User talk:Alex 21

Archives

Archive 2014 Archive 2015 Archive 2016 Archive 2017 Archive 2018 Archive 2019 Archive 2020 Archive 2021 Archive 2022 Archive 2023 Archive 2024 Archive 2025

		The Template Barnstar
		For fixing {{Television ratings graph}}, a template that had been significantly diminished for years without the Graph extension – your work returns the template to its full use again. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please rearrange the list by the order of broadcast? Rollbacker Geraldo Perez and Magical Golden Whip want it to be per broadcast company as aired, which I believe refers to broadcast order. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan Is there a reason you are unable to do so yourself? I'm not sure how this is a complicated edit. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As it would be for me. -- Alex_21 _TALK 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please fix it and see what the problem is? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ahecht has introduced new code; I am awaiting them to fix the issue they have introduced. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that the term "original air date" retired from the main table in favor of "original release date". Was it due to the rise of streaming? The viewer table was lucky enough to be kept though. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BaldiBasicsFan If we were going by airing vs. streaming, it would need to be "Original air date" and "Original streaming date". "Original release date" covers every format of release, and it now conforms with every other table we use, especially infoboxes. By viewer table, do you mean {{Television episode ratings}}? -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to just randomly barge in, but I'd like to ask a question regarding this new episode table change. Would it still be technically correct as to keep the AltDate parameter listed as "[Blank] air date" if it syndicated on television, such as being out of its original country of origin? This is a common parameter used for anime that would still have to be defined as such, especially now because of streaming. GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GalaxyFighter55 No worries! I don't see why not. For example, {{Television episode ratings}} is still using "Air date", as that template is designed for episodes that actually aired. "Original air date" or "UK air date" (for example) are still completely valid alternatives. We're not completely phasing out the word "air", just developing a sense of conformity across most articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this, you can't make up a justification a posteriori about an edition made arbitrarily by a bot. You should explain why the bot made that edition and defend it on its own merit.

I'm honestly sick and tired of bots treating well-intentioned editions as vandalism. And more to the point, it's also rather disrespectful to undo a legitimate edition rather than correct it to keep the additional information. If someone takes some time to add information that isn't presented in the place or manner it should, the responsibility of the person that notices it is to either flag it for edition with the appropriate marker so someone else fixes it, or to fix it themselves.

This sort of incompetence and indifference just deters spontaneous participation, which is why Wikipedia has become more and more a collection of ghettos that monopolize content in their respective areas of interest, with editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified.

2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean your edit I reverted here, that another editor also reverted here? Look at the edit summary, I gave a reason. There was no salvagable additional information, thus by removing it, I did fix the article. Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made. Ta. (Oh, and editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified? That's not a thing.) -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made.

I'm talking about this edit here [[1]]. It's supposedly your bot. Why the edit? Who the hell knows.

(Oh, and editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified? That's not a thing.)

Don't play dumb because you know full well what I meant.

But I made my point and I'm not gonna waste another second looking at this page. Up to you to be constructive or join the horde of petty editors reigning over their little hills. Have a good life.

2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You mean I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated bot? Would you have said the same if I restored a revision made by a completely unrelated editor? You clearly don't know what you're talking about. (If you look at User:GreenC bot, you'll even see exactly who owns the bot!) Still also don't know "full well" what you mean. Nobody gets notifications whenever "their" content is modified. That's made up.

Have a good life! Happy editing! Be careful of WP:UGC! -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a very difficult time with the user who we have both asked not to bludgeon.

The renaming discussion led me to think that perhaps we need further guidelines for the future, because as fires increase, we will run into this issue more often.Because I am relatively new to editing, I left a message in teahouse about future guidelines, here.

They began to bludgeon me there, too, accused me of bad behavior, and then specifically said something to me that I asked them not to and then accused me of casting aspersions.

What can I do? Does this rise to the level of ANI?

Thank you,

delecto

Delectopierre (talk) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is my first interaction with the editor in question, but if you believe you are being harassed, I strongly recommend you take it to ANI, yes. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Thank you for your reply.

I fear I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia. Delectopierre (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am super confused as to what they just did here: Talk:Palisades Fire (2025)#c-Jasper Deng-20250110034700-Requested move 9 January 2025

Did they close their own comment thread with a note that it was necessary? I've never seen that before, but again, am new. Delectopierre (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe they realized their back/forth arguing was more than what was needed, and hid the discussion, since it was unnecessary for the RM. Our oppositions still remain. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. Thanks again! Delectopierre (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Alex 21 I ended up doing so, here. Delectopierre (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, back again. I wasn't aware of this until it was just brought up in the FLC, but apparently in the series 2 episode table, episodes 6-12 list combine ratings from BBC Two and BBC Three. I don't know if that's necessarily the best ay to handle the situation, as we're listing figures from an original broadcast and a repeat, while all other episodes only list an original broadcast. By traditional methods we only list from the initial broadcast, but that would mean significantly scaled down numbers. Episode 6 for example, only received 0.849 million on BBC3, the other 3.22 are from BBC2. At the same time, it feels odd to list the BBC3 date and the BBC2 figures. One option would just be to swap the entire table over to BBC2 data (dates and figures) and denote BBC3 data with footnotes, but I wasn't sure if you had any other alternatives I might consider first? TheDoctorWho (talk) 17:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's definitely an interesting situation. Personally, I would definitely just swap it over to BBC2, as that's what the series overview table originally had, just BBC2. Another way could be looking at how List of Humans episodes is listed, with separate rows for UK/US, but in this case, separate rows for BBC2/BBB2, though I feel that would make the table overly cluttered. If you do update it to BBC2, I'd recommend updating the episode articles as well; for example, "Reset" would be listed as 20 February 2008, but its article currently lists 13 February 2008. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Both the episode tables and individual Infoboxes have been updated to the BBC2 data with BBC3 broadcast/figures explained in footnotes and prose where necessary. I'd be more inclined to use separate rows (or columns like I did for the dates at Miracle Day) if it were every episode, but with it barely being half, this seemed like the better option. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! (It's always Who that has to be complicated somehow...) Perhaps one day we can also look at developing Series 1 and 2 article pages for Torchwood; only the latter two have articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Making articles for the first two series is something that's been on my to do list for several years 😅. Perhaps I'll get around to it this year (hopefully), I can't imagine they'd be too difficult with the information that's already in the show's article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you strongly support the fact that images can not exceed the limit of 100,000 pixels, also known as 0.1 megapixels. You also wrote a script for automatically making images stay below this limit. However, right below the part that states this in WP:IMAGERES, they tell you if one dimension exceeds 1,000 pixels, or if the pixel count approaches 1 megapixel, they tell you reducing is not needed. TheOnlyNomis (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@TheOnlyNomis Okay, thanks? I'm not sure what you're pointing to here. My script is simply a matter of convenience. (Also, it actually says that the image will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution). -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The series is limited series so i think it an end date should be added.

