Jump to content

User talk:Alex 21

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user helped get "Thirteenth Doctor" listed at Did You Know on the main page on August 31, 2017.
This user was a top contributor to "Forever (2014 TV series)" which became a good article on October 20, 2015.
This user nominated "Sense8" as a good article, which became a good article on May 15, 2016.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 1)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on May 15, 2017.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 2)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on July 27, 2017.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 3)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on May 17, 2018.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 4)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on August 20, 2018.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (2008–2010 specials)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on October 21, 2018.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 6)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on September 3, 2019.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 7)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on 17 April 2020.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (2013 specials)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on September 23, 2019.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 8)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on October 21, 2020.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 9)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on November 23, 2020.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 10)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on March 7, 2021.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 11)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on March 12, 2021.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (series 12)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on November 8, 2021.
This user was a top contributor to and nominated "Doctor Who (2023 specials)‎" as a good article, which became a good article on February 15, 2024.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has file mover rights on the English Wikipedia
This user has page mover rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has AutoWikiBrowser permissions on the English Wikipedia.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user has earned the 100,000 Edits Award.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Slone19 (talk | contribs) at 02:52, 19 August 2018 (→‎/* Cast and characters: */ new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

User:AlexTheWhovian/Archive

EpisodeTable color constrasts

Hey Alex. This is something very minor, but looking at the Luke Cage (season 2) table with its color, I noticed in the header the column lines are virtually not there. Do you think that is an WP:ACCESS issue at all, and if it is, something we should adjust, given the color used? Is that even a parameter you have the ability to control? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it's a WP:ACCESS issue, but it can certainly be fixed by applying a border to each of the header cells, like so. We'd need to work out at which contrast a border should be applied. -- AlexTW 14:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. I think that seems better. It might not even have to be black, but maybe just a darker grey. Let me know how I can help you in implementing it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 14:13, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would need to know/work out what contrast I'd need to apply a different border at; the default border is #A2A9B1. -- AlexTW 23:02, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Would it work to have the borders change to black when the text does, contrast wise? - adamstom97 (talk) 09:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, we could, but it seems to work fine for cases like Brooklyn Nine-Nine (season 1). -- AlexTW 10:12, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, just thought that might be an easy fix. - adamstom97 (talk) 10:48, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You might be onto something, though. I made the border match the text in the testcases here; original then modified for 100 random colours. Doesn't look too bad. -- AlexTW 11:16, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, that does look pretty good. I say if you want to make the change, go for it. For cases, such as the Brooklyn Nine-Nine example, where it doesn't look bad with the grey, it might take some adjusting, but overall it might make everything look a little better. Have the heading be its own thing (with white or black text/lines) and leave the episode rows to have the grey. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:11, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alex. I've been away for a bit, and just remembered this. Any objection to implementing what you tested in the sandbox? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:26, 2 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd completely forgotten about this! All implemented now. Cheers. -- AlexTW 09:56, 3 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Favre1fan93 and Adamstom.97: But alas, Brojam reverted it[1]. -- AlexTW 03:35, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't you just make the inner border (between each column of the header row) white when there's a contrast issue with the current border color ( #A2A9B1 ). Like this. - Brojam (talk) 03:51, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's possible. Set border-left and border-right of each cell to the alternate colour of black or white, and then border-left and border-right of the whole table to default. -- AlexTW 03:57, 4 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can't the code Alex previously implement, just be applied to the inner borders, so it still matches the text color (and isn't defaulted to black or white when the contrast is off)? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this. Just working on a million things on- and off-site at the same time. -- AlexTW 04:17, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 4)

The article Doctor Who (series 4) 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 (series 4) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Adamstom.97 -- Adamstom.97 (talk) 01:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Adam, I haven't forgotten about this, but I'm currently out of town until Friday night (University rural teaching placement for the week), and the net out here is terrible, so I'll get to work on it as soon as possible. Cheers. -- AlexTW 03:59, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I trust you to get to it when you can. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Game of Thrones (season 2) critical response graph

Recently, an editor updated the Rotten Tomatoes graph for this season, causing the graph to glitch, leaving yellow streaks across the graph. This glitch is nothing to do with the editor who made the edit, and changing any of the numbers appears to fix the glitch. I was wondering if you could figure out what's happened as I've tried, by briefly partially reverting the edit to no avail. Cheers TedEdwards 15:45, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TedEdwards: I fixed it with a small decimal addition, the effect of which will be negligible. I need to look into why it's doing that... Cheers. -- AlexTW 05:04, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who Confidential

