User talk:Alex 21/Archive 10

Overlinking in templates

There is really no need to link "Doctor Who" in all the navboxes... Every article already has that as the first link. Would you mind undoing those? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

There were templates with Doctor Who already linked, so I thought that it should be all or none. If you're viewing the template by itself, there would be no link to Doctor Who. And Doctor Who isn't necessarily always the first link, but that's beside the point. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

They're navboxes; they don't need links by themselves. But inside the contect of an article, they are completely redundant unnecessary. I'll remove them myself then. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with both of the above, and find them to not be solid reasons to not include them. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:54, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please review WP:OVERLINKING; in templates where everything is already linked, we simply do not need more redundant links. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:07, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Pardon me for butting in, but can somebody please point me to these templates? --AussieLegend (✉) 17:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

AussieLegend, see Category:Doctor Who navigational boxes. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 19:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll have a look. --AussieLegend (✉) 19:03, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

@Edokter: Then why are links such as Ood and The Master required in these navboxes (for example), when they'll only be included on pages to do with the Ood and The Master where such links will already exist? Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:15, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Who/what says they're "required"? If those links are redundant on the pages they appear on, then they can be removed as well. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:34, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. If the navbox has a header, and there is an article that relates to the header, then the header should be linked to said article. Is there a policy (not guideline) that clearly states otherwise? Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:08, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Inferno (2016 film) edit

When I removed the exaggerating and useless phrases, I assumed the edit was uncontroversial. However, presented with the alternative, I now am curious why you reverted the edit. Cheers. Fdssdf (talk) 01:01, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

How is it an exaggeration? It is almost a year. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:03, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

It's both an exaggeration and an ambiguous construct. It's ambiguous because just how far from 12 months can something be "about" a year away? Of course, there is no good answer to that, and that is why I removed the ambiguous language. It's an exaggeration for a related reason: Nine months isn't "about" a year in my opinion. If the rescheduled date had been for some time in December 2016, I would not call "about a year" an exaggeration. As it is, the extra four words are unnecessary because the date follows immediately. Fdssdf (talk) 02:11, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Ten months* Alex|The|Whovian^? 02:20, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Shadowhunters

Hey! I do think you made a mistake on the page for Shadowhunters. It is a lie that Netflix will be airing the show. Please do remove that piece of false information.

A source has been included that supports this fact. If you believe it to be wrong, include a reliable source stating this, as a modification to the original content. Please sign your posts with ~~~~. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

The 100

I've warned the IP that keeps making the edits that you keep reverting at The 100 (TV series). I've also clarified the situation for him but he doesn't seem to care. He's already been blocked once for this so if he does it again, don't hesitate to report him at ARV. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:43, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. I may not be able to keep as much of an eye out as normal, given that I'm on holiday again with limited net access. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 7)

Hi AlexTheWhovian, I'm thinking that the colour for DW series 7 is too similar to series 8 (then so is season 18 to season 21), but also whether it would be better as a dark or medium pink colour, if you agree can you come up with a suitable colour? Thanks.Emperorofthedaleks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:27, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Emperorofthedaleks: How about this? – nyuszika7h (talk) 21:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, that's not AAA compliant, so I need to find another one. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Alright, are you going for darker or lighter?Emperorofthedaleks (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:07, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be darker to increase the contrast ratio, I think. Or else it would have to be really light to have proper contrast ratio if changing to black foreground. Here's one that's compliant. (Also, you should sign your posts with four tildes to include the date.) nyuszika7h (talk) 21:11, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the new dark plum colour suits the DVD cover though?--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 21:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure, it's one of the colors from there, not the most prominent though. nyuszika7h (talk) 21:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Well it's ok, we'll use #8C224A, because otherwise it'll conflict with series 8. But are you going to make the change?, Because my computers acting up.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I wonder how many TPS' I have... It seems that you two have worked this out. Works for me. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Charlie Kelly autistic

Hi AlexTheWhovian, is Charlie Kelly from It's Always Sunny autistic or near-autistic? I ask because I was wondering if the character should be in the category [Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum].--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No idea, I've never seen the show, only (possibly) edited the article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:08, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Killjoys (TV series)