Source: https://gamerant.com/star-wars-skeleton-crew-season-1-ending-explained/ 122.55.235.120 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see no source within the article stating that it is a limited series. Your source states [w]hile a second season is unlikely, meaning that is it not confirmed that a second series will not happen. Thus, per WP:TV standards, it stays as present until we find out otherwise, or a year passes, whichever happens first. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is after [w]hile a second season is unlikely, the limited series wraps up neatly with no pressing need for continuation. That's what it says in the source. 122.55.235.120 (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, so it's not actually confirmed that the series has concluded. The "present" will remain per WP:TV standards, thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Alex, shouldn't the color of the You season 5 article be an orange-red like the poster released today along with the date teaser? Thank you Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco camino 10 Can you link me to this new poster? The current colour of the article matches the colour of the current poster, per TinEye. The previous colour, per Snook, was also not AAA compliant as per WP:COLOR. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, in this article you can find the new poster that Netlfix has published: https://www.cbr.com/you-season-5-footage-netflix-premiere-date/ I would have included it myself, but I don't know how to add images with Copyright in Wikipedia Marco camino 10 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco camino 10 Thanks for that! I'll upload it for us. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Alex, could you explain the process or point me to an article that explains how to upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia if you don't mind? So you know how to do it on future occasions. Thank you Marco camino 10 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Marco camino 10 You can either find information on how to upload at Wikipedia:Uploading images (relevant policies/guidelines are Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content), or the file uploading page can be found at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doctor Who series 14, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Susan Twist portrayed seven different roles in the eight episodes of Doctor Who's fourteenth series? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doctor Who series 14. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Doctor Who series 14), 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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On 21 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joy to the World (Doctor Who), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Disney+ released a promotional poster for the Doctor Who Christmas special "Joy to the World" with the title spelled incorrectly? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy to the World (Doctor Who). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joy to the World (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.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,044 views (670.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are actually purposefully ignoring and misrepresenting multiple guidelines. There is no consensus here to remove the hatnotes, and you were supposed to open further discussion if the consensus had changed, which you didn't. Additionally, there is no violation of WP:HATNOTE despite you stating so, hatnotes are cheap and the purpose of a hatnote is to provide further or other disambiguated articles that readers are likely to be looking for from this target. Continually adding the season 11 article link to the lead instead of the hatnote is actually against the concise, short nature of MOS:LEAD.

Adding a season link hatnote to a series article isn't anywhere near the same as a TV guide, and even if it was, that policy doesn't apply here as WP:TVGUIDE applies to only "an article on a broadcaster" (meaning articles like CBS, BBC and Network 10), and not applying to series/season articles themselves at all. Also, per WP:NCDAB/WP:NATURALDAB, this is a further disambiguation as even if the season number is not in brackets it is still a natural disambiguation and still provides disambiguation from other articles. Happily888 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Happily888 Are you aware that you have now violated the core WP:3RR policy by reverting more than three times over 24 hours? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The first revert was reverting infobox vandalism and isn't counted per 3RR. Happily888 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is not "obvious" vandalism per WP:3RRNO #4. Please be aware that in the face of guidelines, you have violated a major policy. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll self revert then if you want the lead to have that so much. Happily888 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

On second thought, a standalone table on the series articles for the specials may not be terrible per se. I understand that it's still not ideal by any means, but we're already running standalone tables on articles like Doctor Who specials (2023) where there's only one supplemental episode, or three tables already exist on Doctor Who series 2, so these articles wouldn't look that different. I assume we'd also break out an additional table on series 6 and 7 (over and above the specials) for parts 1 and 2.

We would just need to decide 1) where to place the new tables (chronological would make some sense, but for articles with multiple specials (series 7, 10), one special would be out of place if we put both specials in the same table, so one option would be to just default to below the series itself since it's a special outside of said series); and 2) how to handle transclusions to the episode list (whether it simply be additional subheaders or coming up with some convoluted method using noinclude/includeonly/onlyinclude tags to force the separated tables to join themselves back together on the list). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Criminal Minds (season 16) DVD cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 00:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like I'm becoming a regular visitor here lately I was hoping to add a television ratings graph to List of Station 19 episodes. Unfortunately it's five episodes over the limit, so I split in into two. |legend= allows you to change what's displayed in the table but the graph remains the same. This is a problem particularly for the later seasons where the graph still says "Season 1"/"Season 2"/Season 3" when it's actually supposed to represent 5/6/7. Could the template potentially be updated to also allow the legend parameter to change what's listed in the graph itself (or alternatively just let you start with say |color5= without throwing an error)? TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]