User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2024

Doctor Who

What do you think about the quality of the Doctor Who page. Do you think that it could possibly be nominated for GA. Its been a decade since it was last nominated and many changes have arised since then. Recently I made a series of edits to improve it, but as I am not a significant contributor I cant nominate it but you can so I was wondering if you would be willing to co-nominate with me. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 03:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant As much as I edit many Doctor Who articles, I've only provided minimal editing to the parent article; per the authorship statistics, I'm only the ninth editor ranked for the article, so your best bet would be to ask the editors listed there. The article currently has 58 usages of {{citation needed}}; if you felt the need to open a reassessment for Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) based on its two citation tags, I'm not sure why you think an article with almost sixty would qualify for GA, so I would recommend a start by fixing those. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:59, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Well the citation tags where added after I reached out to another editor. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 05:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Whenever they were added, they still need fixing before moving to GA. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

@OlifanofmrTennant As per Rhain's most recent edit, please do not remove the {{citation needed}} flags without fixing the issue first. Also kindly update the Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials) reassessment page if you have no further issues with the article. Thank you. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:50, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Alex 21. Thank you for your work on NCIS: Hawaiʻi (season 3). SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hello my friend! Good day to you. Thanks for creating the article, I have marked it as reviewed. Have a blessed day!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:19, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@SunDawn I didn't create the article, just an initial redirect. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems that NPP message system didn't understand that. ✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 12:29, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (2023 specials)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (2023 specials) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

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. 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!

Just Another Cringy Username (talk) 23:38, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (2023 specials)

The article Doctor Who (2023 specials) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Doctor Who (2023 specials) and Talk:Doctor Who (2023 specials)/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Wardstone Chronicles.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Wardstone Chronicles.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Series 14 Promotional Poster

Just a quick thought, would it be better to use this version of the poster? I know there's very little difference, and I know this won't remain the image forever once we have a DVD cover, but I do feel the current version without the date gives no indication that it's actually for series 14. It could literally just be work from the graphic design team or a promotion for the programme as a whole. The version with the date indirectly references series 14 and therefore seems like it may be a better option. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I also had that thought when I saw that it was the version RTD posted, though we do tend to stick with the original poster from the primary broadcaster. However, given that it includes May 2024, I definitely wouldn't be opposed to it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:05, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

In most cases I'd agree with you, but I think an exception makes sense here. I uploaded the alternative version. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Fantastic. I'd also say it's best we keep an eye out for anyone adding Disney+ to the |network= parameter given their argument may be "but it's in the poster we use"; that should remain simply BBC One. Hopefully this won't be an issue. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

It's on my watchlist so I'll check in on it. Although we've had a discussion or two and a few rouge IP's it's not been a huge issue on the main article or on the 2023 specials page. Ideally it'll the same here. A lot of IP's get scared off by a hidden note if it comes to that. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:53, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (2023 specials)

The article Doctor Who (2023 specials) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Doctor Who (2023 specials) for comments about the article, and Talk:Doctor Who (2023 specials)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of OlifanofmrTennant -- OlifanofmrTennant (talk) 15:42, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Would you like to join WikiProject Australian television?

Hi Alex 21, our group, WikiProject Australian television, is currently recruiting additional editors to help edit the large project that is Australian TV. I was wondering whether you might consider joining us, since you work on TV-related articles anyway... and you're Australian! If you are interested, please add your name to the list of active participants, and see our list of open tasks. Kind regards, Lotsw73 (talk) 13:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Walking Dead; You got a problem with me or something?

Why are you purposefully adding false information when the show has aired? And why are you specifically being a jerk towards me for making one edit? Chill out. None of the other shows on the table follow this ruleset. If something has aired, none of the other shows keep their refs. Not for dates, or episode count. Makes no sense. ThatGoodBoi (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:OTHER. "The other stuff doesn't have a source, so this one shouldn't either. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Wait, so are you agreeing with me? If that's what you want to do that's okay. I was just doing what I thought everybody else does. We could source it, but literally no one else keeps the refs up afterwards, except for like the MCU page. I figured the show existing was the source and that's why everyone drops them.