Hi, just regarding your edit to Killjoys (TV series) in which you removed the channels the program airs on, giving your reason as "...also, we are not a TV Guide", could you please explain where it is stated that including the channel the program airs on in the broadcast section of a Wikipedia article is not appropriate. I've seen arguments from senior editors/admins both ways on this issue. Personally, I think it should be included and doesn't turn the article into a TV Guide (it would if timeslot, etc were included, but the channel name seems relevent without overreaching to me), however as far as I can work out there is no strict policy on it. I'm not saying you're right or wrong, just asking if you can point me in the right direction considering WP:NOTTVGUIDE doesn't overtly state it one way or the other. Thanks, -- Whats new?^(talk) 03:19, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Scorpion

Hi,

I reverted the change you made to my edit because it does bear mentioning that "Tech, Drugs And Rock'N'Roll" is a longer-than-normal episode; also, the episode aired in the UK with no indication in listings guides that it was split in two halves by CBS (for syndication purposes, I assume). Cindylover1969 (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

@Cindylover1969: Then include that in the Broadcast section of the main article (Scorpion (TV series)), instead of as part of the plot summary, which it is not. This is real-life information, not in-universe events. Alex|The|Whovian^? 08:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Doctor Who specials + Charlie Kelly

Hi Alexthewhovian, Doctor Who (2008–10 specials) (especially) and Doctor Who (2013 specials) aren't 100% identical to the most prominent colour(s) on the DVD covers, could you help me come up with a colour for 08-10 specials and if needed a colour for 13 specials? Cheers. Also, you could look up videos on YouTube of Charlie Kelly character that will help you judge whether or not he belongs in the [Category:Fictional characters on the autistic spectrum]. A good one is "The Best of Charlie Kelly - Part 1" or if you live in the U.S you could watch the show online. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 03:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Emperorofthedaleks: "could look up videos on YouTube ... that will help you judge whether or not he belongs in the ... autistic spectrum" – That sounds like original research to me. Just because someone has a few autistic traits does not necessarily mean anything. It needs to be stated explicitly in the show. nyuszika7h (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Agreed with the above. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:04, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Fine, so what about Doctor Who?--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 15:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Using this, the most predominant colour for the 2008-10 specials image is #431F1B, and the second-most for the 2013 specials (minus black) is #3F2B27. Your view on these? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:45, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I think both of them are probably less suitable than the current colours. What about the website Color Hunter? That gives you a palette of colours that match the image you upload. Also, I don't think it has to be the most prominent colour, recently I changed the series 1 colour from #3E506C to #09162A and think it looks better. Peter Capaldi's series' also don't use the most prominent colour just the text colour. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 14:31, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

War and Peace (2016 TV series) episode table

Hi Alexthewhovian, on the episode table for War and Peace (2016 TV series) after "Title" it should go "Directed by", "Written by", "Running time", but is wrong way round. Can you fix it so it is in the right order? Cheers --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The issue has been fixed, per my edit summary at the article. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Messengers Intertitle.png

⚠

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NeoBatfreak (talk) 23:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Previous revision restored. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Quantico TV series

Please stop vandalize the page about Quantico. Especially about the stuff not related to Australia. Stick your edits about Australia. We don't need an Australian teaching Americans about American TV series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socrat1 (talk • contribs) 02:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please read my reasons per my most recent edit summary. And remember, always remain civil in discussions. Alex|The|Whovian^? 04:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

RE

Leave me alone. I didn't mean to revert that last time- just wanted to signify to the other person that they should come join me on the talk page.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 07:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Not my fault you edit warred. Should have posted on their talk page if you wanted their attention. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:58, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

List of Royal Pains episodes colours

Hey Alexthewhovian, in the view history of List of Royal Pains episodes it says you changed the series colours to be compliant, but Season 1, 5 and 6 aren't compliant right?--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

They are compliant, per the links for Season 1, Season 5, Season 6. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

But they show up with a white text. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Then the raw code should either be changed to {{Episode table}}, or the raw code's text colour should be changed to black. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

