User talk:Alex 21

Home Talk Userboxes Scripts Sandbox 1 | 2 | DW | Module: / Sandbox TV Shows Notes Contributions Subpages Uploads

Archives

no archives yet (create)

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, linking to your username, so that you will be notified.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

My Edit

Hello, you reverted my edit on Once Upon a Time (season 5), but I wanted to let you know that I made the image bigger because it is 250px on every other season page, so I wanted to make it consist. --24.47.231.127 (talk) 03:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Using the format [[File:XXX|XXX]] is actually deprecated and shouldn't be used anymore, per the documentation at Template:Infobox television season. The other seasons will be updated to reflect this. Alex|The|Whovian^? 03:15, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

star wars rebels shorts

I see that you undid my change. What is changed was simply that i removed the shorts from the "episodes" section, and created their own section for them. The reason why i did this was because the shorts isn't episodes. And i have seen other series that have shorts, where the shorts have their own category.

They were introductory to the series and hence belong at the start. I was more reverting how you changed the Series Overview from template to raw code, and the colour changes per WP:COLOR. Alex|The|Whovian^? 07:13, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know they were used to indroduce us to the series, but i still think that it would make more sense for them to have their own catergory since they technically aren't episodes. And if i created a problem with the code i'm very sorry. I honestly don't know alot about wikipedia and coding.

You should discuss it on the talk to see if other editors concur and gain a consensus for moving them to their own category. If there is a consensus, then kindly ask another editor to follow out the edits so that nothing else is disturbed. (And please add ~~~~ to the end of your comments on a talk page to save them.) Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so i have to enter ~~~~ at the end of my comment before anyone can see them?

No, it's so people know who's commenting. I'll post some information on your talk page about it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i just saw it. thanks :) --83.93.114.80 (talk) 13:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, i didn't remove anything from the series overveiw. I simply moved everything that has to do with shorts to it's own category. If i did anything else, it wasn't on purpose so please tell me if i did. --83.93.114.80 (talk) 05:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you did. Look at this: see the third line onwards? You're changing the series overview. And you're changing the shorts to different colour (look at this (yours) compared to this (mine) - the first colour does not comply with WP:COLOR. And I'd also note that your discussion was removed because you're under suspicion of evading a ban. Alex|The|Whovian^? 05:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why should the shorts be in the series overveiw? They aren't a part of the actual series. They are seperate shorts that was ment to tease the actual show before it started. We don't see the doctor who series 9 prelude shorts on "list of doctor who seriels" either, do we? The only logical thing is if the shorts gets it's own category and is removed from the series overveiw. And you said something about colors. I can't see any difference in the colors and i didn't change anything (at least not on purpose). As i said, if im chaning anything on the code im very sorry. I don't know alot about wikipedia coding. --83.93.114.80 (talk) 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am discussing your conflicting edits, not the layout of the page and what should be where. Take it elsewhere, please. Alex|The|Whovian^? 13:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bowdenford

It seems Bowdenford is again determined to change the ands on Doctor Who (series 9) into ampersands. Just though I would let you know. Theoosmond (talk) 20:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

American

Oh!! Let's see if it works. I figured it was something you'd done accidentally. --Drmargi (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Probably should've explained it first. Hope so. Because then if they removed it, it means they've obviously read the note and proceeded with disruptive editing. I've done the same thing when editors update series to "... was a television series" after it's concluded, though it should remain "is", so I put the note between the i and the s. Alex|The|Whovian^? 14:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No harm in giving it a whirl. It's long past time that a good few PBS co-productions are accurately identified. --Drmargi (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wayward Pines' showrunner

Hello AlexTheWhovian

Wayward Pines' showrunner is changed. Can you update the page?

Source: http://deadline.com/2015/12/m-night-shyamalan-wayward-pines-renewed-season-2-fox-new-showrunner-1201663497/

Best regards... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanpure (talk • contribs) 06:25, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Oceanpure: The page is not protected, you can just as easily do it. Alex|The|Whovian^? 20:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpion revert

What do mean "Not necessary for the ratings table, since it's already sourced"? Actually, episodes that haven't aired shouldn't even be listed in the ratings table at all, but especially not without a source. Sure, it's sourced in the episodes table, but it also needs to be cited in the ratings table as well. There's no reason not to. If you have a link to an MOS that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. WP:REVEXP says, "Provide a valid and informative explanation including, if possible, a link to the Wikipedia principle you believe justifies the reversion." But, actually, a reversion should only be done when there's vandalism or as a last resort. It would have been much better if you had left a message on my talk page first (WP:ROWN). —Musdan77 (talk) 17:32, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Musdan77: Perhaps this is better brought up at WT:TV. I have eighteen different series going on right now, most with ratings table, and there have been no issues requiring sources in the ratings table when it's already source in the episodes table, and a good deal of these are edited by experienced editors who have been hear far longer than I. What guideline or (even better) policy are you running by to state that certain episodes shouldn't be listed in the ratings table? Alex|The|Whovian^? 20:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Plot script

Can you modify it to work for film plots too? My thought would be for it too look to see if the page uses {{Infobox film}} (and if not then it will be an episode plot search). And if it is a film article, it would look for sections titled "Plot", "Premise", "Synopsis", "Summary" etc. and check the number to see if it is between 400-700 words (per WP:FILMPLOT). Finally, the pop up boxes should notify the user of the two guidelines, should it be out of range for the plots. Think this is doable? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:22, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Section markers

Would you be so kind as to restore all the section markers in all DW episode lists? They were specifically designed to replace the <noinclude>...</noinclude> hacks, who were never intended for article space. They also allow transcluding multiple sections to one page. Why did you remove them? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edokter: No. Why? There are no <noinclude>...</noinclude> hacks. I changed them to <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude>, as per every other season/series page (except the split Seasons 4/21, which do use the section marks, given that they're transcluded twice differently on the LoS page). Multiple sections aren't being transcluded from the Series 9 page, just the episode table. Please show what's different between the section tags and onlyinclude in this example. Alex|The|Whovian^? 10:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing. Don't use them, section markers are specifically desinged to deal with article transclusions. The old tags are for templates. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:59, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They are specifically designed to transclude multiple sections onto one page, as you stated yourself. This is not the case for these pages. Even {{Episode list}} states that <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> should be used. Alex|The|Whovian^? 11:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mince words... Use the proper tools: include tags are for templates (and abused for articles), and section markers are for articles. See mw:Extension:Labeled Section Transclusion for a more detailed explanation. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP! All series pages once had section markers, and I intend to restore them all. Just because you don't understand some wioki syntax, is no reason to remove them. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 11:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But why can't you put in simpler templates, that are easier for editors to deal with? And I agree with AlexTheWhovian, there is no need unless the season has to be split, for when there are two Doctors. Theoosmond (talk) 11:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC) And if a tag works, what's wrong with it. Theoosmond (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edokter: How on Earth am I mincing words? The documentation of {{Episode list}} states, and I quote: For the purpose of transclusion, each sublist must make use of <onlyinclude> tags, with the opening tag just before the WikiTable, and the closing tag at the very end of the table. I recommend checking some of the more common series that have season pages, and checking what they use. (I know I have several talk-page-stalkers that are involved in the television project, perhaps they'd care to weigh in.) The Doctor Who "List of Serials" page is almost the only one to use the LST tags, for the two special cases. And you're talking about hacks in your edit summary - having a tag you need to name, and the method of transclusion using another tag instead of the regular {{:NAME}} format. is more of a hack than a simple use of <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> is. And what's this about all of them containing section markers? When we changed the page layout from separate tables on the LoS page and the season/series pages, to transclusion, it was the traditional method of transclusion used. See? Alex|The|Whovian^? 12:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We switched all moders series to named sections (#lst) to accomodate for specials, and was done long before you came aboard. What is the reason to switch back? I know new methods are weird and stuff, but we have to adapt one day... There was nothing wrong, so again, why step back? I still intend to reinstate the lst tags. Get used to it instead of continueing to renounce new methods. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 15:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New methods? List a dozen pages that use LST and not onlyinclude. I can very easily do it the other way, for several dozen. And also where it dictates that LST has to be used and onlyinclude is deprecated, because if you can't, then there's nothing to base your changes on. There is no recent consensus to use the "newer" tags, so implementing them while this is still in discussion can be seen as edits of bad faith; being an admin doesn't change that. Alex|The|Whovian^? 15:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Edokter:Also, what are the properties of LST are so good compared to onlyinclude? Theoosmond (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Frogs with Dirty Little Lips

User:AlexTheWhovian, I noticed some notable Frank Zappa songs don't have articles of their own on Wikipedia. Such as "Frogs with Dirty Little Lips" which is on Them or Us instead of it's own article and "Catholic Girls" is on Joe's Garage. Do you think they should have their own articles?

Plus: Does the image of Elvis on this article class as "mutton-chops"? Or are they just large sideburns, thanks.--Emperorofthedaleks (talk) 02:30, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]