:44, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Colors used in CSI seasonal articles
Alex, I know you've done a lot of work with accessibility compliance and colorations on TV episode list articles. You might want to take a look at CSI, its episode articles, and some of the main cast articles. An editor has done a huge amount of updating, including infoboxes, and color changes. Some of the colors are very bright, and I doubt are 508 compliant. I don't have time to back-track it all, and you have the expertise. --Drmargi (talk) 03:47, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know! Under the "Colour Compliance" section on my user page is a bunch of links that alert me of the presence of non-compliant colours, but CSI hasn't appeared yet. I will, however, keep an eye on them an check the articles out presently. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  03:52, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Episode table
Whats so bad about having smaller text? It's not ideal but It's not that bad. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:32, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The cells should be uniform in size between all of them - i.e. they're all small, or none of them are small. It's worse than the abbreviation, which at least matches how it's done with the "No." for overall and season/series, and the smaller text still takes up more space than when it's abbreviated. (I'm not seeing a removal of the abbreviations on the diff that I linked to, if you're so opposed to it...) Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  02:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I've actually tried to discuss the issue of column widths and use of the abbreviation on Grapesoda22's talk page. The number of columns that we try to have in most articles is problematic, especially at lower resolutions (1280px for example) and we need to keep column widths down as much as possible, which is why the abbreviation is needed. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And then they cleared the discussion without replying; obviously a user who doesn't want to discuss real accessibility issues. Lower widths for columns that aren't as important is more important in itself, so that (as you said) there's room enough for existing columns on lower resolutions. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  09:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Yeah I know I'm the worst editor of all time, and my only goal is to vandalize the site as much as possible with the sole intention of upsetting you. Grapesoda22 (talk) 16:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Please remain civil and if replying, contribute to the discussion at hand. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  00:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * All I did was suggest a way to meet the size requirements without having to use the abbreviation and then everybody jumps down my throat like I' a felon. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And we responded with a way to further meet the requirements, given that the abbreviation further shortens the column. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  00:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The abbreviation is horrible worse yet the option to hover over it and read the whole word does not work on the mobile view. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:53, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

And the use of &lt;small> tags renders it uneven with the rest of the cells and takes up even more space. The better of two evils. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian 00:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, maybe we could just decrease the font size of all of the words in every cell. Not only would the words "Production code" fit as they should, but the other information would have a more comfortable fit as well. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * And what of the abbreviations for "Number" in the "No. overall" and "No. in season/series" cells? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * What about them? Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Do they stay? Do they go? Why mention the fact that you can't use the abbreviations "hover" effect on mobile for Production, but not for Numbers? Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:16, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * We could just use shorter and more simplistic phrases that get the message across like "series total" and "season total" or something. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:19, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Template talk:Episode table Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:22, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * With the smaller next the full word "number" would fit. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:27, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Not according to the test cases in my sandbox. It will fit, yes, but still take up more room. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:36, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The second example in your sandbox is what I was thinking and it doesn't take up that much extra space. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Stop changing the series nine section.
You have no source to back you up. Steven Moffat never said that the final episodes are one story. If you continue to edit it without a source I'll have to report you. I have inside information on the next DWM and know that Moffat and the DWM consider them separated, so you saying that Moffat ever said otherwise is beyond incorrect. Stop spreading misinformation. Microbat98 (talk) 00:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion on the talk page, and until a consensus is reached, then the status quo must remain, which is what I am reverting to. You are the one edit-warring by forcing your edits without partaking in the existing discussion, which I have already mentioned exists. Your claimed "inside information" is entirely original research and cannot be considered, nor am I saying that Moffat said anything. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  00:52, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I cannot access Talk pages on my mobile. But I do know that you cannot say that ?Moffat claims the final episodes are a single story if he hasn't claimed that. You can separate the stories, as that's not objective yet, but saying Moffat claimed something that he didn't is a lie. You have no source to back you up. I have no quarrel with the episode listings saying that they're the same story, but Moffat has not once claimed it was a single story and so putting that he did is a lie. I'm reverting the changes, and don't act as if you're not participating in this so called 'war' either. Microbat98 (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure you can. If the URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Who_(series_9), then the talk page URL is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Doctor_Who_(series_9). Just add "Talk:". And I've never claimed that Moffat said that. The text being reverted is "The series saw the return of the cliffhanger, with a three-part story for the first time since the third series, and eight of the remaining nine episodes divided into two-parters." Nothing about Moffat. And you're contradicting yourself - if you have a problem with claiming that the final three episodes are the same story number, then you have a problem with the episode table claiming exactly the same thing. You're the one warring, I'm the one reverting to WP:STATUSQUO - read that. Alex &#124; The &#124; Whovian  01:09, 16 December 2015 (UTC)