OUAT season articles

@AlexTheWhovian: Hi. I added the "Part 1/Part 2" sections to the OUAT episode lists as each season from season 3 onwards is definitively split into two parts. This allows the writers to dramatically change the story and theme of each season every eleven episodes (e.g. Season 4A: Frozen, Season 4B: The Queens of Darkness). I would like to know why you reverted this as being "unnecessary". I am contacting you as I wish to clarify the situation and understand both sides instead of having it unintentionally spiral into an edit war. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 10:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Then, in that case, the series overview table should have its rows for the respective seasons split into two parts using the appropriate template, to reflect these separate parts. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:22, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that I understand what you mean. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:27, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Series overview#Example 3 - Split season. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have seen no other examples of this template used anywhere else, not even for Doctor Who, which had series 6 and 7 split into two parts. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Note: The use of this template may also leave the series overview table unnecessarily cluttered, when the finer details really belong lower in the article. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

None? Here you go. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, but all of the examples presented were released in two volumes of DVDs for each split season, OUAT was not. Additionally, the split seasons template is only available for tables that include the season number, number of episodes, and airdates, it does not take into consideration the ratings already included in the current overview table. If there is an overview table that circumvents this issue, I am willing to try using it. – Nick Mitchell 98 ^talk 11:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Chasing Classic Cars Season 7/8

Hi AlexTheWhovian, I've recently edited List of Chasing Classic Car episodes and there's an error on Season 7 table can you fix it? Also can you add Season 8 episodes/table and a series overview section? Cheers. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 16:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The Season 7 issue was fixed; I've never seen the show so I can't add a table for Season 8; and if you want to do the series overview yourself, just use the template at User:AlexTheWhovian/Notes#Series overview. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Bad Wolf outside references

AlexTheWhovian, I'm pretty sure that in Bad Wolf it is mentioned that Arnold Schwarzenegger was the President of the USA, but it isn't in outside references section? --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 22:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Per the quote ("It's the buccaneer look. Little dash of pirate and just a tweak of President Schwarzenegger.") you're right, but to list it in "Outside references", there needs to be a source for it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Maybe WikiQuote has a page for the episode, it might be there. As for Chasing Classic Cars I don't want to change the series overview to template because I don't know how to get the total number of episodes with the template. --Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 13:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Either take a look at other uses of the template, or read the documentation at Template:Series overview. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:29, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

February 2016

As you know, I was often a nuisance editor. However, I have stopped, and I've apoligised and said I'd stop, and I have, but you still seem to have a grudge against me. If you do have a grudge against me, I ask you politely to stop. I'm not going back there again. Theoosmond (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

@Theoosmond: Closing a duplicate discussion, that you opened up, that was currently being discussed at the current time, is the same as having a grudge on you? Please do grow up. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:27, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no problems with you closing that dicussion. However you have implied in one of your posts on Talk: List of Doctor Who serials that you have a grudge against me, saying No need to ping me, I am watching this talk page and related article. Putting episodes together on a round disc does not determine whether the episodes are in the same series, given that Christmas Specials aren't even part of any series. And yes, they also agreed that Series 7 was to be split into two parts, but certain editors had issues with that. And the BBC are not here to put their opinion across. The BBC also hire showrunners to decide this, but editors also argue their words. Just can't win here., particular note going to but certain editors had issues with that. I had stopped by the time you posted that comment. Theoosmond (talk)

Why are you bringing up a weeks-old discussion? That was ages ago. And it was never directly at you. Also, please do sign your posts on my talk page, thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, sorry I didn't sign it. I'm sometimes forget. Signed now without time. Theoosmond (talk) 17:54, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

A couple of questions

I'm not sure if you're aware, but there is a problem at Bones (season 11) with some of the citations in the ratings table. This is currently under discussion at WP:RSN and I was looking at replacing the manually formatted table with {{Television episode ratings}}. That template doesn't seem to have a references column, which I think would be appropriate to have, since the ratings often come from one source. Can one be added?