I'm sorry I bombarded your page, I just thought you came off a bit rude at first. Didn't mean to escalate into a "war." ThatGoodBoi (talk) 10:52, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 2)

I have re-nominated series 2 for GA if your intrested in moving past some issues Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:24, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware; however, as we both recall, the last time I joined a Who GA nomination where I was neither the nominator or reviewer, I was told I was interrupting. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:39, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

It's becuase you were being uncooperative mid review. This time I'm asking at the beginning of the review Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 00:29, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of List of Father Brown episodes for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Father Brown episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Father Brown episodes until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Boleyn (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power

Thank you for attempting to keep the peace, unfortunately this is not the first time at this article that I've had to deal with this sort of thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:12, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I've got no doubt. I've had the page on my watchlist for years and often read the discussions; I tend to get the vibe of fans who want to distance the show from Tolkein's works, despite whatever the sources say. I've also personally had issues with the editor in concern myself. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

You (season 5)

Due to the Hollywood double strike, it cannot premiere this year as filming has just begun. Courtesy, Variety. Kailash29792 (talk) 05:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Okay? I don't believe I've said anything contrary. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Star Trek: Prodigy

Hey, do you have any thoughts on what to do with season 2 being released early by a French broadcaster? I'm mostly unsure how we should be handling the dates in the episode table and the dates/network in the series overview table. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:00, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I did see your post at the Wikiproject and completely forgot to respond. It's so annoying, this sort of release. I think we keep the dates entirely US, keep the Season 2 table and credits with the French sources but with TBA dates in the table and overview, and include it as a note in the date column (and maybe change the header to "Original US release date"?). It's kinda like Anne with an E Season 2, which released in full on Netflix before the Canadian release, but we stick with the latter. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Cool, I was thinking of something like that but wasn't sure what sort of precedent was being set. Thanks for the response :) adamstom97 (talk) 11:25, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Episode Summary/Synopsis Restoration?

Hello. I was rather astounded to see so many TV series episode summaries/synopses removed with the mass retitling of articles that appear to be listed in your "sandbox/NCTV" section. I was also surprised that they are not even viewable from the history of either the articles or the original titles, now made redirects. Your comment "clean-up will likely need to proceed as soon as possible after this (as, for example, episode summaries won't be viewable on season articles)" from March 25th suggests it is temporary, or is such a massive removal of these summaries and synopses now permanent, and as near as I can tell, done with little discussion other than just being part of an agreed upon mass article retitling? Surely something this big wasn't done so nonchalantly, and is only a temporary side-effect of the move, right? Thanks.98.97.5.175 (talk) 12:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, found this a bit late for the above, so I guess that means the restoration is imminent. Still, I'll be pacing back and forth until the content comes back.98.97.5.175 (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The summaries are still there, they are just temporarily hidden until the table codes get updated to match the new article titles. - adamstom97 (talk) 12:51, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(I guess being called a stalker can be a good thing? <grin>) Glad to hear that, though as I wrote the above, kinda answered my own question and wanted some reassurances. The changes without an obvious trace gave me a "Oceania had always been at war with Eastasia" feeling, kinda like Beverly Crusher that one time.98.97.5.175 (talk)

I have responded at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)#Technical updates. Yes, it is a temporary situation; please do not assume bad faith. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 10)

Can you please add I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 10) to your NCTV sandbox, so it can be moved to I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian TV series) season 10? I created the article I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here! (Australian season 10). Yours sincerely, Bas (or TechGeek105) (talk to me) 11:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@TechGeek105  Moved The NCTV sandbox moves have all been completed, so I moved this one manually. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 11:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Futurama (season 8) episodes

A tag has been placed on Category:Futurama (season 8) episodes indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:54, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving categories

Re: Category:30 Rock (season 1) episodes through Category:30 Rock (season 7) episodes, please:

1. move all the pages categorized in the old category to the new category
2. leave redirects from the old to the new

Thanks.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  14:19, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

1. This is what I've done, yes, example.
2. Is there a need for redirects?

-- Alex_21 _TALK 14:30, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Why are redirects needed? They just pollute the search results when I'm searching for incorrect titles. Any fix should not be based on the old style. Gonnym (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

If there are no more links to the old cats, then I suppose they can be deleted, but that is a rare occurrence from what I've seen, and at the very least take some work to accomplish. Also, leaving #Rs is more user-friendly for those not aware of the transition.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Re: Cat-a-lot: if you move too quickly between categories, it will skip over pages with no warning. You need to refresh the old category after a Cat-a-lot move to confirm that the old cat is emptied. 57 pages were not moved from seasons 3, 4, 5, 6.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've added the list to CfD speedy requests. Don't waste your time manually doing this when a bot can do this in two days (or sooner if the admins there decide). Gonnym (talk) 16:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't realize that there were pages skipped, my bad. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Help moving a page

