User talk:Alex 21/Archive 27

Thanks

This seems to have worked as the article is not in that category. Many thanks. MarnetteD|Talk 19:54, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

D.A.Z.

Please do not post on talk pages using my name. If you want to start a RM, please do so. I don't intend to waste anyone's time with one. Station1 (talk) 21:26, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

@Station1: Techncial requests do not get denied. They either get accepted and moved, or contested. If they are contested, then a mover uses the (discuss) link in the technical request listing to post a Requested Move to the talk page, which uses the initial listing comment . If you did not intend to have the page moved, then do not file a technical request for it to be moved. Please know how to file a technical request before you do - you should know how to use a feature before using it. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 21:27, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

This was a request to revert an undiscussed move. If they meet the technical requirements, they should be moved, not denied and not discussed. Station1 (talk) 21:31, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

The original move was requested, and accepted. It was your revert request that was contested, not the original. Hence, an RM was filed for your request. Please know about filing a technical request before you do. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 21:34, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "The original move was requested, and accepted." Station1 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who like Black Mirror

Hey! I saw that you edited the article Black Mirror and thought maybe you would be interested in this new user category I created?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 10:50, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought; I've edited the articles for layout purposes, but I've only seen two episodes of the most recent season. -- Alex^TW 04:29, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

This Is Us episode

Hello, content has been added to the page... Could you please remove the "draft" status? --Sofffie7 (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: Hello... ? --Sofffie7 (talk) 10:13, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

The Master (Doctor Who)

Hello AlexTheWhovian, why did you remove the link de:Liste der Rassen und Einzelwesen aus Doctor Who#Der Master from The Master (Doctor Who)? 188.106.142.149 (talk) 12:53, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

This is the English Wikipedia, not the German Wikipedia, and we don't make links between different language Wikipedias like that. TedEdwards 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

So... um....

Genuinely out of curiosity, because I've done a few of these now and you've reverted about half of them, when is there enough information for it to be considered suitable to split out episode lists? Primefac (talk) 18:08, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

@Primefac: I wrote a reply at User talk:Macapaka#Your submission at Articles for creation: Blindspot (season 3) (February 4) as you posted this. -- Alex^TW 18:09, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

No problems. Sorry if it's come across as annoying at all. Simply put, the WikiProject Television has simply come to the agreement that there needs to be more season-specific content to split, not just include information that is already available elsewhere and acts as a duplicate. -- Alex^TW 18:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Aye, was just me misremembering the rules. At one point (long ago) I recall it being "3+ seasons" being the point when lists were forked, and not being in the project I tend to miss important updates. Thanks again. Primefac (talk) 18:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that was back when articles existed for everything and looked like this. Further rules were made as well as to when to fork episode lists on main articles to a separate episode list article. -- Alex^TW 18:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

for moving the rolls royce page. Artix Kreiger (talk) 19:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Move review

I think we're at the point where, if the IP keeps editing comments made by other editors, we should be warning him with a template. I've tried to explain the error of his ways at the RM and now on his talk page but he just doesn't seem to get it. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:27, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

I have a feeling that a template wouldn't have enough of an effect, as they are simply standard substituted texts, and you've gone further than that and gone into actual detail. -- Alex^TW 04:30, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

What Do You Think About Removal Of Rotten Tomatoes.

Hi AlexTheWhovian. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheOldJacobite Is Removing Rotten Tomatoes Score From Movie Articles. What Do You Think About This. IUpdateRottenTomatoes (talk) 17:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Please be careful

Please make sure your checking the talk pages of any requested moves. Also someone forgetting to move a contested move out of WP:RM/TR is not an excuse to assume its not contested, the issue at Talk:Director general could of been prevented should you of checked the talk page prior to moving. If you need any help, please never hesitate, to ask another experience user, myself, or any administrators, most other editors will be more than willing to assist you. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ _Talk 21:17, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

The issue at Talk:Director general could have been prevented if it been removed after the discussion was filed by the first person. The issue doesn't lay with the second person here. Thank you for your concern, but I'll continue to do it this way, I've done it for long enough. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 21:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Better Call Saul

