User talk:Alex 21/Archive 31

Madison Clark

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.

---

All scenes with Madison in season 4 are NOT in the present and take place before Morgan Jones meets Alicia and Nick, they're all flashbacks. Here's the source. [1] The Optimistic One (talk) 05:44, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Please discuss on the article talk page, as it's up to you per BRD, as it's your edits being disputed. -- Alex^TW 06:43, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Disruptive? I'm not the one who violated the 3RR. The Optimistic One (talk) 07:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Nor am I. And where did I say disruptive? -- Alex^TW 07:53, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Never mind. The Optimistic One (talk) 07:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

I thought so too. Perhaps next time, know what you're actually talking about. Reading: It's fundamental! -- Alex^TW 07:56, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You did revert me THREE times! The Optimistic One (talk) 08:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

WP:3RR: An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. Reading: It's REALLY fundamental! Come back when you know what you're talking about. Thanks! -- Alex^TW 08:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Did I mention 3RR again? The Optimistic One (talk) 08:07, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

You did revert me THREE times! And? Does that not relate to 3RR, or are you trying to pull at straws here by just tossing in random comments? You added unsourced content three times. Your time on this talk page is done here - this is my request for you to not post on my talk page any further from here on out. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 08:11, 28 September 2018 (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.

File:The Big Bang Theory Season 12.jpg

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. RonBot (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Romance as a Genre in Lucifer

Hi, I would be very grateful if you could explain the reason to remove Romance from genres of the show, Lucifer. I thought Lucifer can be considered as a show about romance. So I'm just wondering why you removed it. I'm a newbie. So please tell me if there's anything I should know about adding genres. Please pardon my brevity and typos. Savindu Sihilel (talk) 00:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@Savindu Sihilel: Do you have a source to back this up? -- Alex^TW 02:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian:There's a trailer under the name "A Devilish Love Story" in RottenTomatoes.com Is it enough? There are many sources. I have listed most trusted ones, Silver Petticoat Review, Love Interest Wiki If you want more sources, Google "romance in Lucifer". Thanks for hearing me out. It's an honor to talk with a fellow Wikipedian.

Heads up

Hi Alex. I've been looking at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present) and I've noticed that for the links that should go to List of Doctor Who episodes (1963-1989) on the series overview (i.e. Seasons 1-26 and the TV film), they instead go to the 2005-present article. This is not true the other way around i.e. the links for Series 1-11 on the 63-89 article work fine, so I can't figure out what the problem was, so I wondered if you could. TedEdwards 12:33, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

All fixed! I realized it was incorrect to put the includeonly tags in this particular overview. Thanks or the heads up. -- Alex^TW 12:35, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

FYI

Hi AtW. You may have seen that we have an editor who is trying to add death info to the Tom Baker article. I can't find any info about this on the net. However, I did come across an article at mediamass.net which is blacklisted so I can't leave the link but it talks about a hoax that started last month. I'm heading out to run errand in a bit so you might keep an eye on his article. Of course, you might be going off wikiP as well so any pf your TPW's who can lend an eye will be appreciated. MarnetteD|Talk 14:41, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@MarnetteD: Cheers for the heads up; I've added his article to my watchlist. It's either a nobody with nothing to do, or a very sad day for the world. Seems they made similar edits to Geoffrey Hayes, but Hayes does appear to have passed. -- Alex^TW 07:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Well, they've said that is was a BBC News break, but when I went onto https://bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment_and_arts, well no mention, and something tells me the BBC would widely report it. So Alex, I think the former explanation you gave is correct. TedEdwards 13:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks AtW. I agree TedEdwards. That announcement - long may it not happen - would be widely reported and fairly quickly to boot. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 14:30, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Black Lightning (season 2)

Why did you draftify this article when my attempts to draftify an article like The Simpsons (season 30) with hardly any content get reverted? Mine had a lot more. Matt14451 (talk) 07:00, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451: I don't follow The Simpsons or the articles for it. Ask the person who moved it, or the person who requested the move. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 07:03, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, such a double-standard is annoying. Matt14451 (talk) 07:05, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt14451: Noted. -- Alex^TW 07:07, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Almost here

