User talk:Drovethrughosts/Archive 6

Done
So I've been on this site for a long, long time now and I've come to realize that I actually fucking hate it. I have two jobs and an ill parent who is dependent on me, so lots and lots going on. This isn't really new, but lately it just seems like this site is nothing but childish bickering between immature, anonymous editors who have no real interest in making "good" articles, but just in getting their own way. Every single day on this site is nothing but frustration and I have much better things to do. So I'm done. I'm so fucking done. You are basically the only editor left on this whole site that I agree with or have even the smallest amount of respect for. It's been nice working with you the past few years. Look after everything. You can e-mail me at schrutedit12@hotmail.com if you wanna keep in touch or something. If not, job well done, man. I don't know how you put up with it. Peace out. SchrutedIt08 (talk) 13:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Hey. I'm sorry to hear that, for both that you're leaving and that you have an ill parent. I mean, you don't owe anything to this site, and obviously if you have more important real-life things to deal with, then that's definitely what you should be concentrating on. I totally understand. And I have noticed that you've been editing less the past while. Yes, the "battles" do get a bit annoying, I try my best to steer clear of them as much as I can, especially if I'm not invested in what's being discussed. The respect definitely goes both ways, it's hard for me to think of another editor since I've been here that's been as consistent as you and someone who's the most like me in terms of editing style. But don't look at it like you have to leave, you can contribute whenever you want, when you have time. Or, if it is just easier to straight-up leave, then do it man. Do whatever's best for you. I wish you luck in the future, and hopefully see you again on here. If you truly want to keep in touch and discuss more, we can definitely do that. Peace Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Damn! "Shane....come back, Shane!" —  Wylie pedia  06:29, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Reason for removal of supernatural fiction from The X-Files
Hi can i ask your reasoning for the removal of supernatural fiction from the X-Files seasons? The monster of the week episodes of the X-Files are indeed mainly supernatural fiction as well as the second film.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The X-Files is for the most part classified as science fiction. Adding other genres to the lead just clutters it up. If you add supernatural, why not horror, drama, mystery, thriller, etc,? The opening sentence should be a clean and simple as possible. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Because supernatural fiction covers most of those genres that you mentioned, save for some sci-fi episodes having horror elements in them. Point is calling the X-Files just science fiction is misleading given half the episodes are about non-scientific elements. I even shortened supernatural fiction to [supernatural fiction|supernatural] to avoid the clutter you mentioned and repeating the term fiction twice.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:11, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see this topic and The X-Files: I Want to Believe--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Joke of a DR
Drove, I just posted on the DRN requesting the joke of a DR on BSG be closed. Twobells hasn't posted to it since January 22 and on Wikipedia since January 30. This has become a farce, and it's time to close it down. I hope it's acceptable that I commented that you and I both were OK with the article as it stood before all this started. --Drmargi (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked at it in awhile, I'll check now. And yeah, I was okay with some compromise, but yes, I'm totally okay with the article standing the way it is now. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Some compromise were Twobells to have continued with the discussion, yes, but given he didn't, there's no need for any change. We were fine with the article as was.  He had his chance, and how, and given he has bailed on his own filing, I see no reason to continue with the whole mess. --Drmargi (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

THANK YOU!
Hey, I just wanted to stop by and express my deepest gratitude for the outstanding work you do on here. I feel like there is so much idiocy and monotony out there that editors like you need some form of positive reinforcement. If you ever need any assistance, don't hesitate ask. :) Cheers, LLArrow (talk) 06:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your kind words. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Fargo Transmission
Bases on my experience on wikipedia I have mostly seen the list of seasons listed as transmission see Gogglebox as one example. Thank You. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, given my 7+ years and almost 50,000 edits regarding TV series articles, I've never seen "transmission" used once. You're using a very obscure example, and British at that, where "transmission" is more common. "Episodes" is the proper name, as that's what the article has always had. Do not change it again or it will be just reverted. And it was you who added "Transmission" to the Gogglebox article, so that doesn't really count. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry :( JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's fine. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Walking Dead: Critical Reception
Hello, the contribution that I posted today was not "uncited original research". Each of the two referenced websites stated the percentage of their critics who gave a positive rating to The Walking Dead; I noted the result of a simple (first grade?) math problem using those percentages. The referenced paragraph currently quotes from three negative reviews even though 83% of the reviewers gave the show a positive rating, hence my attempt to counteract this counterintuitive wrong and inject logic into the paragraph.
 * Both RT and Metacritic feature 22 reviews, do you not notice that they obviously overlap featuring most of the same reviews, thus "37 of the 44" is made up. Did you read every review, and is it actually true that "three of the eight who did not complained about its pace." (which is poorly written, honestly)? If you're so obsessed with only including positive reception, why not add more positive reviews from critics from RT and Metacritic? The minutia of "three of the eight who did not complained about its pace" is unnecessary. The section should focus on actual comments and quotes from critics, not calculating percentages. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to be hostile and judgmental. Nothing was deliberately "made up". I had not read every single review nor had I noticed that some critics' reviews were featured on both websites, not that it matters because over 80% of unique reviewers on both websites gave an overall positive rating to The Walking Dead. It did not make sense to me that only negative reviews were quoted, despite being in the small minority. I am unsure about why you are making such a fuss about the matter.--PhiladelphiaInjustice (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No one's making a fuss, I was simply reverting the unwarranted removal of cited content that had no basis other than "I don't like it" (as I far as I could tell). GoneIn60 is making good copyedits to that section, it should be fine now. Please just don't remove properly cited content for no good reason in the future though. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The Americans (season 3)
Hey, I see you dropped in the ratings for last nights episode, but I can't find the info on the cited TV by the Numbers site...? LLArrow (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * They were on there when I posted them. Sometimes they update the articles, and some shows get removed with the update (as I didn't see Sunny on the list when I posted for The Americans). Should hopefully have a replacement source soon (either Headline Planet or TV Series Finale). Thanks for letting me know, it's happened before. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

File:M.A.D. Veronica Mars
Hi, Thanks for all the help, first of all! I think adding the italics around Veronica Mars in the titles of the episodes was a good idea. Secondly, The screenshot that I used for "M.A.D." was recently tagged for deletion. I think it's appropriate, but could you possibly chime in with your thoughts on Files for Deletion? (It's February 11 by the way). Thanks in advance and I don't mind even if you think it should be deleted! :) BenLinus  1214 talk 03:38, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, and great continuous work with the VM episode articles. Personally, it would be hard for me to say that image shouldn't be deleted, as it's not particularly noteworthy or identifiable (per Wikipedia guidelines). Sorry. :( Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:22, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that's what I thought. Is there another screenshot from that episode that you would recommend? BenLinus  1214 talk 17:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you… and...
Thank you for your thoughtful attention to (and through source-referencing, largely settling) the "main" v. "recurring" character issue at the Marvel Agent's… articles. You may wish to take a moment and look at the "Fitz plot element important v. unimportant" Talk entry at the season 2 episodes article, as I think your fellow editor there is more willing to go with gut than reason or sources, on this separate issue. Otherwise, I'm done with these, and have nothing more to offer on either matter. Cheers, have enjoyed the education that you offered. 71.239.87.100 (talk) 15:32, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You made some very thoughtful comments as well. Happy editing. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Admin
Hello Drovethrughosts, I am inquiring form you is there any possible way for myself to become an administrator. I am aware there is a request form but not sure where it is. I came here as I know you are an administrator so I was hoping for you're help. Also if you have any tips on how to get qualified please tell me.