After viewing Doctor Who Confidential I have decided to fix up the article a bit as it seems a bit messy to me. I plan to eventually publish the changes I've made at User:TheDoctorWho/sandbox5 into the article, of course after I do more converting into episode tables, watch, more Confidential, and do a little work on the rest of the article. Two questions though, for starters the Series Overview seems a bit bulky any ideas on how it could be simplified/less confusing? Secondly, since the episodes are non-fiction I'm having a bit trouble writing the beginning of the episode summaries, do you have any ideas of what to use other than "This episode primarily covers"? Thanks! TheDoctorWho (talk) 10:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Hey, nice work! I'd leave the specials and +1's out of the overview, just like we do at List of Doctor Who episodes (2005–present)#Series overview, and add a similar note to what's on that page ("The following table dictates the season or series in question; singular specials are not included in episode counts or viewer totals."). As for the episode summaries, just leave them out; what the episodes focus on is rather obvious, and that's covered by the "Doctor Who Episode" column section. -- AlexTW 13:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done I left a few of the episode summaries in there, mainly the ones that don't tie into a specific Doctor Who episode. That definitely cleared up the series overview. Thanks for the advice! TheDoctorWho (talk) 06:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho: Awesome. Let me know when you've implemented the changes; there's a few formatting edits I'd like to do, but I'll wait until you're finished the new version with your edits first. Cheers. -- AlexTW 05:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do! TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've just implemented the edits. Feel free to do your thing. TheDoctorWho (talk) 09:54, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDoctorWho:  Done -- AlexTW 03:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDoctorWho: Coming back to this... I think we should include the specials in the overview table, as the numbers don't match up in the "No. in series" columns. For example, Series 6 gives 13 episodes in the overview, but 14 plus a special in the actual table. Same with Series 2, 3 and 4. What are your thoughts? -- AlexTW 01:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaving a message here in hopes of a faster response. I realized that when Template:Infobox Doctor Who character is used it automatically makes the subheader Doctor Who character. The template accepts a |series = parameter however this does not work due to the current code in the template.

Template:Infobox Doctor Who character
Although the parameter says |series = Doctor Who and Torchwood it still comes out Doctor Who (example in first infobox on right). I may be wrong but wouldn't this be incorrect for any characters that appear in spin-off's? (Examples: Rhys Williams (Torchwood), Clyde Langer, etc.) Although those characters exist in the Doctor Who Universe they never appeared in Doctor Who itself. I created a sandbox for the template and changed the code

from: |subheader = {{#if:{{{multiple|}}}|''[[Doctor Who]]'' characters|''[[Doctor Who]]'' character}}
to: |subheader = {{#if:{{{multiple|}}}|{{{series|}}} characters|{{{series|}}} character}}.

The above code change appeared to fix the issues (example in second infobox on right).

Template:Infobox Doctor Who character/sandbox
Anyways, realizing I got a little long-winded above, should the infobox be changed to accommodate the issues raised above? TheDoctorWho (talk) 07:45, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very on and off Wikipedia at the moment (as can be seen by my contributions), so I promise I'll take a look at it when I can. -- AlexTW 03:41, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, there's no rush. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of articles are unreadable thanks to you.

Currently you've caused problems with articles that use Japanese episode list templates. Japanese shows include kanji and romaji in the episode titles aside from the English titles which is why the template is different in the first place. Your efforts in suggesting the deletion of the template has caused the episodes list in a lot of articles became unreadable. Please fix this problem asap. Edit: Some anime have episodes that should be watch in release order OR chronological order. This is why the sortable function in Japanese episodes list is important. Again, please fix this (all the episode titles have disappear from the articles right now). Tsukishimastarrk (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you can't read. If you actually went to the discussion, you would see that I suggested to merge it, not delete it. Are they unreadable because of the "The template below (Japanese episode list) is being considered for deletion. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus." notice? Sorry, can't remove that, has to be there. "all the episode titles have disappear from the articles right now"? Not my change. -- AlexTW 08:28, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Television ratings graph - Average ratings format

Hi Alex. What is the reason you oppose having a background color in the cells with average ratings and also why do you prefer the italic font type instead of bold for the text? The truth is that i was very satisfied by the readability of the table after the changes i made, but now it looks weird again. - Radiphus 14:34, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, we don't use colours just for the sake of it, colours need to have actual meaning behind them when they're used. Same as when Template:Television season ratings used to use colours; it is a violation of WP:COLOR to use colour just as a way to display or convey information. (A textbook example of this that still exists can be seen at Parks and Recreation#Ratings. It's not the only one, so many more still need to be updated to template format.)
In the same vein, bold text is a violation of MOS:BOLD. (So are the italics, so realistically, it ought to be displayed as just a regular unformatted number.) -- AlexTW 15:32, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see no conflict with the style guidelines, but we don't have to argue about it. It's obvious that we both think that the average ratings should be highlighted somehow. Is the style i had proposed in January for the average column at Template talk:Television ratings graph#Suggestions considered as one of the "good suggestions"? I avoided it, because that style is used for headers. If we can't agree on any of these, i agree that displaying the average ratings as just a regular unformatted number would be better than italics. - Radiphus 16:25, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That form of formatting shouldn't be used either, as it's a violation of table layouts, but you do already know that. Regular unformatted number it is. The column could have a border to the left, but that is all that would be necessary. -- AlexTW 09:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a border would make any difference as to the purpose of highlighting the column. The increased width of the column does the job already in visually separating the average ratings from the other numbers. The purpose of using a background color and/or bold text was to immediately attract the reader's attention to data that are not already repeated elsewhere in the article and to make reading the table easier and faster. As i said, i don't believe there is any conflict with WP:COLOR or MOS:BOLD, but i don't have time to change your mind on that. Let's keep it as is (no color, border, bold, italics) and i will also make sure to remove the bold text from other templates sometime soon for consistency. - Radiphus 09:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Who (series 4)

I still haven't quite finished with the summaries on the series 3 page, though once I am then I'll probably start with series 4 immediately after. TardisTybort (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@TardisTybort: No problems! I'm debating on copying the plots from the episode articles and trimming them down to 200 words anyways. It'll give me something to do, then the GA status for the article will be done. Cheers. -- AlexTW 14:20, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

/* Cast and characters */

I don't understand why my edit for Fear the Walking Dead was deemed "not constructive". Please let me know why.