Hi again AtW. Only a few days to go! There are lots of creative people producing good Dr Who videos on Youtube. This is one of my favourites and perfect as a lead in to Sunday. It is nice that (as with the The Day of the Doctor - can five years have gone by already) we will all be seeing it at the same time. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 18:15, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Not long! It's a 4am wake up for me to watch it here, but totally worth it. This has always been a favourite of mine; bit old, but still love it. -- Alex^TW 23:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

That is fun. I hadn't seen it before so thanks for this link AtW! MarnetteD|Talk 23:37, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

I don't know if you are aware that I have been on wikipedia for a few years now. And I'm aware that I have to sign every post! Thanks! Matt Campbell (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

@Matt Campbell: I know you're aware of it, but are you signing it properly? You've just signed your name three times in this post, your talk page twice and the date twice. You only need 4 tildes - how many are you using? -- Alex^TW 23:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Quiet storm

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Quiet storm. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

October 2018

• Clearly not an edit war. You are showing far too much WP:ownership of this article - not sure anyone who sticks Whovian in their uses should not be editing any Sci-Fi-related articles because of WP:COI issues. And WP:DTTR - good grief! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nfitz (talk • contribs)

@Nfitz: Was it your edits being disputed? I counter with WP:TR. Also, I recommend you strike that WP:PA - looks like you've had issues with blocks recently, probably be best to be on your best behaviour! -- Alex^TW 02:33, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Conflict of interest (COI) editing involves contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships. Reading - it's fundamental! -- Alex^TW 02:34, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

... or other relationship. ANY external relationship can trigger a conflict of interest ... and I'm sensing an unhealthy relationship with science fiction here! I shouldn't have to deal with edit conflicts trying to add a reference, shortly after adding something, because someone is watching the page so closely that they feel an immediate need to do nothing except add a note that a reference is needed. Why not simply add the reference yourself, rather than slow my editing? I'm done ... going to watch this on TV ... Nfitz (talk) 02:49, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nfitz: I should have to deal with edit wars on my open watchlist. Source your content or don't add it. Is there anything in WP:V about adding it later? And do try to understand COI and not wrap it around your pinky finger for your own uses. Love me some sci-fi.

Also, as a side note, I was a massive fan of that Doctor Who episode that premiered on September 23. Were you? What did you think of it? -- Alex^TW 02:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Oh good grief - edit war? Don't exaggerate; and over a minor formatting issue in a table that does no harm? BTW, did you not read what I wrote back then? I never thought it would air that day. I was adding what had been reported by a leading media outlet in the UK. I'm concerned you are being obsessive, and take things too literally. Can I suggest staying away from editing articles in this genre? It's sources that are the issue? I'll re-add that column with a reference than, if that's the only problem. You are relatively new here, so my advice to you, is if you have such minor issues, that simple continue to add to the article to improve, rather than reverting! Nfitz (talk) 02:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nfitz: If you re-add it, you're still edit-warring over that one column. "Relatively new"? Yeah, 80,000+ edits is "relatively new". You're kidding me, buddy, really. No more posts on this page from you, thanks. -- Alex^TW 03:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

You just said that your issue was references. So I suggested adding a reference. How is that edit warring? I'm trying to sort out the issue. If you think discussing the issue on a talk page is edit warring, you need to read further! 2014? That is relatively new. So you oppose editing ... and now you oppose talking? And you wonder why I'm offering you advice? Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

I did not. They were two separate sentences. 1) Column: I should have to deal with edit wars on my open watchlist. 2) Date: Source your content or don't add it. Clearer? -- Alex^TW 03:10, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Page move