Hello, I was wondering if you could help me rename my article. I would like to move the article Backrooms (web series) to Backrooms. Is there a way to move it to that title in a way that I’m still credited as the page creator. A couple of my articles last year were moved to redirect pages and because of that, I am no longer credited as their page creator. The person who made the redirects are now credited as page creator. The reason I want to change the title is because there are no articles in main space with the title “Backrooms”, I don’t think my article should need “(web series)” if there are no other articles with that title. If you can help I would really appreciate it. Key limes (talk) 02:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Key limes Backrooms is an undisambiguated title, and should redirect to Back room (a disambiguation page), while Backrooms (web series) should stay where it is. Whoever is credited as "page creator" is really irrelevant, as Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Empire of Death

Hello, and thanks for creating Empire of Death (Doctor Who). I notice that Empire of Death redirects there. There are two other uses for disambiguation:

• List of criminal organizations in DC Comics#Empire of Death
• Paul Koudounaris#The Empire of Death

Do you think we might pull the four entries into a disambiguation page at Empire of Death, rather than a set index? Or should the set index be a third entry in the dab page instead? Thanks, Wikishovel (talk) 08:51, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@Wikishovel Absolutely, I wasn't aware of those two situations, so thank you for bringing them up. I'll convert the whole thing to a disambig page. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-0 season infoboxes

Hey, I figure you know the infoboxes better than I do. The season infoboxes for Hawaii Five-0 aren't automatically linking properly between seasons after the title changes. Am I just missing something? I thought it may have been something to do with the disambiguation in the middle at first, but MacGyver and Magnum P.I. season infoboxes are working as intended. TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Gonnym in this. After some debugging, Hawaii Five-0 (2010 TV series) season # is trying to pull the next season's link as Hawaii Five-(#+1) (2010 TV series) season (#+1), so it's replacing all numbers in the show's title with the next/previous season number. I feel like this is an issue with Module:Infobox television season name, specifically getArticleTitleAndPipedLink(). Thoughts? -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Let me know if other issues arise. Gonnym (talk) 15:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gonnym: season 9 still isn't linking to season 10. Everything else is working, including 9 to 8 and 10 to 9. TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho hopefully fixed now. Gonnym (talk) 16:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed for me. Thank you so much! TheDoctorWho (talk) 16:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

British Television Viewing Figures

Hiiii, me again . Hoping you have a moment to help me understand some data. I setup a ratings table similar to what has been used on recent DW articles at Line of Duty series 4 (I used Doctor Who series 10 as a starting point for myself). I'll use Episode 6 as an example, I have a source stating that it was viewed by 7.5 million overnight. Meanwhile, BARB gives me consolidated figures at 9.82 million and 28-day data at 10.4 million. From what it appears to me, shouldn't the Total viewers = Overnight + Consolidated? And if so should total viewers be less than 28-day viewers? Because 7.5 + 9.82 = 17.32 (total) which is greater than 10.4 and didn't quite make sense to me. I don't edit many articles for British shows though, especially not when it comes to viewing figures, so I'm not sure if I'm just interpreting it wrong? TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:05, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help! Let's take a look at Episode 6. There were 7.5M overnight viewers, and 9.82M viewers within 7 days. That means there were 2.32M consolidated viewers (9.82-7.5), so the values for Viewers / Consolidated / Total / 28-day should be 7.5 / 2.32 / 9.82 / 10.4. So, to answer you, Total viewers = Overnight + Consolidated is correct, and should total viewers be less than 28-day viewers is correct. Hope that helps! -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:27, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, got it. Was quite literally just doing my math backwards because I was plugging the number from Barb into the wrong field here (which I only did because the names were the same). Thank you so much! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The Boys season 4 characters

Doesn't the fact that a character appears in the trailer count as official/verified??? As Also Ashley and Ezekiel Marco camino 10 (talk) 21:41, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 No, you need to provide a secondary source per WP:V and WP:RS. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

TV show season article titles

I just noticed that this move has been done. I asked some questions about the old convention using parentheses in 2020 which led to you reviving the discussion a little while later, and I also saw your involvement in the recent RFC. I wanted to thank you for carrying the torch on this issue! That's been bugging me for so long and I think it's good that it changed. --superioridad ^(discusión) 21:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Happy to help! It's something I'd been hoping would happen for a while. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:12, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Stranger Things season 5

I have another question, because Jeff Sneider is not a source for the title of the episodes of Stranger Things but in the Marvel articles, yes? I hope you answer, thank you :) Marco camino 10 (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

YouTube is not a source, is what I'm saying. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:11, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks :) Marco camino 10 (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Episode table and parts color

