User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 22

Edit tags
Hi Aussie, do you have the ability to edit tags? This functionality appeared for me earlier today and I can't tell if it's a new global feature or if someone changed my permissions. If I open any article there are check boxes next to the radio buttons for Diffs, just next to the time and date. Thx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have the ability too. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Newly acquired, or for a while now? (If you don't mind me prying.) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * They are new for me today. Just noticed them when I got on this morning. There is a small discussion about it over at the Village Pump technical page if you are interested. Though I don't fully understand their purpose or the reason all autoconfirmed users have it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:13, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Same here. The ability just suddenly appeared. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:39, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. I thought it was going to be something useful. Like, I often "tag" vandalism in my edit summaries with stuff like "Tag: Caerphilly, UK; ISP: BT" to make it easier for other editors to spot patterns in vandalism, and to make it easier to communicate the scope of the problem at AIV, rather than have to dick around with a ton of diffs. Oh well. I guess we can only use it for predetermined tags. Blecch. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:53, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Opinion on a site as a bad source...
Cyphoidbomb came upon this one in Nickelodeon Movies tonight; NickALive!. He reverted himself at first but I checked out the site and its complete Ctrl+C'ing of Nick and Viacom PR made Nickandmore look like neutral in comparison so I reverted his own self-reversion. I'd like to know if you'd agree and if we have the freedom to remove any item that uses this site to source. Thanks.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 05:48, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Though I don't intend to get in the way here, I don't think an exceptionally strong case was ever presented for the exclusion of NickAlive. The previous discussions were not exactly vociferously defended and I think we kinda slapped it into the TVFAQ with not any significant participation. Are press release sites generally excluded entirely, or are they allowed in small amounts, if supporting non-controversial statements? I always thought that like any primary source, we could use some of this for basic crap like sourcing dates. I will also point out that we in the WT:TV community are seeing a dearth of reliable sources, what with most of the normal go-tos like Zap2It and TVGuide and TV.MSN.com increasingly not giving a shit about being archivists of TV data. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's clearly a self-published source so it's not reliable and therefore we can't use it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:35, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Moderator comment
Hello my friend. Re: this, would "Late 2015" suffice? The content is confirmed (albeit very weakly, I admit) in the moderator's comment here. Not my favorite type of reference by any stretch, buuut...? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
 * We can't really use anything used in the comments section. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:08, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Lost Girl page Main cast section
It may be time for some radical editing. Today's addition of info regarding Lauren turned the encapsulation of a principal character into a summation of plot lines. What's the MOS for TV Cast? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:44, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * This kinda stuff can quickly become ponderous, where you've got a half a dozen or more rehashings of plot from half a dozen perspectives.
 * Joe - In season one he goes to a grocery store to buy a lime and meets a produce spritzer, Jessie, only to get shot to death by an unknown gunman, who later is revealed to be a clown named Dimples.
 * Jessie - While working as a produce spritzer at the grocery store, she meets Joe, who is there to buy a lime, and witnesses him being shot by an unknown gunman. She eventually helps the fuzz track down Joe's killer, a clown named Dimples.
 * Dimples - A clown who hates produce spritzers, but who is also a terrible marksman. By the end of season one, he is revealed as Joe's killer, having shot him accidentally while aiming for Jessie, a produce spritzer at the local grocery who was standing near a pyramid of limes.
 * I've just written about a quarter page of dreck, but only really told you four things about one event from this fake (but intriguing) series. The MOS could probably be a little more clear on what we're looking for. Some editors just have no off button with this stuff. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Follow up on image fair-use
Hi Aussie, sorry to bug ya again. Following up on this conversation can you point me to anything that clearly explains the "use images on the main article about a television network, but not sub-articles" guideline? The closest I can find is at Logos but it doesn't quite say what I'm expecting it to say. Alt: A discussion on the matter? I think I may propose an addition to that Logo page under Specific cases if there's nothing else out there. Danke! (PS: Avoid the lime pyramid at your local grocery. &lt;taps nose&gt;) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:20, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NFLIST might be what you're looking for. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:33, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. I'm thinking more along the lines of this: We have a Cartoon Network article. We can use a logo there. We have a Cartoon Network (Middle East & Africa) article. I don't think we can use a logo there. Yes? No? I found this which seems to suggest that, but my ADD brain gets lost in all that Wikijabber. I think maybe I'm looking for WP:NFC point #17. "The logo of a entity used for identification of one of its child entities, when the child entity lacks their own branding. Specific child entity logos remain acceptable." See, you helped me out and you didn't even have to do anything. Thanx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Damn I'm good! -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 23:46, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why you're the go-to-man. :) Now if you could comment at Cyberchase... ;) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:07, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Already done. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:18, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyberchase
Heya, would you look at my comments Talk:List of Cyberchase episodes and see if you'd add anything? That episode list is a holy mess with a ton of incomprehensible cruft bogging it down. ("A little Wicked will be shown in this season"???) Thx, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 12:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I've commented on the talk page and fixed part of the article itself but I agree completely. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

No need to patronise me
I'm pretty much a veteran here on wikipedia, I really do not need to be patronised. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbdelboy (talk • contribs) 11:24, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Given your edit-warring and the fact that you've only made 1,624 edits I was willing to assume good faith when I warned you. A veteran should know better than to edit-war as you did. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:34, 6 May 2015 (UTC)


