User talk:AussieLegend/Archive 26

Archive 20

←

Archive 24

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

→

Archive 30

Dispute Resolution

Can you please provide your side of events here on the Stockton Beach "Mad Max" dispute that has been ongoing for years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard

Thanks! JimMarlor (talk) 11:23, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a gross misrepresentation. The discussion was active for less than 3 hours during the brief time that an editor and his various sockpuppets were disrupting the article back in early 2014 and there has been nothing for the past two years until yesterday. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:27, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

• Note that JimMarlor has been blocked as a sockpuppet of Wikitout. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:02, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

List of NCIS characters

Hi there. I am wondering if the lead is now acceptable. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 01:27, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Australian road instructions link

What do you think of my changes to the sandbox[1]? It reinstates the instructions link (and I added a couple of others) in a way that can be seen by editors, when previewing an article, without effecting what readers see – e.g. check out Template:Infobox Australian road/testcases after pushing Edit and then Show preview button - Evad37 [talk] 07:02, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:15, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Infobox mystery

Help! I set up the article for Timeless (TV series) and there's some sort of bug in the infobox I cannot seem to see. I've reverted to the redirect for now. Would you mind taking a look and see if you can find what I can't, so I can continue working on the article? Thank you!! --Drmargi (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't a big problem, you just missed "}}" at the end of the infobox.[2] --AussieLegend (✉) 01:21, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but I couldn't see where. I cut and pasted it from The Blacklist's spin-off, so I couldn't figure why it wasn't right. Now you've fixed it, I see what I did. Argh! But thank you!! --Drmargi (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

KellyJosephStimac

Aussie, I am the Producer of In the Shadows Entertainment Group LLC, my client is Gavin Kelly and the show he is on is "The Paranormal Journey:Into the Unknown" No conflict of interest here. We are producing the show along with haunted Production on Amazon Prime. I have started this page for the TV show so the viewers can follow the episode list and learn more about the cast and the crew of the Phantasmic Ghost Hunters. IMDB made mistakes and we tried to get those corrected, gave up on them. Yes, I am the Producer from In the shadows Entertainment Group LLC. Gavin Kelly is the Exec Producer, Gavin Kelly is the cinematographer...We have another IMDB with all the correction going to be up after May 20th.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyJosephStimac (talk • contribs) 00:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

@KellyJosephStimac: I'm sorry, but what you have stated demonstrates a clear conflict of interest, since you do have a relationship with the subject. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:34, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

WHO ELSE IS GOING TO WRITE ABOUT THE SHOW??? WHO ELSE KNOWS THE INS AN OUTS OF THE SHOW? THEIR MAMA? THEIR PAPA? We are the production company producing the show. Gavin Kelly is an EMPLOYEE and we have many of those...You know this is crap and I will take this to the MEDIA and EXPLOIT how WIKIPEDIA operates. Then SONY, PARAMOUNT, WARNER will drop you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KellyJosephStimac (talk • contribs) 00:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia has over 37,000 articles about television programs, all written by volunteers who do not have a conflict of interest. --AussieLegend (✉) 00:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Kate Beckett article

I asked Cyphoidbomb to semi the article for a couple weeks. That should slow the damned fan girls down. --Drmargi (talk) 04:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to an online editathon

You are invited...
	Women in Entertainment worldwide online edit-a-thon Host: Women in Red June 2016 #wikiwomeninred

--Ipigott (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list)

File:Reg Grundy 20 September 2010.jpg

This image is discussed at FFD, so I invite you there. Although you are likely uninvolved, this image is of Australian TV producer, Reg Grundy. You are Australian, so I would like your opinion on this at FFD. Be there. --George Ho (talk) 05:59, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	Thanks for the fine work you are doing cleaning up the use of the infobox Australian place. Kerry (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:02, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Upcoming television seasons

Given the WP:TVUPCOMING policy regarding additions to the series overview, is there anything like this in regards to the season ratings table? Ryan8374 (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Not really, other than WP:CRYSTAL, but adding the new rows as he has been doing is definitely inappropriate. He has been reverted by several episodes. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:14, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

New Top Gear and template

There's some funky business going on the Top Gear template. You might want to rake a peek. I'd rather stay clear given the previous behavior of one involved editor. --Drmargi (talk) 22:58, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

There are two editors that seem problematic. It isn't keeping me away. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, lets hope behaviour that appears to be close to WP:TAGTEAM can be avoided, and fruitful discussion (whatever the result) promoted in preference. —Sladen (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:50, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Years in the infobox

"Regarding this request, infoboxes are not supposed to include everything about a series. They are supposed to summarise, very briefly, the main points about a series. Anything beyond that should be addressed in the prose. There was a specific discussion about years in the infobox at Top Gear (2002 TV series) in April-July 2015. That discussion is now archived here. There was an earlier discussion by the television WikiProject here and the instructions for {{Infobox television}} reflect consensus stating "Years and/or seasons should not be included." --AussieLegend (✉) 00:40, 31 May 2016 (UTC)"

Thanks for the explanation. This got me thinking, shouldn't Andy Wilman also have no dates? Or is that a different info box? I assume the dates are allowed for "Release" section where original networks are mentioned? --February 1514 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Funnily enough, dates for crew haven't been addressed anywhere. We seem to be less strict there. Yes, dates are definitely allowed in the release section. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:47, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Mywikimediaaccount

Hi,

Please see here if you are interested. Natuur12 (talk) 07:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:49, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:48, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:PRESERVE

Hi. Friendly reminder, In re: Captain Video and His Video Rangers. I don't edit a lot of television articles, and undoubtedly you are correct, I did add that actor in the wrong way. I moved it. But do be careful of WP:PRESERVE in future. It is sourced to Variety, is credible, and information of this type (especially regarding a series about which so little is known) ought not to have been deleted when it could have been moved to a different position on the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:36, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It most certainly did not belong in a field in the infobox that was not a valid field and since there was no place for it in the infobox, I had no idea where it should go. Perhaps this whole situation could have been avoided if you had checked the infobox instructions first (you don't need to edit TV articles to know to do that), or even previewed your edit before saving. If you had previewed, you would have seen a big warning in red that said "Warning: Page using Template:Infobox television with unknown parameter "Female lead" (this message is shown only in preview)" and you could have worked out a much better place to put the information, instead of placing the article into an error category. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:29, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

About Template:Episode list

If the episode lists for the TV series in the Arrowverse can have notes about crossovers, why can't other episode lists have notes about crossovers? I feel like you have problems with my edits. --TVBuff90 (talk) 11:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @TVBuff90: Please note that there is a discussion at Talk:Arrowverse#This episode intersects with ... as to why these notes shouldn't exist. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:26, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

I think lots of people have problems with your edits. That's why you stopped using StewieBaby05.[3] You've been editing here for nearly 9 years, have made over 15,000 edits (more than some admins!) and you're still making contentious edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