If a TV season has official story arc titles listed as separated part headers, do they all need to be a single attributed color or can they split colors per part? GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55 The standard practice is both, based upon whether it's an actual part (as opposed to a mid-season break) and separate posters. If there's separate posters, typically we split the parts by the primary colour of the poster; e.g. List of Heroes episodes Season 3. Sometimes they can be the same; e.g. List of Stranger Things episodes Season 4. Sometimes, articles have a combination of both; e.g. List of Futurama episodes Season 6/7 then Season 8. It's realistically up to the editor implementing it. Hope that helps! -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:07, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Word counts on script-plotlength.js

Can you re-check your script if it has some bugs? When I use it to know the total word count of each episode summaries of Death's Game it exceed by one word. See my diff and this other user's diff. 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 • [𝚃𝙰𝙻𝙺] 12:06, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

This script is only means as a guide and unfortunately won't be perfect. The script simply likely has a different word-counting method than Word does; one word difference is a minimal separation. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

script-plotlength.js

Hi Alex... was trying to use your (very handy!) plot length script on From (TV series) and it didn't seem to be working—I just get a blank pop up instead of the plot length summary like it used to generate. If you have a chance, can you take a look? I'm wondering if maybe the changes you would have had to have made to the episode templates to accommodate the recent TV series naming convention change may have b0rked it? —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

@Joeyconnick Hey! Happy to help. I tested the script on that particular article and it seems to work for me - this is the result. There may be an error with the script through another browser (especially with the recent changes) - could I ask you to open your browser console (typically the F12 key), run the script, then see if any errors pop up and paste them here (or screenshot)? Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:18, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Alex... I'm on the latest Chrome on macOS Sonoma 14.4.1.

Here's a screenshot of my console (after running the script).

And here's a look at my results when I run it (in dark mode). Empty results.

Just tried it on another page with episode summaries: The Flash season 1... same issue. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:37, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

That's weird. No errors, and it works on the Flash article for me as well. I'll have to take a deep look into it over the weekend. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! Definitely no rush or pressure. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

So... this is embarrassing... I was trying to use the script while editing the page(s) in question. When I run them on the page in view mode, i.e. before hitting "Edit source", it works as expected. I assume that's the expected behaviour? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, absolutely! The scripts determines the length of the plots are they appear rendered on the screen, rather than how they appear through wikitext. You can then preview any edits you make, and the script will work on the previewed rendering of the plots as well. Looks like that's one thing off my ToDo list then. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:58, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

On this note... I just used the script over on Rogue (Doctor Who) and it returned a plot length of 1096 words. However, when I edit the plot section section, show the preview, and run the script again, it calculates the length properly. I used to be able to run it properly without previewing the plot section directly. Not too hard to do, but just thought I'd mention it in case it was unintentional. I haven't checked to see if it's limited to that page yet. TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:25, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

@TheDoctorWho Cheers, I've been able to fix that now. (Still not sure why it's not running for other editors, unfortunately.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:41, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

"The Doctors (Doctor Who)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect The Doctors (Doctor Who) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 25 § The Doctors (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 02:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

The sort categories alphabetically script does not work

I tried reinstalling it but when I click "Sort categories" it does nothing. The only thing that works is the edit summary. Turtletennisfogwheat (talk) 07:27, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Running time of episodes

Any clues as to why you deleted my helpful insertion of running times of episodes? When episode lengths are different it’s useful to know of these.. 2A00:23CC:D214:101:78EB:3A02:842B:4A7F (talk) 22:42, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

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

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Flash 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Witch's Familiar Daleks.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Witch's Familiar Daleks.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:28, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Zygon Inversion.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Zygon Inversion.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for The Devil's Chord

On 12 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article The Devil's Chord, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Doctor Who episode "The Devil's Chord" references the events of an episode that aired more than sixty years before? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/The Devil's Chord. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, The Devil's Chord), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Z1720 (talk) 00:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Boom (Doctor Who)

On 15 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Boom (Doctor Who), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that while filming the Doctor Who episode "Boom" some takes lasted up to seven minutes? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Boom (Doctor Who). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Boom (Doctor Who)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Promotional images for Doctor Who episodes

Hi there, I noticed you uploaded promotional images for Space Babies and the Devil's Chord. However, you previously removed the promotional posters for all episodes in Series 9 and 10, and I wanted to clarify what policy you used as a basis for those as opposed to the new photos, as I would like to see those seasons with infobox images as well. Flabshoe1 (talk) 23:07, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, those "promotional posters" across those episodes where actually simply screenshots of the episodes, as randomly chosen by an editor - those are not promotional posters. These are actually promotional posters, created released to promote each episode individually, exactly the same as every episode of Series 7 (bar "A Town Called Mercy", which adds contextual significance). -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:51, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense to avoid random screenshots. However, I notice that many of the images removed were not screenshots but actually specially made promotional posters made for the individual episode, while other promotional posters from the era still remain.

