User talk:Alex 21/Archive 12

My Edit

Hello, you reverted my edit on Once Upon a Time (season 5), but I wanted to let you know that I made the image bigger because it is 250px on every other season page, so I wanted to make it consist. --24.47.231.127 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Using the format [[File:XXX|XXX]] is actually deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore, per the documentation at Template:Infobox television season. The other seasons will be updated to reflect this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

star wars rebels shorts

I see that you undid my change. What is changed was simply that i removed the shorts from the "episodes" section, and created their own section for them. The reason why i did this was because the shorts isn't episodes. And i have seen other series that have shorts, where the shorts have their own category.

They were introductory to the series and hence belong at the start. I was more reverting how you changed the Series Overview from template to raw code, and the colour changes per WP:COLOR. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I know they were used to indroduce us to the series, but i still think that it would make more sense for them to have their own catergory since they technically aren't episodes. And if i created a problem with the code i'm very sorry. I honestly don't know alot about wikipedia and coding.

You should discuss it on the talk to see if other editors concur and gain a consensus for moving them to their own category. If there is a consensus, then kindly ask another editor to follow out the edits so that nothing else is disturbed. (And please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments on a talk page to save them.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

so i have to enter ~~~~ at the end of my comment before anyone can see them?

No, it's so people know who's commenting. I'll post some information on your talk page about it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, i just saw it. thanks :) --83.93.114.80 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Look, i didn't remove anything from the series overveiw. I simply moved everything that has to do with shorts to it's own category. If i did anything else, it wasn't on purpose so please tell me if i did. --83.93.114.80 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Look at this: see the third line onwards? You're changing the series overview. And you're changing the shorts to different colour (look at this (yours) compared to this (mine) - the first colour does not comply with WP:COLOR. And I'd also note that your discussion was removed because you're under suspicion of evading a ban. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

But why should the shorts be in the series overveiw? They aren't a part of the actual series. They are seperate shorts that was ment to tease the actual show before it started. We don't see the doctor who series 9 prelude shorts on "list of doctor who seriels" either, do we? The only logical thing is if the shorts gets it's own category and is removed from the series overveiw. And you said something about colors. I can't see any difference in the colors and i didn't change anything (at least not on purpose). As i said, if im chaning anything on the code im very sorry. I don't know alot about wikipedia coding. --83.93.114.80 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I am discussing your conflicting edits, not the layout of the page and what should be where. Take it elsewhere, please. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Bowdenford

It seems Bowdenford is again determined to change the ands on Doctor Who (series 9) into ampersands. Just though I would let you know. Theoosmond (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

American

Oh!! Let's see if it works. I figured it was something you'd done accidentally. --Drmargi (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably should've explained it first. Hope so. Because then if they removed it, it means they've obviously read the note and proceeded with disruptive editing. I've done the same thing when editors update series to "... was a television series" after it's concluded, though it should remain "is", so I put the note between the i and the s. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

No harm in giving it a whirl. It's long past time that a good few PBS co-productions are accurately identified. --Drmargi (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Wayward Pines' showrunner

Hello AlexTheWhovian

Wayward Pines' showrunner is changed. Can you update the page?

Source: http://deadline.com/2015/12/m-night-shyamalan-wayward-pines-renewed-season-2-fox-new-showrunner-1201663497/

Best regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanpure (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

@Oceanpure: The page is not protected, you can just as easily do it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Scorpion revert

What do mean "Not necessary for the ratings table, since it's already sourced"? Actually, episodes that haven't aired shouldn't even be listed in the ratings table at all, but especially not without a source. Sure, it's sourced in the episodes table, but it also needs to be cited in the ratings table as well. There's no reason not to. If you have a link to an MOS that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. WP:REVEXP says, "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." But, actually, a reversion should only be done when there's vandalism or as a last resort. It would have been much better if you had left a message on my talk page first (WP:ROWN). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Musdan77: Perhaps this is better brought up at WT:TV. I have eighteen different series going on right now, most with ratings table, and there have been no issues requiring sources in the ratings table when it's already source in the episodes table, and a good deal of these are edited by experienced editors who have been hear far longer than I. What guideline or (even better) policy are you running by to state that certain episodes shouldn't be listed in the ratings table? Alex|The|Whovian^? 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Plot script

Can you modify it to work for film plots too? My thought would be for it too look to see if the page uses {{Infobox film}} (and if not then it will be an episode plot search). And if it is a film article, it would look for sections titled "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", "Summary" etc. and check the number to see if it is between 400-700 words (per WP:FILMPLOT). Finally, the pop up boxes should notify the user of the two guidelines, should it be out of range for the plots. Think this is doable? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I shall see what I can do! I can already check with JS to see if {{Infobox film}} is used (different classes between different infoboxes) {{#lsth:The Avengers (2012 film)|Plot}} gets the entire subsection of the page entitled "Plot", so I just need to mimic this in Javascript. I'll let you know how it works out. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Alex! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:20, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

