User talk:Alex 21/Archive 38

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはAlex 21たちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラP 03:50, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Have a great rest of your holiday season! If you do not, then you should know that I have acquired a very particular set of skills on my time on Wikipedia. Skills that make me a nightmare for people who do not enjoy themselves. If you do not have a great time this year, I will find you... And I will block you.

But seriously, happy holidays. DarkKnight2149 22:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The Mandalorian logo

Hello,

quick question. Why can't The Mandalorian use an available high quality vector of its logo when The Simpsons and Friends (television series) also use high quality vectors in place of title screens? -throast (talk) 21:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Just because other articles do something, doesn't mean it applies to every article. MOS:TV lists a title card as one of its standard practices, and the status quo is the title card; a discussion has already taken place on this topic. Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That means for both of my examples, logos should be replaced with their respective title cards too? -throast (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that different articles meet different needs. If you disagree with the status quo, please discuss it on the article's talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:49, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Plot Lengths Script Word Count

Hey! Don't know if this is intentional but I was checking the plot length of a film with the template stating that the plot it too long and it's (the template) included in the word count, which gave an inaccurate account of what the plot length actually is. Don't know if this is intentional or not! QueerFilmNerd^talk 03:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, whilst archiving my talk page, I came across your message here; somehow I'd completely missed it when you first posted it, my apologies! It's not intentional at all, so I'll take a look at the code for it; thanks for the heads up. -- /Alex/₂₁ 05:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks a bunch! QueerFilmNerd^talk 06:49, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

QueerFilmNerd, all fixed! -- /Alex/₂₁ 07:08, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Father Brown

Hi Alex 21. Thanks for your message. The text that was removed is not protected by any copyright. As I said in the edit summary, it was taken from the BBC Media Centre. As such, and as publicity material, it is free to use so can be reinstated. Cybersub (talk) 12:15, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Cybersub, can you back that up, that it is published under a free license? Simply being publically-available material does not mean that it is free to use. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:11, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Alex 21 - Any material is free to use if it's issued by a press office, which is the case here. Cybersub (talk) 14:50, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

That is not the case on Wikipedia. If it is not clearly listed as free use, then it is bound under copyright. See here; at the base of the page, it clearly lists "Copyright © 2019 BBC". -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:54, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Doctor Who Series 11 Episode 7 Kerblam!.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Doctor Who Series 11 Episode 7 Kerblam!.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:21, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Do you think it's worth considering....?

Just curious, I noticed that in the Torchwood closing credits Rhys Williams is credited with the other top billed cast as early as series one. In the first few episodes it lists the main cast (including Williams) followed by the words "In order of appearance" and then all the guest cast. The "in order of appearance" is roughly dropped around episode 4 or 5 but there remains a large gap between the main and guest cast where Williams remains with the main cast. The only thing with this is that he isn't listed in the opening credits of the series until series three. Do you have any thoughts? TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 00:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I can confirm that he's credited the same way in series two. TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 20:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

TheDoctorWho, hm, that's a tricky one. So, he appears as main cast in the end credits, but not in the opening credits. I think it's best to stick to whatever way he has been listed for the past 9-14 years. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Yeah only being in the closing credits makes it difficult. I was considering being bold and changing the cast chart for him to the yellow color/text that got used for Hitchcock and Scully on List of Brooklyn Nine-Nine characters and his position in the Infobox there wouldn't need any adjusting perhaps I'll leave a message on Torchwood's talk page and see if there's any disagreements first. Thanks! TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 21:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Not really a question this time 'round but if you wanna add to the trickiness then here goes: I've finally made it around to series 2 (I've been binge watching btw, forgot to mention) and just finished up the set of episodes with Martha in it. In "Reset," Agyeman is billed with the main cast in the opening credits but with the guest cast in the closing credits. In "Dead Man Walking," she's credited with the main cast in both opening and closing but in the closing she's billed after Kai Owen who still remains absent from the opening credits. Finally, in "A Day in the Death," shes credited as main in both opening and closing (noting that Kai Owen was absent from "Reset" and "A Day in the Death.") TheDoctorWho ^{(Happy Christmas!)} 08:29, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Spyfall

Hi Alex. Apologies about my edit to the Spyfall page. I knew these references to past episodes but I don't know of any article that has named them, you know like when you know an answer without doing the working out, so I was a bit cheeky hoping someone else would add the evidence for me. I can link in the relevant episodes that I referenced but as for evidence, I'm not sure where I'll find that

92.15.218.175 (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No worries! Such content needs a reliable source, but trivial content such as that, which typically only serves fans, belongs at other sites like the TARDIS Wikia. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:21, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who Series 12 - SPYFALL

Hi,

since you are the person that is doing the most edits and adds most information on the Series 12 page for Doctor Who - I thought I should bring this issue up to you, since I am not that experienced nor decisive in things like that, I just thought that my idea is worth bringing up.