Pages with promotional posters:

• S8E2-E9, S8E12
• S9E2, S9E8, S9E12
• "The Husbands of River Song" and "The Return of Doctor Mysterio"

Pages missing promotional posters:

• S8E1 "Deep Breath" poster
• S8E10 "In the Forest of the Night" poster
• S8E11 "Dark Water" poster
• Special "Last Christmas" poster
• S9E1 "The Magician's Apprentice poster
• S9E3 "Under the Lake poster
• S9E5 "The Girl Who Died" poster
• S9E6 "The Woman Who Lived" poster
• S9E7 "The Zygon Invasion" poster
• S9E9 "Sleep No More" poster
• S9E10 "Face the Raven" poster
• S9E11 "Heaven Sent" poster
• S10E2 "Smile" poster
• S10E3 "Thin Ice" poster
• S10E5 "Oxygen" poster
• S10E6 "Extremis" poster
• S10E7 "The Pyramid at the End of the World" poster
• S10E8 "The Lie of the Land" poster
• S10E9 "Empress of Mars" poster
• S10E10 "The Eaters of Light" poster
• S10E11 "World Enough and Time" poster
• S10E12 "The Doctor Falls" poster

For the pages missing their promotional posters, I can go ahead and reupload them. Flabshoe1 (talk) Flabshoe1 (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

See, now there's a difference. Those are promotional images, which, yes, are released for every episode as part of the weekly marketing, and typically released with a multitude of other similar pictures (example), of which we would have to (again) pick one at random. They are not, however, promotional posters. One could look at any of those images for S8/S9/S10 randomly, and not be able to identify which episode is was released for. Do you see a difference between the S7 and S14 posters (here is the rest of S14's), and those images? Each poster immediately identifies the episode. "The Husbands of River Song" is a promotional image (and yes, should therefore be removed); "The Return of Doctor Mysterio" is absolutely a promotional poster. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:24, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I argue that each poster is immediately identifiable to the specific episode as it contains elements exclusive to each episode, even lacking the accompanying text. Additionally, the poster is clearly differentiated from the other screenshots/images, as they are heavily edited with all the cast together posing, showing that rather than an image of a random scene it is a specially designed poster. Flabshoe1 (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) These are clearly not posters. They don't have the text that is expected to appear on a poster, they aren't in the typical poster shape, and they are very obviously promo shoot pictures which is a whole separate thing. - adamstom97 (talk) 13:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

1. "Typical poster shape". The accepted posters for all episodes in Series 7 are in the same shape (example: Asylum of the Daleks) so this has no bearing on the discussion.

2. "Obviously promo shoot pictures". The only thing that distinguishes these from other posters is the lack of text. For example, the accepted cover of Twice Upon a Time was initially released textless as a promotional image for the episode marketing just like these photos, but later used with text. Would you argue that this is a promo shoot picture and not a poster then? They are not wholly separate things as you say, but rather the same minus text.

I understand that these posters lack text, but that is the only distinguishing factor. In every other way, the photos are specially designed posters for each episode that immediately identify them. Flabshoe1 (talk) 14:12, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The two examples you provided have been turned into posters. The other ones you provided have not. - adamstom97 (talk) 14:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I would like to back up adamstom here if you look at the text less poster for TUaT, you cant identify it as being that without already knowing the episode. Compare that with say Nightmare in Silver which has a poster which says "Nightmare in Silver" therefore being easily identifiable. I tried at random selecitng a promo image and identifing it knowing the episodes and I only got 3/5 of them. Some of these with prior knowledge you could guess like Smile, but Heaven sent is just a room. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 17:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Would you argue that this is a promo shoot picture and not a poster then? They are not wholly separate things as you say, but rather the same minus text. Absolutely. The textless image would simply be a promotional picture. The BBC then using it with text to directly advertise the episode, as it is currently used in the article, makes it a promotional poster. So yes, it's the text that makes the image/poster identifiable to the episode, as it means it is directly advertising that episode, rather than being a singular promo image out of another dozen. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Makes sense to me, thanks for explaining it clearly and concisely. Flabshoe1 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Tagging TedEdwards in this discussion, where I provided clarity on what a promotional poster is. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:59, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Game of Thrones templates has been nominated for deletion

Category:Game of Thrones templates has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies 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. Gonnym (talk) 05:41, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Witch's Familiar Daleks.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Witch's Familiar Daleks.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Zygon Inversion.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Zygon Inversion.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 05:47, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Whoniverse logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Whoniverse logo.jpg. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:55, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Page move request