 * well, sometimes edit warring is necessary to prove a point. don't be a dick to people for no reason, there's no call for it on wikipedia whatsoever. Nbdelboy 11:42, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * A veteran editor should know better than to try to justify pointy edit-warring and telling other editors "Don't be stupid", is being a dick. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:02, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * so you can deal it out, but you can't take it? Interesting. Nbdelboy 12:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I will not tolerate personal attacks, and neither will Wikipedia. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:31, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nor will I. What makes it acceptable for you to, and not others? Because you've been editing longer? Don't be a hypocrite. --Nbdelboy (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Unlike you, I haven't attacked anyone. You seem to have attacked me because I warned you about edit-warring. Deal with it and move on. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Work on infobox tv
Hey Aussie. Just wanted to pass something by you on this. First, thanks for all the prep work you've been doing in the sandbox. So my question. If this merge goes through, and we implement a "Release date" option, that would in theory no longer make my recent request of adding the "release" parameter necessary. All the streaming media series could use "released" which would change the header from "Broadcast" to "Release" and use a more appropriate field "Release date" over "Original airing". Thoughts? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Why is the addition of this parameter necessary? The label of first_aired could be dependent on the value of released. "Original airing" would be appropriate in most cases; "first released" would be appropriate in others. Alakzi (talk) 16:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I saw that when I was working out what parameters we needed to modify/add. Works out well, doesn't it? As I said at the TfM, I can't believe that we didn't think of this previously. Interestingly, a lot of the articles using Infobox television film should actually be using first_aired instead of released. Weird, hey?
 * That's a possibility. I tried using first_aired initially, but found that the label needed to be changeable so I just added released as that was easier. As I've said in my reply to Favre1fan93, a check through the articles using Infobox television film revealed that many should actually be using first_aired. I haven't yet found any that are using both. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * If released isn't gonna be used for any other purpose, then this would be simpler. Alakzi (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't have an issue if you want to modify the sandbox code accordingly. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)


 * release was recently added to Infobox television as a switch for shows that were released through online or other methods. i.e. media that did not involve airing/traditional broadcast. released is a parameter (mis)used in Infobox television film. To avoid redundancy and kill two birds with one stone, I've removed release from the sandbox code and made released an alias for first_aired. When "released" is used in place of "first_aired" it now changes the section heading from "Broadcast" to "Release", and the "Original run/Original airing" label to "Original release". For online series that are released on two or more nights, "last_aired" can still be used and the label will still be "Original release". Personally, I don't see why we can't hard-code "Original release" instead of providing the option for "Original run/Original airing", since it means the same thing. For that matter, we could do the same thing to the section heading, just make it "Release" instead of "Broadcast". Any thoughts? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:23, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I support hardcoding "Release"; we shouldn't be complicating things without very good reason. Alakzi (talk) 11:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I saw what you did in the sandbox and like what you did. I think I'm missing what you mean to hardcode and what not? Do you mean just to have it always be "Original release" and not even bother with "Original run/Original airing"? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's exactly what I mean. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Then I have absolutely no problems with that. That makes a lot of sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Are we good to go with this one? Alakzi (talk) 23:53, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey Aussie. If you have a second, can you look over Template:Infobox television season? I made a few changes to get it in line with the main infobox (per the merge). Can you let me know if I'm correct, and add it to your AWB tasking to update articles using it accordingly? Thanks! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do that if you can look at this discussion. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 02:51, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yup. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I only found one very minor issue with your edits, but I fixed that. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Perfect. I just saw (and responded) to the discussion you and Big were having about possibly revamping the whole thing, so maybe we should wait on having AWB go through the pages with updates. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Cyberchase tables
Hi Aussie, I reformatted the S1 episode table at Cyberchase, but it feels somewhat stark to me. The title field is sprawling and I wonder if maybe there's a better use of that space, like maybe going back to the original table (see S2, S3, etc) and incorporating "Topic" as a column again. Got any thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sometimes we have fairly empty columns. That's just something that happens. What you've done seems OK, although maybe we could place just the topic title in the header row and leave the prose in the  field. It's a bit redundant though. Why did you use the   field for the production code instead of  ? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:18, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You know that weakness with tables that I'm always talking about? It's manifest here; I just copied the table from S9 and jiggered with it. :/ Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look at the table later and do a few fixes then. In the meantime, please be a little more confident in your actions. I've been programming for 40 years (OMG I feel old!) and I still learn something every day. It's not a weakness that you have, it's just a lack of experience, and that puts you in the same boat as everyone else. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 00:54, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions
Do you want me to open an RfC for every single edit of mine you revert, no matter how minor? Is that the goal of these reverts? Mdrnpndr (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Huh? You actually nominated a tracking category for deletion because it was empty. Tracking categories are supposed to be empty. If you had bothered to check the template talk page you'd have seen that we kept the tracking code in the template because people are still adding the parameter to articles. While the tracking code is still in place the category is still needed. By all means, open an RfC if you want but you'll just look silly. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:29, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