You have a point. I apologize for any trouble I might have unintentionally caused. This will be my last post under this username. --TVBuff90 (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Isn't TVBuff (or whatever they're calling themselves now) a WP:SOCK violation, with them changing usernames this often? Yes, WP:VALIDALT allows for "Clean starts" but it also says there "Do not use your new account to return to topic areas, disputes, editing patterns, or behaviors previously identified as problematic" and this user has returned to the same topic areas and has been problematic as Aussie pointed out. WP:ILLEGIT also says "Misusing a clean start by switching accounts or concealing a clean start in a way that avoids scrutiny is considered a breach of this policy." Based on all this, I'm tempted to open a sock investigation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm more than a little concerned myself. Here's why:

• Drunkenpeter99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edited from 21 August 2007 to 3 September 2011
• Skywalker80100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edited from 30 August 2011 to 03:06, 15 September 2012
• StewieBaby05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edited from 08:52, 15 September 2012 to 31 March 2016
• TVBuff90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - edited from 31 March 2016

Ignoring the overlap between Drunkenpeter99 and Skywalker80100, on his userpage TVBuff90 says that he forgot the password for Skywalker80100. He may have been logged in and was logged out and then couldn't remember the password, but StewieBaby05 was created 3 minutes before Skywalker80100's last edit, so clearly he was thinking of changing anyway, so the passord seems to be an excuse. There are numerous warnings on all of the talk pages except for TVBuff90 so I think the name changes are just ways of misusing the clean start option. To his credit the talk pages for his first two accounts do have notices that they are not sockpuppets, so he wasn't hiding the links, but it still seems inappropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 20:33, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I've opened an SPI case, here. I thought that was the best place, over ANI, given that it involves multiple users/usernames. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Hunter valley wine articles

Good morning. I see you have spotted that I have been trying to sort out the NSW wine region articles. I am somewhat stuck at the Hunter Zone articles. According to the legal register of Geographical Indications, the Hunter Valley Zone consists of the entire Hunter Valley Catchment.[4] Inside that, the Hunter Region (no "Valley") includes most of the places grapes are actually grown, excluding national parks, former Mudgee Shire and City of Newcastle.[5] The Hunter Region contains three subregions, Upper Hunter Valley, Broke Fordwich and Pokolbin. There is no "Lower Hunter Valley" GI, despite it being commonly used. I'm not quite sure how descriptions of Hunter Valley (zone) and Hunter (region) should be handled in terms of their own new articles, and the existing Hunter Region (which has a redirect from Hunter Valley) and Hunter Valley wine articles, and I don't know if the Pokolbin subregion actually covers all of the area that is colloquially known as Lower Hunter Valley, or if the LHV is larger. As a near-local, are you able to help or guide? Thanks. --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:09, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hunter Region

I'll expand on this later tonight but briefly, the Hunter Region is so called because it includes areas not strictly within the Hunter "Valley" itself. The Hunter Region includes all of the Hunter River's tributaries and their own valleys. The geography of the land is such that it all appears to be the one big valley. The image to the right was taken not far from my house after the 2007 floods. The mountain range that can be seen in the distance is about 50km away from the camera, and the vineyards extend into the foothills. The right-most peak of the main range (just right of centre-image) is Brokenback, which is 592m high. Pokolbin is just to the east of Brokenback, which is pretty much just to the right of a straight line drawn from the camera to Brokenback. The wine growing area is really only a small part of the Hunter Valley, although there are vineyards along Hunter River tributaries in the north and northeastern part of the region. Geographically, the Hunter Region is broken into two main areas, neither of which is rigidly defined, although LGA boundaries are usually used. The Upper Hunter takes in the Upper Hunter Shire, Muswellbrook Shire and Singleton Council. The Lower Hunter is City of Newcastle, City of Lake Macquarie, City of Maitland, City of Cessnock and Port Stephens Council. There is a huge grey area in the middle, including parts of Singleton Council, City of Maitland and City of Cessnock that are variously seen as being either both regions, or none at all. Only parts of Dungog Shire, Gloucester Shire and Great Lakes Council are in the Hunter Region, but they are not seen to be in either region. My understanding is that Hunter Valley wine was written to include the individual regions; in fact it already includes sections on the Upper Hunter and Broke-Fordwich regions. Perhaps it would be best if those sections were expanded and the new articles redirected to the appropriate section, unless they can be expanded significantly beyond what is there now. I'd certainly include the infoboxes in the article. I think that's better than having individual stub articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:37, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I knew the current subregion stubs are way too small at present, merging them in to their parent region article is definitely a possibility. I admit that I was avoiding Hunter for as long as possible, then started the subregions as one was redlinked in the template and two redirected to towns (and one of those didn't mention wine). There are still a couple other redirects in the template that might be better cut out and developed as wine articles too.

I think High Eden is the only defined subregion in South Australia at present, so I don't have much experience with them, and Barossa zone (wine), Barossa Valley (wine) and Barossa Valley are nearly as mixed as the Hunter articles. High Eden is promoted as a premium above the "other" Eden Valley, at least locally. I haven't found the same for Broke Fordwich, and found a lot more about "lower Hunter valley" than I have found about Pokolbin, which is often only mentioned in the context that the town is a centre for tourists visiting the lower Hunter. I'd love to include maps, but I can't work out the copyright (if any) on the KML in some of the Wine Australia GI descriptions, and discovered that it takes a long time to create the boundaries myself from the text description, even using OpenStreetMap as it has most of the roads and rivers already mapped (Swan Hill wine region took about 5 hours one evening, and hasn't shown up through WIWOSM yet). --Scott Davis ^Talk 09:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

You're going to hear more about the lower Hunter because that's where most of the wine production occurs. There is a lot of tourism in the area and its an easy drive from major population centres. The upper Hunter is more of a stretch. Singleton is about the distance from me as Pokolbin is, but the last time I went to Singleton and Muswelbrook was January 2007. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I reckon that's about when I was last in the Hunter region, too (but I was in June). You have a good view from your house. It feels like the people who made the legal names and boundaries and the marketing and tourism people don't talk to each other. I'm having trouble telling whether either of them talk to the vignerons and winemakers. There are regions over here that I think I can taste the difference from one end to the other (or different soil and slope aspect), and some wineries market based on the "district" within the region. Pretty much everyone in a named region uses the region name as well though. Most of the zone names aren't used much, even by wineries that aren't in a named region (the two closest to home are in the Mount Lofty Ranges Zone, but between the Adelaide Hills and Adelaide Plains regions, and most of their grapes come from that space too). Back on topic, it seems that the Hunter Region article should actually correspond to the Hunter Valley zone GI, and the Hunter Valley wine article should be tuned to discuss the Hunter region GI. Do you know if there is a significant amount of vineyards in the lower Hunter valley that are not in the defined subregions (Pokolbin and Broke Fordwich)? Or for that matter, anywhere in the Hunter not in the three subregions (those plus Upper Hunter Valley)? It's really hard to find references that say where a vineyard is not. --Scott Davis ^Talk 13:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think it's a lack of communication, it's more one of misconception. To my understanding, the geographical indication "is a name or sign used on certain products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin". This just means that Hunter Valley wine has to come from a particular area. For example, people in Sydney can't grow their own grapes and make wine that they call "Hunter Valley wine". It doesn't affect the geographical area called the "Hunter Valley", or "Hunter Region". There is far more to the Hunter Region than wine. In fact most of the Hunter Region has nothing at all to do with wine. Most of the Hunter Valley wine is made in the Pokolbin and Broke-Fordwich areas, with more in parts of the upper valley. There are some boutique wineries around East Gresford, and to the east of Nelson Bay Road in Bobs Farm but that's pretty much it. Looking at the articles more closely, Pokolbin should really be merged into Hunter Valley wine along with the other articles. Redirects from Pokolbin wine region, Broke Fordwich wine region and Upper Hunter Valley wine region should point to the respective sections of Hunter Valley wine. Pokolbin, New South Wales should really be moved to Pokolbin (unnecessary disambiguation). The fact that these are wine regions needs to be made clear to differentiate them from the populated place articles. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Reversion of WP:NOTBROKEN