Hey Alex, i was wondering if you could create a draft for the second season of BCS, it would be greatly appreciated, thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: You'll find it at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 2). -- Alex^TW 19:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, your contributions to Wikipedia is greatly appreciated. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, what do you think of the Draft right now, is it good enough to have an article based around it, if not then what improvements does it need to have. The Optimistic One (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: The article is in good condition, but it needs more to be moved. Development only has 1 sentence, there should be a lot more in casting what with the newly introduced characters, there needs to be more on filming for the rest of the season. Did the ratings break anymore records as they did in Season 1? Home media for Regions 2 and 4. And the summaries need better working on, per what Drovethrughosts posted on your talk page - they should be restored to their excessive lengths and trimmed properly. -- Alex^TW 23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, i'll get onto it very soon. The Optimistic One (talk) 12:28, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

1989 vs 1996 sock accusation

Hi Alex,

Thought I'd drop you a line re the accusation you left on Talk:List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989). I've had a look around and figured out exactly what you're accusing us of, so I wanted to give you some clarification. I do know the poster of the IP address comment - it was left by one of my flatmates. The subject came up in conversation that night and I offered to keep an eye on the page and add my voice if it looked as though it was stalling as I do agree with him on the point in question. I figured this would be OK, but it seems to be similar to something that Wikipedia terms "meatpuppetry", which neither of us were aware of. Neither of us created new accounts to bolster our positions, no 'recruitment' took place either, but it's possible that our having had a discussion about it and my offer to join the talk page may have inadvertently broken one of Wikipedia's policies on that matter. However, I do feel your last comment on that page with the sockpuppet accusation is perhaps a bit uncivil and assumes bad faith, and I was wondering if you'd care to strike it out or retract it. I just wanted to reassure you that while we do know each other and agree with each other about how that article should be named, there was no intention to deceive and our posts were made in good faith. All the best FaithHealer1 (talk) 20:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

So, I should strike it and replace it with WP:MEATPUPPET. I'd consider it just as bad as it is clear that it was deliberate that no mention of this was made in the discussion. Sounds valid. -- Alex^TW 21:07, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm trying to be as polite and unaggressive as I can here, I'd appreciate the same courtesy being shown in return. I didn't see it as relevant to the discussion as I am another human being adding my voice to the debate; the fact that I happened to know somebody else involved in it does not diminish the points either of us made or make it any less true that four people out of five in that discussion are in favour of the title including 1996. I'm not especially wikipedia-savvy so the finer points of this eluded me until I looked them up on seeing your at first puzzling post. When I realised there was a chance I'd unknowingly broken a policy this evening, I got in touch to try and give you some transparency. I would be happy to put a note to that effect on the talk page, if that would satisfy you.

I would add that it's upsetting so see you're continuing to be uncivil: the very post you just linked to states "The term meatpuppet may be seen by some as derogatory and should be used with care, in keeping with Wikipedia's civility policy...it may be counterproductive to directly accuse someone of being a "meatpuppet", and doing so will often only inflame the dispute". I'm trying my best to be civil, polite and transparent, and I don't think I deserve that rather brusque dismissal. FaithHealer1 (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Insignia vs. logo (Doctor Who (series 11))

Regarding your recent edit where you replaced the photo of the insignia with one of the logo, why do you believe it's better to have effectively two photos of the logo (as the logo is in the poster) rather than the insignia, which is only described in prose in the article? TedEdwards 17:51, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Because the infobox image will eventually be updated to a promotional poster, then home media cover art, whereas the logo will stay as it is in the prose. I don't believe that the insignia will have any great importance to the series, and was created simply as a companion piece to the new logo. -- Alex^TW 05:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

But as it stands, the poster has the new logo in, and it could be months before this changes, and when it does change, the article will probably have room for both the logo and the insignia. And even if the insignia isn't important to the series (which might not be case, we'll have to wait and see), I believe it's still important to the promotion. TedEdwards 12:49, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@TedEdwards: Suggestion: Perhaps both could be included using {{multiple image}}, so that it's inclusive of both already and we don't need to re-upload anything in the future after new promotional posters or home media cover art are released? -- Alex^TW 23:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I like that. I'll edit the page then. TedEdwards 11:54, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Recent RfC of Doctor Who talkpage