Thank You so much for your help JohnGormleyJG (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, JohnGormleyJG, to clarify, I am not an administrator on Wikipedia. Please read Administrators for info about being an admin on Wikipedia. If you want serious tips or guidance from me regarding this, I could do that if you wish, though I will be honest, as becoming an admin is not an easy process. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I was almost certain you were one. That surprises me a lot. I probably don't have much of a chance of getting accepted if you weren't. Thank you for your response. Also I would be happy to hear your tips on becoming an admin. JohnGormleyJG (talk) 15:54, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * It's not that I wasn't accepted, it's simply that I've never applied for it. To be honest, looking through your edit history and talk page history, applying for adminship at this time would not be a good idea. You are not ready. You've only been editing since April 2014 and just have over 700 edits to articles.

For specific examples:
 * You edited warred on List of How I Met Your Mother episodes and undid someone's edit even though they linked to a guideline saying what you were doing was incorrect. Looking through your edit and talk page history, it seems you've edit warred quite a few times.
 * Your addition here is unsourced. This is one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia; that content must be verifiable. Also, when adding references, please follow Template:Cite web, and not just add references with just the url.
 * From your user page, "I wish their could be articles for TV characters in any show the fact that you need character reception is just ridiculous" is very misguided. This is an encyclopedia, not a fansite. I've linked you to it before and I suggest you fully understand the guideline WP:PLOT. For example, your creation of the various 24 characters from Live Another Day (which I was involved in) showed a lack of understanding of the guidelines.
 * Also from your user page, that you plan on removing all "ugly" red links. Again, please read the guideline WP:REDLINK.
 * You've uploaded several non-free images (including several being deleted), which shows a lack of understanding of the non-free image guidelines on Wikipedia.
 * You've made several reverts of others editors on Template:The King of Queens, however you never explain why. I suggest using the edit summary more often.

You need to establish yourself much more, making quality edits with references, reverting vandalism, and following and understanding guidelines, etc. Hope you don't feel I was too harsh, but I wanted to be blunt and to-the-point, especially if you're seriously considering applying for admin. You also need to ask "why" you're looking to want to be an admin, what is it that you'd want to accomplish as admin that you can't as a regular editor. Always feel free to contact me for anything. :) Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:28, 16 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank You for your help. Also do you feel I am doing more better or worse to wikipedia have some of my edits been a good contribution to this site. Thanks for your feedback JohnGormleyJG (talk) 17:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, your edits are clearly in good faith and are helpful. I just suggest familiarize yourself a bit more with Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Concentrate on making quality edits with references, reverting vandalism, expanding articles, etc. Good luck. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank You JohnGormleyJG (talk) 18:58, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

House of Cards (season 3)
I reduced it to the 27 February. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:49, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Jimthing (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * There's now one month full protection on the article at status quo, and I've filed at AN3 since he's at 4RR. We'll see what happens.  --Drmargi (talk) 14:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hopefully something. He's made 12 reverts on 24, 11 reverts on Better Call Saul, has been reverted by 5 separate editors, and use of a possible meatpuppet. Personally, I'm stepping away from this, this lame edit war is not worth the trouble or time anymore. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably the wisest thing if it's making you crazy. I'm ready for it all to calm down for the time being.  --Drmargi (talk) 18:07, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Why not actually comment on the DRN accordingly if you are so sure you're right? I suspect you don't think you really are, certainly not according to the guidelines clearly listed openly and fluently there. Jimthing (talk) 16:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Could use your expertise
I could use your assistance over at American Horror Story: Hotel, that is if you agree. I have a bunch against me, and could use some fortitude. Thank you so much, LLArrow (talk) 17:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

24 Solitary
I noticed you changed a lot of work I done on the 24: Live Another Day page removing about 80% of the information. As it stands there is no plot summary, character discription or info on Almeida's fate. So may I just ask why you removed all of this.JohnGormleyJG (talk) 20:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Like the others said, it was poorly written and contained an unacceptable source (a fansite). I cleaned up the entry and added a proper reference. I'll try and readd a summary from what you wrote soon. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The Americans (season 3)
Hey, I don't know if youv'e seen, but Zap2it currently has an episode listed as | 14 and airing Tuesday, April 21, 2015, called "March 8, 1983"; given that the date is a day before the season finale/13th episode is scheduled to air... What's your take on it? LLArrow (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've noticed that for awhile, but hesitated on adding it just in case. I'm going to assume it's an error on their part, as there is no episode 14, and for whatever reason (on my end) I can't see the air dates, it always just says the current time and date as the air dates (weird). I say, wait until it's corrected on there end, and then add it, as "March 8, 1983" is definitely the title (see Evil empire). Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree. I to have the same issue with seeing current time and date. I've found | TV by the Numbers guide to be more reliable. Thanks and cheers, LLArrow (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Forget (The Walking Dead)
Why is this getting cut out? This seems pretty obvious to me and is quite sharp writing that makes it's point so deftly that it should get a gold star. Why an 'A' and not any other letter in the alphabet?

"This 'A' may allude to the Scarlet Letter (from the book of the same name and a writers room would have known this) and was the mark of infidelity. This is accompanied by the longing pop song Spicks and Specks by BeeGees which contains lyrics the likes of:

"Where is the sun...That shone on my head...Where is the light...And where are the friends..I could meet. Where are the girls I left far behind. All of my life I call yesterday..Of my life 've gone away"

As Rick presses his forhead against the wall and a zombie is on the other side the viewer is left with the impression that what Rick desires and loves is life outside the compound" and living within the walls is a lie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhaddonpearson (talk • contribs) 16:52, 9 March 2015 (UTC)


 * It reads as original research and viewer interpretation, which is not what a plot summary should be. Feel free to find a reliable source that confirms it and it could be added to a "Production and writing" section regarding the episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Better Call Saul
Why did you change the genres? Seemed pretty suitable and consistent with reviews. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 08:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

http://m.hitfix.com/whats-alan-watching/better-call-saul-creators-on-the-purposely-sh-ty-opening-title-sequence/3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MikiFring (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Halt and Catch Fire
Why'd you undo the Season 2 info I made to "Halt and Catch Fire (TV Series)"? That took me a long time and it was sourced from imdb.com, which is as official as it gets? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muldfeld (talk • contribs) 06:27, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, IMDB is far and away from "official as it gets". "Official" would be AMC, no on else. IMDB is user-generated content and is never used a source for upcoming information regarding TV episodes. WP:CITEIMDB. I appreciate the effort, but IMDB as a source is not verifiable, thus cannot be used. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I thought the writers themselves generate it. Thanks for explaining. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muldfeld (talk • contribs) 06:10, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Silverpool
What do you recommend as a source? It's all over Google, as a given. You don't need a source to say the sky is blue. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:42, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Anything that is constitutes a reliable source. Without it, it's still uncited original research. You've been reverted by several different editors about this, so it's your job to verify the content (WP:PROVEIT). And, the fact that the sky is blue is actually cited within the article. If i09 counts as a reliable source, you could use this and I would also link to the Blackwater article for context. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I was reverted by TWO, unless you count two as "several". And I had asked the first reverted about it, but he ignored my question. My argument is based on You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. Thank you for doing research. I merely asked what's a valid source. It's not like the New York Times is likely to comment on it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 17:38, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