There was a good reason, I moved it because it makes more sense as (duo) rather than (DJs). Looks more professional. --Larcombe (talk) 05:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Larcombe: Then why did Flooded with them hundreds list it at WP:RM/TR under "Requests to revert undiscussed moves" [2]? -- Alex^TW 09:18, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "AlexTheWhovian". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 12 October 2018.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 18:58, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

ALWhovian

Hey, is User talk:ALWhovian another account of yours? --Gonnym (talk) 21:30, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

@Gonnym: Not me, I don't sock. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be a copy either, like AlexTheDoctor was, since they've been a year longer than I. -- Alex^TW 01:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess its fitting of a Dr Who fan that your name predates you. --Gonnym (talk) 15:04, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning AlexTheWhovian, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 04:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Doctor Who Series 11 mistake

Hi

I just wanted to apologise for the earlier issue. As you know I took the information from this site: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bp1brh

I thought that this would be adequate as it is an official BBC site as opposed to an external body. I did not consider a typo.

I apologise for the issue and also apologies for you having to lock the thread (fellow user) I did not mean any malice I was just trying to help make the page more accurate.

That was my FIRST EVER edit on this site and I am sorry, once again, if I caused you any porblems

Joe Age 17JoeLea591 (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@JoeLea591: Absolutely no problems! It's probably just a case of the BBC's website having it input incorrectly on their end, as Mark has already been confirmed as the director for Episode 2. I didn't lock the page; that was another article. Enjoy Series 11! -- Alex^TW 13:50, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words You too!JoeLea591 (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

@JoeLea591: Also just another friendly tip. Whenever you post on a talk page, make sure you always sign your name with four tildes. It'll input your name and the date when you save the page. That way, other editors know it's you they're talking to. -- Alex^TW 13:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks JoeLea591 (talk) 14:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Category:Pages using infobox television episode with incorrectly formatted episode list

Hey Alex, I saw that you created this category Category:Pages using infobox television episode with incorrectly formatted episode list and added it as a tracking category to the infobox, but I think this issue is a bit larger. I was looking at the first article in the category, which is 2-D Blacktop and that uses Template:Infobox Futurama episode, which is a "wrapper" of television episode and has in its code | episode_list = [[Futurama (season {{{season}}})|''Futurama'' (season {{{season}}})]]<br>[[List of Futurama episodes|List of ''Futurama'' episodes]]. Since I'm not familar with what you did and how this tracks, I don't know how to fix this. Mind taking a look? --Gonnym (talk) 15:12, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, sorry for the late reply! The template is meant to use |season_article= and |episode_list= with just the plain links in each parameter; joining both by using |episode_list= with the formatted links is a deprecated format. I've updated the Futurama episode infobox template, so the category should soon begin to clear out. I'll see what other episode infobox templates do this too - cheers for the heads up! -- Alex^TW 06:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

So the documentation that says: Wikilink to the "<showname> (season #)" article. Use plain text, the template will automatically format and link the article; text manually formatted will not be affect and still be displayed as such. should be changed? --Gonnym (talk) 08:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, do you mean in Template:Infobox television episode? No, that is the updated text. Just plain text should be used; i.e. just "Futurama (season 3)", no wikilinks. The template automatically adds the link and italics. That's what should be added. If, however, wikilinks are manually added into the template, then they'll still appear as-is. -- Alex^TW 08:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Then I don't understand something here. The text says to "wikilink to the article", but also to "use plain text". Aren't those contradicting statements? --Gonnym (talk) 08:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, I get what you mean... Perhaps Title for the "<showname> (season #)" article? -- Alex^TW 08:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah that's good, so working with that: Title of the season article, usually in the form of "<showname> (season #)" article. Use plain text, the template will automatically format and link the article. - I removed the end part as even if the infobox can deal with it, the code you added will put it in the maintenance category, so we shouldn't promote it. Comments? --Gonnym (talk) 08:44, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Gonnym, sure, that works. -- Alex^TW 08:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Supergirl (season 2)

After what user Legacypac suggested over here, I've decided to do the same. But not right away; I'll need you and Brojam to say it's good to go. Previously you said, "The Production section needs a great deal of expanding. Some of those sections are one, two, maybe three lines long. Critical response as well. No home media dates given for other regions, and it really ought to be in prose. Broadcast has one sentence." Just glimpse at these sections now, and please share your updated view on Talk:List of Supergirl episodes (I'm sure you have time for this). That is a key move in establishing the consensus of the draft being fit to enter the mainspace. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Kind of Blue

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Kind of Blue. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

DW 11x02 director?