The fanboys are really out for blood tonight--yours, mostly. I honestly think this may well end up needing dispute resolution as of the last few edits on that talk page, now that Gutt is basically trying to start whole new RfC in the middle of the existing one: this way madness lies, and if he does not relent the RfC must perforce descend into chaos and confusion. We need the usual voices of Reason: User:DonQuixote, User:Masem, User:Dresken, and others to restore balance to the ... perforce. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 00:22, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Interesting how that entire section was deleted after you brought them to their senses. I've posted on the talk page of WP:NFCC, to bring in editors who actually know the policy and its consequences as well. -- Alex^TW 00:27, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ordinarily I might have a problem with someone deleting their own post like that--along with a response or two, including mine, but let's face it, the RfC could not possibly have proceeded with that mess dropped in the middle of it. I do believe his intentions were noble, but that one's got a bad habit of just doing his own thing without thinking through how it impacts an ongoing discussion.ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:21, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

ZarhanFastfire - Just to correct you - I'm not a "fanboy" ... I've never watched Doctor Who in my life and certainly don't plan too now, I'm simply going by the majority of other articles here .... –Davey2010^Talk 02:07, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 Hello, Davey, just to be clear, I was not referring to anyone in particular (maybe Gutt and ok definitely DrMargi) in my message to Alex, nor do I mean to impugn anyone having an opinion in the discussion as a whole, up until things took a decidedly weird and un-Wiki-like turn with several attempts made to bully Alex here into silence and then to hijack the RfC itself. As I said on the talk page in question, Alex is not without his faults--who is?--but the tone and tactics employed by some on the other side crossed a line. Not sure if you saw what was written before it was deleted, but if not you can read it by going through the edits. To your own point, the trouble with 'the majority' of other articles is, there are virtually no other TV shows that go through as many logo changes as Doctor Who, because few ever run this long, and things like this just don't always come up in discussion (How many logo changes did Last of the Summer Wine go through in three decades? I know of two logos). The technical term for the problem is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Editors get used to something being done one way, and assume it's correct. Most often it is, but sometimes it's not, and, unlike precedent in Common Law, it's not always a valid reason for doing it that way in the article in question, and it turns out what's happened is we need to revisit those other articles. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 03:00, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Davey2010 I just wanted to thank you. This, and then this, it really made my day. -- Alex^TW 06:44, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Wow - there has been a bit going on in my absence - I've been a bit distracted with real life and a couple of projects. I just read through the RfC (including the now deleted thread hijack o_O) - it seems like the animosity has died down a little in that thread now - so I didn't comment on it (didn't want to be the "And another thing..." guy). I'm sorry to be disagreeing with you guys on the actual RfC - I feel I have a valid point of view on it and hope I've conveyed it reasonably. Anyway look forward to everyones thoughts. Cheers, Dresken (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

All good! In the dozens of RFC's I've been a part of, I've always noticed that the closer primarily looks at the policies being quoted and their importance over the number of !votes anyways. Shouldn't be too hard to close this one. -- Alex^TW 13:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

@Dresken, Wow, indeed (I normally almost never look at that talk page, much less write there). It's not a coincidence that both argue and agree are etymologically related, and people who truly understand what an argument is, have, in a sense, already agreed on certain understood and unstated things related to civility, the exchange of ideas, and the inherent interest of the thing about which they discuss. And that's why I called. If I wanted people who were going to just take "my" side unquestioningly--not that I ever would or should--you lot are the last people I'd have called!:) No, I meant what I said: that discussion needed cooler heads brought in, regardless of any 'side' they might have taken, or, perhaps, new solution they might have put forward. And thanks for 'boxing' the deleted material (wonder if this where the term originates as used in Battlestar Gallactica)?. I've seen that done a few times but never knew how or when it was applicable. ZarhanFastfire (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Template move request

Hi, I see you moved my request. Can you explain what I did wrong and where is the current discussion? Thanks Golan's mom (talk) 09:11, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