March 2015 - Better Call Saul
You reverted an edit of mine that you state was in the past. It is obviously in the past as this is a prequel to Breaking Bad but it occurs after the current events of Better Call Saul (2002). I just rewatched that very scene on Netflix and he states his name as Saul. Currently in Better Call Saul he has not changed his name yet hence this is in the future. Also in your edit summary you said it's seems you're not paying attention enough. Which strikes to me as very rude and I wouldn't let anyone talk to me like that especially I fixed an edit summary which you complained about for episode 3.  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ ) 21:41, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is a flashback. Look at the synopsis on the AMC website. Beside that fact, can't you tell that Jimmy looks clearly younger? The scene is meant to set-up Jimmy's billboard scheme later in the episode. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Then explain to me why he said his name was Saul. I am just going off what is in the episode not the website. Also explain why you were being very rude to me accross the edit summary see WP:BULLY  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ ) 22:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The nickname obviously came from somewhere, I'm going to assume that scene is the origin of the name. I'll provide you with this link, again confirming it's a flashback along with the use of "Saul Goodman". If you're going to outright change something from correct to incorrect (and then revert my correction) based on your lack of understanding of something you've seen, then you should be called out for it. Me stating "it's seems you're not paying attention enough" is merely me stating a fact, as clearly you were not as you couldn't grasp the scene was a flashback. Accept you made a mistake, and move on. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:58, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Third party comment: Drovethrughosts is right, Jimmy calls himself Saul as a joke/scam - it's not written on his driver's license or anything. This is clearly a flashback, and the AMC website is further proof to that. As for bullying, there was none as far as I can see - pointing out that you were not paying enough attention may be blunt, but not rude and certainly does not amount to bullying. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 22:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Wings Ratings
In response to your comments on the Wings episodes page, I do agree that they need to cited. This is a very tedious process though, and could take a while to accomplish. All of these numbers came from http://tvaholics.blogspot.com. If you're not familiar with this website; it was used to cite ratings for shows such as Seinfeld, Frasier, and Beverly Hills, 90210 (the one I've been working on). All of the sources for the Wings episodes can be found in the references on these pages. If you want, you are more than welcome to copy them over yourself, or if you'd like, I could do it. If I do it, it could take a couple weeks, as there are 172 episodes, and I don't have unlimited time. Thank you! Rswallis10 (talk) 21:32, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It may be tedious, but needs to be done (WP:BURDEN). I would suggest, in the future, to only add ratings with a source, otherwise they appear to be made-up (how would anyone know without references?). I added references for the Six Feet Under article (because it's on my watchlist and I'm a fan), but have no interest in the Wings article, sorry. I actually am familiar with that website, I used it for List of Twin Peaks episodes. As for adding the references, maybe do a season a day, once you have the citation format, it's really all just copying and pasting different urls and titles for the refs. Happy editing. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll see if I can at least get season 1 done by the end of today, if not, then by tomorrow. The only viewership numbers I ever added to Wings was in season 8, and I didn't add the references because none of the other ones had references. I see now that this was a mistake, so I'll go back and add the refs for all the episodes. If you see any other pages like this, let me know, I like adding the viewer numbers. Thanks! Rswallis10 (talk) 23:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Season 1 and 2 sourced. Finish more tomorrow. Rswallis10 (talk) 02:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Walking Dead (season 6)
Why was it reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SanguineTWD (talk • contribs) 17:11, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * There is no need for a season 6 article at the moment, because there's no content for it. We don't know anything about the season and it's more than six months away. It'll be created once there's information regarding the cast, production, filming, episodes, etc. What you did here was completely incorrect and malformed, you copy-and-pasted season 5 information; this is now how it's done. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

GoT production codes
Are you changing all of the episode articles based upon cited information that Game of Thrones does not have production codes? If so, it would be great if you could link that source her, so as to prevent a massive revert of your production code removals. Thanks. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * GOT has no production codes, as none of the HBO series do. Production codes are featured in the end credits, and none appear for GOT. "101", "102", etc. are not production codes, merely episode number designations and are usually how cast and crew refer to episodes. That's all they are. 101 could be a production number, but not an actual code, and those are only helpful when episodes sometimes air out of production order (for example, List of Community episodes or List of The Office (U.S. TV series) episodes. Hopefully you understand. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
 * So, you are saying that you do not have a reference that says the series has no production codes? You know that we cannot use your reasoning as a reference. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Referencing goes both ways. Where's a cite that states it does? Production codes are in the end credits for TV series which have them (not all TV series have them), and GOT features no production codes at the end of their episodes. Pretty simple. "401" is not a production code, it's an episode number designation (401 = season 4, episode 1). Production codes, for example, are things like "9AKY01" (for Bones, season 9, episode 1, a Fox-produced style production code) or "3J5401" (for Person of Interest, season 4, episode 1, a WB-produced style production code). Production code number features other examples of code formats. It's also why "production code" is not a column in the actual episode tables because there is no production codes. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Mad Men
Why did you revert my edits. Several characters who appeared in only one or two episodes, depending on what season they're in, counts as guest star.02:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)72.64.207.76 (talk)
 * It's an unnecessary formatting change, that's the way the articles have always been. Plus, it's just confusing; you have characters who are in two episodes, but listed under guest stars; then there's characters who are in one episode, yet listed under recurring. There seems to be no basis for distinction between the two. They all are recurring characters because they've appeared multiple times throughout the series. It's standard formatting across most season articles. Drovethrughosts (talk) 11:56, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I was trying to fix everything especially adding in missing guest stars for each season.72.64.207.76 (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * You didn't fix "everything" nor did you add any cast members, all you did was create a "guest stars" section and moved certain actors to it. It's perfectly fine the way it is; don't change formatting for no reason. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:14, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Appreciate
Hi DTG, I appreciate your comments re: Better Call Saul. For the record, I opened a discussion at Talk:Better Call Saul about the overly-wordy synopses a few days ago and invited Peace to participate. As a minor point, the 200-500 word range is for standalone episode articles that contain plot summaries (Example: Confirmed Dead). For tabular "list of episodes" articles the range is 100-200 words and the example given is Smallville (season 1). Anyhow, thanks again, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, I commented on his talk page about the word range. I personally do think up to 300 (or at least around 250) is fine. However, after seeing his uncivil comments on the talk pages (as well as completely removing/editing comments by other editors), I have no desire to try and converse with this user anymore, as he clearly does not get it regarding how to write summaries on here, and has continually readded his over-embellished and over-detailed summaries to the articles. If he continues to be disruptive or make anymore uncivil comments, he should be reported. Also, by looking at this user's talk page, he does not seem very cooperative or very pleasant to deal with. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Can't argue with the last part. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Empire Live+SD Ratings
You seem like a reasonable person (unlike many on Wikipedia), so I'm going to explain my reasoning behind the Live+SD Ratings table on the Empire episodes page. If you look at shows like Modern Family (season 6) and Scandal (season 4), they both have a Live+7 table as well as a Live+SD table, because they each serve different purposes. The Live+SD table holds the 18-49 demographic ratings, as well as the weekly 18-49 rank, and viewership rank, which cannot be found on the Live+7 table. The Live+SD table needs to be on the same page as the episode table, because the citations for the 18-49 demo rating are the same citations as the viewership numbers from the episode table. I do not like the fact that the 2 tables are on two different pages, but whenever a season 1 page is made, they can be moved together on the same page. Feel free to comment your thoughts on the matter. Thanks for your time. Rswallis10 (talk) 23:01, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry, I didn't even realize they were different tables. You can revert me on that, if you wish, as I have no stake in that article. But yes, if a season article is created, both tables would be moved to the season article and then be removed from the previous articles. I do, however, believe all these ratings statistics are pretty excessive and exhaustive (WP:NOTSTATS), but again, I have no stake in that article. Keep up the great work. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