The Last Man on Earth
You have reverted my edit to the cast of the television show, The Last Man on Earth. What makes you believe Cleopatra Coleman is a main character, yet Mary Steenburgen is not? Considering they have both been in 5 episodes and are likely not going to make another appearance due to the season finale. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everythingever20 (talk • contribs) 03:36, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any edits by you that I've reverted but, as I indicated here, Steenburgen has not been credited in a starring role, while Coleman has. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:21, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
The 100. I think I am doing this right... Looks like someone has vandalized the article yet again. I'm not sure how to revert the page back to the last correct version, which was the one you made. I noticed you had made a lot of corrections etc to the site so I figured you knew how to do it. Andes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andes09 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello AL I hope that you are well. I took the liberty of moving this to the bottom of your talk page so it wouldn't get lost. Im sure you know what show this is but here The 100 (TV series) is a link to speed things up for you. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:00, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks to you both, but it looks like somebody got to the article before I was able to. - Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Page ownerhip
Actually, I was close to taking DM to the edit-warring page. Edit-warring one's preferred version against at least two other editors is a symptom of page ownership. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You seem to know a lot about ownership. You've been accusing people of owning that page for a long time now, which in itself is inappropriate. You've been deliberately baiting Drmargi, so an AN3 report would probably see you blocked as well. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, my gawd! Still?  --Drmargi (talk) 04:26, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * No one can be bated unless they choose to be. And several editors there have displayed symptoms of page ownership "for a long time", which is why it's so funny to see them edit-warring with each other. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Drmargi did not ask for you to post deliberately provocative comments on her talk page, or the article's talk page. You are a serial offender in this regard and if you persist, we can take this to a more formal venue. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:50, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I made no personal attacks on the article's talk page. And MD attacked me personally on my talk page first, though I don't see you griping about that. Unless you want to prove that these editors are displaying page ownership, you had best back off. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "She did it first" is the sort of thing I expect from kindergarten children. That she may have posted on your page is not an excuse for the inappropriate edits on the article talk page or Drmargi's talk page. You seem to want to have the last word and are unwilling to let things go. Remember, I'm looking back to the edits last year as well as recently. And please don't tell me to "back off" on my own talk page. That's inappropriate too, and clear evidence that everything I have said here is correct. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * What's clear is that you're not looking at the whole picture, and you seem to think I should happily absorb personal attacks and not defend myself. Furthermore, your jumping into the middle of this, on my talk page, suggests that you're trying to stir up trouble. I've already archived your comments on my page. Feel free to do likewise here. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Quite to the contrary, I AM looking at the big picture, as I've already explained. Your edits warranted a warning from a third party, and the warning that I gave was appropriate. By archiving the warning you are deemed to have read the warning so, if you persist, there is evidence that you are aware such actions are inappropriate. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:40, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't know why you pounced onto my talk page, since I don't you from Adam or Eve. Regardless, you haven't really studied the details of the issue in that article, or you wouldn't be issuing me warnings - you'd be laughing at the situation, as I have done from the moment it began. Meanwhile, I have essentially warned both you and the other editor to refrain from additional personal attacks yourselves. Then everyone should be happy. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:32, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I have had the article on my watchlist for some time. This isn't the first time you have accused somebody of ownership,. You did so last year, multiple times. When you did it again, there was clearly a need to address the issue, especially as your comment was not aimed at improving the article and seemed deliberately provocative. Drmargi's removal of your comments was appropriate under WP:NOTAFORUM. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You've got a small group of editors smacking down anything they don't like. If that isn't page ownership, I don't know what is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you have problems with ownership, take it to the appropriate venue, but to persistently accuse others is inappropriate. If you're not willing to prove the ownership issue then you need to stop making accusations. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 10:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just proved it to you. And if you were to actually study that page's recent history, you would see what I mean. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not me you have to prove it to. Take the ownership claims to WP:ANI or stop making the accusations! -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:12, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Why should I raise a fuss at the Edit Warring page about such a middling article? It's only a list of episodes, fer cryin' out loud. The self-appointed page owners have treated it like it was the Magna Carta. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * ANI is not the edit-warring page. If it's "such a middling article" then there is no reason to continue making claims that you aren't willing to back up. I'll make it easy for you, if you alleged ownership on the talk page again, we WILL end up at ANI because I will take it there. End of story. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:24, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The edit-warring page is where the debate needs to go, if anywhere. The small group of folks who want to keep an iron grip on the contents of that page were edit-warring with each other. Apparently you're OK with that. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're claiming ownership, the accusation should be made at ANI, not AN3. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The article is not important enough to raise that fuss. It's quite sufficient to point out their behavioral follies on the article talk page. However, if they start edit warring again, they will get reported for it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * You're clearly not getting the point. This is not about the edit-warring. It's about you claiming that editors are exhibiting ownership. Stop it! If you do it again without backing it up at ANI, YOU will be reported to ANI. That's it. Discussion over. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:31, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Bones (TV series)
WP:Ordinals doesn't specifically say spelling numbers in seasons rather than just have numbers in TV show articles. It only says Ordinal suffixes, Regnal numbers and a dots or the ordinal marks. It doesn't initially on numbers or spelling numbers of seasons in TV shows articles and there is no consensus about that. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:58, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I meant WP:NUMERAL, which is immediately above WP:ORDINAL and says "Generally, in article text integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words". Changing it is, as I earlier said, inconsistent with related articles. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:02, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Look, just because of the WP:NUMERAL that numbers are spelled out in words, but generally, some of that rule would become a factor with some articles. There should an exception on TV shows since seasons are best in numbers rather than numbers that are spelled out in words. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:06, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Just because you think there should be an exception doesn't mean you can force one. That article has had a mix of numbering but it and related articles follow WP:NUMERAL and should continue to do so. As I wrote on your talk page, forcing an edit into an article and then telling someone else to discuss violates both WP:BRD and WP:STATUSQUO. You should restore the status quo. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:09, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That rule doesn't apply to TV shows and season numbers are best in numbers, not by numbers that are spelled out in words. BattleshipMan (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Where in the MOS or policy does it say that any of the rules that I've cited do not apply? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:43, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There's no specific rulings on MOS about television show season in numbers whatever or not they should be by numbers or numbers spelled by letters. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * When there are no specific rulings, all of the MOS and policies apply. It's not the other way around. We don't apply the MOS only if it specifically says to for a specific circumstance. You need to justify ignoring MOS and policies and you haven't here. You're ignoring all the rules and saying "let's do it my way" which is inappropriate. You're definitiely ignoring WP:STATUSQUO, which has wide consensus, and says If you make an edit which is good-faith reverted, do not simply reinstate your edit – leave the status quo up, ... During a dispute, until a consensus is established to make a change, the status quo reigns. That you're unwilling to follow policies, the MOS or guidelines is very poor wikietiquette at the very best. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 06:14, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well the seasons in a lot of shows are in numbers, which is probably for the best among readers and pretty much every entertainment site including TV Guide & TVLine uses numbers rather than numbers spelled by letters. That's what this site should have for every TV show articles. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:53, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * That's irrelevant, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:35, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it shouldn't be. Some of Wikipedia's policies has flaws, flaws that create issues in justifiable formatting and such. You have failed to see the potential flaws in some of those policies. Discussion is over. BattleshipMan (talk) 15:18, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Nice try but you don't get to close discussions on my talk page. Regardless of whether you think policies have flaws, you are required to follow them, as we all are, unless there is good reason not to. In the present case, there is no consensus for your edits. If you aren't willing to continuing discussing, then we have to return the article to the status quo. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