You didn't do anything wrong, and the current discussion exists on the talk page. As a mover that contribute to WP:RM/TR, I believe it requires further discussion. Not everything that goes to RM/TR is instantly moved. -- Alex^TW 09:26, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation. I see you wrote that this move is contested. Can you explain why (here or on the talk page?) Golan's mom (talk) 09:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Crown (TV series), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vanity Fair (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

hi!

thanks for the messages! what should I do about those articles?-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐)

See how the AFDs go. We're not here to create articles on everything. -- Alex^TW 07:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

fair enough! I look forward to the conversation. thanks again, @AlexTheWhovian:-🐦Do☭torWho42 (⭐) 07:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

List of Doctor Who story arcs

I found this redirect recently, and realised that an arguement for deleting it is the same as the one's given in here. Do you agree and do you think an RfD should be started? TedEdwards 00:18, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd agree, it should go to RFD for deletion. There's a bunch of links like this, where they used to be Doctor Who articles but where then redirected to the episodes article, I'll find them all one day and RFD them too. -- Alex^TW 00:24, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Started RfD, please contribute :) TedEdwards 15:17, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Better Call Saul (season 2)

Hey Alex! Just to let you know, i've slightly improved the development section, i've added a few more to the cast section and the summaries have been improved, if there is a problem with any of them, please don't hesitate in letting me know. In my opinion, the article is solid enough to have a stand-alone article based on its content. I've also created a draft for the third season, you'll find it at Draft:Better Call Saul (season 3). Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm still not sure. A couple of sentences doesn't make an article... -- Alex^TW 09:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

I've added more sentences to the lead section. The Optimistic One (talk) 15:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, the lead section has been expanded, to be honest, i don't really know what to do next with the article. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: You do not deliberately move an article to an incorrect title because you can't move it yourself. The move has been reverted. Post on the talk page of the series' main article if you want to make sure it's alright to move. -- Alex^TW 20:47, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I added a season review from IGN and i expanded the lead section. I couldn't find anything else to add to the draft, so that's basically why i changed it into an article. The Optimistic One (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Simply because you can't personally find anything more, doesn't mean it gets to be an article. The production section is quite bare. There is WP:NORUSH for an article to exist. And why did you deliberately move it to an incorrect title? Post on the talk page of the series' main article if you want to make sure it's alright to move. -- Alex^TW 20:55, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok Alex, i admit it, moving the draft into an incorrectly-spelled article was stupid and illogical, not wise either, i have left a message on the draft's talk page, just forget everything about this incident. The Optimistic One (talk) 21:05, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I've replied. I won't forget it. -- Alex^TW 21:06, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Hahahahaha, always forgive, never forget ;). The Optimistic One (talk) 21:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

I added some more content to the production section. Is the section good enough now. If not, then how far is it? The Optimistic One (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not necessarily how good it looks. A split is only required when other articles have become too bloated that the content needs to be moved away to to a separate article. What content elsewhere will be moved/removed once the article is moved to the mainspace? -- Alex^TW 02:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I thought that if the article was good enough, then it would qualify, is it ever gonna qualify? The Optimistic One (talk) 02:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You never answered my question. -- Alex^TW 02:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

You said on the draft's talk: "it's got an expanded lead and ratings section, but the production sections needs some serious addition to it to be considered worthy of an article". I added some content to the production section, so whats the story with the production section?, is it considered to be worthy of an article yet? The Optimistic One (talk) 02:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I did say that, and content was added. So, now, the next point to consider is my question: What content elsewhere will be moved/removed once the article is moved to the mainspace? -- Alex^TW 02:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know, i'm not an expert on that one. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Then if there's no change, a split is not immediately required. -- Alex^TW 02:50, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe List of Better Call Saul episodes. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

One episode table? -- Alex^TW 02:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, for Season 2. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:58, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

That's all that would be moved? -- Alex^TW 03:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Nope, the talking Saul section and critical reception in the shows article. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Why does the Season 1 section of critical reception still exist even though the Season 1 article exists, then? -- Alex^TW 03:05, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on that kind of stuff, so i'm not surprised that i haven't noticed. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Update:That problem has been solved. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's all to be moved. The Optimistic One (talk) 03:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Anything else to be moved? The Optimistic One (talk) 21:17, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