FYI
Heya, FYI: An ANI discussion re: editor Peace is contagious. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Which has now been sitting, ignored by our esteemed corps of administrators, for over twelve hours, while PIC continues to edit war and edit contentiously. --Drmargi (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Is this normal? By the way, he is STILL at it. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 00:54, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

New Gotham episode
This or this? —  Wylie pedia  02:03, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Free free to update with the Futon link if you wish. It's just, I recently discovered the press releases via Fox.com (although they're hard to find, usually through a Google search), as it usually takes Futon a few days to add the new press releases to their website. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

BCS
I like your line 'promotes his new biz @ nursing home', I coudlnt' quite think of how to word that, good call ! Peace is contagious (talk) 23:27, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Your condense for "Five-O" is a bit much though. Personally, I would take what's already written, and then just remove the unnecessary detail. It doesn't need to be rewritten completely as I still feel you're losing the plot and leaving too much vague details in its place. The fact that Mike kills the police officers isn't even mentioned or properly explained, is a huge oversight. These summaries are not meant to tease events that happen, it should explain them fully–just in a clear and concise manner. No need for flowery prose, just get the point across. You also need to watch out for inappropriate tone or wording, such as "Philly" and "Abq". I also don't know why "fleeing" is in parenthesis. Hopefully we can work together and get these summaries down to proper length. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:37, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Supernatural : List of episodes, "specials" section
Hi, I just wanted to know why you deleted the edit with the "Gag Reel" special episode adding. It has its place in the eps list, I think. Thanks for the answer ! 78.247.98.33 (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It was a bit unclear of what you were adding. Was this an actual special that aired on TV? Because I can't find any source for this. Or are you just referring to the gag reels on the season DVDs/Blu-ray? Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Through the Wormhole
I'm very sorry - I wasn't trying to vandalize your page. I just wanted to add the information about Season 6 of "Through The Wormhole With Morgan Freeman" I had found online. I truly love this show.Karellen32 (talk) 06:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Sandra Buskey, Karellen32
 * Hi there. First, it is not my page, it's everyone's page–that's how Wikipedia works. I'm going to assume you thought that because I made several significant edits to the page recently (as I recently started watching it). I'm not sure why your edits were reverted by an anti-vandalism bot, but I have (properly) reinserted the information into the article. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome. I'm glad you are watching the show. Descriptions for each episode can be found here: I would insert them myself, but I cannot figure out how to edit tables.Karellen32 (talk) 16:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Sandra Buskey, Karellen32

Penny Dreadful edit
Did you make a mistake here? I think that the series just began its second season this last week. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * The premiere has been available via on demand and online, but has not been officially broadcast (the official premiere is this Sunday). I'm not sure of how this is dealt with in this situation, but since another editor changed the no. of episodes back to 8, it only made sense to change the no. of seasons back to 1. It doesn't make much of a difference to me either way. It can be changed back to read 2 and 9, respectively, if you wish. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

The Shield character bios
Would you be so kind as to explain why you removed the spoiler warning I added at the Strike Team header? I know the show is old, but not everybody has seen it all. While having a read through I read a couple of major plot developments that I wish I could unread, so my addition was made with a view to helping others to avoid that. I don't really see how a spoiler warning adversely affects the (well written) page.

Regards, Lore (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Please read WP:SPOILER. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