Can you move the page 2024 Dagestan attack to 2024 Dagestan attacks? There is consensus in the talk page but I can't make the move due to technical reasons. Also, sorry for bothering you, your name is among the first in the list of page movers :). Ecrusized (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Space Babies

On 25 June 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Space Babies, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that due to legal and union restrictions, the production team for the Doctor Who episode "Space Babies" occasionally had to replace real babies with props? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Space Babies. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Space Babies), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Doctor Who series 14

Hey there. I'm gonna wait 'til the RM is over for obvious reasons, and I might do a quick CE on the lead, but general thoughts on Series 14 in the way of GA criteria? I think it's improved quite a bit with my work over the last few days. I do have quite a few GA's under my belt, but given that none of those are Doctor Who seasons I just wanted to get your opinion since you're responsible for most of the other ones and still one of the top contributors on the page. TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:14, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late reply! I think the S14 article is in far better state than some of the previous series articles that have been promoted to GA, thanks to your incredible additions, so I think you're the one who should absolutely nominate it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

No worries on response time, and thanks for the go ahead! One other quick question (which I'll raise to @LukeLB: as well), since the three of us together are responsible for over 80% of the article's authorship: would either or both of you like to be listed as co-nominators when I nominate it? TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, go for it. I'll happily contribute to the GA nomination recommendations. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK for Dot and Bubble

On 9 July 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dot and Bubble, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the 2024 Doctor Who episode "Dot and Bubble" was first conceptualized in 2009? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dot and Bubble. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Dot and Bubble), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Stranger Things

Hello,

I am writing in regards to the edit on the Stranger Things page. I made an edit in adding Franco’s character of Argyle and Quinn’s character of Munson. I know they receive “also starring” credit in Season 4, but the characters of Buono and Bower also receive this credit during that season and the page does not address it. Also in the cast list and on numerous times during the page it says Franco and Quinn are part of the cast. Can you address this matter and tell me why my part was removed but the others can stay.

-Snipehype Snipehype (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

They are part of the cast, but they are not part of the main credited cast. The main article for the series is for main cast; the separate characters article is for all other cast. Concerining Buono and Bower - Buono has been main cast S1-3 and will be for S5; Bower will be main cast for S5. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Rogue (Doctor Who)

oops, I thought it had been added in the page, didn't realise it was the info box. my mistake, thanks for correcting me. regarding "should it be in there even?", I don't think you could ask that question without also having to ask the same question of Susan Twist. because discussing the inclusion by any objective criteria means they would have to be treated the same way, so choosing to keep one but not the other would be introducing an unwanted POV to the article. in part I write as someone who tried to remove Twist from a different infobox earlier in the series and was in no uncertain terms reverted. JustAnotherCompanion (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