This may not be possible, but is there anyway to make the script to take into account when you have two episodes with one plot summary? Like the season 2 and season 3 finales of Agent of SHIELD?--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:01, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I can do that too. It can check if the episode number the summary belongs to is two numbers instead of one, and double the limit. (By the way, the Season 3 finale of Agents is going to have separate rows and summaries, since it has separate titles, just a heads up.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I hadn't seen the episode titles had been release, so I still thought they were on the TBA that spread across both rows.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 11:09, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Ditto51:  Done Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:42, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Section markers

Would you be so kind as to restore all the section markers in all DW episode lists? They were specifically designed to replace the <noinclude>...</noinclude> hacks, who were never intended for article space. They also allow transcluding multiple sections to one page. Why did you remove them? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: No. Why? There are no <noinclude>...</noinclude> hacks. I changed them to <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>, as per every other season/series page (except the split Seasons 4/21, which do use the section marks, given that they're transcluded twice differently on the LoS page). Multiple sections aren't being transcluded from the Series 9 page, just the episode table. Please show what's different between the section tags and onlyinclude in this example. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Same thing. Don't use them, section markers are specifically desinged to deal with article transclusions. The old tags are for templates. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

They are specifically designed to transclude multiple sections onto one page, as you stated yourself. This is not the case for these pages. Even {{Episode list}} states that <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> should be used. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Don't mince words... Use the proper tools: include tags are for templates (and abused for articles), and section markers are for articles. See mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion for a more detailed explanation. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP! All series pages once had section markers, and I intend to restore them all. Just because you don't understand some wioki syntax, is no reason to remove them. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

But why can't you put in simpler templates, that are easier for editors to deal with? And I agree with AlexTheWhovian, there is no need unless the season has to be split, for when there are two Doctors. Theoosmond (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC) And if a tag works, what's wrong with it. Theoosmond (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: How on Earth am I mincing words? The documentation of {{Episode list}} states, and I quote: For the purpose of transclusion, each sublist must make use of <onlyinclude> tags, with the opening tag just before the WikiTable, and the closing tag at the very end of the table. I recommend checking some of the more common series that have season pages, and checking what they use. (I know I have several talk-page-stalkers that are involved in the television project, perhaps they'd care to weigh in.) The Doctor Who "List of Serials" page is almost the only one to use the LST tags, for the two special cases. And you're talking about hacks in your edit summary - having a tag you need to name, and the method of transclusion using another tag instead of the regular {{:NAME}} format. is more of a hack than a simple use of <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> is. And what's this about all of them containing section markers? When we changed the page layout from separate tables on the LoS page and the season/series pages, to transclusion, it was the traditional method of transclusion used. See? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

We switched all moders series to named sections (#lst) to accomodate for specials, and was done long before you came aboard. What is the reason to switch back? I know new methods are weird and stuff, but we have to adapt one day... There was nothing wrong, so again, why step back? I still intend to reinstate the lst tags. Get used to it instead of continueing to renounce new methods. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

New methods? List a dozen pages that use LST and not onlyinclude. I can very easily do it the other way, for several dozen. And also where it dictates that LST has to be used and onlyinclude is deprecated, because if you can't, then there's nothing to base your changes on. There is no recent consensus to use the "newer" tags, so implementing them while this is still in discussion can be seen as edits of bad faith; being an admin doesn't change that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter:Also, what are the properties of LST are so good compared to onlyinclude? Theoosmond (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Frogs with Dirty Little Lips

User:AlexTheWhovian, I noticed some notable Frank Zappa songs don't have articles of their own on Wikipedia. Such as "Frogs with Dirty Little Lips" which is on Them or Us instead of it's own article and "Catholic Girls" is on Joe's Garage. Do you think they should have their own articles?

Plus: Does the image of Elvis on this article class as "mutton-chops"? Or are they just large sideburns, thanks.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Blindspot

What was wrong with the "Interesting Fact" I added? I used a reliable source (Yahoo TV). While it's true my second source was a blog, but it was merely to show the crossword puzzle in question; you can plainly see the message mention in the episode, exactly where it's supposed to be. Please explain why you deleted it. Puzzle1022

@Puzzle1022: It is trivial and not actually part of the episode summary, and labeling it as an "interesting fact" is your own personal opinion. Adding what you have to the character description is perfectly fine. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:57, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I place in a different part of the article. Maybe where that footnote that mentions that the titles are anagrams. And just not call it an interesting fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puzzle1022 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Is it really needed? It's trivial, given that once you get down to the basics, it's just saying that a message on the show appeared in a crossword puzzle. What does this contribute? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:06, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Gotham summaries

Regarding the episode summaries at List of Gotham episodes, could you be more specific as to which summaries need to be rewritten? Most of them seem to be within reasonable length (at least where Season 2 is concerned). DarkKnight2149 17:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

@Darkknight2149: Use User:AlexTheWhovian/script-plotlength and the script will show you which summaries need shortening. The longest summary is 1x21 (304 words); the longest summary for Season 2 is 2x05 (269 words). Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:45, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that edit and a question

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I was very surprised that it looked ok when I previewed it. That is very nifty code.