Hi AussieLegend, thank you for your enthusiastic semi-automated and manual edits. With clear reference to appropriate policies, please could you help me to understand the basis for Special:Diff/724639837. This (a) introduces confusion between concepts of year and series; (b) as a revert-of-a-revert (and no discussion opened per WP:BRD appears to be WP:EDITWAR; (c) appears to be against WP:NOTBROKEN. —Sladen (talk) 15:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The problem is with the way the sentence is presented to readers. "2016 incarnation of Top Gear" ultimately links back to the main series article, which is not specifically about the "2016 incarnation". That is misleading to readers since the article is about the 2002 incarnation as well. It is only necessary to link "Top Gear" to the main series article, not "2016 incarnation". That should be separate. Strictly speaking, linking "2016 incarnation" to Top Gear (series 23) would be OK, since that is the "2016 incarnation" but that places two bluelinks next to each other. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Justice Poster

I have made up a Chicago Justice poster using elements from NBC. I don't know if it can be used on Wikipedia, but here it is. Use it if you can.

Chicago Justice Poster

--Wmulder (talk) 18:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

This is derivative work and would have to be used under a non-free license. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I was afraid it could not be used, that's why I posted it to your talk page, not to the page it would have been on if it was ok. I don't know all the thing needed to go about a lot of things, so I'll just leave it alone. It is the nicest poster around though. (content and proportions) :) Wmulder (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

One more thing on Chicago Justice, this time nothing to do with the poster.

Matt Olmstead is listed as Creator in the article, in my opinion this is wrong. Dick Wolf got the sole credit for the pilot story, Olmstead, Brandt and Haas wrote the teleplay (as such they might get credit as Developers, won't know for sure until the series airs.)

Wmulder (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Can you give Murder of Kylie Maybury a look over and proof-read? Paul Benjamin Austin (talk) 10:28, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Sorry,for the bolding of mtv roadies(season 13).I appreciate your work on the article Sorry once again Rourib.2004 (talk) 12:25, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Jay Leno's Garage episodes

Aussie, did you redirect the episode list based on the how having only one season? The show has just started its second season, so the episode article might be timely. I was going to set up the second season table when I saw the redirect. --Drmargi (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

There's no record of a second season in the main article so I wasn't aware one had started. The editor who created the article did not provide any attribution, as is required when splitting, so that was another reason for redirecting. Although a second season may have started, there have only been 8 episodes in the first and none have episode summaries. The main article is not large at all (9kB file size and a mere 127 words of readable prose) and splitting out episodes would leave only the lead, a single paragraph and 3 references in the main article. We have articles for series' with more seasons, like Hotel Hell, Restaurant: Impossible, Hotel Impossible and Inside Amy Schumer, just to pick a few, that don't have separate articles. I don't see any real need for a separate episode list article until the main article is expanded significantly. Basically, all of the arguments we've used not to split List of Castle episodes apply to Jay Leno's Garage. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Aaaand, that's why I checked it with you first. I could see the transclusion wasn't done correctly, and though you might not have known about the new season. I'll set up S2 in the main article, and we'll take it as it comes from there. --Drmargi (talk) 01:01, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Extra parameters

Hi Aussie, saw your edits here. Any objection if I remove some of the unlikely-to-be-used parameters from the infobox or did you have a more specific reason for them to be added? Just curious. Thanks and hope your weekend is going well. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:38, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: The error checking code that was added to {{Infobox television}} in May has resulted in several hundred articles being added to Category:Pages using infobox television with unknown parameters over the past few days. Almost all have had strange errors so I've just been fixing them with AWB by updating the infobox to a full, fresh version and then going back with AWB to remove some of the more commonly unused parameters. If you see edits made by AussieLegend2, just assume that it's OK to make any edits you feel necessary, as AussieLegend2 rarely makes manual edits. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

OK thanks Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:45, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Condensing/lengthening episode summaries more efficiently

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Condensing/lengthening episode summaries more efficiently. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:28, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who Minecraft

Hello, can you do an article for my Doctor Who Minecraft animated series when I announce it please? Aidan0007 (talk) 12:19, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The user attempted to ask me the same thing at User talk:AlexTheWhovian#Doctor Who Minecraft. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I did notice that. I didn't understand it then and I still don't understand it. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:47, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

@AlexTheWhovian: I think I understand now, after having found Draft:Agents of Time (BlockMan Films Series), which I've nominated for deletion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Creating pages for his own fan-made series, I'm assuming. Sigh. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

That's what it looks like. That particular draft was created in March for a series that is "scheduled for an Unkown release date" [sic]. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:01, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Why do you hate me so much?

Seriously, I'm breaking here. I know we've never really gotten along. But give me a break here! I'm trying to be civil and explain myself. None of these edits were horrible. That stupid box IS awkward as hell, and you know it. I honestly think you're out to get me.... I seriously think if anyone else made that edit you wouldn't be putting up this fight. I want this shit to end! I'm sick of feuding.... if you want to talk out our issues likes adults I'd be willing to do so. Grapesoda22 (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even trying to be a dick. I'm not thinking to clearly today in general. But you can't deny we've a less the perfect history with each-other and we keep crossing paths. This animosity needs to end. Grapesoda22 (talk) 01:14, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

There is no other way to say this - stop being a drama queen. I don't hate you, nor have I ever implied that I did. You're being more than paranoid here. If there was ever any feuding, I wasn't aware of it. That's all you. The box was added for a specific reason when an admin had to split the page for technical reasons. Unfortunately many editors simply do not understand the technical issues that required the split, or how the split was even achieved. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:59, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Fine, I admit I'm paranoid. I that way in real life to so don't take it to personally. I understand that our hands are tied and the page had to split. I'm saying I feel the box doesn't look visually appealing. It seems awkward and out of place. Other shows with a massive amount of episodes don't use boxes like that (one example of many). I don't understand why we can't just have a hidden disclaimer like the one I said. It gets the same message across to people who want to change it back. The average non-editing reader won't know what that means and it potentially lead to conclusion. Grapesoda22 (talk) 02:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

List of The Simpsons episodes had to be split because it was breaking the post-expand include size. There is less than a handful of similar pages on Wikipedia with this problem. The example that you provided is not at all like List of The Simpsons episodes. It transcludes only a navbox, has absolutely no episodes on it and its post-expand include size is a mere 20kB, wich is not even close to List of The Simpsons episodes' 2MB+. List of The Simpsons episodes (seasons 1–20) is not a separate season page like The Simpsons (season 1) or any other season article, which is the way that you're treating it. It's effectively a "cache page" of List of The Simpsons episodes, holding data that cannnot physically be added to that page without breaking it, badly. For all intents and purposes it is part of List of The Simpsons episodes, which is why it was originally created at List of The Simpsons episodes*.