Hi just wanted to bring this to your attention

I don't think it means anything I just though it was interesting.

There is NO ONE listed as director.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0bp1brh

Ok you were right ...

JoeLea591 (talk) 16:37, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Niki (singer) move

Hi there, can you explain to me how your move of Niki (singer) to the all caps-stylized NIKI does not go against Wikipedia rules for stylized all caps artist names, MOS:ALLCAPS, etc.? I am honestly puzzled.

See, for example, Zayn, Neiked, Sohn, Alma, 6lack, PartyNextDoor, etc., all of whom are not represented by their stylized all caps names on Wikipedia. Thanks! —Electricnet (talk) 06:46, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Electricnet, don't ask me. As my edit summary states in the move, as I provide one to explain moves that I execute, the move was requested at WP:RM/TR. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 06:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Sorry for being frank, but are you saying that anyone can request any kind of page move, label it as uncontroversial, and moderators will perform it without looking into whether or not it's actually appropriate? —Electricnet (talk) 11:09, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

AlexTheWhovian, I just researched how to request a revert of the move and made my case for it there. So all is good again, sorry for the trouble, and have a nice day. :) —Electricnet (talk) 11:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Electricnet, if the page mover or administrator looking at the page at the time believes it as uncontroversial, then yes, it can be moved. If it becomes controversial, then a request to revert it can be filed, as you did. Cheers. -- Alex^TW 13:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Who episode infobox

Hi Alex. On Template:Infobox Doctor Who episode for a Doctor Who episode, as I assume you know, it lists both the 1963-89 and the 2005- episode articles at the bottom. As this was unlike the infoboxes on the Doctor Who season articles, I thought I would sandbox the episode infobox and I have made it so that the template doesn't have to list both episode articles, using DWC and DWN for the show parameter instead of DW (see User:TedEdwards/sandbox1 and User:TedEdwards/sandbox2). What I'm asking about though is whether I should edit the template to implement what I've done in my sandboxes (and use AWB to update all the episode articles) or should I just leave the articles as they are? TedEdwards 14:32, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, why not just list the correct episode list based on the provided story number? Using |number=, everything less than or equal to 156 gets the 1963-89 article, everything else gets the 2005-article. Saves having to use two separate templates, no AWB required. -- Alex^TW 14:37, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

O.K. I'll try that out. Thank you. TedEdwards 14:39, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, no problems. Something like this should work:

{{#ifexpr: {{{number}}} <= {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (1963–1989)]] | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] }}

Gets the story number and checks if it's less than or equal to the story number displayed in Doctor Who (film). If it is, 1963–1989 article; if it's not, 2005–present article. -- Alex^TW 14:44, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Cheers. Unforunately it doesn't work when it's a multi-parter, as the |number= is something like 160a. Any ideas? TedEdwards 14:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, as multi parters are only in the new series, would the parameter below be OK, as in this, if the letter causes an error, it defaults to the 2005- article. {{#iferror: {{#ifexpr: {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} >= {{{number}}}| | }} | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] | {{#ifexpr: {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} >= {{{number}}}| [[List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (1963–1989)]] | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] }} }} TedEdwards 15:21, 13 October 2018 (UTC) and can you think of any way to improve it before I implement it? TedEdwards 17:03, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, there's a template that returns all of the numbers at the start of any string, removing the "a" from "160a", or and references after the number: {{Str number/trim}}. So, going back to my original example, use:

{{#ifexpr: {{Str number/trim| {{{number}}} }} <= {{tmpv|Doctor Who (film)|Infobox Doctor Who episode||number}} | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (1963–1989)]] | [[List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)|''Doctor Who'' episodes (2005–present)]] }}

So, now instead of just getting the story number, it gets the story number and takes only the digits at the starts, making sure it's a definitive number, then proceeds with all the checks. -- Alex^TW 23:55, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Implemented that change. Thanks for all your help. TedEdwards 12:53, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

TedEdwards, no problems, great work. -- Alex^TW 12:58, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

There was an error being generated if the number parameter is not defined. So as a temporary fix, I have omitted the link altogether if no number is given. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:02, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

MSGJ, even better, thank you! That works perfectly for Draft:The Witch Finders as well. -- Alex^TW 09:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Titans (2018 TV series) Logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Titans (2018 TV series) Logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:57, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Does Peter Capaldi star in Class?

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought until you reverted my edit on Class (2016 TV series) that if an actor appeared in a title sequence, they were considered to be starring in that show. Or do they have to appear in more than one episode to star? TedEdwards 22:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I agree with the above, I thought if they were credited in the opening sequence in at least one episode that they were considered main or starring. That would also go along with the character chart on the List of Doctor Who cast members article where "Starring" cast members are here defined as actors whose names appear in the opening titles sequence. TheDoctorWho (talk) 00:46, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Capaldi was a guest starring actor; every case needs separate consideration. This is further explained in MOS:TVCAST: Please keep in mind that [...] "main" cast members are determined by the series producers (not by popularity, screen time, or episode count) and generally have a set order in the credits. The general consensus is that a guest starring actor is the same as a regular guest actor. -- Alex^TW 06:54, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Blanking at RM/TR

Please refrain from what essentially is edit warring at Wikipedia:Requested moves/Technical requests, I already asked you to leave my question there for the IP to answer it. A better solution is maybe to move it to contested requests, which I will do. Sam Sailor 06:47, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Sam Sailor: I took action as a page mover paying attention to the page; it was then you who reverted, so I recommend you take action to cease your edit-warring. The page exists as a page to file technical requests, it is not the place for discussions - if you want to hold one, you need to either take it to the IP's talk page or the article's. Thank you. -- Alex^TW 06:50, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) 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) 09:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)

The article Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 01:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Doctor Doctor series

Infobox television season is only valid for US broadcast networks given they are the only ones that use true affiliate based networks. Every pay tv provider has channels and the same is true of non-US broadcasters. And it's only North America that uses the term season due to broadcast always scheduling on seasons. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

So, your only issue is terminology? That is not a reason to remove the template; that is a reason to request a change of terminology in the template. Also look at the article title, and how it includes "season". -- Alex^TW 01:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is when it is delivering misinformation. IP users can not create or move articles to correct titles. And on a side note the template force CSS only styling which is not supported by HTML only browser engines. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:09, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is? No, it isn't. What makes you think that, what guideline or policy? And they can't, no, but they can file requested moves. I've requested other editors of the Television Project to keep an eye on those articles to make sure that no such edits occur any further. This is more certainly not an agreed upon edit, more a WP:BOLD edit that has been reverted per WP:BRD. -- Alex^TW 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In Australia, "season" and "series" can often used interchangeably in this context. For example, Nine Network websites refer to "season 3" here, "third series" here and "season 3" here. A lot of secondary sources use "season" [3] [4] but not exclusively [5]. Using "season" in Wikipedia articles helps avoid confusion between referring to the "series" as a whole or a "season" as one part of the show in my opinion. -- Whats new?^(talk) 01:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion of season versus series. The term network is still invalid for non-US broadcast networks as well as Alex's CSS only templates not rendering correctly on non-CSS browsers. 119.224.3.221 (talk) 01:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of your opinion on what should and should not be used, there is no reason to remove the template based only on terminology. You can either request changes to the template, or request a name change of the article. -- Alex^TW 07:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)

The article Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) 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) 03:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC)