User talk:Gonnym/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Patlabor: The TV Series

This one still needs to be moved to something logical. I can't figure out any reason why Patlabor (TV series) isn't acceptable, based on what's shown at List of Patlabor episodes. Failing that, if it's decided that additional disambiguation is needed, then Patlabor (1989 TV series) is logical. But I'd suggest starting an WP:RM with Patlabor (TV series) as the proposed move "target". Do you agree?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:19, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Ok, this is a bit confusing and also badly titled by the studio(s). There is one OVA series called "Patlabor: The Mobile Police" as can be seen here and there is one TV series called "Patlabor: On Television" as can be seen here. Here you can see the opening credits of the TV series, which starts out with the title of "Patlabor: The Mobile Police", but ends with "Patlabor On Television". Here is a review (no idea if reliable) that calls it "Patlabor: The TV Series". Links to Amazon seem to call it "Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series" as can be seen here and here. Here is some news report about International Channel acquiring the rights and which calls it "Patlabor The Mobile Police: The TV Series" (but this might be before a translated version so might not be the name used). here is an updated DVD release which calls it "Patlabor The Mobile Police The TV Series". Netflix also has an entry for it but it's not available in my region so I can't see what name they use. What do you think is the best name? --Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I'd still lean towards Patlabor (TV series), as the others all seem to be "stylizations" from that... Failing that, Patlabor: The Mobile Police would seem to be the next best choice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:50, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Well Kidou Keisatsu Patlabor: On Television is the transliteration of the Japanese name however since this property has been licensed twice by two different American companies then WP:ENGLISH takes precedent here. The full English name used by both Central Park Media and Maiden Japan is Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series while Patlabor: The TV Series is the common shortened English name but it hasn't been used on any official home video release. Retailers like Right Stuf Inc. will use the shortened names when selling the movies, TV series and New Files individually while using the full name for the complete collection.[1] In the US streaming rights for the series are held by HIDIVE which the image they use is the same for the home video releases that has the title Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series.

Looking at all the guidelines and policies like WP:COMMONNAME, WP:ENGLISH, WP:NCTV and WP:DAB I don't see anything wrong with the current title. Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series is the full English title while Patlabor: The TV Series is the shorter common English name. Moving it to Patlabor (TV series) seems like trying to fix a non-existent issue as your taking the "The TV series" and turning it into an unnecessary disambiguation since the title already has this disambiguation. If you feel the current name is not suitable then I would support Patlabor: The Mobile Police - The TV Series but I'm more on the side that the name is fine the way it is. Renaming the article to just Patlabor: The Mobile Police is not an acceptable option since Maiden Japan and HIDIVE is using that name for both the TV series and the OVA series the only difference between the two is the logos say "The TV series" and "The Original OVA series" respectively. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 20:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Module:Television episode short description and bold markup

Module:Television episode short description does not strip bold and italic markup as seen in Sozin's Comet. I'm wondering, is there a reason why the cleanValues function does not call Module:Plain text? That module does about the same thing for the same purpose but it strips more things (including bold and italic). Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:41, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

• Only reason is that when I was creating the module, Trappist helped me out and I guess he didn't know about Plain Text and I know I didn't. Or after looking at the example you gave, maybe I intentionally left that in so incorrect usages would annoy someone to fix the infobox usage like in Sozin's Comet(don't really remember, but that wouldn't surprise me).

Anyways, would just replacing the code with this be enough?

local function cleanValues(args)
	local getPlainText = require('Module:Plain text').__main
	for _, v in ipairs({'episode_num', 'season_num', 'season_num_uk', 'series_name'}) do
		if (args[v]) then
			args[v] = getPlainText(args[v])
			if (args[v] == '') then
				args[v] = nil
			end
		end
	end
	return args
end

--Gonnym (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Also, could you verify that Plain Text handles all 8 stripping I need? It seems that you handle BR differently than I handle. --Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That should be enough; items in a parameter separated by <br /> are usually lists so I though comma made more sense; hmm, Module:Plain text does not remove urls. Galobtter (pingó mió) 13:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Can't change to use your code as I'm getting failures on testcases Module talk:Television episode short description/testcases. --Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Hello I am abdullah

I won't to how to moved name page Wikipedia? How? Joker5122 (talk) 13:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

As you seem inexperienced you should not move pages by youself. Instead, go to WP:RM and read how to correctly put in a request. Once you are done, go to a page you want to move, go to its talk sub-page and place this:

{{subst:requested move|NewName|reason=Place here your rationale for the proposed page name change, ideally referring to applicable naming convention policies and guidelines, and providing evidence in support where appropriate. If your reasoning includes search engine results, please prioritize searches limited to reliable sources (e.g. books, news, scholarly papers) over other web results. Do not sign this.}}

Fill out the new name you want it to move to and your reason for why. --Gonnym (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

WP:NCTV

I'm probably going to need you to weigh in on this. It does not surprise me at all that Netoholic continues to ignore the results of upwards of a dozen (or more?) RM's, and his personal preference should not hold sway here. He's acted like NCTV is own personal fiefdom for far too long... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Are the RMs I've added at User talk:Gonnym#"By country" RM's not helpful? --Gonnym (talk) 15:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I'll take a look at these again later – I can certainly add them to the list... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

One comment about the change though, I think the language is not quite there. Current text:

• Prefix the country of broadcast (adjective) – (American TV series), (British TV series), (Canadian TV series). Generally the preferred disambiguation when shows are distinct due to region, especially when used to distinguish regional versions of the same format/premise.
• Prefix the year of release or program debut – (1997 TV series). Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same region and/or across multiple regions.

Change to:

• Generally the preferred disambiguation when additional disambiguation is needed. Used to distinguish shows with the same title from different countries.
  • [note: It could stay "region", but we at the beginning of the line use "country" so should stay consistent, even though there are some "Northern American" examples, those are the extreme so the guideline shouldn't be worded to match those]

• Generally used when there are shows with the same title within the same country.

--Gonnym (talk) 15:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

No problems with this – I'd propose it at WT:NCTV... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:22, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Aerospecs and Aircraft specifications templates

Could you de-wikify the template links you have placed in Talk pages. User talk:Rlandmann#Nomination for merging of Template:Aerospecs for one. this will ensure that the templates can be eliminated when the time comes. Thanks.--Petebutt (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)--Petebutt (talk) 07:03, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Kira Kosarin discography

Not to judge your edit skills, as I can see that you're a talented and experienced editor, but your recent edit on Kira's discography seems overly complex and odd. Not to use WP:OSE, but every single discography I’ve ever seen/edited has the layout I used. Why did you edit it like that? – DarkGlow (talk) 13:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It would help if you specifically asked what in my edit was the thing you had an issue with, but to help you out:

1. Cells shouldn't be spanned mid-table as that is an accessibility issue
2. Similarly, cells shouldn't hold different data in the same cell. So if you want to add a release date and a label, those are 2 different pieces of data and they belong in two different cells.
3. I moved the year to the start for 2 reasons - 1. To match all other tables on the page which started with the year; 2. So the cell can be spanned as it is in the start of the table.
4. I created a ref column as a way to cleanly place the ref without having it on the title, when the ref is supposed to be for the full row, and not only for the name of the song/album. This is done in most/all film/TV award tables.
5. I changed the cite template as you were citing a twitter account (which you really shouldn't), but used the previous template in an incorrect way which had errors in it.

Basically you are correct, creating good tables that comply with guidelines, especially the accessibility one is overly complex, however, that policy does not have any wiggle room and there is no local consensus that can change that. Other tables not following that is known and there is nothing to do but slowly get it right. --Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Background isn't aligned with Lower and Raise templates

Hi @Gonnym:. I saw you asked a similar question several months ago and wondered what the solution is as I can't get the to work within my map locations. An example below. Would appreciate your feedback on this. Thanks. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 12:17, 1 June 2019.

Extended content
Cirencester class=notpageimage| Locations of the 2019-20 Gloucester 1 teams

Here is how I did it:

Extended content
Cirencester class=notpageimage| Locations of the 2019-20 Gloucester 1 teams

--Gonnym (talk) 11:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks @Gonnym: that's brilliant! Will now apply to my maps. Jgjsmith006 (talk) 19:57, 1 June 2019.

Sheck

I couldn't find the name "Boots" being used in any episode. I think it's very likely that the Arrowverse Wiki is correct and it was just a name used behind the scenes in reference to his first appearance. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 18:14, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Ozzy Mandias:, OK I'll fix the incoming links. Do you also know if Honor Guest / Silencer was actually called "Honor Guest" or "Honor" on the show? The Arrowverse Wiki has her as "Honor" but I really don't even remember that. --Gonnym (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

They call her Honor in 7x3. Her name is Honor Guest in the comics, but I don't believe the full name is used in the show. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 18:22, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. I'll check that episode again and then probably fix the section if they indeed don't use her full name. --Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Kevin Dale

Since there are sources using the spelling (like the one in the season 7 article), isn't this a useful redirect that could just be added to the category redirects from misspellings? The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 09:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Ah, sources use it as well? Talk about being reliable... If that's the case, I'll tag it with that. --Gonnym (talk) 09:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Ozzy Mandias: do you know if Roger Hayden was called on screen or in the credits "Psycho-Pirate"? I couldn't find it mentioned in the two episodes he was on. --Gonnym (talk) 10:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Don't recall them referring to him by any name during the crossover. The Flash, however, used both names earlier last season. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 10:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Really? when is he mentioned last season? --Gonnym (talk) 11:06, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

In the future newspaper, see here. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

This is good. I think the list of characters article needs to use {{cite episode}} with the minute marker for names and aliases of characters, as sometimes these have become WP:OR or incorrect. Once I'm done tagging the redirects, I'll start see what I can find. --Gonnym (talk) 11:23, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Honestly, all of these Arrowverse list of characters articles are in pretty bad condition, full of unimportant random details, unsourced claims, original research, bad grammar etc. with more added daily. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 11:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates with similar titles

Inspired by two of your recent RMs (1, 2), I made two Quarry queries to check for templates with similar names: version 1, version 2. Version 1 only counts template titles as similar if the titles are the same with lower-cased letters and spaces removed, while version 2 replaces all symbols matching the regex [ -/:-@\[-`{-~] (version 2 returns more false positives). Retro (talk | contribs) 22:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I've created a version 1 subpage so they can be referred to by number. I'd prefer not to overload RfD and TfD, so I'm currently triaging them; I suspect many can go to RfD as a mass nomination. So far I've noticed a few types of duplication that should be straightfoward to handle:

• Templates where one title started with an overly generic name that was redirected; these can easily be retargeted to the other version after transclusions are handled.
• Templates that serves identical purposes, but were somehow independently created.