The Last Man on Earth
Cleopatra Coleman is not a main character, but a recurring character, as she has been in only 5 episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everythingever20 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Your assertion is incorrect. Per WP:TVCAST, "main" cast status is determined by the series producers, not by popularity or screen time. This means that it doesn't matter whether she has appeared in one or one thousand episodes, if she is credited on-screen (the normal litmus test that we use) she is a starring character. As I've indicated on my talk page, Coleman has been credited on-screen by producers as a starring character. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 05:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Question
Hey! You've been editing Wikipedia for quite a longer time than me, and I have a question for you. I believe you are familiar with how Wikipedia handles TV pages. I don't know how familiar you are with The Blacklist, but I am having a major problem with the most recent episode (the season finale). My TV listed the title of the episode as "Masha Rostova," yet during the intertile of the episode, it listed the title as "Tom Connolly." Zap2it lists it as "Tom Connolly," and The Futon Critic lists it as both (the original airing is titled "Tom Connolly" and the rerun of it is listed as "Masha Rostova." Throughout the day, the Wikipedia page has been changed at least 6 times between the two names. I was just wondering if you had any advice about how to handle this situation. This is quite similar to The Goldbergs season 1 finale situation, in which the title agreed upon was the one with the most references. Again, sorry to bother you, please let me know if you have any ideas, or can send me to someone who does. Thanks! Rswallis10 (talk) 20:21, 15 May 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not familiar with The Blacklist, but I can give you my opinion on this situation. It seems "Masha Rostova" was the original title, but was changed to "Tom Connolly" , it's possible the press release for the repeat using the old title will also be updated. If the titles of the episodes appear on screen, and it is "Tom Connolly", then I'd bet that's the official title. The NBC website lists "Tom Connolly". As for review sites using "Masha Rostova" as the title, it's possible they're not aware of the updated title; that sometime happens. To me, it seems "Tom Connolly" is the title; but, if the editors of that article are fine with both titles being listed, then that's okay too. Though if both are going to be listed, "Tom Connolly" makes more sense as the main title, while the other would be listed as the alt title. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:23, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Game of Thrones
Could you please provide the reasoning to revert my latest change? My version was supported by the detailed GoT wiki chapter-episode comparison. The version you restored was supported by a inactive link to the article which (even at the time it existed) provided an approximation written down at the very early stage of designing the season in question. How is this dead link a more believable source? Thanks. 83.27.130.225 (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia cites reliable sources, not fan wikis. If you can supply an appropriate new source to support your changes, then go ahead, but linking to outside wikias does not count as a reliable source. The link is not dead, it simply changed, which I've now fixed. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, you're right, got a better one. (However, now that you updated the link, I'm inclined to say it was not reliable source either in the way that there is not one mention in it about if the book was to be broken half-half or on a different ratio.) 83.27.130.225 (talk) 22:33, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for finding a new reference and sourcing it properly! The other link is reliable, it comes Benioff and Weiss themselves via an interview with Entertainment Weekly. The ref states page 3, which has the info, "As George and all his fans have said for a long time, there’s no way to do it in a single season, so it’s being broken into two." Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
 * "broken into two.". It's a reliable source when it comes to the info about splitting the season. It was not reliable as the gloss to the statement that one season is the first half of the book and the second is the other half. But anyway, now the two links together contain the whole information, so this concern is not important anyway. Thanks and sorry for the first edit being wrong. 83.27.130.225 (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Curb Your Enthusiasm - Related
Hello Drovethrughosts, I am just leaving this message regarding your recent change to Curb Your Enthusiasm, according to MOS:TV related is to be used only for remakes, spin-offs, and adaptations. Seinfeld doesn't fit any of those categories. I completely understand that there are plenty of references and that reunion (sort-of) episode, but the actual show Curb Your Enthusiasm is not officially related to Seinfeld. Thank You,  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  09:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Possible GA reviews for VM episodes?
Hi, I was thinking that I could nominate some VM articles at GAN—namely, "A Trip to the Dentist", "Normal Is the Watchword", "My Mother, the Fiend", "Donut Run", and "The Rapes of Graff", as well as possibly "Weapons of Class Destruction" and "Rat Saw God". What do you think about that? Are they fine as is, or would you suggest removing the "cultural references" and "music" sections? Also, I just recently found out that the TV.com ref that I've been using has a section called "The plot thickens", which I could boil down, meaning that I could keep arc significance. I just wanted to get a second opinion. :) Thanks so much, BenLinus  1214 talk 13:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * First, sorry for not responding earlier, I just wanted to get the chance to look through the articles closely before making a response. Also, really great work here, it's been fun seeing you recreate these articles! All the articles you mentioned look pretty good, the only areas of trouble (which you mentioned) would be the sections for cultural references, music, and arc significance. Cultural references and music listing come off as trivia, unless they're sourced from say, a review, which is specifically commenting on it, signifying notability. Also, using Mars Investigations as a source might be troublesome, as it's a fan site. And using TV.com to cite writing/directing credits might not be good as it's citing user-submitted content. Though I understand there's not really a source you can use that verifies previous writing/directing credits than isn't IMDB for example. "Arc significance" is an interesting one, this isn't something you see in episode articles nowadays, but it seemed pretty common several years when editors were making episode articles, and this appears to be a leftover from the old versions of these articles. This type of content might need to be sourced, as it's referring to past (or future) episodes, though the TV.com reviews (as you mentioned) might be useful here. I suggest not using bullet points, and just making it a regular paragraph. All in all, I say take the article you think is best at the moment, clean it up up a bit, and take it to GAN, and go from there. Good luck! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I'll fix this stuff up. But what should I do for the TV.com stuff—not list previous credits, maybe? I'll probably start with "Normal Is the Watchword". Thanks again! BenLinus  1214 talk 14:54, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * You could leave it in, and just see what the GA reviewer says. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks! By the way, I just found some reviews starting in season 2 by Alan Sepinwall--however, they're on his blog before it moved to HitFix. I'm not sure what the policy is on that one…could you possibly fill me in? BenLinus  1214 talk 20:27, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sepinwall is a highly notable critic, so his reviews from his blog should be fine, as far as I'm aware. It would be blog reviews from non-professional critics/journalists that would not be acceptable. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:52, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks. :) BenLinus  1214 talk 00:04, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Game of Thrones Cover Season 5
Hey there. The reason I uploaded a new version of the Game of Thrones season 5 cover was because the picture would be closer to a DVD Cover. The file I uploaded (without the 4.12 and HBO at the bottom) was not created by me, but is actually an image for the upcoming phsyical release of the season on Amazon.com. Although I could live with it, if we simply wait for an official DVD cover to be released. Greetings.--109.42.2.169 (talk) 22:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, I'm going to assume you're Rayukk. The image is of the official poster, so I don't think it should be changed with a modified version. We replace it anyway once we get a DVD cover, so it seems unnecessary to replace the original poster with another image that will just be replaced again anyway. Know what I mean? Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:43, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I forgot to login:) Yeah I think it's OK to just keep it at this one, since they were almost exactly the same anyway... And the official DVD/BR cover will probably come out soon. Greetings. --Rayukk (talk) 08:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Twin Peaks
Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me is not series, but it is part of Twin Peaks franchise.

For example:

List of The X-Files episodes

movies are in episodes list.

This movie is part of Twin Peaks's plot, and will be in this table. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lado85 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 23 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've readded the film to the series overview. However, this edit and your second revert were unnecessary because the table is already added via transclusion– achieves that; you don't have to copy-and-paste the content again. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Happyish pilot
Hey, are you sure about that Happyish pilot thing? Normally "Interstitial break" refers to the 3 to 5 minutes after the previous episode run a few minutes short. Happyish started airing at 10pm, and not at 9.57 80.219.112.49 (talk) 20:07, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I was just going by what was already in the article. It's very possible those ratings are not actually for the sneak preview. I can't find any other source for the ratings. You can bring it up at the article's talk page if you wish. Thanks. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Opening sentence in Walking Dead season articles
My goal here is to bring it up to speed with what I've seen in other featured articles, such as this one. I plan on rolling the format out to the other season articles. I'm open to suggestions of course, but I think per WP:BEGIN, we should strive for the bolded subject in the opening sentence to match closely the title of the article. It doesn't have to be verbatim of course, but this appears to be an acceptable way as evidenced in the example at that link above. What do you think? --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand, but the wording is consistent with the previous season articles. The other format doesn't even mention what the subject of the article is, a TV series, or its genre or the network it's made for. Lost (season 1), The X-Files (season 1) and Veronica Mars (season 1) are other examples of FA/GA and are worded similarly. If you want to bold "fifth season", then that's perfectly fine. Your trimming of the lead was very needed, thanks for that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:03, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, it was my pleasure. I went ahead and took a closer look at more examples at the WikiProject's featured article page. It looks like The Simpsons format was actually in the minority. So in light of this, I agree that we should keep it mostly the same as it was before. However, I still think it needs a slight tweak. Here's a suggestion:
 * The proposed update would place the subject of the article in bold and closer together as opposed to being in completely different parts of the opening sentence. Thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:29, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That's looks great. Though, I'd add "American" in somewhere. Either, "American horror-drama" or "horror-drama American television series"; whatever reads better. Do you plan on updating it for the previous season articles as well? I'm a stickler for consistency, haha. Drovethrughosts (talk) 16:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Just wanted this to pass your "strict" standards first! ;)
 * I'll update them here shortly then. Thanks for the feedback! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll update them here shortly then. Thanks for the feedback! --GoneIn60 (talk) 16:38, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Galactica
Please take a look at Galactica's talk page before reverting again. Thanks!-79.223.12.42 (talk) 21:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