NCIS: New Orleans
Hello, I have opened a section on the talk page, if you wish to comment. Talk:NCIS: New Orleans Maticsg1 (talk) 18:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Lost Girl
I edited down the info about Lauren in Cast and characters. No one else took the opportunity to do it. I also added "For character development see" under the heading because otherwise it will be inundated with excessive info about her again. Some editors can be deliberately uncomprehending. With this, contributors can't say they didn't know about the List of Lost Girl characters article. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Arrow episodes category
Sorry about that, I don't actually know much about the categories and misinterpreted what you were doing there. Thanks for the helpful explanation with your revert. - adamstom97 (talk) 07:00, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Abbreviations
How do you determine what abbreviations to use in the MythBusters article? Do you use two or three letter abbreviations? I am not sure how you decide. For the US I can understand, as you pointed out the policy, and maybe the UK too, but what about other countries? Like Canada and the Netherlands? You also seemed to go against some official country codes. How do you choose? SAJ  (T)  14:44, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Generally, if you are unsure the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 codes are the best to use, as these the most universal. UK and US tend to be special cases, which is why they're specifically mentioned. We tend to use the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 codes for them, although Alpha-2 can be used for other countries as well. What country codes did I "go against"? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 14:59, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah I just meant those two codes you "went against". So you just chose them since they seem more common? Are there any other exceptions? Just interested. Also, the ISO code for the Netherlands is NLD, while the IOC and FIFA codes are NED, which seems to make more sense. Should "NLD" just be used? Can a tooltip be used so people can see what it stands for? Or is that inappropriate? Thanks. SAJ   (T)  15:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IOC and FIFA codes are relevant to the Olympics and soccer articles but little else. A tooltip can be used, but is generally unnecessary. MOS:HASH says to use one when using "No." but it's not a rule anywhere else. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:47, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So should NLD be used, with a tooltip in case anyone would not know what it stands for? SAJ   (T)  16:16, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, why not. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:43, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Logo education part 3
Hey A, I need some more education about logos. I removed a logo from Boomerang Italy under WP:NFC #17. This was reverted by Carniolus with the rationale that it is a free image and can be used anywhere. Please drop some science on me. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not all logos are non-free. Those that don't meet the "threshold of originality" requirement are ineligible for copyright and can be used freely. Because the Boomerang logo uses simple geometric shapes and fonts it's a free image, so NFC doesn't apply. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK. I appreciate the edification as usual. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * It can be really confusing. For example, logos consisting solely of fonts are considered not to meet the threshold of originality, because fonts are freely available and anyone can create a logo from them. This includes the Disney logo, which uses a font created by Disney before anyone knew what a font was. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:35, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * So something like the AT&T logo which has a more complex, stylized geometric shape might not be copyrighted, but Nickelodeon's logo, which is mostly a font, might tend to lean toward free? I'm really surprised about that Disney thing, but I guess it makes sense per your explanation. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I would have thought the AT&T logo would be non-free because of the shading variations. Commons can be very confusing and, quite frankly, I feel some of the people there just don't have a clue. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:59, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Tor link at The Pirate Bay
Not sure if you knew, but the link was discussed (with source) in the archive. I re-added it with the source, but if you still think the link is not enough sourced or want to discuss other attributes regarding it, feel free to open up a new discussion on the talk page. The source is currently (or just for me) down, so I had to use archive.org (https://web.archive.org/web/20150402234613/https://piratebrowser.com/browser.jpg). Belorn (talk) 09:47, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The link isn't working for me either. The image that you provided here does not constitute a reliable source and the url is on the blacklist so it shouldn't be included. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:50, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Hey A, I'm planning on doing some more cleanup at this article and I could use your thoughts so that there's a clear direction and not stonewalling from other editors. Thankx! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

The West Wing
AL, I just reverted one of those highly colored, decorative cast/character tables from the article on The West Wing. The show has been off the air for years, and the extant table has always worked well. It's arranged logically and easy to read. The new table is all about noting when characters where in the case (which can be handled in a parenthetic note), and takes up double the space. I'm expecting unframboise, who was until recently (and at times still is) one of those table-mad IP's, to have a fit, and thought I'd give you a heads up. --Drmargi (talk) 23:23, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Somebody added a table to Top Gear last night too. Do these people never read the MOS? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:16, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I just saw that. They put the tables up because others do, or for decoration, regardless of accessibility, space and who knows what else.  We need to get aggressive about removing them, especially huge ones list CSI and NCIS have.  --Drmargi (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

