User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2022

Orphaned non-free image File:Teen Wolf Intertitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Teen Wolf 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) 18:46, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Aired episodes/auto

Template:Aired episodes/auto has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Around the World

This material is covered in more detail in the release section and it omits the significant US premiere info. This info is duplicated in a more appropriate section. I see your reason for not wanting USA info, but it is usual for WP articles to include that data. --Zeamays (talk) 13:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Again: the lead summarizes the entire article, per WP:LEAD. Thus, the lead summarizes the information about the release, and the Release section goes into it in significant detail. It is not "usual" to include it, except for American series. If it's not an American series, then we don't include the American release date, per MOS:TV. This is English-language server, not the American server. -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zeamays Pinging you in the above reply, per my talkpage notice above; my bad. -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:44, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I still maintain you are wrong. Also, you misspelled program. --Zeamays (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Zeamays How am I wrong? Kindly elaborate. Programme is the British spelling of the word; kindly educate yourself, nothing is misspelled. Happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 15:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Harrow

Directors in infobox, would the top 5 directors (with most episodes directing) be allowed? If so, return to top 5 in list, each has directed three or four episodes. The others directed two or one. I'll abide by your decision.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@Shaidar cuebiyar I'd see no issue with that, the five directors who have helmed the most episodes. Thank you for improving the article; it's on my watchlist, which is why I've one or two changes as you proceed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:53, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't mind your useful edits as I go along. As you can tell I'm working my way through Episode summaries for now. Keep up your good works.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Television Rotten Tomatoes scores/separate

Template:Television Rotten Tomatoes scores/separate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Nigej (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Torchwood

Hi Alex - the reasons Absent Friends was cancelled is one piece of information. The fact that Black Knight was produced as a replacement is another. There's no reason to combine this into one note that tells the reader more than they wanted to know. If they're looking for the reason Absent Friends was cancelled, then they only need to know about the Barrowman issue. If they want to know why the Black Knight's numbering is weird, they only need to know that it's a replacement. It's unnecessary to overload the note with redundant information. I'm not sure what's confusing about that. As for making the text small on Absent Friends I can only assume that's an aesthetic preference on your part but it's inconsistent. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtticusFink6 (talk • contribs)

If they're looking for the reason Absent Friends was cancelled, they can read just that one sentence. If they want to know why the Black Knight's numbering is weird, they can read just that one sentence. I'm not sure what's confusing about that. Two sentences is not too much to read, that's quite the funny notion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:18, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

It's just about information flow, there's no need to be smug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtticusFink6 (talk • contribs)

It's two sentences, try to spruce up your level of understanding to be able to read that far. Also, sign your posts. -- Alex_21 _TALK 13:39, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the fact that your older and this is how you spend your time is the gotcha you think it is, kid. AtticusFink6 (talk) 14:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Good job, you signed your post, buddy! Proud of you. :) -- Alex_21 _TALK 14:24, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Ratings table

Hi Alex! It's been a long time. I hope all is well.

I am here to ask for your input on what's happened since the discussion here. I remember you and I starting the debate on whether to include such tables for ratings. There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of Chicago Med episodes#Ratings table regarding its accessibility issues. Perhaps it's something to discuss again? Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 02:16, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I'll absolutely reply there. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Related to arrowverse

sir when you visite arrowverse page and after scrolling down when you keep your mouse at arrow then a small summary came and without picture but when you place you mouse at any other tv show on this page like flash or batwoman then with summary a photo also appear so how to can we place a photo above summary of arrow when you keep you mouse at arrow show (dont click on arrow just plzce your mouse on it)

Ratings graph discussion

Hi Alex. YoungForever and I thought we restarted the discussion about the ratings graph here. Feel free to comment if you wish. Callmemirela 🍁 ^talk 21:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I was about to start a talk page thread about the "October" of the DW BBC centenary since it was unsourced and I hadn't seen anything so specific, so that saved me (I didn't think the thanks button was enough to convey what the thanks was for)--CreecregofLife (talk) 22:47, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries! It's very likely airing in October, but given that we don't have a source stating so... I may add that into the hidden note too. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:52, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Admittedly it didn't occur to me why October, even though it probably should have. As I said, I saw nothing so specific, and that includes the founding date. I even get why September is out of the question (10 day window to be "autumn") even before I made the realization. CreecregofLife (talk) 22:58, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:The Walking Dead: World Beyond (season 1)

Hello, Alex 21. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Walking Dead: World Beyond (season 1), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 15:01, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Ways to improve Samurai Rabbit: The Usagi Chronicles

Hello, Alex 21,

Thank you for creating Samurai Rabbit: The Usagi Chronicles.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

Please add a reception section with details of reviews of the series in reliable sources.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Atlantic306}}. Remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

An apology, and a request.