"there is no consensus to change this" - I'm baffled. Have you read the talk section? There is literally nobody who defends "reimagining". Please explain in the talk section.-79.223.12.42 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I should have been clearer: Drmargi holds the position, but he does not discuss it, he simply states it as gospel. In any case, there is a majority for "reboot". Please join the conversation.-79.223.12.42 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No one has to. The burden is on you to build consensus for the change, and you haven't done so.  And she doesn't state it's gospel, just counters your pronouncements based on nothing more than your own opinion.  And the consensus is to link reimagining to reboot; read carefully.  --Drmargi (talk) 00:02, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, even though it should be obvious from my posts at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series), I also support retention of "re-imagining" and variants. That's three people at least who support the word. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 08:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

24 - Original and Revived
Hey, I noticed you undid an edit of mine on 24 (TV series). It contained distinguishing the revived series from the original. You said that there was “no reason for separation”. I am just curious why? All other TV shows I have come across that was revived separate the revived from the original, in a place like the overview. E.G. Whose Line Is It Anyway? (U.S. TV series). I personally think it is better this way as it more or less bullet points the key parts. So what is your opinion on this? Should I ask it on the 24 Talk Page instead? Thank You --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  14:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Dark Angel
I'll take your word for it that the first season link is working wherever you are - it wasn't working for me yesterday and it still isn't working for me today. The season two link has been working fine both days, but i've just found where the release date is on that one. Apologies. Just a heads up i'm actually going to be deleting that table before I finish working on the article and nominate it for GA, as I think it's rather pointless, I mean, it can be simplified to just say they were all released in 2003. Nobody is going to care about the minor differences in date between UK and US releases anyway. Freikorp (talk) 13:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure why the links wouldn't work for you. Weird. The release date info is under "Product details" with all the other info. If you wanted to, you could just go to amazon.co.uk yourself and search "dark angel". I have no clue why it wouldn't for you. Speaking for the article, the table is unnecessary, as it could just be explained in prose, though mentioning the actual release dates is acceptable, I personally would leave it. Good job with all the work you've done with the article. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:02, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I've finished the major work I wanted to do on the article, and have nominated it for GA. Due to the backlog there, I wouldn't be surprised if nobody reviews it for many weeks though. I'll probably continue to make minor improvements while i'm waiting, so feel free to let me know of anything you think could use improving. :) Freikorp (talk) 11:37, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Total Divas
Hi there, I just wanted to personally apologize for the hidden text I wrote on the Total Divas page acting as if that article was my own creation. I read the ownership article stating no one is a owner of anything, and realize my comment was unnecessary. Thank you for changing it and bringing me up to scratch with how an appropriate editor should behave. The reasons, however, for my previous actions were simply because a particular editor keeps changing and making unreliable edits to the page. After exchanging a few words with them, they still haven't made adjustments, hence my comment to providing links to any changes. Therefore, I think they have stopped this morning. Maybe you would know actually? The changes this person is always making is to the status of Summer Rae - if you watch Total Divas that is - and her return to season four. They say she announced she was returning for the first half of the fourth season yet theres no proof, at all! Hence why I keep reverting their changes until legit proof has appeared. Have you heard anything about Summer Rae's return to the show? They said they watched the first look into season four on E! and said she announced on there she was coming back, yet I can't find any links or news or videos to justify that statement. Anyway, I have taken up enough of this space, once again, I apologize for my previous statements and thank you for the changes. Kind regards, MSMRHurricane (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the nice comment. It's great to someone quickly recognize their mistakes and learn from it. As for the article is question, no I don't watch it; I merely found it after I noticed you had reverted my edit on Nurse Jackie regarding section titles and capitalization, and noticed this article had the same errors. If an editor is continually adding unsourced (WP:V) and false information and they are not responding you to or are acknowledging what they are doing, they can reported for vandalism if they do not stop at WP:AIV. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh right, sorry about that too. I personally prefer titles being written like that but learning of the recommended rules of Wiki I will stop. :) Thanks for your civilized reply, hope to be working with you again soon. MSMRHurricane (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Total Divas 1
Yea thanks for everything n wat MrMS Hurricane said becuz I saw it n stuff n everything else. N thanks for doing n changing the Total Divas thing and I would look forward to working wit u n GOD Blessed.

Thanks, Valleryking Valleryking (talk) 02:51, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

US, USA, USN, US Navy, and other such terms
In a recent edit summary you unequivocally alleged that United States is abbreviated as U.S. (with periods), thus implying that that view is an invariable statement of universal truth.

Yes, sometimes United States is abbreviated as U.S. (with commas).

However, the rest of that truth is that often United States is abbreviated also as US (without periods).

Those two choices are alternative styles, each of which is correct and acceptable.

The periods in question are superfluous; that is, they do not serve a useful purpose, they get in the way, and they clutter up the typography.

The older style is to use the decorative or traditional periods, whereas the newer and current style is to omit those nonfunctional and unnecessary periods.

The Wikipedia MoS does not require the inclusion of periods in such abbreviations; on the contrary, it allows the omission of them.

The Chicago Manual and a number of other authorities call for the omission of those periods.

Bryan Garner, the dean among grammarians (and the most highly regarded one) in the USA, in his Modern American Usage, along with the MLA Style Manual and Guide to Scholarly Publishing, explains that the clear trend now is to omit the superfluous periods.

Further, the Merriam-Webster Style Manual comments that the use of U.S. (with periods) has in the past been an exception to the general principle of not inserting periods in such abbreviations.

Kate Turabian, the queen of the academic or scholarly style in the USA, presents the use of U.S. (with periods) in the past as a convention, a tradition, and an exception to the general principle.

The clear current trend (away from the periods) continues to grow.

It contributes to crispness, clarity, and conciseness, just as does the use of the sentence case in headings, which also started in contrast with the traditional or conventional title case.

To write or print US (without periods) places US squarely in line with USA, UK, UN, EU, USN, USMC, USAF, RCMP, and other such well established terms.

To edit boldly (an important concept at the Wikipedia) includes boldly using acceptable and growing current (albeit relatively new) trends when they make constructive improvements.

Recently I, as a devoted and serious fan of The West Wing, began watching the series again (at least the third time) in its entirety, usually one episode each day or night.

This time I decided to enhance the existing blurbs here (about the individual episodes), which contain many errors and inaccuracies.

While I do so, I'll continue to change U.S. (with periods) to US (without periods).

After I finish, then I'll have finished establishing an internal consistency of the use of US (without periods) throughout all seven seasons.

By the way, when I write about grammar and composition, I do so as a seasoned professional.

Although I'm a retired professor, I've long worked in a parallel concurrent area.

In 1953 I began as a writer, rewriter, ghostwriter, editor, and proofreader (first on student publications, eventually as an editor in chief of a newspaper at a major university), and I've continued in both commercial and academic publishing.

Also I have a website of my own, entitled Bluehounds and Redhounds, which I created, and which I continue to develop as time allows.

In 2010 I belatedly retired from full-time work, but I still teach part-time (including remedial English) at a university, and I continue to edit, rewrite, ghostwrite, advise, and proofread, all at the professional level.

For example, last week I finished editing a 450-page book on a technical subject.

Whenever I say anything about grammar or composition, please take me seriously.

Now let's proceed as friends, and let's interact with each other in a cordial and respectful manner.