User:5.68.18.99
Hey  Aussie Legend 

I am here to ask off your opinion of what I should do. I have recently been making edits on an article called List of Mrs. Brown's Boys episodes. There is another editor User talk:5.68.18.99 who has been reverting them all. The whole idea is that this show Mrs. Browns Boys is an Irish programme and airs on RTÉ an Irish channel. The show co-produced by RTÉ and BBC (A British Channel). The original channel is RTÉ and the episodes are re-run on BBC the following day. So the fact that RTÉ is the original channel the air date should be of RTÉ's original airing. I believe that is the whole point of the air date. The problem I am running into is that this User:5.68.18.99 thinks that you judge it by the BBC date, which is the re-run in the UK. They think BBC is the original channel. I understand that they may not live in Ireland so they may not be familiar with the channel RTÉ.

The biggest problem is that they are not making any form of communication with me. The first time they made the revert they posted an edit summary saying that it is a BBC show and BBC is the original channel. I went over to their talk page and explained the situation. They did not reply, my comment was ignored and the edit was reverted this time without an edit summary. I undid it and asked them to see their talk page. They continued to ignore my comment and reverted the edit again. At that stage I decided to post another post on their talk page urging them to stop. They continued to revert and ignore my comments.

I just posted a 3rd comment on their talk page today and as I was there I noticed you had an encounter with this editor the other day on the Furtuama article. So that is what brought me here. I am just asking for your opinion on what way you think I should take this. I obviously don't have the power to block them. I would just like a second opinion.

Thanks You --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  12:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had issues with this editor previously. I've left an edit-warring warning on their talk page. If they continue without discussion we can look at how to proceed then. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, just a follow up on User: 5.68.18.99 I've been keeping an eye on their contributions and it looks as though they are not a big fan of the edit summary which shows another example of their lack of communication. So far they have not made a revert on the List of Mrs. Browns Boys episodes page, but that could be just due to the fact that they have not noticed it yet. When I was seeing their contributions I had noticed them making changes that other editors have informed them they were wrong on and they done the same to other articles. For example Years active ???? - present changed to Years active ???? - . They were informed by other editors that this was incorrect but continued to change it in other articles. So I just thought I would give you a heads up on the latest. Thanks --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems in a page
Hello, AussieLegend. It's Fusionem. I know we sometimes have our differences but I need your help this time. There a new user called TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  and it had been deleting a number of lists in the Shared universe page, leaving three links only. When I tried to revert it, the user sent me this message as response.

Fusionem (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so you know TRPoD is not a new editor - they have been editing since November 2007 and have over 115,000 edits. TRPoD is removing unsourced info that you are adding to the article which is allowed. You have been pinged at the talk page in this thread Talk:Shared universe so you will want to comment there. I know that it is a difficult thing when you are enthusiastic about a subject and want to add your knowledge to an article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires WP:RS for any info placed in its articles. Please try and understand that this is not an attack on you - it is just the way things are. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lost Girl Infobox template edited
Aussie, please intervene. The editor who made the edit ("JDDJS") is one of those types who thinks he knows more than anyone else. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. To refresh your memory: User talk:Pyxis Solitary Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume this is because of the removal of Clé Bennett. I've restored the content. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Thanks you for handling it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

User:5.68.18.99
Hey  Aussie Legend 

I am here to ask off your opinion of what I should do. I have recently been making edits on an article called List of Mrs. Brown's Boys episodes. There is another editor User talk:5.68.18.99 who has been reverting them all. The whole idea is that this show Mrs. Browns Boys is an Irish programme and airs on RTÉ an Irish channel. The show co-produced by RTÉ and BBC (A British Channel). The original channel is RTÉ and the episodes are re-run on BBC the following day. So the fact that RTÉ is the original channel the air date should be of RTÉ's original airing. I believe that is the whole point of the air date. The problem I am running into is that this User:5.68.18.99 thinks that you judge it by the BBC date, which is the re-run in the UK. They think BBC is the original channel. I understand that they may not live in Ireland so they may not be familiar with the channel RTÉ.

The biggest problem is that they are not making any form of communication with me. The first time they made the revert they posted an edit summary saying that it is a BBC show and BBC is the original channel. I went over to their talk page and explained the situation. They did not reply, my comment was ignored and the edit was reverted this time without an edit summary. I undid it and asked them to see their talk page. They continued to ignore my comment and reverted the edit again. At that stage I decided to post another post on their talk page urging them to stop. They continued to revert and ignore my comments.

I just posted a 3rd comment on their talk page today and as I was there I noticed you had an encounter with this editor the other day on the Furtuama article. So that is what brought me here. I am just asking for your opinion on what way you think I should take this. I obviously don't have the power to block them. I would just like a second opinion.

Thanks You --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  12:33, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I've had issues with this editor previously. I've left an edit-warring warning on their talk page. If they continue without discussion we can look at how to proceed then. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  13:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, just a follow up on User: 5.68.18.99 I've been keeping an eye on their contributions and it looks as though they are not a big fan of the edit summary which shows another example of their lack of communication. So far they have not made a revert on the List of Mrs. Browns Boys episodes page, but that could be just due to the fact that they have not noticed it yet. When I was seeing their contributions I had noticed them making changes that other editors have informed them they were wrong on and they done the same to other articles. For example Years active ???? - present changed to Years active ???? - . They were informed by other editors that this was incorrect but continued to change it in other articles. So I just thought I would give you a heads up on the latest. Thanks --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  18:31, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Problems in a page
Hello, AussieLegend. It's Fusionem. I know we sometimes have our differences but I need your help this time. There a new user called TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  and it had been deleting a number of lists in the Shared universe page, leaving three links only. When I tried to revert it, the user sent me this message as response.