The other question I have concerns Don't Trust the B---- in Apartment 23. Is there a reason that you split it again? The episode list was originally merged back to the main article because, with only 26 episodes (little more than the average season), there wasn't enough content to justify two articles. I do resist a lot of George Ho's edits, but this was one I actually agreed with. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:12, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Typically, I've always seen the references added to the last column it supports the information of. i.e. At List of Scorpion episodes#Ratings: the first reference supports the information in the first two columns, so it's placed in the last of those two columns, and the second reference supports the information in the last four columns, so it's placed in the last of those four columns. I would assume the same would apply when one reference supports the entire row - place it in the last column?

Secondly, if there was consensus for not splitting the episodes, then my bad, feel free to revert as such. Upon visiting the page, I simply found the page far too cluttered with the episode tables (including plot summaries) and series overview (which was in its own section rather than in "Episodes") on the main article, while it also had production information for the second season above the table. If it were something like Agent Carter (TV series)#Episodes, with both tables on the page and no summaries visible, then I would have been fine. But as I said, no issues here with reverting the edits. Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I've seen different references for different columns and it's sometimes ambiguous as to what part of the row a reference actually supports, so a separate reference column for when a reference supports the whole row seemed appropriate, rather than having to duplicate references along the row. This similar to the way we only use |RTitle= in {{Episode}} list when the reference supports the whole column. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. Per the template and documentation, I've added a references column (toggled to appear with refs_col, default doesn't appear), with reference parameters for each row (ref1, ref2, etc). Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:04, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

TV show recommendations

I recommend Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series) and Dollhouse (TV series). Based on the other shows you like, I suspect you would like both.

Thanks for the work you do! I see you, or rather traces of your work, on various pages. I appreciate it. - Paul2520 (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Great suggestions! I'll add them to my (eventual) To Watch list. And thanks. :) Alex|The|Whovian^? 00:06, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

The Husband of River Song

If you want a reason why I ignored the note, I did it because the same thing was done on Hell Bent, before the title of the Christmas special was released, even though there was a note beforehand, so I felt, since we know the next episode is the 2016 Christmas special, that it would best to fill in the parameter. Theoosmond (talk) 22:13, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point, but it shouldn't have been done then either. Next episodes should only be given once we actually know the title of the next episode, which, in this case, may not be for a while. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Discussion on Template talk:CGuest

Hi there, I recently started a discussion on Template talk:CGuest about some helpful changes to the template that you have recently edited. I would appreciate hearing your opinion there. Thank you, and happy editing! PS: You gotta watch Breaking Bad! — DLManiac (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Shadowhunters

Hello, I have a "hypothetical question" and I'd appreciate your input. On Shadowhunters, as you might know, after the pilot was broadcast, the second episode was released online on the same day (a week prior to its original broadcast). So on the episode table it shows the original broadcast date and a note, indicating the episode was released online earlier. Why should we or why should we not change the broadcasting date for the second episode to the online release date, changing the parameter to |airdate= plus the |released= and the "U.S. viewers (millions)" to "U.S. TV viewers (millions)" to match the "Original Release Date"?

It would be something like this:

Extended content
No. Title Directed by Written by Original release date Prod. code U.S. TV viewers (millions) 1 "The Mortal Cup" McG Ed Decter January 12, 2016 (2016-01-12) 267074-1 1.82 2 "The Descent Into Hell Isn't Easy" Mick Garris Ed Decter & Hollie Overton January 12, 2016 (2016-01-12) 267074-2 1.01 3 "Dead Man's Party" Andy Wolk Marjorie David January 26, 2016 (2016-01-26) 267074-3 0.98

Thank you in advance — Artmanha (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, firstly, because you're changing the header to "Original release date", and only one episode was released, the others were aired. "Released" in this manner always means online - when an episode airs, it is not "released". And if this were the case for many episodes, then perhaps, but this affected only one episode. Also, for Episode 2, the very first thing that comes to one's sight is "January 12, 2016" and "1.01" (million) viewers. These are not connected, and though the note explains this, the viewers in the viewers column should be for the date displayed in that row. Alex|The|Whovian^? 22:39, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you so much. We a facing a similar problem with a IP address on The Shannara Chronicles (only with this series, two episodes were released online earlier). Could you please give me some help there? — Artmanha (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

No problems. And I'll see what I can do, definitely. Alex|The|Whovian^? 23:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I could not thank you enough! — Artmanha (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

References

Hi,

I just wanted to tell you about putting references in for the titles-they don't just needed to be used for future episodes. I looked it up on Wikipedia's policies and that. If the article is poorly sourced, it will most likely be challenged and Radio Times is a reliable source too.

Thanks,

Grangehilllover (talk) 09:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

@Grangehilllover: Please read Template:Episode list: Unformatted parameter that can be used to add a reference after "Title", or can be used as a "raw title" to replace "Title" completely. Future episodes should include a reference in this field to comply with Wikipedia:Verifiability. References are not needed for episode that have aired - the episodes themselves are the primary references. If you go and ask other editors of the television project, you will receive similar answers. Alex|The|Whovian^? 09:46, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Grangehilllover: My understanding is that they are not strictly necessary if the air dates have been referenced in the article before, or there are obvious sources for it and they are not contentious – but you can't just claim "this episode aired on this date, it's in the past so I don't need a reference to prove it". However, it's best practice to have a column reference in the table header to make verification easier – both for readers, and editors in case sneaky vandalism is left unnoticed.

P.S.: AlexTheWhovian, you shouldn't be using {{xt}} for talk quotes, per its documentation page. There's {{tq}} for that. ;) nyuszika7h (talk) 10:47, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

That's a better way to put it: Source it up until the episode has aired, then the reference can be removed once the episode is released. (And though they basically do the same thing, thanks for letting me know. ;)) Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:53, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

agent carter

Hello. Yes you made a mistake to remove. Mrs Carter, Peggy's mother was played by the actress Carole Ruggier in Smoke and Mirrors episode. Season 2 Episode 4. "Scoop: MARVEL'S AGENT CARTER on ABC - Tuesday, February 2, 2016". BroadwayWorld. January 19, 2016. Also imdb.Tylercourtney (talk) 01:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Tylercourtney: Firstly, that section is for Peggy Carter, and not for relations to her. Secondly, you didn't give it a source. Thirdly, IMDb is an unreliable source and cannot be used on Wikipedia. Alex|The|Whovian^? 01:28, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Fourth (jumping off of the first point by Alex), that section is about Peggy Carter. For other characters and actors in the series who are not the main credited cast, see List of Agent Carter characters. You'll see Ruggier listed in the guest section of that article. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

4 o'clock Club episodes

Hello, Please stop your disruptive editing to the episode lists of 4 o'clock Club. Imdb is a reliable source as it is a 'film/tv bible'. This means all information is valid. The episode table in Series 5 must remain on the article as a source has been provided for the first episode. If you continue doing this, you could be banned from editing. Sponge58 (talk) 10:11, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sponge58: IMDb is a site where the information is contributed by users, just like Wikipedia, so that makes it unreliable. If you continue to use unreliable sources, it will be you who may be banned from editing. Please read up on WP:RS / unreliable sources. Thank you. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:25, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Shannara Chronicles

Hello AlexTheWhovian, sorry to bother you again. Could you please take a look at the discussion? The IP address is commenting again. Thanks a lot! — Artmanha (talk) 14:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The Dumping Ground (series 4)

Please stop adding a full episode summary as you did to The Dumping Ground (series 4) to episode 1 "Lost and Found (Slings and Arrows part 1)". You do not need to put EVERY SINGLE DETAIL that took place in the episode. There only needs to be short summary such as the one I put (Bailey's mum turns up at Ashdene Ridge after seeing him at a football match. Meanwhile, Ofsted come to inspect how Mike and May-Li run the house and Carmen directs a Shakespeare play). That is a short and simple summary. Not a huge summary that described every detail. Also, a casting section is not needed.