I feel the box doesn't look visually appealing - "I don't like it" is rarely a reason to change content, especially when we are tring to avoid technical problems. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:41, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm a terrible person, I wish I was never born. Grapesoda22 (talk) 20:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps if you stopped persistently making inappropriate edits like this you might feel better. I had already fixed that once, with a clear reference to WP:TVUPCOMING in the edit summary.[6] You've been around long enough to know that you should read edit summaries and that MOS:TV exists. Since you edit a lot of TV articles you really need to read the MOS. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Granularity edits

Please be careful when implementing granularity edits when AWB. None of the Doctor Who series articles link to each other now with prev/next (I have a feeling that there's more shows that are now like this too), and a lot of empty parameters were added. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm making two passes over each article, one to update the infobox and the other to remove the extraneous parameters. It was the easiest way to fix the 1,600 articles in Category:Pages using infobox television season with unknown parameters given the vast differences in errors. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Alright. I'll fix the pages in question after you've been over them with the second pass. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I mean, you didn't need to revert them... I was in the middle of fixing the series pages. And the season pages were fine, I believe. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I found a bug in my process that needs to be fixed and tested. It's easier to just do those articles again instead of expecting somebody else to do it. Sorry for the inconvenience. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

No problems. I've fixed the series articles anyways; it'd been on my ToDo list for a while. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Infobox television season cleanup

Hi AussieLegend, thought I should ping you about the cleanup about |italic_title=no. See Special:Diff/728647962 and Special:Diff/708384895/728144917 for what I mean. I reintroduced the deleted param, which was needed to avoid a DISPLAYTITLE conflict. Your AWB changes have been putting pages in Category:Pages with DISPLAYTITLE conflicts when you remove the param, which I've been fixing. Just an FYI. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Just to elaborate, the problem seems to be only when there exists |italic_title=no and a DISPLAYTITLE that overrides the default one provided by the infobox, and the scenario is only a problem when there are two sets of parentheses in the title, such as Dallas (1978 TV series) (season 9). So actually, sorry to have bothered you a bit here. I don't mind doing the cleanup if your AWB script doesn't cover the scenario. But just an FYI anyway. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for letting me know. No, my AWB didn't pick that up. There have been so many different errors in the articles that I've been fixing; I guess I didn't check for that because it's not normally necessaryto use DISPLAYTITLE. I haven't got many articles left to do and I'll check that cat. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:47, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Raising the Bar (film)

I know you are Australian, so perhaps you could help me at Draft:Raising the Bar (film). I can't seem to find explicit confirmation of this anywhere, but this seems to be either a television film or a direct-to-video film. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:15, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Paterson

We have never, ever, ever waited until seats are declared for this kind of thing, in any state or federal election, ever. Her term has started, the seat is not in doubt, changes have been rolled out across the rest of Australia all week. Frickeg (talk) 06:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The AEC has not declared any seats as of yet, due to the uncertainty in the counts. Until such time as a seat is declared, it is not verifiable that a person has been elected. Candidates do not become MPs until such time as they are sworn in. If the AEC cannnot determine results at this time, then neither can we. To change articles now is a violation of WP:V, which is a core policy. Doing something improperly in the past is not an excuse for doing it improperly again. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:54, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you are absolutely wrong. Their terms all began on Saturday (see the parliamentary handbook or literally any MP profile ever). Some of them we don't know exactly whose term it was, but that doesn't change this fundamental fact. It is obviously verifiable in that the ABC, literally every newspaper, and so on, are calling seats. I will be raising this at WP:AWNB, and frankly good luck getting a single person to support you. I take extremely poorly to being templated, by the way, and ignored the initial note because I didn't dream that a person of your experience would not know the basic things above. Frickeg (talk) 06:59, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

The seat has not been declared. Until that happens nobody has started a term. You can't start a term until such time as a winner has been declared. Please use some common sense here. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

See here. Frickeg (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Date ranges: MOS:DOB: "In tables and lists, consider using a single format (either YYYY–YYYY or YYYY–YY) consistently in any given column, both for aesthetic reasons and to ensure that data sorts properly." This is used consistently in literally thousands of other pages, and it looks far better. Again, if you want it changed, please seek consensus. Frickeg (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

it looks far better - That's your personal opinion only. It doesn't count as consensus. Note that MOS:DOB says "consider using", not "use at all costs" and "consistently in any given column". That's merely a guide so we don't chop and change between the two formats in a column. We normally use shortened forms in tables or when there is a space limitation. One of those definitely applies here. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:30, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm positive there is a previous discussion about this somewhere, but you'll have to give me some time to find it. Yes, it is my personal opinion, but it's also the standard across tens of thousands of Australian electoral pages (not a call I made, btw - actually before my time!) - and also, as best as I can tell, across every other country's pages as well. Frickeg (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's us six (!) years ago; not exactly a wide-ranging discussion, but 3-1 for full dates. Also another discussion talking about these kinds of tables that touches on it tangentially. (Also, "we normally use ... in tables" - evidence please.) Frickeg (talk) 12:13, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

A 6 year old discussion about a different part of the MOS is not really relevant, and the MOS has gone through several changes since then. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:23, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

As I've said many times, full years is the standard. Any changes will have to seek consensus. Frickeg (talk) 00:11, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The MOS says 2 digits. I refer you to WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:31, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

The MOS also says "usually", and gives a specific exception regarding tables that applies. I also note the current discussion (which I see you've participated in) in which the consensus is leaning heavily towards full dates. Either way, the MOS does not specifically refer to terms of this nature, and I have been editing in this area for almost a decade and have never seen the abbreviated date ranges anywhere, for any country, except when you have tried to introduce them. Please don't try to make your local seat some kind of exception to project-wide practice. Frickeg (talk) 05:00, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Just because you haven't see something in the area that you edit doesn't mean that it isn't done widely throughout the rest of Wikipedia. Why else do you think the discussion was started at VPP? I have seen it a lot and I've been editing for over a decade. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:54, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