After the easy ones are sorted, the others will probably have to be handled on a case-by-case basis that will involve moving one or both (there could also be other patterns of easy handling that I haven't discovered yet). Retro (talk | contribs) 00:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Great work! It's astonishing that there are so many of these! --Gonnym (talk) 08:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Arrowverse redirect template

Your template is transcluding too many categories. Oliver Queen (Arrow) should only be in Category:Redirects from other disambiguation, since it's a redirect to a fictional character, not from one. Perhaps don't use the template at all if the character in question has their own article? —Xezbeth (talk) 21:25, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I've actually posted about something similar to this. Technically, you are correct that it is to a fictional character, but then again, it's also from a redirect, as the redirect "Oliver Queen (Arrow)" is a fictional character with a different disambiguation (incorrect disambiguation; per multiple RMs establishing correct Arrowverse disambiguations). The upside of using this is that it also helps categories this redirect with the others. --Gonnym (talk) 21:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

NCTV page moves

Gonnym, re: these:

...It sounds like we're going to have to move these ones manually? Is that correct?... If so, it sounds like it will require the use of page movers (more than one, as it's too big a job for one person to do...). I'm wondering how this should be handled – I think I'd start by posting the list to WT:TV, and ask for page move assistance with these (ones in the list that get "done"/moved can either be indicated by strikethroughs or checkmarks). I'm partly working right now, so I might be able to pick away at a few of these per day, esp. over the weekend. But it'll require other page movers to help out as well. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:41, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure why these weren't in the original list. I understand that these had redirects, but as TheSandDoctor is an admin, that shouldn't have been a problem. Maybe it's worth just asking him to have his bot handle these? --Gonnym (talk) 20:57, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

The issue is: 1) only a bot with an "Admin flag" could do these, and 2) if the redirects have any sort of revision history at all, it may not be appropriate to "overwrite" them anyway. That's why we'll need page movers to do "round-robin" moves on at least some of these... But I checked, and for example Fast Track (American TV series) was a redirect created by me, and it doesn't have a significant revision history, so it should just be "overwritten" in a page move. But I'm not sure a bot can do it – it may require an editor, or possibly even an Admin. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:22, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I just tested the Fast Track one, and I was able to move it to Fast Track (American TV series) myself, so I've stricken it from the list above... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:29, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Almost all of those articles were listed at User:DannyS712/sandbox4, where we discussed at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/TheSandBot 3 that those pages would need to be moved manually. I have moved all of those articles, plus a few extra listed in the above list. I've filed move requests for The Office (U.S. TV series), Sugar Rush (UK TV series), The Chase (UK game show), The Voice (U.S. season 12), as they are all move-protected. -- /Alex/₂₁ 04:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

One more thing we are going to need "bot help" on? – "Fixing" all of the disambiguation pages now! E.G. Entries at, for example, disambig. pages like The Heights#Entertainment, will need to be updated to The Heights (American TV series). Lots of disambig. pages will need this updating now! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I totally forgot about disambiguation pages. Also hatnotes at the top of pages should be fixed. I'll post that on the thread. --Gonnym (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Careful with your AWB run...

Note this about your recent edit: file names shouldn't be updated unless the file itself is moved too. Just so you know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:53, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I look at those, I guessed that slipped through. Let me know if you catch anything else. --Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Malformed requested move

Your requested move at Talk:List of Big Brother housemates (British series 1) had to be modified, because some entries were listed as malformed requests (they were redirects). Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  04:47, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Bordertown

Check this out: there are two 2016 TV series with this title: Bordertown (Finnish TV series) and Bordertown (2016 animated TV series). The latter is currently poorly disambiguated IMO. Note that there is also a Canadian/French(/American?) series – Bordertown (1989 TV series) – and an Australian series – Bordertown (1995 TV series). The latter should either be moved to Bordertown (Australian TV series) or to Bordertown (miniseries). The second looks like is could simply be moved to Bordertown (American TV series) (as this label would not apply to the 1989 series...). Thoughts?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bordertown (Finnish TV series); Bordertown (1989 TV series); Bordertown (2016 animated TV series) -> Bordertown (2016 American TV series) (if the 89 version is not American as it seems it isn't); Bordertown (1995 TV series) -> Bordertown (Australian TV series) (no idea if this is a miniseries or not, and as I'm not a fan of that term, I don't mind staying with the current title preference). --Gonnym (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Bordertown (2016 American TV series) is unnecessary disambig. if it is the only American TV series with that title (as it seems to be, as the 1989 series looks to be Canadian, or Canadian-French) – you would only need "double disambig." here if either the 1989 or the 1995 series was also American... In the case of the Aussie, series, I would agree that Bordertown (Australian TV series) is the safest choice... I'll probably move these when I get the chance... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, edited my comment but the context was changed. If the American one isn't double then yeah, what you said. --Gonnym (talk) 17:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Merging of pages

Hi User:Gonnym, it's been a while, but I meant to ask you on what basis you merged the Episode lists for List of Where Is My Friend's Home episodes years 2015 and 2016, here: [2]? What Wikipedia rules did you base it on? I had separated the pages based on byte size (and anticipating another season for the show), and when you recombined them, it made for a very large page, some 214,000 bytes. I am looking to re-add the subtitles for different countries back, that were lost in the transitions, and wanted to find out from you first your reasoning.

You did not give a reason in the Edit Summary, other than to say you were merging them. And, although it was not necessary to consult me, as the editor that created the 2 pages, you might have opened the discussion on the Talk Pages. A new editor had picked up the summary writing, and those 2016 additions and futher back still need to be trimmed. Again, before I start any of it, I am considering making the 2 separate pages again, unless you can convince me otherwise. Thanks.--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 10:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Ok, on the 2015 page you redirected, I see your reason in the Edit Summary [3].....but tell me again why the years can't be separated, if the byte size is large? And no explanation for losing the Summary of episodes by country that was on both pages?--Bonnielou2013 (talk) 11:14, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Unless the page has reached the max limit, there is no reason to split a single season into two different articles. If the page does reach the max size for a single season, usually there is a much bigger issue which should be addressed. Looking at the amount of plot description, you should focus on trimming that per MOS:TVPLOT. --Gonnym (talk) 14:57, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Template code question

Gonnym, as per the result of Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons, we've been working on splitting the template into {{Nickelodeon original series}} and {{Former Nickelodeon original series}}.

However, in doing this, I was reminded that we have some hidden "code" at the top of both templates. What I'm wondering is – Is this code even necessary (and if not, can it just be deleted)? And what is the purpose of this code?... I will note that when this code is "unhidden", the template is no longer rendered properly, so unless it's actually necessary I'd rather just remove it. (And, if it is necessary, then I'm hoping it can be "fixed" so it doesn't lead to the "rendering problem"...) Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:49, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Can you point me to what isn't working when its gone? I can't see an issue. --Gonnym (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

No the problem came when the code was "unhidden" – something like "yes}}" would appear above the template. So I think just removing it is the best answer. I'm not sure what its original purpose was, but I don't think it's needed with the split-out templates. FWIW, the code was still in the original, as of this edit – but I'm not sure what it was supposed to do... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:06, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Ohhh. If you look closely you'll see that you've just read the last part of a bigger code which was {{Template for discussion/dated|action=|page=Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons|link=Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 July 9#Template:Nickelodeon original series and Nicktoons|help=off|bigbox={{#invoke:Noinclude|noinclude|text=yes}}}}. --Gonnym (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Star Wars television series

Is there some reason this hasn't been moved into Mainspace yet? – It looks ready to go to me, so I'm guessing there's something else going on?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:51, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I've decided to stay away from anything Star Wars related. Most of the editors there don't care about quality or structuce and act as if the film has feelings that would get hurt if anything other than the film is mentioned. I just edited that page to fix a parser error. --Gonnym (talk) 19:11, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is – other editors are opposing splitting out the content of this draft into a separate article?... If so, I agree with your take – that's likely a silly attitude. The draft does need additional clean-up, but there's no reason that can't be an article outright. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:36, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Wasn't talking about this draft, didn't even look too deep into it. Just talking from my past experience with the editors of that batch of articles. Don't want to check the article so I won't get invested in it. If you think it's enough for live, then have fun with it. --Gonnym (talk) 19:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Actually, now I'm doubly-confused – List of Star Wars television series already exists. So I have no idea why the Draft exists too... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Found another pair...

...Of pages in need of moving:

• The Fosters (2013 TV series) → The Fosters (American TV series)
• The Fosters (1976 TV series) → The Fosters (British TV series)

This time, I just moved them. I think at this point, further RM's on the topic are pointless – there's enough precedent here that there's no reason to keep sending through RM's! "By country" is clearly preferred in cases like this, and the Dark Angel case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:02, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Beitar Tel Aviv Ramla

Hi, the club changed his name to "Beitar Tel Aviv Bat Yam". Can you move the previously article to this article? 2A00:A040:194:A1E1:CC37:B97D:ED11:ECE4 (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

From the source you've added it seems that the name hasn't changed yet but will change with the beginning of next season. Since I'm not too familiar with this subject, I'll start a WP:RM for you so will see if others agree with the name change. --Gonnym (talk) 21:00, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

See Talk:Beitar Tel Aviv Ramla F.C.#Requested move 24 July 2019. --Gonnym (talk) 21:05, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Vacation

Gone for a few weeks. If there are any TfDs, RMs or other discussions relevant to me please postpone them until I return. --Gonnym (talk) 07:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler

Hey there, your new template {{Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler}} was a great idea, and will make it easier to create these categories and keep them consistent. That said, I've already noticed a couple of issues you may want to find a solution for:

• The template adds a series-specific category, but if such a category does not exist (and doesn't need to), then it should probably not show. See Category:The Professionals (TV series) character redirects to lists.
• The template uses the series title in the category name to generate a link back to the series. This is an issue if they don't match; I would argue that Category:The Professionals (TV series) character redirects to lists could simply be named Category:The Professionals character redirects to lists because the disambiguation isn't needed in this context (there is not more than one TV series by the same name). However, going with option #2 creates a link to the disambiguation The Professionals. I know some editors prefer to have these category names match the series name exactly, but I'm not aware of this written anywhere as the correct practice in all cases. Assuming I'm correct, I'd suggest adding an optional parameter to determine the series name link.

Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 21:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey @TAnthony! Regarding your first point, from the research I did before writing the module, I noticed that in almost all cases, if you already have a character/episode/etc redirect category, you probably also need a category for the series as well. If we take the example of The Professionals, then we have The Professionals (TV series), List of The Professionals episodes, File:The Professionals title card.jpg, File:The Professionals Opening Titles Series 1.jpg and Category:The Professionals (TV series) character redirects to lists. That is much more than enough for a category, and this is also without an episode redirect category which usually also exists. I actually coded the category so it will encouraged other editors to find the missing connections and create these main categories. Regarding your second point, I personally follow the mantra of sub-categories should match parent category, which is also a speedy criteria (WP:C2C). That said, the code already supports |main= which can be used to link to a differently named article. I've added it so links won't lead to incorrect titles, but category titles should really match each other as it helps category navigation. --Gonnym (talk) 14:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Z

Hey, see Talk:Dragon Ball Z (season 1).-- · Bradford ✉ 16:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bradford: anything specific to see there? Are you referring to the 2017 RM with the mis-guided close? --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly, before there was a consensus for the previous titles to remain.-- · Bradford ✉ 17:01, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see that, but as I said, that is a badly closed RM which is basically a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that ignores actual community guidelines (WP:NCTV). One of the opposers even went as far as give List of Farm to Market Roads in Texas , a completely unrelated article as an example to support his position. I decided to use commonsense here and invoke WP:IAR. --Gonnym (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Gonnym here – the proposer of that WP:RM, Philip J Fry, was correct in this case (they probably should have also cited MOS:TV itself in that discussion), and the opposers basically didn't know what they were talking about (another example of the WP:ANIME group trying to carve out "special exceptions" for itself – luckily, most of those have been overturned over the past year...). That said, if anyone challenges Gonnym's moves, then it'll have to go back to WP:RM again. But if that happens, I imagine that this time all of the relevant naming guideline(s) will be cited. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

French wiki infoboxes

Hi, you mentioned somewhere that the best way forward for the populated places infoboxes was to use a system of modules similar to the one on the French wikipedia. Can you point me to an example of that usage? There's no hurry about that, I won't mind waiting for a couple of weeks until you've back. – Uanfala (talk) 13:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey @Uanfala! A while back I was researching how to improve the infobox code with actual Object-oriented programming and Inheritance (object-oriented programming). The way that fr:Module:Infobox has setup their infobox module code allows for it. As an example, see fr:Module:Infobox/Tapis persan or fr:Module:Infobox/Temple bouddhiste. For second example (Buddhist Temple), the module uses fr:Module:Infobox/Fonctions/Bâtiment for its generic building info. How would that work with the places situations we have here? Well, we would have a generic "place" module that will have all the generic AND shared code, then we could have many smaller modules which auto-fill the shared code and add only those fields unique to them.

So for example, lets take London as an example. The generic infobox will have the code needed for the images, maps, name, area (and many others). The "UK city" module will auto-fill the |subdivision_x= parameters and pass it to the generic template, so editors won't need to touch those and if there is any unique UK only field, the "UK city" module will handle that code. While this looks like the wrapper system, it isn't, as any parameter in the generic template will automatically work while at the same time the sub-templates won't need to replicate redundant code like |image={{{image}}}. Overall the net result will be much more templates, but much less code in the actual articles, and easier maintenance of the templates. --Gonnym (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I see, this will definitely be an improvement over our current ways of doing infoboxes. But if I understand it correctly, this doesn't seem to have been implemented in the place infoboxes yet; as far as I can see (fr:Catégorie:Modèle infobox commune), it appears that the system there uses country-specific wrapper templates. I don't know why that is, but isn't it possible there might be technical challenges in scaling the model? – Uanfala (talk) 12:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The french wiki has several revisions to their infobox code, with fr:Projet:Infobox/V2 replaced with fr:Projet:Infobox/V3. fr:Modèle:Infobox Subdivision administrative seems to be using the V2 version as it's placed in fr:Catégorie:Modèle infobox V2. I haven't researched the V2 version, but it may be that V2 is built like our module and does not support that feature. In any rate, I tested Inheritance in a very simple way and it does indeed work. Can't talk about any scaling issues as I've obviously haven't done that. --Gonnym (talk) 12:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

Arrow articles

Your recent WP:BOLD edit to change the transclusion formatting of these articles has been reverted. Per WP:BRD, after a bold edit is reverted, the WP:STATUSQUO should remain while a discussion is started instead of edit-warring per WP:EW, and it should be resolved before reinstating the edit, after a needed WP:CONSENSUS is formed to keep it. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Alex, please revert your revert. The articles have been edited by dozens of editors since then and have been stable for over 2 months. Your claim of BRD is not valid here. --Gonnym (talk) 06:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Just because other editors has not reverted you, that does not mean that you have a binding consensus. Your edits have now been disputed and the articles restored to the status they were before your bold edits. If you believe that they should be reinstated, please start a discussion and wait for it to be resolved. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

/sigh Alex. Just because you personally don't like something does not mean it does not have consensus. None of the regular editors of these highly watched and highly edited set of articles have even complained once, and believe me, there are a few there that usually oppose any suggestion I make - that in itself implies a silent consensus. In this situation, your edit is the one that has been BOLD and reverted, but you'll obviously not see it this way. --Gonnym (talk) 06:53, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

And just because you personally believe it should be done one way, doesn't mean it's the right way. Not everyone sits around to watch your edits and oppose them. Again: Just because other editors has not reverted you, that does not mean that you have a binding consensus. A silent consensus is not one that you can quote, and is most certainly one that is up for dispute. The BOLD edit was the one that changed formatting across almost a dozen articles in contrast to the formatting that has held since the creation of each of these articles. -- /Alex/₂₁ 06:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

While we're on the topic of faulty/disputed content, you need to fix Template:Awards table5/styles.css. It's applying the listed styling to all tables in articles that use the {{Awards table5}} template, not just the awards table. -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. While we are on the same subject, still letting you know that the breaking changes you made to Module:Episode list are still unfixed. --Gonnym (talk) 09:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I wonder what caused those issues... Perhaps when a mass change was made... -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

No actually, it was caused by your lack of using extensive testcases. My changes are all documented, tested and working. Any issue raised was fixed immediately. You decided, as per your usual MO, that my implementation wasn't correct and edited and didn't care to check everything. Please re-read the code before you blame me again for your mistakes. Regarding the templatestyles you reported, I can't see the issue but I've edited my code with a hopeful fix. If the issue is still there, please let me know where exactly is the issue so I can figure it out.

"your lack of using extensive testcases". Interesting. Remind me how many times you had to revert your mass updates to a highly visible module before they finally worked? I counted seven in half an hour. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Look at the revision history and you'll see 3 reverts all in the first hour (misrepresenting facts, again). All where issues where the issue couldn't be seen on the testcases. But again, it's funny that you bring up my own reverts as evidence of my shortcomings, when you still didn't fix your bugs, 6 months later, nor did you add even one test case, or use the /sandbox, or give time for others to review the code (which unsurprisingly, when I did offer my code for review, you didn't even take the time to test it out). --Gonnym (talk) 09:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Nope. I count 7 (all reversions count), the first six between 09:01, 27 January 2019‎ and 09:32, 27 January 2019‎. 31 minutes, my bad. Three is just as terrible, though. I wonder how many bugs there would have been if there hadn't been an undiscussed just-as-buggy mass update... "or give time for others to review the code"? Remind me where you did that to start off with? -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you just acting like a child or just genuinely do not know the difference between a revert and an edit. I've edited the module, saw a bug, reverted. I could also act like you, and just leave it there for 6 months and thus have 0 reverts. Would that be better? Also, I'm not sure what your implying by Remind me where you did that to start off with? - are you asking where the discussion was or actually implying that it was your idea? In any case see Template_talk:Episode_list#Sandbox_version_update posted on 16 January and after no response in 11 days I've made the changes live. Fixed all the issues that same day but left it again in sandbox for review until 3 February. As you've ignored my questions already 3 times, I'll just ask again, remind me where did you put your code for review? Added testcases or better yet, is 6 months (and counting) longer or shorter than 1 hour? --Gonnym (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I thought Alex had "semi-retired"?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:25, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

List of Maverick episodes

Don't know how this article got in the state it's currently in, but I've removed the 'cast' info from that article, as we don't do that at 'List of episodes' articles. The 'Stars and featured recurring characters' column also needs to go away (as a totally non-standard, basically WP:OR kind of thing), preferably replaced by a 'air dates' column (and a 'production codes' column, if that info is available, which I suspect it's not...), but that's too big a job for me to tackle right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:59, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I checked, and EpGuides has airdates (it looks like so does Amazon, though their links are blacklisted on Wiki, so they can be used as an inline source), so at least there's something to use for that. But as I expected, the U.S.C.O. database doesn't appear to have the prod. codes for the show (the database only goes back to 1978, so the odds that the prod. codes for Maverick were in there was very low...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree about the characters column, I just converted what was previously there. However, just to be the devil's advocate here, List of Lost episodes (FA) does the same, and List of Star Trek: The Next Generation episodes has column for the stardate. I'd argue that sometimes these information are helpful to the readers. Haven't seen one episode of Maverick and didn't even know about the show before my edits, so don't know if that is the case there. In any case, I just edited that article as it really bothered me and as an exercise in regex. --Gonnym (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Wow, and the Lost one is another WP:FL too (another "strike" against the GA/FA process in my book [shaking head] )... Even if I was inclined to leave the 'Characters' column (and maybe I will now, though I'm going to truncate the column header!), an episodes table without air dates is, 1) completely non-standard, and 2) about totally useless! When I get some time, I'll add the air dates there, and then add a 'Series overview' table. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole article quality proccess is flawed, if once an article passes, it stays that way until it goes over a new process. I once saw a FL article in a RM discussion, pointed out the many MoS violations it had, and it stayed the same. The kicker, it wasn't even a list article. --Gonnym (talk) 18:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:40, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

D.Gray-man Hallow

I noticed you asked the move for D.Gray-man Hallow but what happened to the episode summaries. I added a bit of reception but I have no production information other than the actors Murase and Aoyama talking about Allen/Nea and Earl/Mana.Tintor2 (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. The stupid way the module was created requires the actual page name to be added so when a page moves it needs to be updated. --Gonnym (talk) 18:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Category:Supergirl (TV series) character redirects to lists

I believe the box containing "The pages in this category are redirects from Supergirl fictional characters. To add a redirect to this category, place {{Arrowverse character redirect|series_name=Supergirl (TV series)}} on the second new line (skip a line) after #REDIRECT [[Target page name]]." should be updated, you agree? Because now the template is {{Arrowverse character redirect|supergirl=y}}. --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. Should be fixed. I've tested and didn't see any errors, but if you encounter any, let me know. --Gonnym (talk) 10:49, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Breakfast Time (FX program) move to Breakfast Time (TV program) further moved to Breakfast Time (FX TV program)

Hi,

I notice that you moved the Breakfast Time (FX program) redirect to Breakfast Time (TV program).

I've moved this again since, whether or not the original redirect was in line with WP:NCTV (as used as justification for the change), it was clear and unambiguous. The new version- "Breakfast Time (TV program)"- could unfortunately have referred to either the FX or BBC programmes, so was less effective for its intended purpose.

(Although by convention articles for UK subjects use "Commonwealth" spelling and those for US ones use American spelling (i.e. "programme" vs. "program"), this doesn't change the fact that both are programs- or programmes. If I remember correctly spelling differences et al should not be relied upon as qualifiers.

The new version is Breakfast Time (FX TV program) which should be in line with NCTV but serves the original purpose. ("1990s TV program" would also have uniquely identified it, but less clearly so- late 80s are too close to the early 90s- and would likely have required a "redirects" dab in the middle of the article that would be more distracting).

If you have any problems or disputes with this, please let me know. Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 13:22, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

If there are two shows with the same name, and they differ by country, then by country disambiguation is what is used per NCTV. So (American TV program) is the correct use. Note that by network disambiguation is not supported at all. --Gonnym (talk) 10:56, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I've re-read NCTV and it appears that you're correct as far as that goes.

In hindsight, I'd say that "American TV program" is probably a better/clearer qualifier than "FX TV program" anyway, even if that weren't part of the guidelines anyway. So I've no problem with changing it to that (again!)

However, it's only fair to point out this it wasn't your first choice either(!) "TV program" was- and is- less clear and more ambiguous than the original "FX program" it replaced (or "FX TV program", for that matter), regardless of whether the former was in line with NCTV and the latter wasn't.

Adhering to NCTV alone- as "(TV program") does- doesn't mean a title is sufficiently unambiguous, or even that it's the best choice. It's necessary (if possible), but not sufficient, nor even the most important aspect.

Anyway, it's not like we're being forced to choose, so "American TV program" it is.

All the best,

Ubcule (talk) 18:48, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Television

Re: Der Club - I am not familiar with television, but if infobox television has no room to say its a weekly talk show, nor for some people, it may be "correct" but not helpful, imho. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

It has a lot of parameters, you should check the documentation. If something is missing, you should ask on the template talk page to see if there is a reason why it's not added, or if there is consensus to add it. --Gonnym (talk) 16:35, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If you know that much I wonder why you didn't but will try to learn. - I use infobox person for all people, but next thing may be you telling me that it not "correct"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I looked: many parameters, no example of a recurring talk show, nor of a simple example, - not user-friendly, that template. Compare {{infobox musical composition}}. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you really want from me here. The doc page lists all the parameters available to use, explains each one and gives an example of a working version. If the parameter you are looking for isn't there, then that isn't because it's missing documentation, it's because it doesn't exist. --Gonnym (talk) 16:53, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I tried now. It results in the first airing put under a header "Original release" which sounds strange (to me, but again all this is new to me, I'm a classical music person trying every now and than to fill a red link ...), and has an awkward format for a website, to name just what I dislike most besides all these coloured headers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find "former name", nor a parameter the alternate formats Medien and Literatur. Help? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

There is a |show_name2= which is close, but not a former name. I agree that a former name could be useful. Not sure what the Medien and and Literatur are. If these are just themes the show talks about then that doesn't belong in the infobox. If they are spin-off shows then they should go in |related=. --Gonnym (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Per the article, occasionally (one of about four) the Club is a Literaturclub (with different people and language), and on other occasions a Medienclub. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:28, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like it's just a "special" episode and not a different show. If that is the case, then the prose should handle it imo. --Gonnym (talk) 17:34, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Will see what I can do. - I claned up after your move. Some things don't take redirects, and DYK noms are among them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Neutral notice

This is a neutral notice to all registered editors who have contributed to Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film over the past year (Sept. 15, 2018-present) that a Request for Comment has been posted here. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

List of Inazuma Eleven episodes

Now that the RM has gone through, I'm of the opinion that List of Inazuma Eleven episodes should be moved to Inazuma Eleven (TV series)... Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Bumping this – I'd like to hear your opinion on this before I do anything... Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If the page size isn't an issue then sure, why not. If it does move, it will need an infobox and probably a change of categories. --Gonnym (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Cool. I'll try to look at that this weekend... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:13, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done! – However, Inazuma Eleven GO (TV season) is still misnamed, and I'm not sure what to do here: while Inazuma Eleven GO (TV series) would seem obvious, but the article only covers the first of three seasons, so Inazuma Eleven GO (season 1) might be correct. (Note: There is a redirect at Inazuma Eleven GO that should be turned into a WP:DABPAGE...) Anyway, let me know where you think Inazuma Eleven GO (TV season) should be moved to... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Ape Escape (2002 TV series)

As per Talk:Ape Escape (American TV series)#Requested move 11 August 2019, would you object to moving this to Ape Escape (Japanese TV series)? I would say the RM discussion was inconclusive on my point on this, and I think any confusion can be dealt with by a hatnote. But having just a two-article "mixed county/date" disambiguation set like this doesn't make much sense to me – either both should be "by country", or both should be "by year". FWIW... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:17, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Sure. --Gonnym (talk) 16:54, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

AfroCine: Join the Months of African Cinema this October!

Greetings!

After a successful first iteration of the “Months of African Cinema” last year, we are happy to announce that it will be happening again this year, starting from October 1! In the 2018 edition of the contest, about 600 Wikipedia articles were created in at least 8 languages. There were also contributions to Wikidata and Wikimedia commons, which brought the total number of wikimedia pages created during the contest to over 1,000.

The AfroCine Project welcomes you to October, the first out of the two months which have been dedicated to creating and improving content that centre around the cinema of Africa, the Caribbean, and the diaspora. Join us in this global edit-a-thon, by helping to create or expand articles which are connected to this scope. Also remember to list your name under the participants section.

On English Wikipedia, we would be recognizing participants in the following manner:

• Overall winner (1st, 2nd, 3rd places)
• Diversity winner
• Gender-gap fillers

For further information about the contest, the recognition categories and how to participate, please visit the contest page here. For further inquiries, please leave comments on the contest talkpage or on the main project talkpage. See you around :).--Jamie Tubers (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Awards table5

Template:Awards table5 has been nominated for merging with Template:Awards table. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. -- /Alex/₂₁ 12:12, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

{{Awards table}}

As per The Leftovers (TV series), it does not appear that 'Awards table|5' is rendering correctly with plainrowheaders (i.e. the years in the 'Years' column are still bolded) – any idea how to fix this? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:48, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I'll check now. As far as I can tell Alex did add the plainrowheaders code. --Gonnym (talk) 14:50, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The table was set-up without "scope="row"", which is why it didn't work. --Gonnym (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Arrowverse Earth redirects

I've decided that, instead of being [[List of DC Multiverse worlds#Arrowverse]], they should redirect to sections within the section like [[List of DC Multiverse worlds#Earth-1]]. Do you know how to do this? Also pinging The Ozzy Mandias if he knows. --Kailash29792 (talk) 12:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: Done. The Ozzy Mandias (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792 and The Ozzy Mandias: I was going to fix redirects to Laurel Lance (Earth-1) when I thought maybe we are using an incomplete disambiguation here. The comics also have various earths, so wouldn't a better disambiguation be "(Arrowverse Earth-1)"? Any thoughts? --Gonnym (talk) 08:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, ask Favre1fan93 or Alex 21. Personally, I'm fine with it. But there will also need to be Laurel Lance (disambiguation). As of now, Ozzy no longer edits Arrowverse articles, only he knows why. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Was Sara Lance a Black Canary?

Before she became White Canary on Legends, we knew her simply as "The Canary" on Arrow. It appeared Laurel-1 branded herself as "Black Canary" to avoid confusion, but Cisco said this in Fury Rogue: "She was the second Black Canary after her sister". The script is here. Should Sara be listed at Black Canary (disambiguation)? I've done so for the time-being. --Kailash29792 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

As far as I remember, she was just "Canary" but was dressed in black. Whatever the case is, if the script has Cisco calling her "Black Canary" then it belongs in the dab (and in the article) even just a mention of a continuity error or retcon. --Gonnym (talk) 10:05, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Taking the initiative

Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) has extended an olive branch of peace.