I am having trouble archiving references and I am looking for help with it/them. I have read extensively about it and I suspect that I am not using the proper template. Do you know anyone I could ask for assistance? Regards, BobDog54 (talk) 02:15, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@BobDog54: No problems. It was still alright, it's just easier and better to link them with spaces instead of underscores. And perhaps read what's listed at Template:Cite web#URL and the four links provided there on how to use web archives. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I am going to quibble about the coding style. I am copying the information from the address bar so I am guaranteed that I am linking to the correct part of the page. Theoretically, the free-hand syntax should work but the one time someone assumes that each word was separated by an underscore will be the time they forget to preview their code and there you go - broken links and the user unable to get the information they were looking for. Sad experience has taught me to follow a 'belt and suspenders' methodology - copy and paste is pretty much a guarantee that at least that part is good. I have to say that I will be continuing to do what has worked for me for a very long time. We both end up in the same place and all is good. BobDog54 (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No problems. All to their own. We'll be there to correct it to the proper form. Alex|The|Whovian^? 06:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Isn't it a question of personal preference? Both accomplish the same thing. I understand that everything is up for editing but to my mind, my coding's only fault is the conservative method used to create it. There are so many things that are needed in Wikipedia that imposing one's personal preferences seems a waste of valuable time and knowledge. It would never occur to me to change your coding that was working. Please leave my functioning code alone. There are vandals to revert and real big problems to solve. I don't think it is an unreasonable request. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." BobDog54 (talk) 08:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

No. It's a question of doing it correctly, not personal preference. Just because one way works, doesn't mean it's the right way. What would make more sense to an inexperienced editor: "Roy_Harper_%28comics%29" or "Roy Harper (comics)"? The latter. We'll be here to fix this for you while we also do the "real big problems". This discussion is now closed. (And by the way, you're welcome for the suggestion on further information on archiving, since I never got a thanks.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:07, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thank you!

Now I understand the difference in the coding. That piece of information made it all clear to me. My vision was clouded by too many years of not having to think about making things easy for all levels of users. Your explanation was succinct and to the point. I neglected to say thank you re: more things to read because I have read so much about how to archive that more reading like that did not help me, but I did forget my manners. Thank you! I will go away now, a little battered but pleased that I lived through my first Wiki-smackdown. BobDog54 (talk) 11:39, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

AWB and Episode Table

Hi ATW! You mentioned you were interested in my ridiculous AWB regex. Not sure how to share other than copy-paste them or share the .xml file with you. Which do you prefer? Ping me in reply. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Great! If you could, copy-paste them here between {{collapse top}} and {{collapse bottom}}. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:02, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