OK - but I've been around the traps too, you know. And what I'm saying is that I've never seen XXXX-XX used to represent an MP's term in a table (except when you do it), and I edit almost entirely in that area, so give me some credit please, and for the love of god stop treating me like a newbie. Frickeg (talk) 11:19, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

That still doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. As for being treated like a newbie, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I deal with newbies a lot and, to be brutally honest, many of your arguments are exactly the sort of arguments that I see from them. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:24, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

All I'm asking, ultimately, is that if you want them in the XXXX-XX forum then please raise it at WT:AUP or somewhere and sort it out for the whole lot rather than trying to apply it just to Paterson. Obviously I would make the case against there as well but at least we would get more voices. I, and others, have spent years getting these tables consistent (an ongoing task), and the MOS as it currently stands clearly allows the XXXX-XXXX format in tables, which is, as I have said, the norm (of course events may overtake us here). (I noticed the first seat got declared yesterday, too, for what it's worth! :) )

As for being treated like a newbie, I understand it probably wasn't your intention, but if I went to an area you edit regularly and basically ignored everything you said and insisted on citing a widely ignored and disputed, not to mention unclear, MOS guideline for my changes (but only on this one page I cared about, you understand - also kind of newbie behaviour yourself there, one might say!), I suspect you might be a bit put out too. Frickeg (talk) 01:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Vegemite

It's better to discuss changes in an article in the talk page about that article, not on the talk page of editors, so that others can see and/or comment. I've moved your Miley Cyrus comment to Vegemite's talk page and will respond. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:26, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

My comment wasn't meant to generate a discussion, I was just making comment on your edit summary. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:34, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

A request

Hi, AussieLegend. I was hoping not to have to put you on the spot on this, but would you be willing to revert AlexTheWhovian at Legendary Dudas, as he seems unwilling to listen to reason and follow guidelines? I understand if you don't want to get in the middle of this, but I'd really appreciate (and I'll owe you one!). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 02:34, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Top Gear; A-Z Numbering

Can I just ask why we need these special episodes to have numbering on them? I checked through all the series of Top Gear, and found some specials were not numbered as such.

If somebody wants to link to an episode, the link is formatted as [[<article name>#ep<EpisodeNumber>|<Article title>]]. For example, to link to "From A-Z Part 1" the correct link is [[List of Top Gear episodes#ep177|From A-Z Part 1]]. |EpisodeNumber= has to be unique and normally should be sequential, while |EpisodeNumber2= can be anything. If you don't include an episode number, the episode can't be linked to without including unnecesary anchors. Using sequential numbers allows readers to quickly determine how many episodes have been aired. i.e. there is no need to count them. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:55, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Okay, I can understand the reasoning, but I find it odd that a two part special, which could be considered a pair of compilation episodes, should get numbered as "177" & "178" respectively, when other compilation episodes from other series in the show (i.e. Series 2) don't use numbering at all.

On two separate subjects -

• 1. Sorry if I changed the episode table template, and also I respect your view on the two-part specials layout in the table. I wasn't sure about it, but thank you for voicing what you felt about it. I got the summaries put back in, along with remarking the "Reviews" and "Guests" section of these special back to "N/A".
• 2. Can I ask why the notes for Series 23 were unnecessary exactly? I just wish to know a specific reason, other than that.

Strictly speaking, |ShortSummary= is for a summary of the episode content. Notes such as who first appeared and when they did belong in the prose before the episode table. Also, when a note is appropriate, it's customary to only emphasise the leading "Note", not the whole note. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:11, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Can you show me how to do the note of first appearances and final appearance for presenters into the prose before the episode table, please? Or is the prose the lead paragraph? I may have to make some corrections with articles Top Gear (series 1) and Top Gear (series 2) as a result.

And also, Top Gear: From A-Z is a two part compilation special, right? Now, the thing I find odd is that for a number of series, some have had a "Best of Top Gear" compilation episode(s) that have either covered the series, or covered the series and those that preceded it, but all of these are not numbered (an example of this is the article "Top Gear (series 7)). My question is - What makes Top Gear: From A-Z unique from these to have numbering to it? Also, I know that this two part special was not part of Series 22, but they did air in the same year, so could it be in the article under the section "Special Episodes"?

@AussieLegend: Oh, BTW! I'd like to point out that Clarkson's final appearance was not Series 22, Episode 7; that was his final appearance in the studio. His official, final appearance was in Episode 8 with the two films they put into that episode. GUtt01 (talk) 14:37, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Looking at it again, we can probably include the notes in series 23 after all. Correct formatting is: Note: This is the first appearance of <insert name> as a presenter. "Top Gear: From A-Z" was a special compilation looking back on ALL 22 series. However, it wasn't part of series 22 so it shouldn't be in the same article. That is why it is on its own in the main episode list. Anything in the main episode list should have a number. The compilation episodes in series articles don't appear in the main episode list, but they should have episode numbers. All of these articles used to use a different format. See, for example, this version of the series 7 article. An editor went through all of the articles in 2013 and converted them to use {{Episode list}} but, while his intentions were good, he did leave a bit of a mess that has never been fixed. As for Jeremy Clarkson, he didn't appear in episode 8 as a presenter. He appeared only in footage. The only presenters were Hammond and May. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:43, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Responses to each bit follows:

• 1. Ah, I see. That tq part - Does it set the writing in that colour? I will use that formatting with the "Notes", just if the text colour was something that can be seen clearly on the white background.
• 2. With what you said about the numbering and such, I suggest we merged those separate parts into the main episode list, and get them renumbered as such (i.e. A series of compilation episodes could, for example, be given the total numbering to that point, and then a special numbering to separate it from the main series run like "S7C1" where S7 is the Series No. and C1 is the number for the first compilation episode) - what do you think?). But I can suggest that the spin-off specials (i.e. "50 Years of Bond Cars" be kept separate from the merging? I think the "Red Nose Day 2007" special was just a segment for the Comic Relief special that year, so I wonder if it can just be deleted, or something else done with it?
• 3. I think the episode table layout looks fine as it is now, as I'm not sure if we should change it around for now.
• 4. I can't be sure about that. Maybe throw it up for debate on Top Gear's main article talk page and see what people think. Be best to see if they agree on that.

On a side note: Do the Short Sums for the episodes look better without the extensive details of each segment featured and what effectively happened in them? I felt that the amount was too much, so took it upon myself to rewrite the sums to give a brief overlay of each episode, but retain some bits of info if notable. I felt some sections of info were inaccurate, and others provided too much detail (lap times, for example, are already listed elsewhere), and that the opinions of the presenters on cars did not sound neutral.GUtt01 (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

1. {{tq}} is a template that does indeed add the colour.

2. You would need to bring this up at the main series article. I believe there was consensus not to include these episode. MythBusters episodes presented a similar problem with numbering that was resolved by numbering the episodes as SP1-SPx.