So when are we gonna turn the draft into an article and move content? The Optimistic One (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

ACS episode list

Hi. You say here that there is a "WP:CONSENSUS of WP:TV and MOS:TV" as it is "not enough to split". Could you give me a link to this consensus, please? :) I'd like to see what was said and decided during that discussion, please ^^ Lady Junky (talk) 08:51, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: For sure! The main discussion was held at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television/Archive 9#List of episodes - when to split; also see the three individual discussions linked in the first post. -- Alex^TW 09:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks :D You guys should consider adding a summary of what is decided at the end of each consensus x) So... if I understand everything, the split for a "List of XXX episodes" should only happen when a series has 40/45 episodes, aka 2 full US seasons? Am I right? Lady Junky (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's the general guide, yes, but it really depends on the series and its articles. Especially on whether the summaries are included in the episode list, or if there's separate season articles and the summaries aren't displayed in the episode list. For example: List of Sherlock episodes only has 13 episodes (26 regular length ones, since they're all double-length), but there's enough content to split away, as the summaries are included; whereas Daredevil (TV series) has its episode list on the parent article, also with 26 episodes, but summaries aren't displayed. 19 episodes without displayed summaries, such as ACS, wouldn't be enough to split. A wrap-up of the consensus would definitely be beneficial, however. -- Alex^TW 09:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: Forgot to ping. -- Alex^TW 09:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clearer when you explain it that way. And, it is my understanding that showing the episodes summaries are not necessary for ACS, as it has season pages, contrary to Sherlock? Because, otherwise we could just show the summaries, would be the same. Lady Junky (talk) 09:28, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Lady Junky: Exactly. Summaries are only to be displayed in one article, and that article is the page where the episode table is actually included. In the case of ACS, this is on the season pages; the episode list (or now, the parent article) simply transcludes/pulls the episode tables, the tables don't actually exist in the episode list. In the case of Sherlock, the episode tables actually exist in the episode list, they aren't transcluded/pulled from anywhere else, and hence that's why the summaries are displayed there. -- Alex^TW 09:41, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Okay :) Thanks for everything :) Lady Junky (talk) 09:44, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

No problems. Also not sure why the episode tables were only using the number in the season for each episode, not the number in the season and the number overall together (as they are now). -- Alex^TW 10:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Let's be fair!

If you undo the OUAT edit, you might as well undo all the edits of the rest of the TV shows in the 2018 television series endings category even before the series finales air. Let's be fair about it, OK! I'm just making a factual contribution without disrupting anything. I'm done with you and don't do anything stupid like suspending my editing privileges because of something small! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxman07 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soxman07: Yep, that's fair, I can easily remove the category from series that are still airing. I'll do that today. I guess since you suggested this, you won't have any further issue with the topic? Great! -- Alex^TW 00:33, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

@Soxman07: All done! Category:2018 American television series endings is now only populated by series that have actually concluded up to the present day. Good work! -- Alex^TW 01:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Kim Wexler

Hey Alex, is it okay if you get an image of Kim for the characters article. Thanks. The Optimistic One (talk) 14:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

@The Optimistic One: The article, as well as the Chuck one, need to be moved to the draftspace to be worked on. They're entirely plot, it's the same case as the season articles. -- Alex^TW 00:23, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Hey Alex, surprisingly, the article for Skyler White is almost entirely plot as well, we could add more to that. What else would we add to Kim Wexler and Chuck McGill, all i can think about is expanding the reception, plus the articles, in my opinion are solid enough to last until the reception section is expanded. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because the have a lot of content, that doesn't make them solid enough. Due to their lack of almost any real-world information, it actually makes all three (including Skyler White) very weak; if any of them were put up for discussion, I could guarantee they would all be deleted. Take a look at other character articles for popular series and see how they've succeeded. -- Alex^TW 00:48, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The article for the character Saul Goodman was nominated for deletion a few years ago because of a lack of content, and the result was keep, not because of the content, because the character is significantly important to both Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul. All three articles mentioned are lacking content, BUT! the characters are all very important to their respective shows. The Optimistic One (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That was a few years ago, policies and guidelines have updated this then. Saul Goodman is the titular character. The other two are not, and hence it is not a reason to create/keep the articles. -- Alex^TW 06:12, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Jodie Whittaker's date of birth