AWB Regex EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Parent Rules Grandparent Rule - Episode list (meant to avoid replacing other tables, but at this point redundant with parent rule; AWB is a pain in the butt about moving rules by point-and-click with the mouse so I just leave it.) Regex (find): \=\=\s*(Episode|Season|Series).*\=\=) Replacement: $1 If contains: \{\{Episode\slist Parent Rule - Episode table Regex (find): \=*\s*(Episode|Story|Movie|Film|Season|Short|Pilot|Series[^\soverview]).*\=*)([^=]*)(?:\{\|\s*class\s*\=\"\s*wikit.*).*(\n\s*\|\+.*)?(\n\s*\|\-.*)? Replacement: $1$3{{Episode table Children Rules - Table headers (This is still really buggy...) Rule: Headers - Overall Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!\!\s?).*(\#)(?:[^\|\!])* Replacement: |overall= Rule: Headers - Title Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?).*(Title)(?:[^\|\!])* Replacement: |title= Rule: Headers - Director Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Directed|Director)(?:[^\|\!])* Replacement: |director= Rule: Headers - Writers Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Written|Writer)(?:[^\|\!])* Replacement: |writer= Rule: Headers - Airdate Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!?\s?).*(Original air date|Original airdate)(?:[^\|\!|\{])* Replacement: |airdate= Rule: Headers - Prodcode Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Production|ProdCode|Prod.*code|Code)(?:[^\|\!])* Replacement: |prodcode= Rule: Headers - Aux4 Regex (find): (?:\s*\!\!\s?)(Villain)(?:[^\|\!])* Replacement: |aux4=|aux4T=$1(s) Rule: Headers - Background Regex (find): (?:\|\-)?(?:\n)?(?:\s?\|\s?colspan.*(background|background-color)\:\s*)(\#?\w{3,})\;(?:[^\{\{])* Replacement: |background=$2|episodes= Children Rules - Main set Rule: Background Regex (find): (\{\{Episode table)(\n?\s*\!.*)(?:background\:\s*|background-color\:\s*)(\#\w{3,})(.*) Replacement: $1|background=$3$2$4 Rule: Overall Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(No\.?.*in.*series|№|No\.|\#)\s*(\n) Replacement: |overall=$2 Rule: Season number Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(No\..*in.*season|Episode\s*number).* Replacement: |season= Rule: Title Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(Title|Episode\stitle).* Replacement: |title= If doesn't contain: n\!.*\|?.*\s*(Title|Episode\stitle)\s*\<ref.* Rule: Title with ref Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(Title|Episode\stitle)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>) Replacement: |title=|titleR=$2 If contains: \n\!.*\|?.*\s*(Title|Episode\stitle)\s*\<ref.* Rule: Director Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Direction|Directed|Director|Director\(s\)).* Replacement: |director= If doesn't contain: \n\!.*\|?.*\s*(Direction|Directed|Director|Director\(s\))\s*\<ref.* Rule: Director with ref Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|?.*)(Direction|Directed|Director|Director\(s\))(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>) Replacement: |director=|directorR=$2 If contains: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Direction|Directed|Director|Director\(s\))\s*\<ref.* Rule: Writer Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Written|Writer).* Replacement: |writer= Rule: Storyboard Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Storyboard).* Replacement: |aux2=|aux2T=Storyboarded by Rule: Airdate Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate\(s\)).* Replacement: |airdate= If doesn't contain: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate\(s\))\s*\<ref.* Rule: Release Date Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Release date).* Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=$1 Rule: Airdate with ref Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate\(s\))(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>) Replacement: |airdate=|airdateR=$2 If contains: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Original air date|Original airdate|Air Date|Airdate\(s\))\s*\<ref.* Rule: Australian airdate Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Australian air date) Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=Australian air date Rule: US airdate Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(U.S. air date|US air date) Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=U.S. air date Rule: UK airdate Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(UK air date|U.K. air date) Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=U.K. air date Rule: Multilingual airdate Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|\s?)(Spanish.*|French.*|American.*)(\s?)(airdate|air date) Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=$1$2$3 Rule: French airdate Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(French air date) Replacement: |airdate=|airdateT=French air date Rule: Production code Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code).* Replacement: |prodcode= If doesn't contain: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code)\s*\<ref.* Rule: Production code w/ ref Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>) Replacement: |prodcode=|prodcodeR=$2 If contains: \n\!.*\|.*\s*(Production\<br\s?\/?\s?\>code|ProdCode|Prod.*code|TV\sbroadcast|Code)\s*\<ref.* Rule: Viewership Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(U.S.|U.K.|US|UK)\s?(Viewers|viewers|households)(?:(\<br\s*\/\>|\<br\>)\((in\s*)?millions\)) Replacement: |viewers=|country=$1 Rule: Guests Regex (find): (?:\n\s*\!.*\|.*)(Guest.*)(\|.*) Replacement: |aux2|aux2T=Guest(s)$2 Rule: Episodes parameter Regex (find): (.*\|\s*airdate\s*=.*)(\n\|\-)?(\n*\{\{Episode list.*) Replacement: $1|episodes=$3 Rule: Aux Regex (find): (?:\n\!+.*\"\s*\|)(.*)(airdate)(\=.*) Replacement: |aux2=|aux2T=$1$2$3 Rule: Aux with ref Regex (find): (?:\n\!+.*\"\s*\|\s*)(([^<])*)(\<ref.*\n?\<\/ref\>|\<ref.*\/\>)?(\s*\|\s*)(airdate)(\=.*) Replacement: |aux2=|aux2T=$1|aux2R=$3$4$5$6 Rule: Closing brackets Regex (find): (\n\}\}\n)(\-\|)?(?:\|\}) Replacement: $1}}

@EvergreenFir: Very nicely done! I'll be saving these for future use. Since it appears that you're rather proficient with regex (I am myself, but not at that level), might I request your help at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Infobox television season granularity edits? Thanks. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:56, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure! I want to make sure I understand the changes right: We're changing {{Infobox television season}} so that the season_name parameter is deprecated and replaced with show_name, season_number, season_type, and season_qualifier? (I think we need to update the template usage examples in the documentation if that's the case as they still show show_name and don't use the other parameters). If I'm understanding it right, the regex shouldn't be too hard for it. Just a lot of contingency rules like with the stuff above. (Ping me in reply) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I've updated if further. And yes, that's right. So, for a few examples:

• |season_name = NCIS (season 12) becomes |show_name = NCIS |season_number = 12
• |season_name = Doctor Who (series 9) becomes |show_name = Doctor Who |season_type = series |season_number = 9
• |season_name = The Apprentice (U.S. season 2) becomes |show_name = The Apprentice |season_qualifier = U.S. |season_number = 2
• |season_name = Road Rules: South Pacific remains the same.
• Archer (season 5) becomes |season_name = Archer: Vice |show_name = Archer |season_number = 5

Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay! I think I can put something together. It will take some testing to get it working decent though. The first three are straight forward enough, but I know there are a few "standard formattings" to contend with (use of colors, use of mid-string de-bolding wiki syntax, etc.) The only problem I foresee is the last example you gave. I cannot think of a way to get it to know "Archer: Vice" easily... might be able to take it from the lead sentence, but I'd have to see a few examples to try to get a regex that will capture more instances. I'll start on it tomorrow. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 08:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Archer: Vice is just one case of a named season where Archer (season 4) and Archer (season 6) articles exist as their season-name, so perhaps checking "prev_season" and "next_season" would be a help here? Some infoboxes are titled also title as "Show Season 7", so lack of brackets also come into play, and occurrences of "Show '' Season 7". There's so many variations, that's why I requested help on this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:53, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll fiddle around with it. There are 3742 pages that transclude the {{Infobox television season}}. We might want to ask for bot permission and have it run through and convert the majority of cases that aren't like Archer: Vice. Working on putting together regex now. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Some of the pages have quantifiers in the title, but not in the infobox (e.g., Being Human (North American season 4). Do we want "North American included even if it wasn't in the original infobox? (If so, that makes it harder) (Ping me in reply) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:48, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: Probably, yes, since the infobox shouldn't be titled "Being Human: Season 4", but "Being Human (North American season 4)", and since the main article is titled "Being Human (North American TV series)". I'm pretty sure that AWB has a keyword that can be used for the page title. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:05, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay. Aside from that part, I think I got it pretty well complete. Below is what I got so far:

Regex for Infobox granulation

Parent rule (inside templates; not case sensitive) Find: \n(\s*\|\s*)season_name(\s*\=\s*)([^(:'1234567890]*)((\(|\'\'\s*|\:\s)?(.*)(season|series)\s(\d{1,2})(\))?|(\:\D*))?\s*\n Replace: \n$1show_name$2$3$10\n $1season_qualifier$2$6\n $1season_type$2$7\n $1season_number$2$8\n Subrule - Convert capital Season/Series to lowercase season/series (inside templates; case sensitive) Find: (.*season_type.*)S(eason|eries) Replace: $1s$2 Subrule - Remove empty parameters (inside templates; case sensitive; repeated 3 times) Find: .*(season_qualifier|season_type|season_number)\s*\=\s*\n Replace: (null)

Any suggestions or comments, let me know! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: That is amazing work! I loaded it into AWB and tested it on a few pages without saving, and it seems to work well. A few things:

• 1) I did, however, modify the first replacement slightly to include the \n line breaks so it can be copy/pasted directly from the page to AWB.
• 2) The other granularity edit that needs attention is that once the season_number parameter is implemented, then the prev_season/prev_series and next_season/next_series parameters are deprecated, as the links for the next/previous seasons are now generated automatically. However, they need to remain for pages such as Road Rules: South Pacific.
• 3) |season_type = season can also be replaced with null, as "season" is automatically the default for season_type.
• 4) And finally. I also plan on removing deprecated fields after all of this (many pages still use the regionA, regionB, fgcolour, etc parameters), which just clog the template up, meaning any parameter that's not listed at {{Infobox television season}} needs to be deleted. Hopefully I'm not burdening you - think you could help with this too?

Thanks! Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly. #2 shouldn't be too hard if we use "if contains" statements. #3 is an easy addon to the current stuff. I'd be happy to help with #4 too when the time comes. Still thinking we might want a bot since there are so many pages to deal with. I've never asked for one before though and it seems like a lengthy process. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}}

PS - For some reason I thought I couldn't put /n in the replace section... had trouble with it once. But I was wrong. That's much easier to copy-paste now. Thanks! EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) (Qualified) Success! Thanks for the tip about %%title%%. If I add that into the infobox first and then parse that out, it's much easier. It's glitching on page titles starting with numerals and I'm not sure why yet. (Will reply to your other comment in a moment) EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Okay, if you make the following grandnparent(?) rule above the parent rule in the code from above, it works well:

• Find: (\n\s*\|\s*season_name\s*\=)(\s*.*)
• Replace: $1 %%title%%

Also, to address #3 in your comments above, change the (sub-)subrule that eliminates blank parameters to the find .*(season_qualifier|season_type|season_number)\s*\=\s*(season)?\n EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Prev/next Deprecated

Making sure I understand correctly: if season_number parameter is present, prev/next season/series parameter is deprecated, correct? If so, the following sub-subrule can be added to the stuff above to remove them:

• Inside template; not case sensitive
• If contains: \n\s*\|\s*season_number.*
• Find: \n\s*\|\s*(prev|next)_(season|series)\s*\=.*(season\s\d{1,2}|series\s\d{1,2}).*
• Replace: (null)

I added the part after the equal sign in the find regex because of cases like 24 (season 8) where the next article doesn't follow the FOOBAR (season ###) patter. See [1] as an example. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:06, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

So, I think I've summed everything up below. It seems to be working perfectly in AWB (once I remember to tick "regex" for find/replace). It also turns out we've been naming one of the parameters wrong; it's season_qualifier rather than season_quantifier (I've replaced all occurrences of it). Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Regex for Infobox granulation (UPDATE 20 April)

Grandparent rule Find: (\n\s*\|\s*season_name\s*\=)(\s*.*) Replace: $1 %%title%% Parent rule (inside templates; not case sensitive) - Remove existing show_name parameters to avoid double parameters Find: \n(\s*\|\s*)show_name.* Replace: (null) Parent rule (inside templates; not case sensitive) Find: \n(\s*\|\s*)season_name(\s*\=\s*)([^(]*)(((\(|\'\'\s*|\:\s)(.*)(season|series|cycle)\s(\d{1,2}))(\))?|(\:\D*))?\s*\n Replace: \n$1show_name$2$3$11\n$1season_qualifier$2$7\n$1season_type$2$8\n$1season_number$2$9\n Subrule - Convert capital Season/Series to lowercase season/series (inside templates; case sensitive) Find: (.*season_type.*)Series Replace: $1series Subrule - Convert capital Cycle to lowercase cycle (inside templates; case sensitive) Find: (.*season_type.*)Cycle Replace: $1cycle Subrule - Remove empty parameters (inside templates; case sensitive) Find: .*(season_qualifier|season_type|season_number|prev_season|prev_series|next_season|next_series)\s*\=\s*(season)?\n Replace: (null) Subrule - Prev/next Deprecated If contains: \n\s*\|\s*season_number.* Find: \n\s*\|\s*(prev|next)_(season|series)\s*\=.*(season\s\d{1,2}|series\s\d{1,2}|cycle\s\d{1,2}|none|N\/A).* Replace: (null) Subrule - Remove fgcolor/fgcolor parameter (inside templates; not case sensitive) Find: \n\s*\|\s*(fgcolor|fgcolour)\s*\=.* Replace: (null)

Awesome! I think that just about does it. We going to just recruit WP:TV users to convert stuff? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Made a few tweaks to the code above: (1) making it remove empty prev/next season/series params. Also removing fgcolor/fgcolour as deprecated. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Also repetition of subrule appears to be unnecessary. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 01:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

@EvergreenFir: I was just planning on running AWB on my spare laptop with a automatic clicker to run through them all. And the modifications have been noted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:14, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I got a few more... give me a minute. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Updated to include "cycle" as an option (see [2]). Also removed apostrophe and colon from the main replacement code as those get in the way of articles like Mission: Impossible (1988 TV series season 1) and Africa's Next Top Model (cycle 1). For the former of the two just linked, the code will put "1988 TV series" as a qualifier.

Recommend you remove all articles starting with "List of" from your AWB edit list as the code will not work right on them. There are still a few goofy ones that the code doesn't handle (e.g., MythBusters (2005 season) or anything that the title of the show isn't in standard formatting). Looks like those are less than 5% of the list though. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Small update to code... EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:35, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi all. Thanks for all the hard work on this. Question/comment to you both. Seeing all the work that was done to the template, I believe |episode_list= should be depreciated in the same vein as |prev_season= and |next_season=. I say this because the way Alex(?) coded it, for "List of X episodes" to appear at the bottom of the template, one just needs to put the show name in the field. IE, to get List of NCIS episodes, one just has to do |episode_list= NCIS. So they don't even have to do that, because it can be coded to just grab the data from |show_name= (and then check to see if the resulting LoE page isn't a redirect). Thoughts? (Sorry if this will require extra passes over all the articles you did Evergreen.) - 05:17, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

That may not necessarily work. Sure, there's pages such as "NCIS" / "List of NCIS episodes", but then there is "Teen Wolf (2011 TV series)" / "List of Teen Wolf episodes". And then "Agent Carter (TV series)#Episodes". "List of Doctor Who serials". I think that |episode_list= is alright as it is for now. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I guess. But wouldn't it be a similar situation to prev/next though? You can use them if the data can't easily be pulled from the granularity fields. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Please ignore this request. I was misreading how the coding actually works and my thought was incorrect. Carry on! - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

• Adding important rule that takes place prior to main rule. Remove existing show_name parameters if they exist. This was causing an issue when there was already that parameter and the script added an additional one (see [3]). EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

"10th" versus "tenth"

Hi! I noticed you edited my recent edit on The Big Bang Theory, where you changed "10th" to "tenth". On Wikipedia's Manual of Style page about numbers, it says any number above nine can be expressed either in number format or in word format. So I'm just wondering, was my edit actually incorrect in some way, or was your edit a personal preference of yours? LocalNet (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@LocalNet: Neither. It was for uniformity. If the 9th season is spelled as "ninth", then the 10th season should match this and be spelled as "tenth". That's typically the consensus in the Television WikiProject. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Ohhhh. I didn't even think about that. Thank you for the explanation! :) Oh, and replying to someone in their talk page is new to me, so please excuse this lack of proper formatting :P LocalNet (talk) 08:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@LocalNet: No problems! Since it's new to you, here's a few tips for you: The colon (:) is used at the start of replies to indent them on talk pages. The more colons, the further the indent. Check how many colons were used by the previous editor, then use the same number plus one. Also, there's no need to ping an editor when replying on their own talk page. Hope that helps! Thanks for editing Wikipedia. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:10, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Misdirected PROD notifications

Hi Alex. You just left PROD notifications regarding Scott McCall and Lydia Martin on my talk page. I did originally create these as redirects back in 2012, but the actual articles were create last month by Judor92 (talk · contribs). You might want to notify him as well. Regards, Favonian (talk) 07:51, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian: I'll do just that, thanks for informing me. It was actually Twinkle that informed you, as the notices were automated edits by the program. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Favonian:i just have createdScott McCall. Why is it going to be deleted. Judor92 (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Judor92: You need to re-read the above. Alex made the nomination, not I. Favonian (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

@Judor92: Read the reason provided in the deletion tag on why. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:00, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Musketeers episode updates

I'd like to update the season 3 pages with the LA Netflix info (episode names not summaries). Is that ok? I rarely edit wiki pages (so pardon my faux pas), but I'd like to add info that's apparently only available in a limited way right now. And I don't want to misstep or start an edit war. I'm also not offay with the tables and formatting, so let me know what's easiest for you to maintain. I can either update the table or find a way to provide you with the titles (since you're not in LA to see them). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.227.39 (talk) 13:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There needs to be a public source that states the titles (Netflix is not a public source), so if such a source cannot be provided, then that's just that, they'll have to stay listed as TBA. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

There's got to be one out there! I'll try to track one down and update accordingly when I do for the full 10 episodes. If you don't mind me asking, why is Netflix not considered a valid source, when they're the ones doing the primary public release to the public? I'm watching the series now and I'd be happy to update again if I can keep it Wiki-appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.227.39 (talk) 13:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

I've got a Tumblr screen cap of the LA Netflix titles and summaries. It's not a primary source (as far as my limited understanding of what constitutes one on Wikipedia)--and I hate using Tumblr as a reference--but it is a corroborating shot of the primary Netflix source. I could also link directly to the episodes as they're posted on Netflix, I think (and not just to the front page). It looks like that might satisfy WP primary source criteria, at least to my understanding of the quick read through of the policy, but I don't know if there's a subsequent blanket policy here on streaming sites as sources etc. Also, I clearly don't know how to tab these replies...so mea culpa all round. Let me know whats appropriate and I'll act accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.73.227.39 (talk) 14:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Tomorrow, When the War Began (TV series).png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tomorrow, When the War Began (TV series).png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:10, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Arrow genres

When you are reverted by two different editors, it's time to stop reverting and head on over to the talk page, as you were advised to do. I know you can be reasonable and calm; you should endeavor to act that way now. - 02:27, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@Jack Sebastian: 1) You will sign your posts properly on my talk page, else your posts will be reverted. 2) I did head over to the talk page, something you failed to do. There is no consensus to add it - three editors have added it, three have reverted it. The initial edit that started this was the addition of the unsourced genres; per WP:BRD, it was a bold edit to add them, it was reverted, and you should have discussed it from the get-go. And you dare say that I am skirting the edge? Please. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:52, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks like consensus is against you Jack. I have removed those disputed genres. Please join the discussion at Talk:Arrow (TV series)#New genres and try to convince the editors there before readding. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

My apologies for missing the extra tilde which would have added my name. Oops. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 14:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Episode summaries

Just a note that, even though the parameter doesn't work, you can add |reason= to {{plot}} instead of adding the notes as hidden comments. I've advised the editor who removed the templates from List of The Flash (2014 TV series) episodes that summary lengths should be 100-200 words, not 250 as he seems to think. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Got it; updated. And I see the message. Was the limit at 250 at one point, and the editor hadn't realized it'd been updated? I remember that that particular guideline underwent some updating some time ago. After those three summaries are shortened, there's 18 summaries that are only a few words over the limit that could do with some trimming; might work on it tonight. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:37, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't remember the limit ever being 250. There was some confusion of wording that said "350" though. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I thought that the section about 350 words was going to be removed? Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I've been slack. However, I've now removed it. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:18, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sense8

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Sense8 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 04:20, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Hey Alex, just giving you a wee reminder of this. You absolutely have no obligation to address the concerns I've raised, but if you can find the time (as the nominator) or find someone else to, within the next few days, then that would be great. - adamstom97 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97: Thanks for taking the time to look at it! I'll definitely find the time to cover the concerns raised. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:36, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Did you use a template?

Do you have a template that you used when you created the reference based on the one that I made? I copied the format of another reference from the article and verified that it was linked properly, i.e. worked, before I stopped editing. The archived copy that I pulled from the Wayback Machine was dated Jan. 2, 2015 (I just went into my history and double-checked).

I am trying to use the correct code and include the information that it appears WP policy asks for. It is not a case of my knowing another way to do it and choosing to use an incorrect format.

Thank you BobDog54 (talk) 02:27, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@BobDog54: Yes. The (mostly) correct template to use for referencing (depending on the situation) is {{cite web}}; documentation on the template is available at the link provided. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I appreciate it BobDog54 (talk) 21:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Protection

You might want to consider asking for semi-protection of your user page at WP:RPP. Though they could also vandalize your talk page, I don't know if they protect those. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:44, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Yeah, I might, thanks. No idea what's going on there. I guess some editors don't know how to deal with being reverted. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Summaries

Calling me out in the edit summary for being a few words over the limit is being a dick about it. First, if you wanted to be polite, as you claim, you'd come to my talk page. Second, it's a few words over. It can simply be cleaned up. You went at me after it being there for a few hours. Please don't act like I'm bloating out the plot for these things. I write in the moment and they are cleaned up later, whether by me or other people. Next time, feel free to trim a few words off the plot instead of calling me out and tagging it as too long. Again, we're talking about a few words here that could have been trimmed by you in the same amount of time it took you to call me out and tag the damn thing. Cheers.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 13:52, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

@Bignole: When I tagged the summary, it was at 223 words, which isn't a "few" words over the limit. You write it in the moment and have the chance after you've finished to shrink it - there's no rush, it's not a race, you don't need to add the plot straight away. And given that I haven't yet watched the episode myself, I had and have no intention of shrinking it. Not all of us can sit down and watch what we want, whenever we want. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:54, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Considering the "green" level for plot is at like 210, I would say that 13 words is a few over. We're not talking about 50 words here. I also write it late at night because I don't watch it in the moment. Given that we're not in a rush, you could also take the time to watch it and trim the "few" words that were over. The point isn't about the number of words, the point was the unnecessary calling out about it, and trying to hide behind "please" as if you're were just doing some friendly reminder.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 06:48, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Were you talking to me?

Found this note in the Blindspot edit history. "You've been told again and AGAIN that Reddit is not a reliable source. I will file a report against you if you continue to add it. 2) Why were the title references removed?"

Were you talking to me? Because all I did was remove the anagrams that the source wasn't sure about. I didn't add then, nor the source.

PS. Another User and I have tried to add the fact that the message Patterson discovered at the end of Blindspot Season 1, Episode 16, "Any Wounded Thief" actually appeared in the NY Times Crossword puzzle on April 4, 2016 (same as the episode's airdate). But it keeps getting taken down; even though there are reliable sources such as these:

https://www.yahoo.com/tv/39-blindspot-39-how-patterson-appeared-in-1405115832492086.html http://www.nytimes.com/crosswords/game/daily/2016/04/04 http://www.nytcrossword.com/2016/04/0404-16-new-york-times-crossword.html

The first time it got taken down the reason stated was that it "was a matter of opinion". In the first source listed; the creator of the crossword in question, David Kwong actually states that the message: "Got One Patterson" was placed in there intentionally as a tie-in to the series.

Why is this still not allowed on the Blindspot Wikipedia Page?

Puzzle1022

Doctor Who

Hey Alex! Not sure if i'm doing this right, but on the DW page, you removed the fact that Paul Mcgann is 2013 as well as 1996. You should really include it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clawraich (Dalek) (talk • contribs) 14:22, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@Clawraich (Dalek): There have been multiple discussions on why McGann is not listed as 2013 as well. Please check the talk page archives. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The 100 Cast and Characters

Hello ATW, I appreciate your help regarding the 100 and I hope that we can work together to create a better page for all. However, being an avid supporter of the show, it is my belief that A.L.I.E. can indeed be considered a main character. The main plot in season 3 revolves around the issue of the "City of Light" and her chipped army. She appears in almost every episode and is certainly an important part of the story line.

I hope you understand, RealGryphon — Preceding unsigned comment added by RealGryphon (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

@RealGryphon: No. We are not based on your belief. Do not add Erica Cerra as A.L.I.E. as a main character: she is not in the opening credits, hence she is not a main character. That's the only basis on whether a character is main or not. Nothing else. There's nothing to discuss here. Alex|The|Whovian^? 17:07, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Episodes table color question

Hi Alex. Could you explain this edit? I specifically checked that the color I used in the Episodes table at Bizaardvark was triple-A compliant (it was just over a contrast ratio of 9.00), so I'm not sure why the color needed to be changed. Could you explain that? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:37, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Damn – never mind: I somehow grabbed a color code for one of the ones that wasn't ratio >9.00. Dunno how I did that... Anyway, thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

About List of Tanglin episodes

Hi Alex, thank for adjusting the color contrasts for my episode list articles. I noticed your recent edit on List of Tanglin episodes. I don't think #A13000 is the best, I wanted a green colour. Hope this suggestion helps. thanks! 2679D (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@2679D: Firstly, the page isn't yours, as no-one owns any article per WP:OWN. Secondly, I'm not worried about what colour is used, as long as it complies with WP:COLOR and is WCAG AAA Compliant (use this to determine whether it is or not). Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Ah, sorry about that. A slip of the tongue. Even though I created them, those weren't mine. 2679D (talk) 11:10, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Sense8

The article Sense8 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Sense8 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2016 (UTC)