Regarding the episode summaries, MythBusters summaries were long too, but we chose a different format for describing episodes. See MythBusters (2015 season) for an example. I note that your episode summaries end in an ellipsis for some reason. May I ask why you did that? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: I just tried out merging the two separate tables, but a part of me didn't like it, so I reverted the decision. I may just go through the articles and just redo the numbering, while marking the Compilation Episodes second episode no. as "CE" for "Compilation Episode". Also, can you show how to do that template to do a different colour; grey is just not a bold colour on the white background. Oh, and when you were redoing the templates on some of the Series Articles, did you delete the Viewing Figures for the articles "Series 14" to "Series 20", because the whole column for the episode tables in these reads now "N/A", while the refnotes for 14 to 19 are now gone and don't state the figures for BBC HD and BBC Two that made their overall total.GUtt01 (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Damn! It appears that somebody was using |Aux4= for viewer figures instead of |Viewers=. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:44, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: What me to reinstate that info for you? GUtt01 (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind, that would be great. I have to do something else and was going to have to leave it for a few hours. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:49, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Alright. I'll get on it. Should be an easy fix to do.GUtt01 (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

RE: Sygna1974.jpg

It is a very good image indeed, I found it while searching through my father's album and decided to scan and upload it as it is in very good condition. The album does have another photo that is focusing on the stern of the ship, however it is also taken on Stockton Beach. I don't have any photos that were taken at Salamander Bay. I don't write on talk pages much so please excuse my etiquette. Yourock17 (talk) 11:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The article for Bad Girls Club (season 16)

The article for Bad Girls Club (season 16) needs to be semi protected please.

Wavyshorde (talk) 20:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC) wavyshorde

NCIS (TV series)

Hi there. From what I was told that twitter is not a reliable source. Just because someone tweets something, it may not come true. So is it okay to use it here or not? - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 02:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Scorpion edit warring along with Merrik

How was i clearly edit warring, all I did was try to change some things because it didn't made sense, but because of a previous scuffle, you come back at me with this attitude saying I was edit warring? I'm sorry but clearly edit warring happens If i continue reverting it minutes to hours for no end at any user, but did I edit warring for the last hour no I did not. Lastly Why remove Merrik's fate if you honestly don't care about it sure he was not important as Megan but seriously removing a character final fate regardless if they are important of un-important just takes away from their whereabouts, and pretend their deaths never happened. I could talk all day but personally enough is enough and I got one final saying to you: My Message.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Repeatedly reverting another editor is edit-warring. It doesn't matter if you do it over a period of minutes or days. We actually have a bright-line rule, the three-revert rule that prevents more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. You made edits, they were reverted and now you need to discuss them. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:46, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Category:Top Gear presenters has been nominated for discussion

Category:Top Gear presenters, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 15:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --HamedH94 (talk) 05:10, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Considering you stated that you're not watching the DR/N page and expressed that other editors should be also involved in the discussion, I thought I should note that three other editors have, at least, made opening statements. As always, your participation is voluntary, and I wish you well! ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 17:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aussie, I'm interested in chiming in at this DRN thingy, but I can't figure out a logical place to comment since I wasn't involved in the original dispute. Should I just wait till an RfC or something? Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 03:06, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been in a new housing estate where internet access is almost non-existent. I'm not sure of the process but the person who opened the DRN seems happy to add anyone. Since nobody has responded to you, other than him, I'd just do what he said. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:13, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Pushing your agenda.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The act says under what conditions is compulsory, if you read past the lie on the abs website it then goes on to say about them requiring you to do it. Why you so keen to pretend its compulsory? Whats your agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by A12bc34be5 (talk • contribs) 08:40, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

As explained at the now protected article's talk page, you've misunderstood the legislation. Please discuss there and do not accuse me of having an agenda. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

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

List of Casualty Episodes - Recent Edits

Can I just say thank you for arranging this, as I didn't know when this would be sorted. Never expected it to be done so quickly. Would it be possible that the two parts be labelled as (Part 1) and (Part 2), with a sort of segment that says, "For Series 1 - 20, proceed here" (and vice versa) sort of thing at the top of the articles? GUtt01 (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

There are various technical issues that have to be taken into account. There are links in both articles to the other to enable access to all of the seasons. Effectively it's all just one article, the second one shouldn't even need editing because really, it's just a cache for the first. There's a more detailed explanation on the talk page of the second article. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:28, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: Alright. I took a look, and I can understand from what I read. Thank you again for fixing this. I just felt it looked awful at the bottom of that list seeing "Template:Episode List" repeated in a single line, and that the reference info and info on Specials couldn't display. GUtt01 (talk) 15:33, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Why cant you admit your wrong about the census

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Admins sticking up for their friends/admins personal opinion EVEN AFTER YOU READ THE ACTUAL LAW is why wiki is a joke, inaccurate and based of pushing a view. GG--A12bc34be5 (talk) 06:40, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) @A12bc34be5: Discontinue accusing editors of bias when they're simply trying to interpret sources. Clearly the census is compulsory if there is a "legal obligation to do so". That discussion is taking place on the respective talk page and you'd do well to keep your conversation there. Obviously, you're not here to build an encyclopedia so don't be surprised if your behavior results in a block. Chris Troutman (talk) 06:50, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

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

Circular and pointless discussions, right?

I can concur so heavily with your comment here; I'm currently dealing with the same on this talk page with a similar editor and their circular discussions. (TL;DR: Doctor Who groups episodes by story numbers and doesn't list them under individual episode numbers like every other series, and the discussion is determining whether the most recent episodes are multi- or singular-episode stories.) This is even after two other discussions (1,2) of the same topic that failed to get a consensus, and they created new discussions for the same topic twice more (1,2) before the current discussion. It's doing my head in. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:08, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I don't completely understand the Doctor Who episode numbering system, but I do appreciate that it is somewhat unique. Unfortunately, I find that a lot of editors don't want to make the effort to understand what they are discussing, and instead make decisions based on what they have seen elsewhere, whether it applies to the current situation or not. As a result, more and more ridiculous discussions happen today compared to a few years ago, not just TV, but everywhere else as well. While some of us are willing to learn, others are not. There are times I've just wanted to throw it all in. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:31, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

I did start a discussion sometime back, suggesting to change the numbering system to conform to every other series and list them by their actual episode numbers, but it failed to gain consensus. I mean, issues with story numbers wouldn't be an issue anymore. I've had thoughts of just dropping it; it's just too much stress from editors who won't accept any other opinion. In the current discussion, the editor at hand stated that we (the editors opposing him) should only use sources that explicitly state our opinions, but he himself only just posted a source that only vaguely covers their opinion and has extrapolated off of it into OR to fit their own situation. It's ridiculous. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:39, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

Begusarai Edits

Hi AussieLegend, I have reverted the Begusarai page to original substantiated facts. I am a part of the Team that worked on Begusarai, right till the very end. Every fact put into the page is cross checked and true. If you have any inputs that we are not aware of please let it be discussed. You are putting in actor's names who had been let go from the series a long time ago and you are also removing written fact. Please do indicate which fact you are not in agreement with and we shall try and convince you otherwise. Please understand that no claims or hypothetical stuff has been made on the page and thus it is based only on solid facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeasayer (talk • contribs) 14:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@Yeasayer: - I haven't put in anything. I have been reverting edits that have not been adequately explained, and which keep putting the article into an error category, as well as introducing and reintroducing errors. I have had to fix the infobox in Begusarai (TV series) several times now because irresponsible editing has resulted in damage to the infobox, and other parts of the aticle, which has still not been explained. I see that Sro23 has attempted to do the same, and you have been edit-warring as a result. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend: The fact is that you may be technically right in all that you say and I will certainly bow to your superior knowledge of the Wiki editing system, but the fact remains that you guys are irresponsibly subverting the facts when it comes to making assertions and presenting the page. The fact that you people are adding an actress called Shivangi to the main title cast is wrong, she was let go by Swastik Productions months before the Show ended. This is just one.

If you are so good at it why don't you guide me to make a better page instead of subverting the facts by reverting and/or just plain threatening me. Thanks and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yeasayer (talk • contribs) 14:28, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Talk page stalking, but from what I can tell, you're upset that editors are readding cast members who were on the show at one point but were "let go" before the series ended? In that case, if they were on the show or even main cast at any point in time, according to the Manual of Style for Television articles, the article must The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list. Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series. Also, based on comments you've made that you are part of the production team, I recommend you review guidelines on conflicts on interests. As someone personally involved with the work, it is recommended you not edit the page directly and instead go to the article's talk page to suggest the changes you wish to have made, and include all reliable sources (that means, not your own personal knowledge) and rationale as to why it should be changed. The talk page does already have a section asking for your rationale. The editors involved ared trying to improve the page. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:41, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Such edits are not irresponsible when what appears to be vandalism is seen in the article. Edits being made by IPs in the article have reverted corrections that have been made to the article in order to make the article comply with the Manual of Style. This edit, which claimed to be Reverting back to old page because of repeated vandalism and changing of Cast did not revert to an old version. Instead it reintroduced multiple errors that had already been fixed multiple times.

(ec)The fact that you people are adding an actress called Shivangi to the main title cast is wrong, she was let go by Swastik Productions months before the Show ended. As I said, I was reverting edits that looked like vandalism. A check of the article history shows that Shivangi Joshi was part of the main cast at one stage. Per WP:TVCAST, "Articles should reflect the entire history of a series, and as such actors remain on the list even after their departure from the series." She should never have been removed from the infobox at all. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:51, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi @TenTonParasol and @AussieLegend, I have read up on your comments and hopefully understand what you both are saying to me. I really apologize in case I have offended you both in any manner, or anyone else too. I will try and function within the guidelines but would really request you to be aware of the facts before making factual changes. With regard to original broadcast credits, I would like to bring to your attention that there have never been broadcast credits on this show for actors. In case you were to check any episode you will realize that the only credits ever shown were for the technical, creative, directorial and production teams. No actors were credited. Anyway, please do instruct on how to make it better. Additionally with regards to these pages on wiki, I am part of the teams on at least a hundred or more pages in a fairly good capacity and uniquely positioned to know all the facts, I just find that sometimes funnily incorrect information is put on the pages, which basically stems from the rumours that go with this business. Sorry once again.Yeasayer (talk) 15:06, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Only actors credited as being in the series should be included in the cast listings. Only actors credited as starring should be in the infobox, and both the infobox and the cast lists in the body of the article should be in the same order as in the infobox. There should be no "former" cast section at all. I note that even the website doesn't list the cast,[7] so it would seem there should be no cast list at all until reliable sources can be found to support the cast listings. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

@AussieLegend, how would one do that, would you like copies of their contracts? This is the current way of doing things in India. Even though all the actors have solid contracts and belong to a very solid union called CINTAA. The actor's names are not being mentioned in all the broadcast credits, this is a serious issue with the Unions in India and is coming up for hearing. Does this mean that no-one has acted in these shows? You eventually only see actors and nothing else, so it is difficult to state their non-existence. There is one way that you can see the names of all the original cast. It is online, but a little tedious. In case you like, I will inform you of the method. You will get exact names of the cast but it is tedious and will be time consuming.Yeasayer (talk) 17:01, 5 August 2016 (UTC).

By the way, almost all the Satellite channels broadcasting in India refrain from giving broadcast credits to actors. So this will mean eliminating names of actors across all the TV shows currently running in India, with pages on Wikipedia!

Every article on Wikipedia has to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is a core policy. No country gets special dispensation to ignore it. If the names aren't broadcast, how do you know who these actors are? There must be some source that you can use to add citations. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:37, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Might I impose...?

Hi Aussie, hope all is well with you. Might I please impose upon you to answer this guy's query at WT:TV? Short story, he's created a few standalone articles for TV episodes like CID Vs Adaalat – Karmyudh and CID Viruddh Adaalat. (See also this brief conversation on his talk page with a few more examples). My initial concern was that he was creating episode articles that might not be independently notable, and I think I've come down on him a bunch recently, so I was hoping for another voice to explain stuff to him so it's not just that tyrant Cbomb. If you have some time to look through some of these and figure out whether they're okay, I'd consider it a favor. If not, no biggie... Thanks sir! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:44, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

It took a while, but I got to it in the end. India seems to be a bit of a problem, with few reliable sources for TV programs, including cast information (see the section above). --AussieLegend (✉) 15:36, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Very much appreciated, thank you, A! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Caerphilly

Hey also, saw this and other changes at Grossology. The guy you were cleaning up after is an LTA. Please note these reversions. I haven't done an LTA on him, but I say if you see sketchy edits from Caerphilly, UK; ISP BT, fill a didgeridoo with petrol, cram it up his edit history, and ignite. (Or just revert, if my colorful metaphors were not clear...) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:52, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Constance (Meemaw)

We should put Constance somewhere. I wasn't thinking, because it's habit to use the real name first.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 16:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite reasonable that her real name should be mentioned, as it was referred to once or twice. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice of discussions regarding updates to MOS:TV

This is just a notification to a series of discussions that are taking place regarding updates to MOS:TV, given you participated in the discussion and/or expressed interest in the discussion seen here. You can find more information about the initiative and the discussions, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:36, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom case request about TRM

You were definitely involved in this, I invite you to discuss The Rambling Man at ArbCom. --George Ho (talk) 08:32, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

List of Mock the Week episodes - Need help

I may need your input on this article. Myself and another user, Cwmxii, have gotten into a dispute about what version of List of Mock the Week episodes - the current version, one that removes certain information from it. I have gotten myself put forward for edit warring, something I'm ashamed to have done because I let my anger at seeing the user revert what I thought was perfectly legitimate reason for my revision of the article (check its history). They state that there should be consensus on this, but I don't know what that will achieve.

See the info I removed was on the Scoring System on the show - This information listed wins by the show's "Team Captains", a format I dispute because the show does not imply itself to be a serious competition, and no performer taking the centre seat of each team is referred to as winner. Furthermore, there are no actual points given out, since the host declares who wins a round by simply stating "The points go to <performers of this team>", and then the winner is picked by him as being, "The winners today are <names of each performer in the team he points out>". This also included the removal of the colour backgrounds on the tables, that correlated to the wins made by each team or the draws they had. I believed that the list detailing the set up of episodes via the guest performers that appeared, would be sufficient, because its notable.

Could you please look into this for me? I'm rather ashamed of myself at the moment for starting an edit war with this user. GUtt01 (talk) 17:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Infobox Television Episode

Do you have any idea why on the infobox mentioned above, there is no space for starring actors, only for guest actors? TedEdwards (talk) 21:45, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I think the answer to this question was best answered here. The stars of a series don't change from episode to episode, but guests are specific to episodes. Individual episode articles don't need to repeat the full series details, or even single season details. That would be extremely redundant. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

MOSTV updates

Hey Aussie. I'm sure you're aware of the discussions going on, but I just wanted to let you know now that we are close to a consensus for changes to the first section, Naming conventions. In case you weren't following the happenings, just wanted to make sure you'd have a chance to comment, if you chose, before we implemented the changes. You can find all the info, here. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:28, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Changes to Stockton Beach

Hi Aussie

I see you reverted the facebook and gofundme references from [8] I understand that facebook and gofundme are not RS on matters of content, but aren't they evidence of public opposition? WP:RS does say "Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves", so I would consider them relevant.

Thanks peterl (talk) 10:16, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Sources are not simply evidence. They need to make clear statements. The article on "John Smith" might say "Born July 24, 1986" and johnsmith.com can be used as a source if it says that John Smith was born on July 24, 1986, but it couldn't be used to support the claim that John Smith likes cheese if it simply has a "Cheeses for sale" section. The facebook page can only be used as a source that the page owner opposes sand mining. The gofundme page can only be used to support a claim that 7 people have donated money to the site in 21 months. Any other use would constitute WP:SYNTH. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:46, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Category:Top Gear people has been nominated for discussion

Category:Top Gear people, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:06, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Table colorations from DVD boxes

Aussie, has there been any meaningful discussion of table colorations being based on DVD box colors? I find that utter nonsense, and in the case of a show like Person of Interest, there similar dark colors make differentiation from season to season hard for screen readers, and thereby not 508 compliant. I just reverted box-based changes on POI, but would like to get a large dialogue going if it hasn't begun already. --Drmargi (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Drmargi: Season colors should be based on a distinctive color from the season's DVD box art, per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Television#Formatting. If a series has similar cover art for the seasons, then a separate discussion should be held to discuss the colors in use. So the change at POI was not wrong. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:58, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I was involved in this, I want to comment. Like Favre said, choosing colors based on DVD artwork is right in MOS:TV and has been convention for picking colors for the longest I can remember. When LLArrow made the initial change, I asked him on his talk page if I could tweak the colors, because the contrast with the first three seasons was very minimal. Comparing the newest colors to the previous colors, there's not that much of a difference. A red, yellow, and grey/blue are still being used (just for different seasons to better the respective DVD covers), while the light blue and green have been swapped out for black and a dark-ish blue. All colors are compliant per WP:COLOR. Drovethrughosts (talk) 15:02, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Given that the average bear will never see the DVD boxes, they're an idiotic standard for coloration, frankly. I find a tiny cabal gets together, makes these decisions and forces them on the larger community, despite the fact that there have been numerous discussions that have reiterated that the various projects do not have absolute jurisdiction over articles they claim. While Project Television does some important work, MOS-TV isn't rules, it's series of guidelines, again enforced by a tiny cabal, and in this case do not work. Part of making color accessible to people with visual impairments and screen readers is contrast (print-on-color), which Alex the Whovian and others have worked on diligently, and part of it is color-proximity contrast (how any given color contrasts with adjoining colors). For some time, the table was in highly contrasting colors easily read by a screen reader. Now, they're far too similar. As such, they are in violation of U.S. P.L. 93-112, Section 508. Wikimedia Foundation is incorporated in the State of California and the County of San Francisco, and as such, must comply with U.S. federal accessibility laws (i.e. P.L. 93-112 and the Americans with Disabilities Act.) That's why I made the revert I did. So, your DVD box standard simply cannot supersede the laws of the state and country in which Wikipedia is based. And right now, the Person of Interest episodes page does. --Drmargi (talk) 15:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The reason for choosing colors based on DVD artwork (or sometimes poster artwork) is because that's usually the image in the infobox, so it makes sense to base the color of an image in the article. Of course, there are not season articles for POI, but the same reasoning applies here. I can see how maybe the colors for seasons 1 and 2 might need more contrast between each other (black vs. dark blue), but beyond that, it's not really that different from what the previous colors were. The other colors (red, yellow, and gray) are all very different from each other. Again, all the colors are compliant per Snook.ca listed in WP:COLOR. Like I said, I can tweak the season 2 color for more contrast. Drovethrughosts (talk) 17:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Problems with another user

I'm having problems with another user on Talk:The Bachelor (season 21) and I was hoping you could help me with it. The users name is Starbucks6789. After both of us reverting each others edits back and forth, I went to the talk page and I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Could you please help resolve the discussion? 74thClarkBarHG (talk) 06:52, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I know the editor well. --AussieLegend (✉) 10:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Question about "Template:Exchange_rate"

Hi there, someone from IRC support got me your contact https://www.dropbox.com/s/0csp72vuhoj3ckj/2016-09-28_11-13-04.png?dl=0. I made few edits for currency.wiki (contributed on 17:29, 11 March 2015‎) to fix the conversion syntax here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Exchange_rate&action=history (Tomdavis1) and unfortunately someone made a spam related to transfaremate and/or transferwise and remove my edits as well. I notice it is protected and need your help.

Thank you! Tomdavis1 (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Small poke

Just want you to know that a few small changes will be implement to MOS:TV, based on the most recent rewrite discussion, in case you would like to voice any opinions regarding them before they are implemented. Once those are done, the next section to cover will be the first "Image" section, with the first "Lead" section and everyone's favorite topic, "Plot", on deck. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Naagini (Tamil TV series)

Articles edited or created by User:Tsukuyo-yomi contain plot summary copyvios and they are generally duplicate articles.

• Naagini (Tamil TV series) ➔ Naagin (2015 TV series)
• Mann Vasanai (TV Series) ➔ Mann Vasanai (TV series) ➔ Balika Vadhu

Some have been nominated for deletion through Wikipedia:Articles for deletion in past, and recreated. I can't nominate them for AfD unfortunately, and I won't be taking action myself. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 11:05, 1 October 2016 (UTC)