Please do not revert the change from 3rd of June to 17th of June. She has stated herself it is incorrect on Wikipedia - see http://chrissyiley.com/jodie-whittaker-sunday-times-magazine-march-18-2018/

Not considered a reliable source, please use an official source. Forcing this edit will be considered edit-warring. -- Alex^TW 14:31, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Quick note: The article is an extended version of the article here: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/exclusive-interview-jodie-whittaker-on-being-the-first-woman-to-play-doctor-who-rtfsd8mqw on the website of the interviewer herself. I don't see how more reliable it can get :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.65.228 (talk) 14:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Take it to the article's talk page. And sign your posts! -- Alex^TW 14:38, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Done - thank you for your help and time! I'm still learning on Wikipedia :) Mythmaker1977 (talk) 14:49, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Harrow (TV series)

The editor has taken over yet another article with unnecessary and repetitive table fields and can not be reasoned so discussion of any sort would be futile. Editor should be reported for his dictatorial style of editing. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 11:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Editor is talking third person? That's strange. The unnecessary and repetitive table fields is the entire table dedicated to listing what's already available in the article, and the infobox is meant to summarize what's in the article, not present new information - for example, who wrote the story should not be listed solely in the infobox, it should be in the article. Does that make sense? -- Alex^TW 11:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Moving Draft:Better Call Saul (season 2)

Now that the draft is fit for purpose, can you please move it into an article. The Optimistic One (talk) 06:12, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there's currently a review request on the Draft page. The Optimistic One (talk) 00:16, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Narnia

Completely unrelated to anything, but I'd love to know what you think about Narnia when you finish reading it. I've done so a few years ago and I have to say it's quite a monumental series of books. See you later! Double Plus Ungood (talk) 17:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Star Trek: Discovery reviews.

I wasn't aware that the access date was the date most recently used to add information to a page. I had assumed that it meant the date that the link was added. Thank you for letting me know. Obi-WanKenobi-2005 (talk) 17:14, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

MOS:NUM

Alex, you might want to take a look at the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Question: MOS:NUM and TV ----Dr.Margi ✉ 14:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Cheers for that. You may want to personally look at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:MapReader reported by User:Winkelvi (Result: ). -- Alex^TW 21:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, NeilN gave me a heads up. I think I'd prefer to stay out of the line of fire for now. SOP for the board should be that they let it go stale. Meanwhile, you keep fighting the good fight on the talk page, and I'll jump in if I can help. You seem to have Calton well in hand for the moment. ----Dr.Margi ✉ 03:30, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

The War Doctor

Hi Alex,

I am very sorry, but I believe that the War Doctor (John Hurt) is very much an incarnation of the doctor as is demonstrated in The Day of the Doctor (November 23rd 2013) by Steven Moffat. This is why I know he should be included in the list of incarnations of the doctor so by ridding my earlier contribution, I believe you have forgotten that he is infact the Doctor! However, I am unable to change the picture of the Doctors, so may you please change the picture to one that is including that of the War Doctor as that would be most helpful.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.197.15 (talk) 14:00, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. -- Alex^TW 14:07, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

User:Hotwiki edited problems the programs of GMA Network in the Philippines

Hi Alex, my name is Vanryoko about the Hotwiki we checked the GMA Network programs in the Philippines, for Hotwiki User contributions since getting wrong page like the GENRE and CATEGORY were REMOVED having a mistaken from the editing the page, like US Shows they CORRECT page for GENRE and CATEGORY programs, so please Alex STOP editing Hotwiki for GMA Network programs in the Philippines or BLOCKED the page permanent please Thanks. Vanryoko (talk) 11:56, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, take this elsewhere. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 04:06, 31 March 2018 (UTC)