Even when we disagree with each other, let's do so without behaving in a disagreeable way.

Too often some other users at the Wikipedia cause or allow disagreements to degenerate into name-calling contests.

You and I can do better than that.

Best wishes,

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC).


 * Thank you for such a passionate comment. First of all, great work on expanding the episode summaries. My reasons for the changing it back is per Wikipedia guideline MOS:NOTUSA. However, this isn't worth fighting over. So, if you wish to use "US", then I'll gladly accept that; but I suggest first reading the guideline I linked you to. Thank you and happy editing. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:22, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * DtG:
 * Thanks for the note, thanks for the kind words, and thanks for the polite and congenial tone.
 * Yes, I've read MOS:NOTUSA several times, starting several years ago.
 * It says in part some of what I wrote above.
 * It begins by correctly reciting that U.S. (with periods and without a space) is and has been the dominant, but not exclusive, form in North American English.
 * Then it adds, as I've pointed out, "[A]t least one major American style guide, The Chicago Manual of Style (16th ed.), now deprecates U.S. and prefers US".
 * It continues that US (without periods or a space) is more common in other national forms of English.
 * All of that, taken together, implies that we in North America are in the process of catching up with the rest of the English-speaking world on this one small point.
 * Thanks again.
 * Best wishes,
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 03:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC).

Pipes and pipe tricks
DtG:

You've changed several of my links by dropping the pipe trick and the uppercase initial letters in the titles of the linked articles.

I agree with that form, I would have preferred to do it that way originally, and I did so earlier in my time at the Wikipedia.

However, several other users have "edited" some of my simple links by capitalizing the initial letters.

After a number of such instances I reluctantly started using the pipe trick to get a lowercase initial letter when required in runniing text.

I've unsuccessfully searched for a written reference in the Wikipedia "rulebook".

Where can I find a discussion of that point?

I prefer your way, and I'll do it that way in the future, but I'd like also to be ready with an answer the next time when another user changes one or more such links.

Thanks.

Doc – DocRushing (talk) 18:44, 6 July 2015 (UTC).
 * Here is what I believe you're looking for: WP:NOPIPE. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bingo!
 * One more small point, please:
 * You changed 3 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.
 * In the section on "Time of day", there's no requirement to do either 3 or 3:00.
 * Directly below that, however, in the subsection on "Time zones", there's a bulleted example, which uses 8 p.m. (without a colon or zeroes).
 * That example (8 p.m.) seems to imply that the hour alone without a colon and zeroes is an acceptable form.
 * Is there a requirement elsewhere in the MoS specifying the use of a colon and zeroes when the hour is straight up?
 * Thanks much.
 * Doc – DocRushing (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC).


 * You're free to change it back to 3 a.m. if you wish. I'm just used to seeing and writing it the other way. Cheers. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Roger. Thanks.  Doc – DocRushing (talk) 21:19, 6 July 2015 (UTC).

List of Star Trek writers listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of Star Trek writers. Since you had some involvement with the List of Star Trek writers redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --BDD (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

24 (TV series)
Thanks for fixing up those dead links :) Hey, I noticed we're the top two contributors to the article. Would you be interesting in working with me in an effort to get 24 to FA? Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  22:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem. And yes, if it gets nominated for FA, I'll definitely help out. Drovethrughosts (talk) 14:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've opened up a peer review - last time, no one commented on it and it seems to be the same this time round...know anyone that might review it for us? The folk at FAC get snarky if you don't do a peer review beforehand. Steven   Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  14:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for taking care of the redirects from last night's abortive merge. I was on my iPad, and it just wouldn't behave… and I just hate it when someone leaves a mess behind! I just got to my desktop, and saw you'd done them. Most appreciated! --Drmargi (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No problem, friend! Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

S11 color
The black color for the font of s11's article is a bit blinding for me. It makes the orange look neon or something. Change it to white? Callmemirela  {Talk}   &#9809;  20:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I just changed it to white. Better? And also, really funny, I was creating the article at the exact same time as you. I hit submit, and it says "edit conflict", and I'm like "What?". Haha. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thanks. I was going to do it myself but I was afraid of content dispute or something of the sort so I just asked to make sure if you were along. I don't know why but I actually laughed at the last sentence :P You're welcome; I spared you the time. Callmemirela   {Talk}   &#9809;  20:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:COLOR
WP:COLOR requires WCAG AAA level "when feasible"; in "24" articles, it is not infeasible. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * True, I just changed it back to its original color because it was WCAG AA compliant, which is acceptable per WP:COLOR. But I understand. Is this officially implemented or is it still getting tweaked, regarding the colors? Because I can fix some colors, but don't want to bother, is this is all going to get changed or whatever. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * AA is only acceptable when AAA is not "feasible". Im not sure what you mean by "officially implemented", but The WMF's Non discrimination policy... "is approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees to apply to all Wikimedia projects. It may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored by local policies... The Wikimedia Foundation prohibits discrimination against current or prospective users... on the basis of... disability". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:34, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * "Officially implemented" as in regards to Infobox TV, as this is new–is there still discussions going on, etc. Also, I still think you're confused about your reverts of me on 24 (season 3). I'm merely updating the LineColor parameter with the new color you chose, yet you're reverting me, so the color is not consistent with the new one chosen and not compliant. I'm confused. Infobox color + episode table color = 5EA29D, but the LineColor is still the old color (28837c); I'm fixing it to match. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Prison Break
Thank you for your explanation. I see what do you actually want but please read/answer the following: Thanks in advance. --Obsuser (talk) 20:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) What is a complete overkill? If it is adding 10 references more into an article I don't know what to think!? Isn't it better to have three reliable sources instead of just one reliable source (whose link could get broken over time if archive link is not provided or something else)?
 * 2) Could you list me my spelling errors (besides bringig typo)?
 * 3) "What is bad with the encyclopedic tone? Wikipedia (encyclopedia) should have encyclopedic tone, and sentence you've mentioned ("After a number of media reports on serious cons...") is OK...
 * 4) You missed many important information in the section you force to be in the article. So, could you pull out all of the information I've written in my section, and write them in the way you like it (although, it will be hard to change a lot)? Facts you've missed are that there's been a number of media reports, then a reunion project of the iconic show similar to last year's 24: Live Another Day etc., till the ... episode and a show bible of fifth season (whole my section).