---

@IJBall: and @Gonnym: I'm sorry you're both frustrated but try to see the other side's point of view too. You wouldn't want the same situation happen in reverse. the reason why you're not getting the desired response is because WP:ANIME already has its own philosophy, manual of style, and guidelines that they follow. To over-explain, those in a move request isn't the most appropriate thing to do. Its disregarding anime's MOS, philosophy, and guidelines for the sake of WP:TV's. If the reverse would've happened, you wouldn't give WP:ANIME editors the time of day when they questioned your approach. If you want that in-depth answer, you can request to speak about the subject directly at WP:ANIME or respond to WP:VPM.

But for the sake of good faith, I'm going to give you an in-depth response here explaining why WP:ANIME is the way that it is (It's not because WP:ANIME editors are a bunch rebels who hate rules)."TV anime" is a foreign media that is part of a bigger interconnected industry. Anime industry, manga industry, light novel industry, and sometimes video game industry in Japan are interwoven and rely on each other. It is almost considered non-existent for an anime TV series to not be an adaptation of a manga or light novel and vice versa. The industry all recognize anime and manga to be a unified franchise.

The reason why the industry sees it so synonymous and co-dependent is due to the adaptations are commonly very precise to the source material that the industry considers them as a common extension. This can not be truer for anime TV series. But unfortunately, not all of the media is treated equally when it comes to coverage. media franchises are not just created as an overall process, they are commonly used when the original media is not notable on its own without the adaptation. There are a lot of anime articles that are actually franchise articles because the source material isn't notable on its own.

There is currently no rule or guideline that dictates media franchise articles need to strictly be a summary. And splitting the media apart will only make smaller, incomplete, and poor quality articles. We should value quality over quantity. WP:MOSTV also doesn't say that the main article has to be exclusively for the TV series. For all these reasons, this is why anime and manga are usually a shared article. In my humble opinion, this is the reason why WP:ANIME has a lot of quality content. This might be reaching, but unlike WP:TV, WP:ANIME has a lot to prove by making quality articles. Its an industry is a respectable one.

if you have any questions, i'm HAPPY to clarify or provide more information.Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 03:03, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I've commented at the VP so stop this discussion branching out to multiple venues. --Gonnym (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Rowspan

Regarding the rowspan issue at the Draft:Team Thor (film series), is it specifically on mobile? Because I don't see any issue on the desktop version. El Millo (talk) 19:21, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Why would you see an issue? It's a screen reader compatibility issue, hence why I said it was an accessibility issue. Screen readers have a problem reading row-spanned cells. If the short discussion I link to you is not enough, you can also have a read of Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Archive 14#Accessibility_disagreement, which a lot more heavy. --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

FYI

Hello G. I thought the post you made at Template talk:Infobox film#Add sequel / prequel parameters was excellent. I did notice that the word sequel is spelled squeal :-) It is always the dilemma of spell check that if you've mis-typed something but that mistake is still a word you don't get a red squiggly line underneath it. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 19:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that, totally missed it! --Gonnym (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

You are welcome :-) MarnetteD|Talk 19:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

So...

What do you want to do about Criminal (Netflix)? The article is only about a month old, so I'd say it can be moved without an WP:RM. And it looks like Criminal (TV series) is available and viable in this case... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, just ignore RM unless someone raises an issue. Only issue with that show is that it's actually 4 different shows, so I wasn't exactly sure how to handle it. Looking at the shows now on Netflix, their names are Criminal: United Kingdom, Criminal: Spain, Criminal: Germany, Criminal: France (or without colon), so a main article, if needed is the one I'm not sure how to call it as it's a plural of series which is the same word. --Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

S**t. Then it may need an WP:RM after all. I'd still argue that Criminal (TV series) is the best choice, but an RM should probably held in case someone argues in favor of Criminal (franchise) or something. Not sure when I'll get to this – I may wait until after the Talk:Kingdom (South Korean TV series) RM is closed as "not moved"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym, I've already read WP:NCTV. So, I want to cancel the move request, but how to cancel it? - St3095 (talk) 05:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@St3095: I would not withdraw Talk:Criminal (Netflix)#Requested move 8 November 2019 – one way or another I think this will come to a better resolution than the current article title... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:27, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see the problem – there are two RM's open right now – St3095 which of the two do you want to close, the first (Nov. 6) or the second (Nov. 8)? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:31, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

@IJBall: please close the second. And also, please close Talk:Kingdom (South Korean TV series)#Requested move 6 November 2019. Thanks. St3095 (talk) 03:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

@St3095: Please post the following at Talk:Criminal (Netflix)#Requested move 8 November 2019: "I withdraw this Requested move proposal in favor of the Talk:Criminal (Netflix)#Requested move 6 November 2019 proposal." – Once you do this, I can close it for you.

@IJBall: OK, thank you.

As for Talk:Kingdom (South Korean TV series)#Requested move 6 November 2019, there's no reason to withdraw that one – best to just let it run its course to its conclusion. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:43, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Toriko (TV series)

I redirected this back to Toriko#Anime for now as this does not warrant a separate (TV series) article as it stands. If you want to develop the standalone article, you can create it but it needs to be filled in as much as Bleach (TV series) with Development, Broadcast, Themes, Reception, Home media sections, and you'll still need to keep the separate episode list anyway as with List of Bleach episodes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AngusWOOF (talk • contribs) 21:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

That's just a tedious revert as can be seen from a recent RM at Talk:Attack on Titan (TV series). The hierarchy of articles should be (1) first you create a TV series article; (2) if the article is too large split into lists of episodes/characters/cast etc. I'll take this to RM and it will probably be moved, as were many anime articles which weren't titled correctly, but that's just a waste of all our time. --Gonnym (talk) 22:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

@AngusWOOF: Absolutely agree with Gonnym here – for the zillionth time, you can't have a "List of episodes" article without a "TV series" episode article first. There is no such thing as a "List of episodes" article for a single season TV series anyway. It absolutely should be at Toriko (TV series). I seriously considered reverting the reversion myself, but I'm hoping that Gonnym now opens a WP:RM on this – I for one will absolutely support moving this to Toriko (TV series) as it absolutely shouldn't be at List of Toriko episodes. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 03:52, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

IJBall, I suggest just making the TV series one out of the redirect and leave the List of Toriko episodes alone. The TV series one can have those sections, since the episodes list is going to be huge like with List of Bleach episodes anyway. What are you going to do about Naruto (TV series) then? There are tons of series that are in the same boat. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:26, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Why would the episode list be huge? It's a series from 2011 with 22 episodes. It isn't getting any larger than this. --Gonnym (talk) 18:59, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

What Gonnym just said – there is not enough content from this series to generate two separate articles. There's only enough for a single "TV series" article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:41, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

[sigh...] Really sick of WP:ANIME not thinking the rules apply to them. The arguments they're making don't even make any sense. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Their arguments show an extreme logical failure. The closing admin should (hopefully) be able to understand that their arguments make no sense whatsoever. --Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

I suspect it gets closed as "no consensus", which isn't conclusive like "not moved", and would allow another WP:RM some time down the line. But I can't understand how they don't see that an article that is mostly "episode list" is still primarily a "TV series" article, even if the prose content is just 'Stub' or 'Start' class – there are literally hundreds of "TV series" articles that are already exactly like that. Again, why should "anime" be any different on this score?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 13:45, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

If it closes with "no consensus" based on the current arguments, I'll move it up the channels to wherever it should go to. RMs, as any vote, is based on guideline and policy arguments. Currently, one side is backed up by MOS:TVSPLIT (and thousand of TV articles), vs nothing but a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS that has a proven track record of article title failing. So if whoever closes it finds a "no consensus" they are failing in understanding how to assess a discussion.

I suspect you've "tapped out" on this discussion, but it might come better from you trying to explain how "franchise" articles are supposed to work (hint: they're only supposed to be a very general summary of the relevant materials, not the "in-depth" coverage which is supposed to done at the subsidiary articles...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

The RM has now closed as no consensus with no prejudice against creating a TV series article. Is anyone interested in doing that? --AussieLegend (✉) 00:41, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Not really, because single-season TV series shouldn't have standalone LoE articles in most cases, and I'm not interested in furthering WP:ANIME's attempts to flout our MOS guidelines. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Since Alucard 16 reverted your removal of the music section, which actually made this a list of episodes, and he said Instead of outright deleting valuable information how about reformatting the article so it can be included? Reformatted structure so this page can stand on its own as a "List of... Episodes" or as a "TV series" article for the time being in order to keep all existing information intact as per all applicable MOS, I did just that. Reformatted the article with valuable information. Already got reverted once mid-process while I was still working on the article. Let's see how long it lasts til WP:OWNERSHIP starts kicking in. --Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

{{Redirect category}}

I'm trying to implement the split per the consensus here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual#Split. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: I see, but you are doing something wrong. Please stop. I'll remind you that AWB should be stopped when you are reverted or in conflict. --Gonnym (talk) 18:38, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

[Thank you for the ping] I stopped the moment I got through the B's and noticed you reverted me. I do not plan on continuing until the matter is resolved. :) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:40, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm not sure what the closer meant by The result of the discussion was: split, but to the existing categories as indicated. - does "as indicated" mean your proposal Category:Fictional concept redirects to lists, or Fayenatic London and Trialpears suggestion of using the current character/location/element/episode categories? Also, as I've noted in my revert, Category:Fiction-based redirects to list entries already exists as the parent of all the top level fictional categories. So my question is, how is this supposed to look like? --Gonnym (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