@Sponge58: Firstly, please sign your posts when on my talk page. Secondly, MOS:TV allows a summary of up to 200 words, so the extended summary is extremely valid. If you disagree, take it to the talk page, since multiple editors have re-added the summary. You also give no reason as to why a casting section is "not needed". Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:31, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello,

A casting section is not needed because so what if the BBC did an open casting for new characters? All characters (including new arrivals) should not be listed in a casting section, instead be listed in the main cast section. User:Sponge58 15:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Sponge58: It means that there will be a new character for the series, and it should be noted as such. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:41, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

infobox list of episodes changes

I noticed that you have been changing a lot of episode list links in infoboxes for TV Shows. This is just a friendly note to let you know that I reverted a couple of them because your change broke the link. You might want to keep an eye on this going forward. I only checked the pages that I am following and I see you edited quite a few. - DinoSlider (talk) 15:47, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @DinoSlider: Thanks for pointing this out. We've recently modified {{Infobox television season}} so that it is no longer necessary to format links to the episode list article. It's now just necessary to name the article, and Alex was removing redundant code in articles. Clearly the articles that you reverted were hiccups in the system. @AlexTheWhovian: DinoSlider is correct, these issues need to be kept ahead of. The links in question were in the format [[Agent Carter (TV series)#Episodes|List of ''Agent Carter'' episodes]]. Fortunately, List of Agent Carter episodes exists as a redirect, so |episode_list=List of Agent Carter episodes works, but there may be other articles where no redirect exists. Of course, that raises the question of why season articles exist for a series without a corresponding LoE page, but that is another matter. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification; there's always error somewhere. The edits to the template deliberately match the "List of {showname} episodes" format in the URL part of the link; this may require adjusting to convert "Agent Carter (TV series)" to "List of Agent Carter episodes", for example. Alex|The|Whovian^? 21:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Cast listings

Don't you find this edit summary to be inconsistent with the way we treat episode articles? The infobox starring field is normally populated based on the credits in the episodes. WP:TVCAST says The cast listing should be organized according to the series original broadcast credits and guest stars will not necessarily be credited in the same order each episode they appear, so their place in the list should be based on the order of credits in the first episode that they appear. Clearly the MOS is saying that we do use episodes to determine how we organise cast tables. --AussieLegend (✉) 05:11, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Really? I've always found it done the other way. GA articles such as Agent Carter (season 1) have their cast listings sourced via reliable sources, and I've always followed by the example of such pages. And what you've given is the order and organization of the cast listings, not the cast listings themselves. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

There are various ways in which cast lists are sourced. Ongoing changes are usually taken from the episodes themselves, which is quite acceptable per WP:PRIMARY. An episode is a reliable source for plot information, cast credits etc that don't require "further, specialized knowledge". On-screen credits meet the definition of "straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source". It's actually quite common to see people added to a cast list because a reliable source like the Futon Crtitic or a press release, has said they're going to be a "series regular", only to have them removed because they haven't been credited in an episode. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:52, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then. Curious question. If I were to remove all of the sources at the article above, on the basis that the episodes are sources enough, I would not get reverted? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:40, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

The TV project is, in my experience at least, unique in that it regularly removes sources. Once something is sourced, the source should really stay. WP:DEADLINK says not to remove sources simply because they are dead, so why should we remove sources that are live? There are plenty of times outside the TV project where somebody will challenge something that is easily verifiable, but if they add {{citation needed}}, WP:V says that an inline citation is needed. (I once had to add 18 unnecessary citations to an article just because a troll decided some easily verifiable claims needed sources.) If you were to remove the citations you would probably be reverted by somebody because of that. The question you have to ask is "Does removing citations improve the encyclopaedia?" --AussieLegend (✉) 01:27, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Noting the above and somewhat back to the topic of requiring sources for the season page, simply having the ability to remove the sources as is done in the television project is not reason enough to not include tertiary sources for the inclusion of the cast. While episodes may be primary sources enough, we as editors should prefer sources that are more available to readers than sources that are less available - in this example, online sources over episodes. This seems to be what many GA articles in the TV project seem to do - even Forever (U.S. TV series), while not sourcing the character themselves, has sources for the character descriptions with basically source the former. The reason that new cast are sourced that they're going to appear but are delete because they haven't yet somewhat falls under a crystal ball outlook - what has been added has not happened yet and so should not be listed. Once they have appeared, then they should be sources accordingly. (This very example falls under the editing between the two of us linked under "Edit warring vs collaboration" on your user page). Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:05, 21 February 2016 (UTC)