WIkiProject Doctor Who Newsletter: July 2024

The Space-Time Telegraph Volume II, Issue I — July 2024 Brought to you by the editors of WikiProject Doctor Who Okay–ooh. New teeth newsletter. That's weird... Hello! Welcome to the first regenerated issue of The Space-Time Telegraph, the official newsletter of WikiProject Doctor Who. We hope it finds you well in your safe travels across the Whoniverse! This newsletter was founded in 2008 and seemed to get lost in the time vortex quite quickly. Thanks to the Doctor dragging Sutekh through the time vortex and bringing life by bringing death to death (yeah... I'm a little confused too), it seems to have regenerated. The writing staff hopes to bring you future editions quarterly. For this first edition, we have created an updated version of our mailing list that includes any active editors who previously had their usernames included in our participants list. If you do not wish to receive future editions, please remove your name from the mailing list. If you no longer wish to participate in the project, please also remove your name from the participants list. I think that's enough about the newsletter for now. Let's dive into interesting things happening within the Doctor Who side of Wikipedia. Geronimooooo..... Big Spike in Productivity During 2024, the project has scored 8 GAs, 2 FLs and a GT, up from last year's 4 GAs and a GT. Several additional things are in the pipeline, with a bunch of things currently having been nominated with some mix of OlifanofmrTennant, TheDoctorWho, and Pokelego999 having their names attached to them. Allow me to look into the nominees. Series 14: As of July 18th, every single episode has been sent to GAN, with "Boom", "73 Yards", and "The Devil's Chord" having made it to GA. 2023 Specials: Early in the year, as part of trying to not lose the WikiCup, Ollie sent "The Star Beast" (still salty about the move) to GAN. It was reviewed by frequent collaborator (fly high) of hers, but failed. She then fixed it up and sent it back where it passed. Later "The Giggle" was expanded and sent to GA, followed shortly by "Wild Blue Yonder". WBY received help by JustAnotherCompanion, a pretty fresh user. This other companion chose not to be listed as co-nom. A page was created for "Destination: Skaro" and quickly got GA status. The Daleks' Master Plan was also sent to GAN by Rhain. It passed to join Rhain's other First Doctor content, being the fourth season three article to get the green check. Peter Capaldi: The filmography and newly created awards of Capaldi were both sent to FLC and passed. Capaldi's main page was sent to GA, though due to some minor incompetence on the part of the nominator it was failed. Proposals to the WikiProject A recent proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Doctor Who suggested potential improvements and suggestions for the main page of the project, as well as discussions about the project overall. The proposals are as follows: The Task Forces section should be removed due to inactivity in the Torchwood Task Force, and a lack of significant interest in creating further Task Forces. The freenode channel no longer works and should be removed due to most discussion taking place on site. Due to the low quality of Lungbarrow and Jubilee despite being sample articles, these articles should either be removed as samples or improved. Additionally, the "sample device" has a very small application field, and should be removed from the sample articles section. An updates infobox should be included, similarly to those used by Wikipedia:VGCHAR. Radio Times's Doctor Who sections should be included in the references section due to their benefits for the project sourcing wise. The Deletion Discussion archive should be removed, or have work invested in updating it, due to its lack of updates. If you feel you have any thoughts or suggestions on these matters, or on any other matters pertaining to the project and its main page, feel free to chime in the ongoing discussion. Discussions of Note A move discussion is currently underway on whether or not Doctor Who series 14 should be moved to Doctor Who season 1 (2024). The discussion also involves conversation on a few other adjacent articles. If you have an opinion on the matter please read over the discussion or leave comments. Contributors TheDoctorWho (talk) Pokelego999 (talk) Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) If you wish to contribute to future editions of the newsletter, leave a message on the WikiProject talk page or reach out to one of the current contributors listed above. If you do not wish to receive future editions of the Space-Time Telegraph, please remove your name from our our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Krypton (TV series) logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Krypton (TV series) logo.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:26, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Citations - All Articles Relating to all productions by Big Finish Productions

Hi Alex 21 Just a quick line on how to rectify the situation with regards to all articles and lists relating to Big Finish Productions. With the launch of the new website all references that link to Big Finish Productions will now throw up an Error 404 message.

If we cannot source verifiable sources there is a risk of losing all content related to Big Finish Productions. Can you assist with sourcing references and remedying the situation on the articles. There is a lot of work to be completed.

Hope you're doing well. R2Mar (talk) 22:50, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Rick and Morty: The Anime

Something tells me by the way you described your revisions that you wanted to instigate me. Your edit description comes across as extremely WP:RUDE.

• Rv mass edits. Unexplained display of future category, unexplained addition of (2024) link to season that hasn't aired yet, unexplained removal of episode table formatting. No guideline or standard states that episode rows have to have an episode title to be shown - in fact, the standard is once two pieces of information are available for an episode, the row can be displayed.
• Restore reference and title - keep the director parameter.

These types of descriptions, especially the bolded comments, come off as authoritarian to me, and it's something I don't appreciate. You can undo my edits if I am in the wrong, but learn to be more courteous please. Stuff like this is the reason I had issues with you in the past to begin with. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@GalaxyFighter55 I explained my revert in clear, civil detail. You explained two things in your edit summary, and did not explain the rest of your reverts of my edits, nor the removals of content, nor the violations of guidelines that you are aware of. Kindly use the edit summary appropriately; if you would like a revision of television article guidelines, I would be more than happy to take you through them. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: No, I was not aware of those very specific and minute guidelines. How does it make sense to lay out, in detail, all those future airing dates from Futon Critic into the table but there's some supposed guideline you cannot insert the year in the section header despite using that very reliable source? You also failed to properly explain why the episode director section has to stay in despite it simply spamming the series director's name 10 times. Stop gaslighting and just own up that you could have worded it out better than you did. Also, the category was just collateral.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

Some supposed guideline? MOS:TVSEASONYEAR is very clear in its statement of years in the header. The director credit is a valid parameter, no matter it's value, and there is no standard for removing it based on a singular value; see the list I provided at User talk:Alex 21/Archive 45#Spidey and His Amazing Friends (2021 TV series) that supports a multitude of examples of singular-value columns. Happy to help! -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: But WHY, especially if you're already setting up exact dates via Futon Critic anyways? They don't provide any valid explanation for this. And if there were hypothetically, let's say 100 episodes of a series, and every single episode was directed by the same person, such a thing would look incredibly ridiculous on a table, wouldn't you agree? And cut the out, it does not help.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

If you don't like the guideline, then I recommend you discuss it on the relevant talk page; the why is not up to me. However, you now know what the guideline is.