Fusionem (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Just so you know TRPoD is not a new editor - they have been editing since November 2007 and have over 115,000 edits. TRPoD is removing unsourced info that you are adding to the article which is allowed. You have been pinged at the talk page in this thread Talk:Shared universe so you will want to comment there. I know that it is a difficult thing when you are enthusiastic about a subject and want to add your knowledge to an article. Unfortunately, Wikipedia requires WP:RS for any info placed in its articles. Please try and understand that this is not an attack on you - it is just the way things are. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 01:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Lost Girl Infobox template edited
Aussie, please intervene. The editor who made the edit ("JDDJS") is one of those types who thinks he knows more than anyone else. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. To refresh your memory: User talk:Pyxis Solitary Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:53, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume this is because of the removal of Clé Bennett. I've restored the content. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:31, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was. Thanks you for handling it. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

April 2015 Newcastle/Hunter storms
It still affected the entire area, though, including Newcastle CBD. You and I know that, you being in Raymond Terrace, along with me in Belmont. Holdenman05 (talk) 04:08, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
 * yes it did, but what you added to the article mentioned rural towns, Maitland and Dungog and made some general statements. There was nothing specifically about Newcastle. WP:NOTNEWS applies to this as well. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:46, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Vandal targeting Lost Girl actresses biographical pages
Re: 185.30.88.126 and 185.30.89.168

These IP addresses have been used to persistently vandalize the articles for Anna Silk and Zoie Palmer. I tried to report it, but the hurdles Wikipedia puts in the way are exhausting. I don't know who the admin/s is/are for those bio pages or how to find out if there are any. If you know who the admins are or know how to alert TPTB, I (and I'm sure many more) would definitely appreciate it because the vandal returns to do it again after his edit has been reversed. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor hasn't been warned properly so I've left appropriate messages on both of the IP talk pages. Normally we provide different levels of warnings which get progressively high as vanadalism/disruptive editing increases. The easiest way to warn an editor is using Twinkle, although you can manually add an appropriate template. These templates are listed at WP:WARNING. To report a user you need to go to Administrator intervention against vandalism, not Wikipedia talk:Administrator intervention against vandalism, although it's much easier with Twinkle. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info. You know what the Twinkle article doesn't do? It tells you it's a Java function, it has a lot of yada yada, but it doesn't have any instructions on how to actually, physically use it. Where does it go? What does one do with it? Who writes these convoluted Wikipedia articles? P.S. I looked at the IP talk pages to see what you did and there's nothing there. The talk pages "do not exist". Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:55, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Twinkle sets itself up so that its functions can be accessed from tabs to the left of the "Search" box at the top right of the page, as can be seen in this image on the Twinkle page. The talk pages for the IPs are User talk:185.30.88.126 and User talk:185.30.89.168. If you don't specify "User talk:" in your link, as you didn't in the links at the top of this section you'll go to an article page, which is why you didn't see anything. See Pyxis Solitary for example. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 12:29, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ahh. Got it! THANK YOU!! Did you by any chance turn Twinkle on in my behalf? I ask because it was already selected in my preferences. BTW ... are there any official Admins for the Anna Silk and Zoie Palmer pages? Pyxis Solitary (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No, I can't turn anything on in your preferences. All admins are admins for any page. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:53, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

My talk page
You are requested to stop posting om my talk page. Thank you. Skyerise (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As long as you stop misrepresenting the truth in your edit summaries and don't continue edit-warring I see no need to post on your talk page. However, I reserve the right to post appropriate warnings or notifications when they are required. Feel free to post constructively here. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Watchlist efficiency?
Do you know of any tools to make the watchlist interaction a little easier? As I'm sure is the same with you, when I access my watchlist, I see a jumbled wall of crap with new edits all over the map. If there were a way for me to sort by article I could at least note visually which article had been changed the most. I could then go into Hist, select all the new edits, see what the net result is, and then basically clear a whole chunk out of my watchlist. Any thoughts would be appreciated. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any but if you find any, let me know. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I queried WP:VPT. One tip was to go into Preferences --> Recent changes, then tick "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist". This is close to what I was hoping to do, because I'm able to click a single diff button and see the net result of all the unseen edits in that article. I'm hoping this will save me a grip of time. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Completely unrelated: Am I crazy to think this is not appropriate and useful prose for a plot synopsis? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a way we can get him on that first Mars flight? -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 15:42, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh is *THAT* what an abbreviation does? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey, lemme know if you decide to use this "Group changes by page in recent changes and watchlist" feature. I'm curious how you'll fare. I found that it has significantly cut the amount of time it takes to go through the day's new changes, and it's saved me a ton of clicking. I wish I'd known about this sooner. I'm not a big fan of where the (5 changes &#124; 1 since last visit &#124; history) links are positioned, though. I'm going to see if there's any way to move them to the left so that they all line up and are easier to find. But I'm rambling... Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I did try it and those were my impressions too. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

JAG and NCIS
Hello, I know you denied my page about the shared universe between JAG, the NCIS franchise and three other shows that crossed over.

However, after reading the template of Lake Placid and Anaconda, I decided to create this special template to avoid more confusion.