My assumption was that it meant as proposed. @Marcocapelle and MER-C: Is this a safe assumption? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:04, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Not as proposed, but using the existing categories only (per LaundryPizza03, Fayenatic London and Trialpears). MER-C 19:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: restored the edit to {{Redirect category}} but modified |fiction= to just not add it to any category, as the relevant redirect category templates should handle placing them in the correct location/character/etc. categories. Also added support to Module:Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler. --Gonnym (talk) 19:25, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! I'm going to finish going through Category:All redirect categories now with AWB. :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:01, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Where's Waldo? query

Gonnym – what are your thoughts on the following:

• Where's Wally?: The Animated Series (1991)
• Where's Waldo? (TV series) (2019)

The issues here are: 1) The former has no references, so there isn't a shred of evidence that it was actually titled "Where's Wally?: The Animated Series" vs. "Where's Wally?"/"Where's Waldo?". (e.g. IMDb certainly has no evidence in support of the current title.) 2) It looks like the U.S. title for both of these would be "Where's Waldo?", so it looks to me like these need additional diambiguation from each other, especially the latter. 3) Would "Where's Wally?" (the UK title) be enough to distinguish that one from "Where's Waldo?" (the 2019 version), or does either (or both?!) still need the additional (likely "by year") disambiguation?... Let me know your thoughts, when you get a chance to ponder this. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:14, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. It looks like a Where's Waldo? (disambiguation) page would be a very good idea... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

It's definitely not "Where's Wally?: The Animated Series" as can be seen here, but just "Where's Wally?", and yes, the new series should of course be disambiguated as in North America the 1991 series was "Where's Waldo" as can be seen here. --Gonnym (talk) 22:32, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

YouTube link didn't work, but I get your point... Trying to decide between just boldly moving these, or opening a WP:RM... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've done the "first stage" here: I've moved Where's Wally?: The Animated Series back to Where's Wally? (TV series) (undoing a page move that was done back in 2011! with no real justification for the move offered...), and I've moved the 2019 series from Where's Waldo? (TV series) to Where's Waldo? (2019 TV series).

But I don't think I'm done here – I think that Where's Wally? (TV series) needs to be further moved to Where's Wally? (1991 TV series), and a Where's Wally? (2019 TV series) redirect needs to be created as well, as both the 1991 and 2019 version are also titled "Where's Wally?" in the UK... Then, after all that's done, a disambiguation page will need to be created, probably at Where's Wally? (disambiguation) (with Where's Waldo? (disambiguation) redirecting to that)... So, this is a lot of work (with some of it yet to be done – I'll get to the rest later). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:44, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Iris West-Allen (Arrowverse)

Now I have made this the primary target. Some issues remain though at Iris West (Arrowverse), can you please fix? Since I don't know how to. --Kailash29792 (talk) 04:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed the primary redirect issue. --Gonnym (talk) 13:29, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

MCU “major” characters

I am using this as basis currently. It should be a decent qualifier for now. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 21:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Jhenderson777: That's a good source. It seems it is what I would expect from how I would have done it, based on a character appearing in a starring billing in more than 1 film- those would be the exact same people, maybe Okoye would also be on my list (need to see what billing she got in Black Panther and Avengers 3 and 4) and also Nebula. Captain Marvel is not on the list, as I'm guessing that the source is outdated, which means that it's a bit problematic to base the list on it. I think that staying with an objective "star billing in more than 1 film" will cause much less issues when new films are released and you don't have a source.

One other thing I'd like to raise, while we are at it. I think that maybe sorting the list alphabetically by last name will be better. When I moved Pietro, I had to really think where to place him, while if it was alphabetically, it would have taken a second. --Gonnym (talk) 21:59, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

It’s in chronological order so far. If at the same time in alphabetical. In case you were wondering. Also Captain Marvel is on other lists that are much smaller than that. So yes she will be placed in major characters along with Nebula since she is a Gaurdian of Galaxy. Though Okoye, Shuri and Valkyrie I am still debating. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:06, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

How about all the girl power characters in and that’s that? Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:15, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Also Captain Marvel is on other lists that are much smaller than that. So yes she will be placed in major characters along with Nebula since she is a Gaurdian of Galaxy. Though Okoye, Shuri and Valkyrie I am still debating But see, that is the problem. You can't decide based on your personal opinion. That is WP:OR. If you base the complete list on a source that backs it up, great. But if you base part of it on a source, and part of it on a different source, then what happens if one source has the character and the other doesn't? Who do you go with? Basing it on an objective criteria will always work. The mashable link is not good. First, it doesn't even say those are main characters. Secondally, I personally don't see how Shuri is a main character, considering her very limited on screen time. Other recurring characters were in much more films than her.

Regarding the order. I know it is based on chronological order, I just think that is a mistake. I also have a feeling, based on the my experience with other editors here, that if and when the article goes live, will change it, as currently this order makes it very hard to locate someone. You don't really expect that everyone remembers 20+ films, right? --Gonnym (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I am just going to assume all girl power is in. Also Shuri had the same amount of screen time as Okoye. I am not basing on personal opinion. I am basing on screen time and one popular culture scene. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Popular culture is not how our guidelines base main status. It's irrelevant. Shuri was barely in End Game, while Okoye was (a little bit more). I'm also not sure if she had the same amount of on screen time as her in Infinity War. But again, that's also irrelevant. Natlie Portman had a main role in 2 films, not a supporting role as they did. Erik Selvig was a supporting character in 4 films and might have the same or even more screen time than either of those. Which is why you can't base any list on some criteria which isn't either sourced or objective which can be used to compare all entries to. --Gonnym (talk) 23:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Uh Shuri was one of the ones snapped. Okoye wasn’t. They both appear in Endgame as as main fighters. Also please don’t be preachy. I know how Wikipedia guidelines works. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 23:47, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I used the characters in the source along with this one since the source is outdated. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 00:18, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Big Brother

Hey Gonnym, sorry its been a while due to RL and other Wiki stuff like NPR I got sidetracked. Is there anything else that needs to be done on the Big Brother front? Cheers, Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 07:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I think there is, haven't checked in a while. The page is up-to-date, so anything that is yellow is still not done. --Gonnym (talk) 08:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Ello, looks like another editor has taken it upon themselves to move the Albanian pages (see list of moves from 22 November 2019) not sure what to do here either name works just needs to be consistent. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 22:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

If you don't have an issue with it, I sure don't as they are using a good style. --Gonnym (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

@Alucard 16: can you take a look at Big Brother (Finnish season 9), Big Brother (Finnish season 10) and Big Brother (Finnish season 11)? 9 says it was a Celebrity version which we seem to not count in the regular season order, 10 lead says its season 9 and 11 says its the 11th season. --Gonnym (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

See this RM and this discussion for more information. In short the original broadcaster Sub and the producers never adopted a consistent naming format for the program from 2005-2014 the articles were renamed to match WP:NCTV's general naming convention while following the precedent established by the American version of The Apprentice/The Celebrity Apprentice because Sub considered the 2014 season to be their tenth season which made their one and only celebrity edition the official ninth season. Another reason for using WP:NCTV's general style was for the entire title to be in English as Sumoi means Finland in Finnish. The lead is "supposed" to clarify this dependency. The new broadcasters Jim & Nelonen has referred to the show as "Big Brother Sumoi" and considers the 2019 reboot season as "Season 1". Similar to other rebooted shows like American Idol (season 16) - present the lead is "supposed" to clarify that this season was the first to air on Jim & Nelonen but the eleventh overall. So the TL;DR the season numbering in the titles are correct as per WP:NCTV and the way we've been handling rebooted shows so far. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 09:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gonnym: I fixed the leads of the ninth – eleventh seasons to clarify their season numbering. I also added refs to support the change in the respective leads. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 10:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Love Island

There are multiple Love Island franchises. There is an American version of Love Island and in other countries as well. That was to distinguish between the different branches of the show. All the franchises are distinguished by the country they are from.Welcometothenewmillenium (talk) 19:02, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, but the consensus in the previous RM was against double disambiguation of year and country. Also, if there were double disambiguation it would have been "2015 British TV series" and not "British 2015 TV series". --Gonnym (talk) 22:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting Yes Minister episodes

You asked me to inform you when I intend to merge/redirect episodes articles. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Official Visit closed with delete, so I'll redirect the other episode articles to List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes soon. I'll use {{Television episode redirect handler}} for this, like you told me. – sgeureka ^t•c 11:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you very much! --Gonnym (talk) 11:50, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
• Just add this and fill in the season and episode numbers. In case one episode has more than 1 redirect, use |primary= and the value should be the primary redirect (the one with the most accurate title, no disambiguation):
  • {{Television episode redirect handler|series_name=Yes Minister|season_num=|episode_num=}}
  • {{Television episode redirect handler|series_name=Yes, Prime Minister|season_num=|episode_num=}}

--Gonnym (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Okay, how would you redirect Party Games (Yes Minister)? The Whisky Priest is my example for another YM episode redirect. Also, could you show me what to do about the double redirect of The Whisky Priest (Yes Minister) with regards to "|primary"? (Your brief explanation and the documentation didn't help me, unfortunately.) – sgeureka ^t•c 21:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

For Party Games, if the episode is not part of any season then just {{Television episode redirect handler|series_name=Yes Minister}}. Not sure what the question is regarding The Whisky Priest. Primary is used for more than 1 redirect to the same episode. Say you have Party Games (Yes Minister) and Party Games (Yes Minister episode). In this case, the first is the primary redirect, and the second has an unnessarry disambiguation. So the first gets {{Television episode redirect handler|series_name=Yes Minister}} (and season and episode number if it had), and the second and any others, gets {{Television episode redirect handler|series_name=Yes Minister|primary=Party Games (Yes Minister)}}. --Gonnym (talk) 23:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again. List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes includes two TV shows, and you converted it to proper templates and made such redirection fixes. But now there is The Grand Design (Yes, Prime Minister), which is ep1 of show 2, and I expect "#redirect List of Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister episodes#ep1" would refer to ep1 of the first TV series, never the second TV series. So, split the ep list into List of Yes Minister episodes and List of Yes, Prime Minister episodes, or what other options are there to make the redirection anchors work? – sgeureka ^t•c 20:28, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A few questions so a few answers. I'm not familiar with the show so don't know how connected the series are. The revival season for Twin Peaks was made into a season article and part of the main series, but Heroes Reborn (miniseries) was treated as a new series. Looking at Yes Minister, it only briefly talks about the other 2 series. However, splitting the list of episodes without any actual article content might not be a good idea. Regarding the anchor links, the duplicate links will indeed not work correctly with the second one failing. This is something I've actually just asked Alex at Template talk:Episode list#How is an id parameter set to provide a row anchor?, as I myself am not sure what the best way to handle this is. Hopefully Alex responds and this can be fixed. A hack might be to add an option for a hidden parameter to be the anchor. --Gonnym (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

I am finished with redirecting the episodes (one ep turned out to be notable enough after all). Category:Yes, Prime Minister episode redirects to lists hasn't been created yet. I forewent the ep-anchor problem from above by anchoring the ep redirects to the season section in the LoE, e.g. The Bishop's Gambit. I will move on to other wiki things now. :-) – sgeureka ^t•c 14:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Bigg Boss Marathi move

I have done the both seasons moves since there was only support after more than a week. I would be happy if u could do move 2018–19 Iraqi protests → 2018 Iraqi protests. There is also only support after more than a week.