I greatly apologize for my conduct back in the day, specifically my harsh accusations that could easily be interpreted as personal attacks. In fact I had even realized I went too far at the time, so I rewrote the offending talk page section focusing entirely on the content issues.

However, as far as I am aware it has been years since we crossed paths on the wiki at all, let alone in a hostile manner. I would therefore ask that you please remove my username from User:Alex 21/Editors.

This is about more than the wall of shame itself; it's personal. I really don't want to be on your – or any constructive Wikipedia editor's – bad side anymore. Modernponderer (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Dragon (Two Steps from Hell album)

Hi Alex. As an editor who's edited this article, what's your opinion on citing a university student writing for their school's paper as a music critic on this article, and placing a prose section after the track listing? (Going against the order of sections outlined at MOS:ALBUM...) Ss112 12:50, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:List of Batwoman episodes

Hello, Alex 21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "List of Batwoman episodes".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Power spin-offs

Hello, I see you've added Power episodes and airing dates under Spin-offs, is there any reason why that is adequate because the details of the series are listed in the infobox?Neo the Twin (talk) 17:01, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

@Neo the Twin Franchise tables typically have all series included in the overview; consider the tables shown at articles like Star Wars, Star Trek, the Arrowverse, etc. However, given that there is no Power (franchise) article, this means that the franchise table needs to exist under "Spin-offs", and thus it should be included there for comparison to the related spin-offs. Having all of the episode counts and airing dates together simply makes it easier for readers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 12:40, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks (Umbrella Academy)

I did a lot of editing & trimming on those plot summaries (they were the usual mess you find in articles about popular shows & movies). But I don't know how the templates should be managed so didn't remove them. - Special-T (talk) 17:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

No worries! It's now just the final episode that's over MOS:TVPLOT's 200 word limit, so I simply moved the tag from the entire season to just that episode. Good work on trimming the summaries down. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:49, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

The Boys

Hello Alex, I was wondering if you changed the boys from critically acclaimed to generally positive in terms of reception. If you did, can you change it back? I really love this show, and I'm hoping it reaches a wider audience. I also think it is one of the most well-written and well-acted shows I've ever seen. It is definitely the best superhero show ever made. I just hope you don't mind that I change it from generally positive to critically acclaimed because almost every media reviewer that I've seen praises the show. I also heard from Forbes and many other media/critic sites that it's one of television's most audacious satires. Engprat (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC) Engprat (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

@Engprat You need a source that supports that it is "critically acclaimed", and not your own personal opinion. Do you have such a source? If not, you need to stop making the edits, else you may be facing administrators and having to explain why you're edit-warring. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:52, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are the sources Alex. I just want to say that, before, the series was labeled as critically acclaimed on wikipedia, but then it was changed to generally positive. I'm curious as to why?

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_boys_2019/s03

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_boys_2019/s02

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_boys_2019/s01

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/jun/03/the-boys-series-three-review-still-hilarious-ultraviolent-and-brilliant

https://www.looper.com/883256/the-boys-season-3-has-critics-picking-their-jaws-up-off-the-floor/

https://collider.com/the-boys-season-3-review-karl-urban-antony-starr-prime-video/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/06/03/the-boys-season-3-reviews-are-in-and-they-are-stellar/

https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2572701/how-the-boys-critical-success-for-season-2-should-inspire-stranger-things-and-more-hit-streaming-shows

https://readysteadycut.com/2022/07/03/renewed-or-cancelled-will-there-be-a-season-4-of-the-boys-amazon-original-series/ Engprat (talk) 23:30, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

here are some more sources:

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-boys-season-3-review

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/tv/the_boys_2019/s03/reviews

https://vulkk.com/2022/07/12/the-boys-season-3-review-and-breakdown/

https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/the-boys-season-3-review-the-perfect-antidote-to-marvel-fatigue/

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-boys-season-3-review/

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-boys-season-3-episode-8-finale-review/

Is this enough to be deemed "critically acclaimed"? If you need more proof, go to Youtube, and search The Boys series review. Pretty much every youtuber will tell you this show is phenomenal. Engprat (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Which of those sources specifically state that it is critically acclaimed? YouTuber's are irrelevant and non-sensical here on Wikipedia, they bear zero weight. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:43, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Here are the ones that say it:

https://www.looper.com/883256/the-boys-season-3-has-critics-picking-their-jaws-up-off-the-floor/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2022/06/03/the-boys-season-3-reviews-are-in-and-they-are-stellar/?sh=42cb50066290

https://www.cinemablend.com/television/2572701/how-the-boys-critical-success-for-season-2-should-inspire-stranger-things-and-more-hit-streaming-shows

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-boys-season-3-review

https://www.cnet.com/culture/entertainment/the-boys-season-3-review-the-perfect-antidote-to-marvel-fatigue/

https://www.denofgeek.com/tv/the-boys-season-3-review/ Engprat (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Critical acclaim is when critics praise it enthusiastically. In every link, critics praise this show very enthusiastically. That is critical acclaim. If you click on all the links, the critics praise this show endlessly. It's not generally positive, its critically acclaimed. Please just let that one change stay. Engprat (talk) 03:23, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Why are you reporting me and my friend? I literally gave you all the sources proving my point. Engprat (talk) 14:01, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Because you have violated two policies, WP:EW and WP:MEAT, and forced your opinion on what the sources say, rather than what they say directly, which is not "critical acclaim". -- Alex_21 _TALK 15:10, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Inspector Gadget 1983

Hello, I hope you are well.

Um, I hope I'm not bothering you but is there any way you could fix the airdates on the page List of Inspector Gadget 1983 episodes? All of the airdates are wrong.

The series overview is correct but when you look at the episode lists, all of the airdates have been changed to 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015.

Could you please change the dates to the correct airdates?

Thank you in advance. Kaybugg1 (talk) 04:51, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:22, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Doctor Who Season 2 DVD.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Doctor Who Season 2 DVD.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) 17:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:House of the Dragon episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:House of the Dragon 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:10, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Remove redlink script

Hello Alex! Your Remove redlink script has a bug and it is not working. ~ KHATTAB TALK 17:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

"War of the Worlds (upcoming TV series)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect War of the Worlds (upcoming TV series) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 7#War of the Worlds (upcoming TV series) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 17:33, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Colin Baker Complete Season One US

according to BBC Shop US The American version of Doctor Who: The Collection Season 22 on Blu-ray region A, Will be released on 10/18/22 (which is October 18, 2022).

Here is the website address: https:shop.bbc.com/products/doctor-who-colin-baker-complete-season-1-blu-ray/

Unfortunately I don’t know how to add references, I never actually do any editing whatsoever on Wikipedia. I only read the articles. i’m looking forward to when it comes out. 2A00:23C5:6307:7F01:F574:112A:5818:3AD9 (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

 Done -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Adding next DW episode before article created

Hi Alex, I've just been reverted by Indagate (talk · contribs) here at Legend of the Sea Devils with the edit summary Template:Infobox television episode/doc, description of parameter "next" says "if an article or redirect exist, link to it", so seems it should be included even though just redirect. Where is your mentioned consensus please?. Obviously their point about Infobox television episode is flimsy as the article doesn't use that infobox, but regarding the consensus on Doctor Who episodes to not include links to redirects to series articles, do you know where that came from? I've found evidence of it in 2016 here but I can't figure how that consensus came to be? Thanks --TedEdwards 20:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Hey Ted, why a user's talk page and not the article or project talk page for wider participation? Don't think that point is "flimsy" as that infobox seems like a fork of that template which has the much more developed doc. Recent major examples which link to redirects are The Lord of the Rings and She-Hulk. Thanks, Indagate (talk) 20:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked Alex the question above because you asked me Where is your mentioned consensus please?. I do not know where that consensus comes from, I just know it exists, but I thought Alex might know the answer, hence I asked him. I'm not starting a discussion here, but before I start the discussion elsewhere, funnily enough I need to know the reasoning for the consensus. In short, I'm trying to find the answer to exactly what you asked so I really can't see why you're complaining. --TedEdwards 23:33, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Probably wouldn't hold up as a full consensus but there was a brief discussion about it here that you may find useful . TheDoctorWho (talk) 01:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that TheDoctorWho. It does appear the consensus changed without me noticing (if it hasn't, I'm sure Indagate's edit, or similar edits in the future, will be disputed at some point), which seems fair enough (although I will point out Doctor Who does not necessarily have to do the same as other articles if there's a reason not to). That said, I won't remove the link to the redirect. --TedEdwards 19:00, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Updates to Series overview for specials

Hey, wanted to take this out of the MCU Phase Four discussion. I was looking at the table, and was curious if it'd be easiest to make the new parameter |special= which would take the place of |series=, changing the column name from "Series" to "Special", and then if that's used, not have the need for |color#S=, |episodes#S=, or |link#S=. Is that what you may have been thinking too? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

So, instead of what we're currently using:

{{Series overview
| series      = ''[[Werewolf by Night (TV special)|Werewolf by Night]]''
| infoA       = y
| infoB       = y
| infoC       = y

| color1S     = #C95219
| linkT1S     = Special
| start1S     = {{Start date|2022|10|7}}
| infoA1S     = Heather Quinn and Peter Cameron
| infoB1S     = [[Michael Giacchino]]
| infoC1S     = Released
}}

You'd be looking for something more like this?

{{Series overview
| special     = ''[[Werewolf by Night (TV special)|Werewolf by Night]]''
| infoA       = y
| infoB       = y
| infoC       = y

| start1      = {{Start date|2022|10|7}}
| infoA1      = Heather Quinn and Peter Cameron
| infoB1      = [[Michael Giacchino]]
| infoC1      = Released
}}

If so, I could look into it. My comment related to the table at Marvel Cinematic Universe: Phase Four#Television specials, where the Season and Episodes columns really aren't necessary at all, but then removing those would also remove the colour. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:19, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. The color for the specials aren't really necessary because we aren't using episodes table (since the plot is more following a film at that point with just a summary), so I say that's fine to also be lost. I think we just used the colors because when in the same table with the TV series, it was necessary. I don't know if this gets adapted by other users in other instances if they'd want color to remain, but at least for what the MCU will be using them for, I don't think we need it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:50, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Actually, as was done on the Phase Four article, I think just hardcoding the table like the films is the way to go, and thus we don't need a change to Series overview. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:50, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Fourteenth Doctor

Hi Alex. Regarding your revert of my edit, I believe you have made a misapprehension. When I said the BBC News article was a secondary source, this meant it was not the original announcement, it instead reported on that announcement, and therefore the "BBC News" article should not be taken as the "BBC Media Centre" saying Gatwa was playing the "14th Time Lord", as it is not BBC News' responsibility or right to announce information about BBC shows. It is instead the Media Centre that does that, and I have pointed out their announcement made no mention of the "Fourteenth Doctor" or the like. BBC News is not privy to information about shows produced by the BBC anymore than any other news company or producer in the UK, so when BBC News mentioned the "14th Time Lord", they were making the same false assumption fans and other sources made, as it wasn't mentioned in the announcement. --TedEdwards 22:41, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Noted, thanks. However, given that it is a reliable source, the content can be used without issue; making personal assumptions on their "assumptions" is WP:OR. Primary sources are not the only acceptable sources, nor must they take precedence; in fact, Wikipedia is based primarily on secondary sources. Cheers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:50, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

I am not making any assumptions, I am saying how BBC News is basically entirely separate from Doctor Who production, and how they are just like any other secondary source. Also that sentence about Gatwa being explicitly said as playing the 14th Time Lord can only be used if it is the primary source that said that, otherwise it's misleading as that sentence suggests the official announcement described him as the 14th, which it didn't. Thank you for your consideration. --TedEdwards 23:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Again, the "official announcement" does not take precedence. BBC News is a verifiable source, thus its contents can be used and sourced in Wikipedia articles; no primary sources supersedes it. Per WP:PST, Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. If you need to reword the sentence to take away any assumption that the primary source explicitly referred to him as the "14th Time Lord" (which it doesn't), go for it. However, the quote is perfectly acceptable to remain. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:04, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Having been on Wikipedia for several years Alex, I understand how sourcing works on Wikipedia, and that quote you quoted is there because primary sources can't be used for discussing analysis/interpretation in articles or establishing notability, so articles should end up using more often than not secondary sources which can do those things. However primary sources can be used to cite basic facts (from PST A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts) e.g. who's playing the Doctor, just as well as secondary sources. My point is not that secondary sources shouldn't be used to cite that Gatwa was announced as playing the Doctor earlier this year, my point is using secondary sources to say something that wasn't actually mentioned in the secondary sources' primary source is not OK. It may be worth mentioning that secondary sources e.g. BBC News or The Guardian said he would play the 14th, but the article implies something incorrect when the sentence doesn't mention who explicitly referred [Gatwa] to as the "14th Time Lord", and the only assumption a reader will make is that is the was the official announcement that made the quote "14th Time Lord", which it didn't. --TedEdwards 23:36, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used to cite basic facts, that's correct. And articles do end up using secondary sources primarily, yes. However, that is not the say that the primary sources contain only the information that can be used and cited. Secondary sources can then analyze the primary sources and introduce new and further information, and this is exactly what PST says is the purpose secondary sources. So, I argue against that the point is using secondary sources to say something that wasn't actually mentioned in the secondary sources' primary source is not OK, because based on that, this is where we get the "14th Time Lord" quote. Was it originally said by the BBC? No. Was it later introduced in secondary sources? Yes, and that's perfectly acceptable for usage. If you want to change it to Ncuti Gatwa had previously been announced [...], and explicitly referred to by BBC News as the "14th Time Lord", then that's perfectly fine, because that's clarifiying who said it. -- Alex_21 _TALK 08:06, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

OK I made a bold edit in light of what you've said. I've removed the quote, since I don't think it's essential, and I've replaced it with a sentence saying many reports said he'd play the 14th Doctor etc. I also added another source (same Guardian source I cited earlier in this discussion) so I could say "many reports".

Just about secondary sources, I'm pretty sure they can't add facts out of the blue, otherwise they'd be a primary source for that fact (because They rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them), only that there able to synthesise facts from facts from one or more primary sources. --TedEdwards 16:48, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

They're not adding facts "out of the blue". They are, per PST, "making analytic or evaluative claims about them". Claiming that Gatwa is the Fourteenth Doctor wasn't an "out of the blue" fact, it was an analytic claim. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Yeah you're right, but I'm distinguishing between a secondary source saying "The BBC announced Ncuti is playing the 14th Doctor", which is an out-of-the-blue fact because the BBC only announced he'd play the Doctor, they didn't announce he would play the 14th Doctor, so that statement does not align with the primary source. If a secondary source said "The BBC announced Ncuti is playing the Doctor. Ncuti will succeed Jodie to play the 14th Doctor" (this is pretty much how both the BBC News and Guardian sources are written), that was fine before Sunday because the secondary source has inferred from the announcement (as secondary sources should do) that Ncuti was playing the 14th Doctor, but did not say the announcement said something that it didn't (also mentioning these secondary sources is good for the encylopedia because I think we both know Russell T Davies wanted everyone to think Ncuti was playing the Fourteenth Doctor). I know I'm making a subtle distinction, but I hope you understand where I'm coming from. --TedEdwards 17:23, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:House of the Dragon episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:House of the Dragon 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 clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File talk:The Boys Season 6 filmed at Pecaut Square Toronto I Want My Compound V.jpg

Files on Commons can't be moved here, this request can't be fulfilled.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 13:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:The Walking Dead: World Beyond (season 1)

Hello, Alex 21. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Walking Dead: World Beyond".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:42, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:23, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Confused about Picard reversion

Hi Alex, just wondering what your edit summary, "The 'visual' split does nothing," means (hyphenation also does nothing?). Horizontal rules are pretty overwhelmingly used for multipart episodes on TV List of episodes pages, including other Star Trek episode lists. And with the specific Picard episodes in question, already with different writers, airdates, and plot summaries split, it makes even more sense to me to also split the episode numbers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

What does <hr> do that – does not? The only difference between them is that <hr> "visualizes" the split more, just as the credits and airdates are actually split in their HTML table row. Out of the modern Star Trek episode lists, the dash is more common. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:38, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Yes, as you said, it visualizes the split more and more closely compliments the other parameters. Seems preferable to me. The dash conversely visualizes the split less. I would add the horizontal rule to the other episode lists too if you're not particularly opposed, though I see you've removed them before, which could be why dashes are more common? -- Wikipedical (talk) 23:09, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Exactly, it's solely a "visual" split, which harks back to when we used to use <hr> to "visually" split the credits for multi-part episodes as well. This was a severe accessibility issue which was fixed with the |DirectedBy_1=, |DirectedBy_2=, etc. parameters, and now we have actual separate hard-coded rows instead of these "visual" splits. We shouldn't be re-introducting them after removing the accessibility issue. Furthermore, "9–10" also reads as "9 to 10", which is the exact meaning of what we're wanting, and the rowspan'ing |EpisodeNumber= cell should summarize the entirety of the credits row, instead of being separated further. -- Alex_21 _TALK 09:09, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

That explanation makes more sense than your edit summary, but as the visual grammar of episode lists presents numbers vertically, I really don't agree that "9–10" gets that information across (or looks) any better than being consistent with all other episodes. If the accessibility reasoning is your strongest objection, I would propose hard coding rows for multipart episode numbers. -- Wikipedical (talk) 17:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Nomination of Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) 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/Doctor Who: Series 13 – The Specials (soundtrack) 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.

Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:32, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

A song for you

Hello Alex 21. I hope you are well. So this is the first time since the Doctor returned to our screens in '05 that we haven't had a Christmas or New Year's episode. Leon sums it up best for me :-) Best wishes for your 2023! MarnetteD|Talk 04:47, 25 December 2022 (UTC)