 * All those citations are just clutter, as all say the same thing. Best to stick with one reliable source which encompasses the most information. The Deadline cite is perfectly fine on its own. I'm sorry, I meant to use "unencyclopedic tone" in my edit summary, it was a mistake when I used auto correct in my browser, where it removed the "un-"; I correctly used "unencyclopedic" on your talk page. I'm sorry, but the way it was written was like it was written for a news magazine or something (WP:EDITORIALIZING). I also suggest looking at WP:NOTNEWS. If you can't see that "bringig back the Prison Break on TVs again" is not appropriate for Wikipedia, then I don't know... Why does it matter that there's "been on a number of media reports"? Yes, it's been reported, but we don't need to actually say that. We stick to the facts, which is that development began in June, and it was confirmed in August; simple as that. "Iconic show" is more unencyclopedic tone. Live Another Day is irrelevant (for us at least, it makes sense for a journalist writing a news article for an entertainment website to mention it, but not here); again, we are not writing a news article. We don't need to copy and paste every quote some Fox CEO stated, most of it is just fluff and vague, and the usual PR stuff. Also, like I said on your talk page, most it just seems to be directly copied-and-pasted from the sources (WP:COPYVIO). The section has all that is needed; if someone wants more, they can click the source, that's why it's there. However, I will go over the article again, to see if there's more notable inclusions to be made. Drovethrughosts (talk) 21:12, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Infobox
Hello Drovethrughosts, according to Template:Infobox Television it says exactly: “If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using. This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date.” First of all I completely agree with you. I don't think this makes much sense, but it still exists unfortunately. When is saw it I immediately thought of Curb in particular then I start updating others such as Fargo and Arrested Development. As a side note please don't use original and revived terms when saying the original release as that is for the should only include air dates not text. Thank You --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  19:22, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You've been reverted by other editors regarding this on other pages, clearly, you're doing something wrong. I suggest reading it again, and I bolded the key parts that you seem to be missing.


 * In some cases the fate of a program might be uncertain, for example if there are no announcements that a show has been renewed. If such a program has not aired a new episode in 12 months, "present" can be changed to the date the last episode aired, using . This does not imply the series has been cancelled, rather that the program "last aired" on that date. This is to prevent programs from being listed as "present" in perpetuity.


 * This does not pertain to Fargo, as it's been officially renewed. Same with AD and 24, they're both planned on returning, their fates are not unknown. Curb is fine, because it hasn't aired an episode since 2011, and it's fate is unknown. As for "original" and "revived", there's nothing stating it can't be used, and is used in several articles where this is the case. Drovethrughosts (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Apologies, I must have read it wrong. Sorry about that :( As regards to original and revived I came across an edit by another editor User:AussieLegend, here stating that this should not be included. --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  19:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * This was raised as an issue at WT:TV last year, in relation to Futurama, and a discussion at Talk:Futurama.  should contain only the date the show first aired on its original channel or network.   should contain only the first air date of the show's last episode on its original channel or network. The instructions for   further say to use "present" if the show is ongoing or renewed. A "revived" series is a renewed series so present is correct. This is why this edit was inappropriate. Your edit to Arrested Development (TV series) was correct.   should be May 26, 2013 until such time as the next episode airs, when it should be changed to "present". -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:15, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * thanks, were my edits to Fargo (TV series), Sherlock (TV series) & Friday Night Dinner correct? --  John Gormley J G  ( ✉ )  20:23, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * We only add the end date when the series has ended, or 12 months have passed since the last episode with no indication of renewal so:
 * Fargo (TV series) - No, the series has been renewed according to pre-existing citations in the series overview table.
 * Sherlock (TV series) - No, the series has been renewed according to pre-existing citations in the article.
 * Friday Night Dinner - No, the series has been renewed according to a pre-existing citations in the article. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 20:41, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

True Detective
On the off chance you have an interest in working on individual episodes from season 2: Talk:True Detective (season 2). --- Another Believer ( Talk ) 01:23, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Cumbersome cast tables??
Hello, fellow editor. With all due respect, in what universe are the cast tables cumbersome? You are the only editor who thinks that. You might not even know what I'm talking about since Criminal Minds isn't even one of your favorite shows, according to your page, but that isn't important at this point. The first time you changed the cast tables you did not explain your edit at all. That is not the way that information has been presented; the table has worked for many years, it disambiguates the information, making it easier to understand if you don't know the show as well as other fans, and the fact that it is "cumbersome" is a matter of your opinion. This way has worked for a long time, please don't change it.

I would be willing to take this to Wikipedia's administrators to explain the efficiency of the original cast table. Please stop changing it. It is disruptive editing, and it makes the information (although organized) more confusing to the average person, and is not based on logic, only opinion. This is not that I don't value you as an editor, I appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, but I care deeply about this show and how its information is presented, and yes you have the right to edit whatever page you want, but know that this particular edit is based only on opinion and is disruptive. Please stop reverting it, or it will be deferred as an act of edit warring. With all possible respect, Bef3481 Bef3481 (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Why does such simple information such as an actor and character names need to be displayed in a table? I have over 50,000 edits regarding TV-related articles, and I never seen this before. Any well-written or GA-level TV season article has a cast list in basic list prose form. It's completely unnecessary to put this into a table, when the information is being presented is so simplistic; it doesn't make it any easier to understand. I fail to see how a simple list can be considered "confusing"; if anything, it's more confusing to the average reader who may be trying to add content, but is unsure because it's in a table format. Just because something's been done one way for a long time, doesn't mean it can't be changed for the better. You've also been reverted by AussieLegend, another highly experienced editor within the TV community. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:30, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * - There is a discussion at Bef3481's talk page. He made what I thought was a good faith acknowledgement that what he was doing was not an improvement, but I'm sad to say he has gone on to edit-war at every season article. I pinged you in the discussion at his talk page, you may wish to comment there, or at least read it if you haven't already. -- Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 21:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

The Walking Dead
Hi, Drovethrughosts, I know that you keep a close eye on many TV-related articles so I was wondering what you thought of the page move here. I think generally the TV and comic book characters are kept separate but as a newer viewer of the series, I thought you'd know better what the standard was. Liz Read! Talk! 19:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm not particularly sure here. I'm familiar with the TV series, but not the comics. It seems all the character articles for TWD encompass both the TV and comic book character; the only problem I see is maybe the article title which seems it might not conform to article naming guidelines, but I could be wrong. If the article is primarily about Deanna Monroe, which it seems to be, it should maybe be titled that, and a redirect for Douglas Monroe could be created. But again, I really don't know. Drovethrughosts (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * As another longtime viewer of the series, I think it should probably be changed back to Deanna Monroe. I like Drovethrughosts' suggestion, and I don't think the article really currently meets naming suggestions. We should probably discuss the issue on the moving user's talk page, though. Johanna (aka BenLinus1214)talk to me!see my work 00:13, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

The Missing
You keep reverting an update to the Series One ratings for The Missing back to the overnight ratings. The ratings I am providing are the BARB seven day consolidated ratings and are backed up by searching the BARB weekly top 30 page that I am providing as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.227.141.99 (talk) 14:24, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Robot
Care to weigh in Talk:Mr._Robot_(TV_series)? Trumpetrep (talk) 03:38, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

The Returned
The problem is, and the reason I moved that information, is that if you currently have "The second season consists of eight episodes and is scheduled to premiere on 28 September 2015 on Canal+ and 31 October 2015 on SundanceTV." in the lede paragraph, that's going to be a very long sentence by the time broadcasters in the UK, Australia, etc. have confirmed their airdates? Surely it would be far better to summarise it there, and move the airdates (which are, let's face it, trivia) to their own section? Black Kite (talk) 07:18, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I guess, realistically, the lead should only mention the French air dates, given it's a French series. I just added the U.S. to the lead because it's the first announced air date for season 2 for an English-speaking country. Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Consensus discussion on Agents of SHIELD (Season 2)
Hi. Can you offer your opinion in this discussion? Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 04:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)