I am afraid I should not do that move.

I mean that about Iraq. So i was just looking for someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IHaveBecauseOfLocks (talk • contribs) 17:10, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirecting List of The Outer Limits (1995 TV series) episodes articles

Per your request, I hereby inform you that I'll soon start redirecting List of The Outer Limits (1995 TV series) episodes articles per this AfD. Have a nice day. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:54, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 12:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler

Hi. At the moment {{Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler}} always creates a red link to the show's eponymous category by default, see eg Category:13_Reasons_Why_character_redirects_to_lists. Not only is that creating extra work for the editors working on the backlog at Wikipedia:Database reports/Categories categorized in red-linked categories, it contravenes WP:REDNOT (the rules on red links to categories are different to articles) and the spirit if not the letter of WP:OCEPON. Can it be changed to respect WP:REDNOT? Perhaps if it doesn't find the eponymous category it produces a flag at the editing stage suggesting that a more general category (by broadcaster???) is added instead? Le Deluge (talk) 14:31, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

As an editor who was fixing these categories before the module exited, I noticed that there tended to be a lot of times on average 2 redirect categories per series, one for episodes and one for characters. In addition to those two categories, you have at least at the minimum, a series article and the image used on that article. That's 4 links. Most series have much more then those two, with season and list articles. The reason it is red linked, is exactly that, to make editors notice and help fix orphaned categories. This follows what WP:REDNOT says to [...] the category should be created, and it also follows WP:OCEPON Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist.

If we look at 13 Reasons Why, it has the parent article, File:Netflix's 13 Reasons Why title screen.png, Category:13 Reasons Why character redirects to lists, and Category:13 Reasons Why episode redirects to lists, yet none of these all have one parent category, which makes category navigation for the series impossible. I was working on an easy drop-and-place template to create series categories, but unfortently, the network categories are an inconsistent mess, which makes any template not really helpful atm. --Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You're misreading WP:REDNOT - it clearly says A page in any Wikipedia namespace should never be left in a red-linked category. Yes, creating the category is one way to ensure that happens, but the point is that it has to happen at the time the red link is created, it can't just be left for months as happens with this template. I mentioned WP:OCEPON as although the letter of it applies to people, it does get used as a general principle elsewhere, although different areas have different approaches to WP:SMALLCAT eponymous categories. The sports people are generally quite tolerant, whereas the music people generally fight quite hard against them, and tend to prefer to eg have category headers which link to related categories of albums, singles etc, and only the very biggest musicians get their own category. I'm happy to let those kind of decisions be made locally, I'm just interested in clearing the backlog of WP:REDNOT categories, and your template is not helping that right now. Perhaps it could be made to only insert the category if it exists, and if not then it adds a tracking category of categories that need to be created? Le Deluge (talk) 15:03, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

You'll notice that Category:Wikipedia categories named after television series is not something I invented. Could you point me to the report to see how big this issue is? --Gonnym (talk) 15:36, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not saying it is - and it looks to be about as busy as the musician equivalent, but I still see a lot of musician eponymous categories getting deleted. They're happy to have say Category:John Lennon but not Category:Luis Fonsi for instance - a good rule of thumb is that they wait until maybe 3 albums hit the top 40, that kind of level. Whereas you see eponymous categories for even amateur sports teams. I gave you the link above, but it's probably easier to just add some code that outputs a tracking category (even if one doesn't actually create the tracking category for now). It feels like it's mebbe 20-30, it's not hundreds.Le Deluge (talk) 19:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Just realised, I can filter for categories with redirects in the name, there's 32 31

13_Reasons_Why, Bo'_Selecta!, Bonanza, Boston_Public, Care_Bears, Charmed, Diagnosis:_Murder, Falcon_Crest, Harley_Quinn_(TV_series), Inspector_Lynley_Mysteries, Knots_Landing, Lovejoy, Melrose_Place, ReGenesis, Rizzoli_&_Isles, Ruža_vjetrova, Ryan's_Hope, Santa_Barbara_(TV_series), Sense8, Shining_Time_Station, Strange_Days_at_Blake_Holsey_High, Studio_60_on_the_Sunset_Strip, The_Boys_(2019_TV_series), The_Fall_Guy, The_Guardian_(TV_series), The_Man_in_the_High_Castle_(TV_series), The_Professionals_(TV_series), The_Tudors, The_Unit, Tru_Calling, Vanished, Vinyl_(TV_series), Wonder_Showzen

Le Deluge (talk) 19:25, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. I'll work on a fix with the tracking category this week. --Gonnym (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

@Le Deluge: {{Fiction-based redirects to list entries category handler/sandbox}} should add the tracking category. I'll give it a few days before I sync to live. --Gonnym (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Good stuff. FWIW, if you're looking for other things to try, do a find for "redirects to lists‏‎" on Special:WantedCategories - you'll find various orphaned episodes and character categories there and usually if they've not been given a category, they can usually do with a bit of general TLC.Le Deluge (talk) 19:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I have a list of my own of series I think deserve redirects and I do one show every now and then as it's too boring more than that :) --Gonnym (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Babylon 5 element redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:Babylon 5 element redirects to lists requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well G. MarnetteD|Talk 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

TV WikiProject banners

You should maybe also have a look at the banners of all the other WikiProjects that were converted into TV taskforces a while ago. E.g. I know {{WikiProject Stargate}} still exists although WPSG became a taskforce years ago. – sgeureka ^t•c 13:22, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! I just checked the first one on the list and saw it didn't have a template, so assumed the others won't either, but I'll have a check now! --Gonnym (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Merry!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Gonnym, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, ★Trekker (talk) 14:41, 21 December 2019 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Original article of transclusion

Hey. A while ago, you told me that mw.getCurrentFrame():getParent():getTitle() gets you the original article that content was transcluded from. Do you have a working example of this? Because for me, it seems to get me the template that the module was called from, rather than the article that the template(/module) was called from.

I'm tweaking Module:Series overview/sandbox a bit, and I got it to print the output of mw.getCurrentFrame():getParent():getTitle() to a random location, and it does indeed return the original template name (i.e. "Template:Series overview/sandbox"). Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:28, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

It turns out it isn't something that can be used. When I checked the code, I used it with an invoke call, so directly to the module. That worked. When I used it from a template, it didn't. It's pretty absured to me that the Wiki coders didn't add a way to get the title directly from the frame object. Another possible way (though I've not tested it, just thought about it now while writing this comment) is to add a parameter in the template (so no user input) |title={{PAGENAME}} and in the module do something like

local title
if (args.title) then
title = args.title
else
title = mw.getCurrentFrame():getParent():getTitle()
end

This way you handle both template and module uses. Let me know if it works. --Gonnym (talk) 13:35, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. It seems that {{PAGENAME}} falls through transclusion; that is, if PAGENAME is used in the original article, it returns as the original article's title, but if it's transcluded to a separate article, PAGENAME returns as the transcluded article's title. It's all good; maybe the only way to get around it is user input. I agree with the idea of it being absurd, though. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

TV taskforces

Me again, chasing red-linked categories again. As you may have seen, I've opposed a bunch of your taskforce categories being speedy renamed on the grounds that they're ambiguous and don't reflect article names. Something like Category:House task force is horrible - most people will assume it's something to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject Home Living as (almost) everybody has a house but <10% of the population watch House (TV series). Either it should be renamed to Category:House (TV series) task force or, perhaps better IMO, Category:WikiProject Television House task force which makes the parent WikiProject obvious. Cheers.Le Deluge (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Your oppositions are pretty absurd to be honest. For example, you opposed Category:CSI task force as you claimed. Not a C2D - CSI is a disambiguation page, you want CSI (franchise), but you completely ignored the task force page which is indeed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/CSI task force and the name of the actual page is "CSI task force" as "/" is a sub-page divider and not part of the name. At least make your arguments factual correct. --Gonnym (talk) 11:37, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Also, your proposed naming style is so out of touch with Category:WikiProject task forces. Are you proposing we change all of these to "WikiProject Television <name> task force"? As I don't see how singling out 5 task forces is a consistent and workable option. --Gonnym (talk) 11:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

They're not absurd at all, I'm looking at it from the top-down view that categories such as Category:House task force are ambiguous - can we agree on that?