I have seen that Spyfall had a separate episode page created on Wikipedia (Ep. 288), although technically Spyfall, Part 1 and Spyfall, Part 2 are two separate episodes in one story, making them 288a and 288b, just as it is listed in the table on the series page.

However, all the previous cases of the revised series had separate pages created for all episodes, no matter if they were joined as one story or not.

To list just a few examples of this done in the past:

275a/275b - "World Enough and Time" / "The Doctor Falls" 254a/254b - "The Magician's Apprentice" / "The Witch's Familiar" 164a/164b - "The Empty Child" / "The Doctor Dances"

Don't you think it should be wise to rename the Spyfall page to "Skyfall, Part 1" and create a separate page for the upcoming Part 2 as technically episode 288b? I feel like this should be done to preserve consistency, but your opinion would be decisive.

Hope you can look into this and reply, All the best

The article follows the format of 202 - "The End of Time", as a two-part episode with the same title, as well as every article for every classic serial of the 1963-89 era (see List of Doctor Who episodes (1963–1989)#Episodes and the article links). Cheers. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Dracula episode 3 summary

Good day Alex 21. I note your reversion of my summary on grounds of length. Unfortunately the version you reverted to contained errors, solecisms, ambiguities and omissions: the reader needs to know Zoe drank the blood sample not directly, "either death" should be "fear death", "discusses" should be "discuss", "taken in" is ambiguous and should be "imprisoned", Lucy Westenra is a reference to the original novel and so on. I have corrected that version and its word count is now 177 words, which is one word less that the version you reverted to. Since it is shorter than that version there is no need to re-revert it. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:32, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Re: WKOP-TV

Could you please move WKOP-TV back to East Tennessee PBS? WKOP isn't even the main station, it's WETP (which signed on first as WSJK). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Invalid speedy deletion tags

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

---

Do not re-add declined, bogus speedy deletion tags to pages. WilyD 10:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WilyD, please elaborate on how it is bogus. If you disagreed with the tag when it was re-added, perhaps you should have left it for someone else to consider instead. -- /Alex/₂₁ 10:59, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

It requests speedy deletion on the basis of a criterion that does not apply to the page in question. Spamming bogus speedy deletion tags is a disruptive practice, and the speedy deletion policy specifies that removed tags should not be re-added (unless they're removed by the page creator). Past that, the suggestion that an administrator should ignore disruptive behaviour because they've previously had to deal with an editor's disruption is just silly. WilyD 11:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WilyD, does any source report the title without a space? No. The title was credited through a typo, hence the deletion tag applies and it is not bogus. Simply because you personally disagree with it, does not make it disruptive editing; I would request that you minimize the personal attacks you are adding to this page. The policy goes to state [i]f an editor other than the creator removes a speedy deletion tag in good faith - this was not good faith, it was done with an insult. Try again. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:14, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

They probably don't - I don't care, because it's irrelevant. The title was created through a highly plausible typo, and so isn't eligible for WP:CSD#R3 deletion. Beyond that, if you're not interested in understanding why your edits were a problem, my only other interest is warning you that if you continue to make disruptive edits, you may find yourself blocked to prevent further disruption. WilyD 14:27, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

WilyD, and my only further interest in you is to warn you that if you continue to accuse good faith editors and their good faith edits of being disruptive, then I'll find myself looking towards ANI, or wherever it is that administrators are to be reported for their behaviour. No further response is needed here from you; thank you for your time. -- /Alex/₂₁ 14:38, 6 January 2020 (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.

Doctor who series 11

Hi Alex 21.

Thank you for your message. You told me that if I had any questions I was to leave a message on your talk page, so I am duly doing just that.

I am a little baffled as to why you say my editing is "unconstructive". Your message did not explain why, and I struggle to see how you have reached that conclusion. I made an edit on the Doctor Who page and explained my reasoning. You disagreed. I responded, explaining why I thought your reasoning was erroneous.

So far, all I see happening is a perfectly rational and civilised disagreement between two individuals arguing in good faith. If I have inadvertently done something wrong I am very happy to be educated. However, as things stand, I simply see no good justification for the label of "unconstructive" whatsoever.

Thank you.

Aerenius

Neutral notice

As an editor who commented at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film between Jan. 1, 2019, and today, you may wish to join a discussion at that page, here.--Tenebrae (talk) 23:47, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

List of Black Mirror episodes

Hi Alex! In response to this edit, I'm wondering where exactly the colours are taken from in the case of Black Mirror. As far as I know, there aren't any DVDs for Bandersnatch or series 5. I wasn't aware of that part of MOS:TV before, so thanks for pointing me to it, but it's not got quite as strong wording as you maybe implied: Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD or promotional artwork, or for other reasons. My suggestion was based on the logo and on other reasons. — Bilorv (talk) 01:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Bilorv, glad to help! That's why I mentioned promotional art covers as well. So in the case of Black Mirror, we've used the poster for Bandersnatch, and as for Series 5 (for which there's no individual poster), clearly Smithereen's poster was chosen for colour variation. MOS:TV also states that [o]nce established, colors that meet that guideline should not be changed arbitrarily without discussion. Hope that helps. -- /Alex/₂₁ 01:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay, it does. Thanks! — Bilorv (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Fugitive of the Judoon

Hi Alex 21, I was thinking of creating two new categories Category:Television episodes set in Gloucester and Category:Television episodes set in Gloucestershire and i was wondering if i could put your Fugitive of the Judoon article in the first category when it will be completed since i have had the Gloucestershire one in my categories to be created section since last May. If that is okay, let me know. D Eaketts (talk) 08:44, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@D Eaketts: I don't personally know the different behind them, as I'm from Australia, but if you think that's best, go for it! -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Thanks Alex, There isn't much of a difference between them but i will be creating the Gloucester one for your article and putting that category within the Gloucestershire one. D Eaketts (talk) 12:28, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Spyfall continuity

Hi Alex 21,

I do not understand why Gallifrey and Jodrell Bank have been removed. Gallifrey is not “trainspotting” it is clearly continuity. Gallifrey is an overhanging arc that deserves a mention on continuity every time it is seen.

Jodrell Bank was put in to Spyfall purely for CONTINUITY purposes. What else could you possibly think it is? Panda815 (talk) 13:03, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Panda815, I have responded on the article's talk page. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:38, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Panda815, are you are all related to the account Panda619? -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:53, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, No just sheer coincidence!! Panda815 (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Whoa, nope lol Panda619 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Anchors for duplicate episode numbering on page

I'm thinking of adding a parameter to Module:Episode list |anchor=<id of choice> so we can handle anchors for duplicate episode numbering on the same page. I was thinking at first of just making it a Boolean, say |special=, but then on pages like List of Heroes episodes you have 7 episode 1s. What do you think? Have an alternative idea? --Gonnym (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, could we add a parameter to {{Episode table}}, such as |anchor=GoingPostal (for the first Heroes example), and then Module:Episode table automatically changes (before line 165) all occurrences of id="ep#" in the |episodes= parameter to id="epGoingPostal#"? By the time the |episodes= parameter reaches {{Episode table}}, it will be HTML and able to be modified directly. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Update; it works. See my recents edits to Module:Episode table/sandbox and User:Alex 21/sandbox. The only downside is that it would require articles to use both the {{Episode table}} and {{Episode list}} templates, instead of just the latter as it wouldn't work without the former, which is just a matter of emptying User:Alex 21/sandbox/Episodes. -- /Alex/₂₁ 13:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Great idea and very simple. Looking at the output seems to work great "id="epGoingPostal1". Doesn't seem to break anything when there is no episode number field. Think it can go live. --Gonnym (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym, done! I've updated the documentation for both templates as well. -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:46, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Afterthought - might anchorep# be better than epanchor#? So "GoingPostalep1 instead of epGoingPostal1". I think it would be easier to read this way. --Gonnym (talk) 14:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Gonnym,  Done -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:36, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Viewing figures

Hi Alex 21 I looked at the main page for 2005-2020 Doctor Who and your username came up so I assume you're the one to talk to. The final consolidated viewing figures for Spyfall are out. They're 6.7 million. It has been out for 2 days now and I wondered when it would be added to the page. There's alot of people saying the 4 million it got live is the final weekly figure and adding this consolidated figure to the page where it now says TBD would fix alot of confusion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.70.121.90 (talk)