And not at all. All 89 episodes of List of Vikings episodes were written by the same person, and it's valid to include it in every table; they would be missing vital information if the writer column was removed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Alright, but what if there is a scenario where not all the added information can fit onto an episode table (e.i. there's so much information that it starts to warp the sections into more than one line)? Then would I be able to remove a section with just one person listed? You could always just have a note above the table telling you who directed or wrote an episode for something like that, right?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 02:56, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

More than one line? Like Episode 6 at List of Game of Thrones episodes, where all information fits on one line except the one episode, or the latest season of The Umbrella Academy? It's credited information so it all needs listing. I don't see why sections can't be more than one line. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:01, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

No, to the point where everything goes over 1 line.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 20:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

Can you show me an example? -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:15, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Unfortunately, I can't think of an example right off the top of my head at the moment. However, let's use One Piece season 21 as a hypothetical example: if I were to add alternative airing dates, surely I'd have to remove one of the section parameters (which would most definitely be animation directors) due to the table already being too crowded. However in hypothetical speaking, if the episodes were all written by the same person, then logically it would be smarter to remove the writers section since it's just spamming the same person's name over and over again. If that were the case, you would agree with this assessment, correct?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:36, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

I genuinely don't see why you'd have to remove any parameters if you added an extra column to that particular article and table.

I would disagree with that assessment, given that the writer is a parameter readers and editors expect to see in the table; however, if local consensus agreed to remove it, then by all means. -- Alex_21 _TALK 10:59, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Well you see, in my opinion it already looks crowded as is, and adding another column parameter of information would most definitely alter the traditional table structure where you have virtually all the episodes over its traditional format of 2 lines for episode titles in this instance. Instead of having that happen, it would make more sense to simply remove a column off the table that is just repeating the same exact line of information for every episode, possibly with a disclaimer note at the top section regarding the now-missing column, thus preserving the seamless design of the episode table and still delivering topical information to the reader. Of course, this is just proposal I gave for you to think about and give me your own thoughts, nothing more to it.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:32, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Just so you know, if you undo this edit then you should also remove Takashi Sano's name from future episodes in the direction box as well since the source that's used for it doesn't explicitly state he's directing all 10 episodes. You can't undo my edit using that argument while also keeping this up, it's the same exact logic applied. Thank you.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 19:33, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

The source very clearly states that he is the director of the series; there is nothing ambiguous about that. Your edit's source is simply "it's safe to assume" - that is a violation of WP:OR, a core site policy; such deliberate violations of policies is concerning. Concerning this edit, you are correct, the shows credits are indeed a reliable primary source - for the episodes that have aired. The whole season has not yet aired. Can you provide a source titling him as the writer of the series itself? If so, the content is more than welcome. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

@Alex 21: And yet, it doesn't state he directs all 10 episodes. Yes, you can in-fact be the series director, but that doesn't automatically mean you directed all of the episodes individually, especially in anime production. I gave you the source of where to go find my additions, the show's OP credits itself, for him writing the episodes, but for some reason that same logic doesn't apply to the episode direction section? You are in essence a hypocrite by trying to justify WP:OR against me when that attributed source only states he's the series director, which is equally concerning if you ask me. And before you come back to make any case defending it or to try to undo my latest edit on the page removing future episode direction credits, I can pull up multiple examples in anime TV series where the series director wasn't credited as directing every single episode (it's actually nearly every single production, you can even go look it up for yourself). I'm not sure how it works in western production, but it sure doesn't happen the way you believe it does with anime. So it only makes sense it should stay as is until credited per aired episode if you really want to go down that route.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 21:31, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy to compromise and wait every episode for the credits as they air. Glad we could have this discussion! See how productive it was? Next time, make sure you're complying with Wikipedia's core policies about not adding unsourced content (since you gave me a singular episode's credits, rather than the whole show). All the best, happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:49, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Also concerning the addition of future episode titles here, in this case "Memories", please be sure to update the |access-date= parameter of the relevant source when adding updated material. This is per the template documentation of {{Cite web}}. Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

I didn't try to add any original attributes on purpose; Usually the OP credits of anime from where I got it from do not change, which is why I believed it to be justifiable. You could say I didn’t attribute a proper notation explaining that, that is a fair case to make if you did, but at the time I believed it didn’t fall under WP:OR for that very reason. And perhaps saying the word "assume" in my edit description was a poor decision that gave that idea to you, so I understand that. Nevertheless I’m glad we could come to a resolution, thanks. And the cite web update you informed me of is news to me!--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 08:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power episode redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:56, 9 August 2024 (UTC)