I hope you [another word to replace "like"] it.

Fusionem (talk) 13:41, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but it's completely unnecessary. The links provided are all in existing templates. Navboxes are for navigation, we don't include year ranges since they don't aid navigation. First Monday, Scorpion and Hawaii 5-O aren't actually related series. I suggest that in future, if you want to create new templates you do it in your user space. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

User:Skyerise has made Lost Girl a target
She just messed up Lost Girl's famous quote that is the voice-over monologue recited by Bo (Anna Silk) during the original Canadian opening credits and has been included in the article for years. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 16:38, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm watching. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * (1) She tried to intimidate me with conflict of interest yada-yada. (2) And then the cherry on the icing was a message with the following punctuation: "And don't give me any bullshit about making you feel some particular way - you control your feelings, not me. Ciao!" Pyxis Solitary (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're dealing with a very problematic editor. I've already had to report her for edit-warring and others have made comment at WP:ANI. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:56, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * TPTB at Wikipedia should pull the plug. She's corrosive. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed. --- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 17:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Relevant Errors
By Blanketing Exclusion of Time Period and Continuity Errors, you are removing content from Wikipedia that would otherwise be a contribution to the content of the encyclopedia. To say that any information other than vandalism is not relevant is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia: to be an encyclopedic collection of information about various subjects. A Continuity section is in fact relevant, and can be expanded upon, rather than scrutinized microscopically by a micromanaging enemy of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBugler (talk • contribs) 17:59, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I indicated on your talk page, every series suffers from continuity errors. At best the continuity error you added, the wrong mascot on a poster in the background, is incredibly trivial and not at all encyclopaedic. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 18:37, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Robotboy
Hey AL, I reverted a user because they added a bunch of unsourced production codes. They resubmitted the codes with an edit summary pointing here. What do you see there? I see some text about Episode 1, a missing image, and links that don't resolve. I also don't see any production codes. You see anything different? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There are no production numbers listed at the source, which lists the episodes in a completely different order to List of Robotboy episodes. The "production numbers" are based on the order at the source. See the table below for a comparison of the first four episodes to see what the IP has done.


 * I've reverted the edit since it's clearly WP:SYNTH. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:07, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * So it's just jumbly bullshit? Thanks for confirming that there were no Prod #s there. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:10, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Adminship?
Have you considered running? You are very experienced and knowledgeable, and you have been here for a while. You would make a fine admin, and if you don't want to run, why? Cheers,  Lux ure Σ  09:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I was asked the same question back in 2013 but I had some family problems that weren't resolved until last year (mother going into a home and 3 psycho sisters) so it didn't really go anywhere. I was actually warned against it by some editors who I trust, so I never pushed the issue. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 11:51, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The process will leave you wondering why you edit here at all. Particularly if you don't pass. "Seriously? I've never even heard of this guy and he's tearing apart my edits?!" And then when you respond and clarify the misconception, they just keep quiet and you wind up failing anyway. I'm thinking of running again because I crave the drama. Seriously though, I'm sick of writing ANI reports and want tools that make my job go faster while I still have the volunteer energy. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * But it would make your job easier, you wouldn't have to continually report, and you have made very substantial contributions over a substantial amount of time, and I don't think from your credentials anyone will outright oppose you.  Lux ure Σ  05:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You're correct, but I'm reminded of a discussion that I once had with a political colleague. (I've run for office a few times - I'm actually mentioned in several Wikipedia articles.) I arrived at a polling place and met this person, who was one of the candidates at the election. "How come you didn't run?" he asked. "The people don't deserve me" was my response. That's not to say I wouldn't be prepared to nominate, but I've found that without substantial indications of support, it's not worth it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Wow, as an independent or one of the 2 major parties? You will have the support of editors when (if) you nominate, you credentials are squeaky-clean! In fact I'm thinking of nominating you.  Lux ure  Σ  06:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Weird additions of holidays
I've noticed a new micro-trend in questionable editing—maybe a half-dozen instances thus far, where someone will add whatever holiday happened to coincide with an episode of some show airing. For instance here, here, and here. Have you noticed anything like this? I'm not pitching any action on this. It's just something weird that's popped up. Looks like two Wisconsin (US) IPs and an IPv6 thus far. Obviously problematic since not every nation celebrates Veteran's Day or Thanksgiving. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 07:35, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * "I'm not pitching any action on this." - Crucifixion. One cross each. Line on the left. After they've been spat at in the face. No, I haven't seen it. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 07:45, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Crucifixion! Interesting solution! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * And they can be dragged through a shrubbery. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ni! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 09:15, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Quick question
Do you think this edit still falls under WP:TVUPCOMING? The policy doesn't seem perfectly clear to me on adding upcoming seasons to the season overview table. Thanks! Davejohnsan (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we shouldn't have the overview until a new section is created, which would require us to create a table with at least one sourced episode, blah blah. Anyhow, I've fixed it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Davejohnsan (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:TVUPCOMING has a related section, WP:TVOVERVIEW, which says A new season should be added to the overview table only after an episode table has been created for that season. (See: WP:TVUPCOMING). -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 22:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Even better. Thank you! Davejohnsan (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Talk Page Archives
Hey quick question. I just created some archives for my talk page. (A total of 3). 1, 2  &  3. I noticed only the first one is appearing on main talk page header HERE! I was just not sure why all three did not appear. Nothing major I was just a bit curious. Thanks --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  16:17, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey  thanks for fixing that. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  16:36, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You made a bit of a mess of it by including a space at the beginning of the page titles, i.e. " Archive 1", " Archive 2" and " Archive 3" instead of "Archive 1", "Archive 2" and "Archive 3". I've nominated all of the now redundant redirects for deletion to clean up your userspace. I'd suggest setting up automatic archiving so you don't have to worry about this in the future. You can do that by copying the following text to the top of your talk page:


 * You can tweak the values as necessary. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok thanks, --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  17:53, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness
Ah, good day, sir, would you please mind looking at Kung Fu Panda: Legends of Awesomeness? Koala15 changed the end date to "Present" with this explanation: "The rest of the episodes will most likely air at some point." I reverted because the last_aired value is consistent with Template:Infobox television's last_aired instructions and because Koala's explanation reeked of WP:CRYSTAL. Koala reverted again, arguing "Saying a series has ended when nothing is confirmed is the epitome of speculation. There are still many episodes in post-production that have not aired yet." I reverted that, then explained the sitch on his talk page. He didn't seem inclined to read the instructions. Then this IPv6 edit came through, which looks an awful lot like he, or someone he knows, changed the value back all squirrely-like. Thank you kindly, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Pure, inappropriate speculation that ignores the consensus that we arrived at regarding perpetually showing "present". I've edited appropriately. Meanwhile, my troublesome SPA is back at NCIS: New Orleans. Apparently he didn't learn from his block. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 03:16, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I still have that article watchlisted, so I'll keep a sharp eye on it. Thanks for the assist above. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: red links in navboxes
Aussie, would you accept a revised red link guideline that requires a minimum of three blue links in a navbox to existing stand-alone articles or lists, with at least 50% of all included links within the navbox being blue, coupled with a very explicit clarification of the existing "succession" and "complete set" exceptions for navboxes? Personally, I think that would be an extremely reasonable compromise. If I can get 10 committed supporters, I'm ready to start lobbying previous !voters (not a violation of WP:CANVASS) in favor of compromise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * There is still the rule of thumb that if a navbox has less than 5 blue links it's unlikely to survive TfD so "a minimum of three blue links" means "if the navbox exists". If I saw a navbox with 3 blue links and 3 red links I'd be off to TfD in a flash. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:34, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Sydney Problem
At Sydney when editing and then showing a preview, at the very top this error comes up for me; " Warning: Sydney is calling Template:Cite web with more than one value for the "work" parameter. Only the last value provided will be used. " I am unable to find what is causing the warning? Would you know what it is/find out? Note that it only appears when editing the whole article, not individual sections.

Cheers,  Lux ure Σ  12:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)


 * It actually does appear when you're editing sections. You just have to find the right section. As you can see, there were two errors, in two different sections, which made the problem a lot harder to find. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:14, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I am unsure of the sorcery you used to find them lol. Goodnight!  Lux ure Σ  13:28, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited each section individually until I found one that produced the error, then edited that in my sandbox. It was necessary to check each reference in the section to find the bad ones. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 13:57, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I could've sworn that it didn't come up for any of them. Oh well. Enjoy your week.  Lux ure Σ  04:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It confused me too. I had to try a few times to sort out why I couldn't find what I was looking for. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 04:45, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Ninjago overview
Hey Legend, would you please look at List of Lego Ninjago: Masters of Spinjitzu episodes‎‎. This is related to my query at the MOS about whether we should codify the "don't add end dates to the overview until the episode airs" matter. This IP keeps adding the date in spite of the embedded note and a direct note on his talk page. Tankx. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Edit: Actually, I suppose maybe we should figure out first whether it's a practice worth keeping per Wikipedical's notes at the MOS. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

I just have two things to say about the vandalism of Lost Girl article
WTF???????

ROFLMAO!

Pyxis Solitary (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification
I'm confused. Doesn't the the Season 1 (2011-12) and so on give ease of accessibility? I don't understand what you mean by the table isn't the first thing in the section. Also, other List of ... episodes articles don't have that, such as The Thundermans, and there's text before the tables, if that's what you mean. Jessie is the only one I've seen it on, though it must have been recent because it wasn't there before, at least I don't think it was. Think I could get some clarification? c: Amaury (talk) 05:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * There is text before the table in each section, so captions are required to allow easy navigation by editors using screen readers. At List of The Thundermans episodes, there is text before the table in both season 2 & 3, so captions should be included. MOS:DTAB gives a brief overview of the layout we should use for accessibility compliance, with an expansion at MOS:DTT. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 09:12, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Lost Girl (season 5) Plot section
The Plot section, as with all previous articles created for a season, awaits content for storyline of overall season. The section was not empty. It contained the following tag:

It was deleted by same editor who has deleted other Lost Girl article contents that have been reversed afterwards. Is removal of the Plot section and the tag a legitimate edit?

Revision history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lost_Girl_%28season_5%29&type=revision&diff=669138354&oldid=668685538  Pyxis Solitary (talk) 08:10, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Bump. So auto pilot doesn't archive without reply. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 07:23, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Even though the section contained a tag, it's still considered to be empty. I assume the editor felt that because there had been no attempt to expand the section in 6 months, it was serving no purpose. The edit is legitimate, but there's no reason why the section can't be restored with some content. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:07, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, then. I guess it's going to stay that way until someone adds the plot when the season (and series) concludes. I've always considered the tag as a reminder to editors that the section awaits content. Editors who get a kick out of deleting and/or questioning existing content should consider adding content to their repertoire of restlessness. Thanks for the reply. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 09:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Pyxis Solitary writes, "I've always considered the tag as a reminder to editors that the section awaits content." I agree with this sentiment.  allixpeeke (talk) 18:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)