Bet to wait for the official BARB release tomorrow; the only source we have at the moment is a Twitter account that hasn't posted the exact ratings (is it exactly 6.70? 6.71 but they've rounded off?). -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:36, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

See? The official ratings were 6.89m (for Part 1). The 6.7m (or rather, 6.699m) was the television-only ratings. -- /Alex/₂₁ 11:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Messiah (American TV series)

I noticed you added {{plot}} tags to my episode summaries there. I did my best to write them within the target number of words but found some events too important to leave out if the aim is to create a coherent summary that can be read from beginning to end and not a blurb. I have no plans to rewrite them or to shorten them, but don't mind if you or anyone else takes a crack at it. Personally I don't think they're that long, but you're technically right and that's what wins here. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:49, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto, I haven't watched the series, so I'm not able to trim them. Per MOS:TV, the summaries are over 200 words, and there are shows out there that have 90-minute episodes with plots within the limit, so I'm sure someone will be able to trim them appropriately. All the best! -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:37, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who RT ratings for S11

Regarding this edit, if you look closely episode 9 "It Takes You Away" has reviews for "The Witchfinders" (Pajiba: "The witchhunt was scary, but the witchfinders stayed ridiculous. Malevolent yes, but ridiculously so."), because some staff from RT added another episode titled "Demons of the Punjab" and now the episode titles are mixed up. It Takes You Away is completely removed from the site. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 22:47, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian James, wow. They've really screwed the listings up for DW11, haven't they? My bad, you were right, thanks for restoring it! -- /Alex/₂₁ 00:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Doctor Who promotional images

FYI, I have official press access to Doctor Who promotional images. So if you need help with drafts for future episode articles, I can help at least with that part. --Afong10 (talk) 20:30, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

War Of The Worlds

Hi Alex, I hope you are doing well!

I work at the FOX channel in London and, as we are approaching the air date of War of the Worlds in the UK (March 05, 2020), we need to update some information on its Wikipedia page. I noticed you reverted a few edits I made yesterday, will it be possible to approve them?

I am happy to provide more details about the show as well.

Feel free to reach me anytime, thanks! Andre — Preceding unsigned comment added by Foxtvuk (talk • contribs)

You work with Fox? Then you need to read WP:COI. The edits I reverted were edits that removed the initial airdate and added unsourced content; this is not tolerated on Wikipedia. -- /Alex/₂₁ 09:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Why?

I do hope that I will also get other reactions to my edits... Anyway, the answer to your question seems obvious to me: because there is just not that much discussion going on on that talk page. There were only ten topics discussed in the past year, most of them contain only one or two posts. Under these circumstances, it seemed to me that the archiving could be a lot less aggressive. KarlFrei (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited List of Doctor Who spin off audio plays by Big Finish, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page River Song (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:57, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

RFC at Batwoman

Just inviting you to participate in the RFC at Talk:Batwoman_(TV_series)#Request_for_comment about listing the monitor as a main character or a guest. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:19, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

The Witcher's plot

Hi there, Alex. Thank you for your edit summary. But still there isn't information on how the plot works like in similar artcles like Stranger Things etc., at least in the lead. So I added a basic description on what the plot is centered stated since the first chapter and that will lead all characters adventures. Best regards.Miaow

Issues

WP:OWN is there for you. I reverted your "very", and instead of following WP:BRD, you reverted other editors and told them to discuss. Don't restore your changes or engage in back-and-forth reverting. Also watch out for 3RR. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 13:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian James, point me to where I violated 3RR. I guarantee you cannot. And in fact, I reverted your removal of "very", so it's up to you to discuss. -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Sebastian James, also, what's your issue with how I modified your RT entry? Am I not allowed to change what you've put into the article? Read the first five words of your original post here... -- /Alex/₂₁ 21:50, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

That editor was mistaken that's why I removed their message and they reverted to my edit. If you are gonna show the past, do it right. −αΣn=1NDi[n][Σj∈C{i}Fji[n − 1]+Fexti[(n^−1)] 15:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Stranger Things 4

Hello! Production for ST4 has officially begun so I kindly ask that you move the draft into the mainspace. Thank you. SomethingToTellYou (talk) 16:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Opacity

Hi Alex 21, I've answered to your question at [1]. --Birger Fricke (talk) 16:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)