Given that ambiguity, we need to find a way to resolve the ambiguity, which means either including the full article name in the category name (which is the usual way), or making clear that it's a subsidiary of WPT, or something else (I'm open to ideas). If that means other categories need to be renamed to bring them in line with the "problem" ones, then so be it - I just singled a couple out because of the flawed basis of your speedy-renames (and the speedy guys are really hot on process, as there's always the option of WP:CFD for anything that doesn't follow the process to the letter).Le Deluge (talk) 15:13, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Again, your assumptions are incorrect. I just singled a couple out because of the flawed basis of your speedy-renames, you are mixing two different objects and making an incorrect argument. The page is named "House task force", so my CfD nomination correctly applies as it matches the category to the page. You keep thinking that the main page is the TV series, which it isn't. Articles are created with very slight differences, such as plural vs singular or one cap difference, so here, where you have a pretty significant difference as one is a WikiProject and the other is a task force? I see really no issue here. If you still think someone can be confused, use a hatnote. If you feel like the whole Category:WikiProject task forces tree needs to be renamed, then go for it, do a CfD and propose a new style, but don't arbitrary pick 5 categories that are now incorrectly titled as WikiProjects, while they are task forces and are the only ones inconsistent in the TV project (and in the whole en.wiki project). That is not even close to being helpful. Also, just as a side comment, I love how you never cared that Category:WikiProject House existed for 11 years and never raised the issue how its name causes ambiguity with Category:WikiProject Home Living. --Gonnym (talk) 15:30, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

As I've pointed out on the speedy page, you're wrong about the subpage name thing. But that technicality isn't the crux of my point, which is avoiding ambiguity in category names. I'm not arguing that task forces should be called WikiProjects, I'm not saying the names should stay the same. I'm arguing that the new names should be different to the ones you have proposed, because of the ambiguity. And yes, if all the WP Television task forces need a rename then so be it. The fact that something has had the wrong name for a long time is not an argument per WP:OLDARTICLE - if I'd noticed the House thing 11 years ago, I would have got it renamed then. But one can't see everything.Le Deluge (talk) 17:11, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

I have an issue having a discussion with someone who has no idea what they are talking about. If you are going to start a full discussion about the whole en.wiki task force tree I'll probably join, but I have no interest in anything else you have to say, so please stop posting on my talk page. --Gonnym (talk) 00:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:38, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

"Outmatched"

Two pages exist with this title: "OutMatched" which is a redirect to a The Gifted (TV series) episode, and Outmatched which is a new American sitcom which is about to premiere.

Should one, or both of these, be moved?

At the least, I believe OutMatched should be moved to OutMatched (The Gifted episode) (without leaving a redirect behind), assuming that this is a WP:TWODABS situation with the new TV series article being the "primary".

Thoughts? --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, move the redirect like you said or just OutMatched (The Gifted). No reason for a redirect to be a primary. --Gonnym (talk) 20:52, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Because the TV series exists, I'd prefer OutMatched (The Gifted episode) for WP:PRECISE... OK, I'll do this now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:16, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) "episode" is only required, per WP:NCTV, "where the title is the same as an episode, character, or other element from the show which has its own page", then we "disambiguate further using Title (Show episode/character/element)". That is not the case here. So Gonnym is right with OutMatched (The Gifted). -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:20, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already moved it. If somebody wants to move it again, I won't object. But that's one part of NCTV I basically don't agree with – it should always be "([TV show] episode)" AFAIC. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation

These red categories are gumming up the list of wanted categories. Please sort them out. Rathfelder (talk) 23:09, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not working for anyone. However, "clearing out lists" is not a valid reason for removing valid redirect categorization. --Gonnym (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Red categories are not valid. They are obstructing the maintenance of the encyclopedia. And I dont see what good they do. These are not articles. They are just redirects. Clearly created by a template. Do you know who maintains the template?Rathfelder (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

That's your opinion, which contradicts hundreds of redirects at Category:Episode redirects to lists and WP:LISTRCAT. Also, specially in this case, redirects from episodes are not maintenance redirects, are listed in disambiguation pages as valid links. Good luck getting them removed. --Gonnym (talk) 23:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

• Why didnt you just say that there was a category to put them in? As its hidden I had no way of finding it. Rathfelder (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:51, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Troublesome editor

Something probably needs to be done about User:Band1301 – they're fiddling with Categories in ways that are nonsensical. As categories are more your beat, I thought I'd bring it to your attention... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:00, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

There are two places I try everything to stay out of and that's MfD and CfD. Both are full with a certain kind of editors. Just getting the old WikiProject categories converted to task force didn't even work. There seems to be some editors lately working hard on "about x" categories. I personally think the whole category system on Wikipedia is outdated and extremely bad. The fact that we even have to manually add categories instead of letting templates do that automatically astonishes me every time. Anyways, no idea what he's doing and he has too many editors for me to track. --Gonnym (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Guillem d'Areny-Plandolit

No worries regarding your revert! I hadn't seen the light yet back when I reverted it myself. Couldn't (or didn't want to) wrap my head around why it might be more beneficial to use {{in lang}} instead of {{ll}} if the end result is the same. In any case, take care! Jay D. Easy (t • c) 20:53, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Smallville location redirects

A tag has been placed on Category:Smallville location redirects requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Unhelpful auto-categorization

Hello, Gonnym. The changes you recently made to Template:Television network original programming category are automatically creating links to incorrect categories on a number of pages. For example Category:CBS original programming is being placed in Category:CBS by the template, but that category is a redirect to Category:CBS Television Network. There are other examples as well (Comcast SportsNet, DC Universe). This is a problem whenever a template assumes that a category has to exist with a particular name; sometimes, it doesn't exist, or it is a redirect to a different title. Please either (a) provide a means to specify the correct parent category and override the default, or (b) just eliminate the auto-categorization and let editors put these relatively few pages in the correct parent categories manually. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 10:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Template now supports |no_cat=. --Gonnym (talk) 10:34, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Television network original programming category

Hi, your recent edits to Template:Television network original programming category have caused problems at Category:Channel 4 television programmes; first, the opening paragraph has been altered from

This category lists shows that have regularly aired their first-run episodes on the Channel 4 schedule, in the United Kingdom. It does not list shows which first appeared on a different network.

(with two blue links) to

This category lists television programs that have regularly aired their first-run episodes on Channel 4 television programmes. It does not list programs which first appeared on a different network.

which is not just ungrammatical, it has a redlink; second, the TOC is now duplicated; third, the category is now inside itself, which should never happen; fourth, the page is now in Category:Channel 4 television series by network - which doesn't exist. Please fix the template. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Replaced the template with the original text. I'm finishing up the first batch of categories that were moved, and will get to these. The UK category has a mix of networks/channels and production companies in Category:British television series by channel which was the reason I couldn't add it to the request. --Gonnym (talk) 21:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Pax redirectorum

    I extend the olive branch.
    In more detail vai e-mail.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:00, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• Hey, no worries. Thanks for the mail :) --Gonnym (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Category:PAX Network original programming

Do you know if this category has been moved elsewhere? It's currently redlinked, but contains two entries.

PAX Network became ION Television, later on, and I have no idea if that means there should be separate categories (I assume the answer is "yes", as Category:ABC Family original programming exists despite that one becoming "Freeform" network), or not. So, assuming the answer is "yes", there should be some sort of cat for PAX Network programming.

TIA. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:15, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see it in Category:American television series by network, so it probably was never created. Category:Ion Television original programming is the category of ION. I didn't create this tree, but if it were up to me, I'd add the programs to a category that is named after the network that broadcast them at the time. That makes them the most helpful for anyone wanting to research them. --Gonnym (talk) 18:25, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

So, what needs to be done? Once the cat for PAX programming is created, I can populate it – it looks like all I need to do is change links to Ion back to links to PAX Network at the various TV series articles. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:49, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Created the category. Just replace the links now. --Gonnym (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: are you sure the name is "PAX Network"? and not "PAX" or "Pax TV"? I can't see "PAX Network" in the article. --Gonnym (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

@IJBall: double ping as the previous one probably won't work in the edit. --Gonnym (talk) 18:54, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, "PAX TV" is probably safer – I think that's what it was called back in the day, IIRC. (Whereas, USA was called "USA Network" fairly regularly at one time...) So it should probably be moved to Category:PAX TV original programming. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 18:56, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Since I created it (and can't move it), I'll just create the new one and then nominate this foe deletion. You'll need to move them manually. --Gonnym (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done – I'll try to start populating it with other shows now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, I've populated the cat as best I can. But List of programs broadcast by Ion Television is a mess, as it makes no distinction among Ion, PAX TV, and i TV (aka. i: Independent Television) – this article will need to be cleaned up, though I'm in no hurry to do so... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:42, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Inazuma Eleven: Ares (2018 TV series)

First off, I want to say you're not responsible for this mess, regardless... But why is this at "(2018 TV series)"?! There is no article at Inazuma Eleven: Ares. And even if you want to argue that the base title is somehow ambiguous (and I'm guessing someone in WP:ANIME would want to make exactly that argument...), there seems to be no reason for this not to just be at Inazuma Eleven: Ares (TV series)... Is this another example of WP:ANIME just getting things completely wrong?! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I just fixed "2018 series" to a more correct name, no idea if there is another conflicting title here. --Gonnym (talk) 07:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I couldn't find one. I'll do whatever you suggest – I can move it to Inazuma Eleven: Ares (TV series), or we can just go for it and move it to Inazuma Eleven: Ares. Just let me know... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

American

Wasn't it the English Wikipedia's convention to use "U.S." over "American" when disambiguating the title of an article? I thought the reasoning behind it was that "American" would also imply something from (or of) the whole continent of America rather than the United States. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 13:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I have no idea what article you are referring to, but if it's related to TV articles, then see this. --Gonnym (talk) 13:25, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Didn't know that. Thank you for pointing out. JSH-alive/^{talk/cont/mail} 14:59, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry for bothering you, but...

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 20:26, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

About renaming the category page from "Viacom Media Networks" to "ViacomCBS television networks"

The proposed renaming act of the category page "Viacom Media Networks" to "ViacomCBS television networks" I decide because the category page will cover ALL ViacomCBS television networks both U.S. and international markets, including the CBS network.Ridwan97 (talk) 05:26, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

• Not sure how much content there is, but it might be better if Category:ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks and Category:ViacomCBS International Media Networks are created and placed in Category:ViacomCBS. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 8 March 2020 (UTC)