User talk:Apd9696/Archive 1

May 2020

Hello, I'm Materialscientist. I noticed that in this edit to List of programs broadcast by TNT (U.S. TV network), you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 07:52, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: The Dog House (British TV series) (September 22)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bilorv was:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of websites). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

The most common way of showing notability would be to show multiple full-length reviews of the show published by professional critics in reliable national sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:The Dog House (British TV series) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:The Dog House (British TV series), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— Bilorv (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your page

I just wanted to give you a heads up. I was viewing your page and your link to Run under Hidden Gems is a disambiguation link. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 17:12, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh OK, I'll fix that. Thanks. Apd9696 (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:57, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HBO Max simultaneous releases

Apparently there is some disagreement so I've brought it up on the talk page. Thank you. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for letting me know and starting the discussion. Apd9696 (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITEVAR

The spacing is fine, I think there is even a script tool that does that. But, the fact that you had rearranged the order of the citation and changed the citation style itself were not ok, because the citation style has already been established. Recently, there was an editor who have been deliberately doing that for 1 and a half year had been blocked for that because they chose to ignore WP:CITEVAR and changed every article they encounter to their preferred citation style despite multiple warnings. — YoungForever^(talk) 18:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, and apologies again for my unconstructive editing. Up until now I had not been aware of WP:CITEVAR, and I had been editing citations with the parameters in an order I personally preferred. But now I'm aware of these guidelines, I will not change the citation style however I please. I just have a couple of questions if that's OK:

1) I think this is answered in WP:CITEVAR, but if the citation style is incosistent within a certain article, is it OK to change the citation style within that whole article to a consistent one? (I think what's not said in WP:CITEVAR is how these citations should be changed. Should they be changed to a certain style or can it be one of personal preference which is applied to all of the citations in the article?)

2) Regarding my more recent edit to Draft:The Woman in the House (miniseries), is it generally better to have a singular source cited in an article for multiple uses? (In other words is it better to have a shorter list of references?)

Thank you for your time and apologies again for my edits earlier. Apd9696 (talk) 19:15, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1) If the article has a established citation style already, it is ok to change the rest to the established citation style (which is the one when the article started). Per WP:CITEVAR, If the article you are editing is already using a particular citation style, you should follow it. It is NOT ok to change from the established citation style to your personal preference style.

2) Shorter references only apply if they are the same exactly source like the same url and everything. This isn't the case though. I stated they were two different sources.

Also, oversourcing such as one sentence on an article with several different reliable sources which say the exactly same thing is frown upon. If one sentence on an article with different reliable sources that say different things then that's fine such as one source say the producers and another source say the production companies. — YoungForever^(talk) 20:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for taking the time to respond. Just one thing, I know they were different sources but the content in each one is exactly the same; everything mentioned in one source is also mentioned in the other sources. In Draft:The Woman in the House (miniseries), all 3 articles sourced have exactly the same information. Anyway, thanks again for your replies and your time. Apd9696 (talk) 20:51, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Also, SpoilerTV is not a reliable source because it is a fan-operated website. I know a lot of new editors tend to use SpoilerTV as a source. Fan-operated and user-based websites are not reliable sources. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:57, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know. I've known it's unreliable but I didn't know it was fan-based. I usually stick to Deadline Hollywood, The Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Collider, TheWrap, and press releases anyway. Thanks again for everything, this has been very helpful. Apd9696 (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star

Please see the Disney+ programming talk page. A Star table is not necessary. Rusted AutoParts 18:24, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Deadpool 3 or reboot?

I do not agree that the next deadpool will be a sequel because I believe that marvel does not want to continue other studios versions of films so therefore I will need video proof of someone involved in the project saying it will be a sequel before I change my mind. I do not mean to be rude in any way I just disagree with the idea that it will be a sequel. NathanGamerdog (talk) 00:07, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You don't sound rude at all, don't worry. Disagreeing is totally normal and valid here on Wikipedia, and through discussion we can reach a compromise. I have heard about Marvel saying that they don't want to continue the films from 20th Century Fox, but I don't know how much this actually means as of now especially in light of the more recent news regarding the new Deadpool film. It's very difficult to get video proof of confirmation of the film being a sequel, but the verifiable source cited in the article says the film will be a sequel and uses the title Deadpool 3 etc. Here on Wikipedia we have to go by verifiable sources, and the most recent one talks about the new Deadpool film being a sequel. I do see where you're coming from but Wikipedia doesn't allow for original research and we can't go with what we personally believe to be the case. As a Marvel fan I have my own doubts as to how Marvel will incorporate Deadpool into the MCU without losing quite a bit of Deadpool's character, and I'm sure this is being taken into account over at Marvel Studios. I think if they're going to make it PG-13 they should definitely reboot Deadpool and start clean, but the source doesn't say that and we have to go with what the sources say. These are Wikipedia guidelines and there's nothing we can do about them unfortunately. Apd9696 (talk) 10:26, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@NathanGamerdog: Could you please tell me why you would like video evidence? I am not an industry professional so this is impossible for me to find, and I have never seen a video of someone confirming a project cited here on Wikipedia. I don't even know if a video of the interview exists, but that doesn't mean what is said in the source isn't true. Apd9696 (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't believe it unless I hear and see it I guess. I feel like the source just talked about it being Deadpool 3 and didn't confirm it so I don't believe the source proves it. We could just put untitled Deadpool film until we are certain what it will be. NathanGamerdog (talk) 21:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The sources do confirm it though. Both sources use the title Deadpool 3 and in the Collider article a direct quote from Feige is given with him saying that "It will be rated R and we are working on a script right now, and Ryan's overseeing a script right now… It will not be [filming] this year. Ryan is a very busy, very successful actor. We've got a number of things we've already announced that we now have to make, but it's exciting for it to have begun." This seems to be in reference to the previous Deadline article from November which first announces the project as part of the MCU. To me and to Wikipedia's guidelines this is substantial evidence, but I guess if you don't agree then we can stick with "Untitled Deadpool film". Apd9696 (talk) 21:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Things Heard and Seen Source

Noticed you had to fix something with my source for Things Heard and Seen, did I do something wrong when I added it initially? Still new to here so just asking incase I did something stupid and didn't even notice haha MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 17:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't do anything silly, don't worry. I just added the name of the author and did some other very minor fixes, but otherwise everything was fine. Glad to see you're back editing! Apd9696 (talk) 17:49, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gotcha, and thanks, glad to be back! Back and already dealing with vandalism on the CW programming page, yaaaay. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh :/ Just took a quick look, I totally think it would be better that list articles for all networks (not just streamers) should be in the table format. However, the bullet lists have been used for ages, so I think that might be why this is happening. But thanks for being bold and changing it to the table format earlier. Apd9696 (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I want to try and incorporate the table format on as many pages as I can. I noticed on this one its been requested a few times on the talk page too so people wanted it but didn't know how. Thankfully everyone else is also reverting this user's vandalism each time he does it. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 18:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Any suggestions on how/where to report this? I think I've reported it to the right page but not positive. MarvelousMusician397 (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Tbh I don't really know. I'm not really that experienced and I've never reported someone before but I think what you've done already is best. I think an admin has also given the user a warning on their talk page. Apd9696 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Update: the user has been blocked for 2 days. Apd9696 (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Archives

I don't know if you're interested in this or not but I noticed you've been working on references. If you want to add any missing archive urls, you can use This bot. Just log in and then add the name of the article and it will add any missing archives. I know Wikipedia prefers we add them and they serve as backups in case the original link goes dead. You're not obligated but it helps and this makes it easy. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for telling me about this, I should really start archiving urls so this will be very helpful. Apd9696 (talk) 19:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Potter series

i noticed you're the one who added this info. I'm going to bring it up on the HBO Max originals talk page. I've seen reports of them denying it but I'm not sure how credible they are. Samurai Kung fu Cowboy (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Paper Girls (TV series) (March 6)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were:

This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own, but it could be merged into the existing article at Paper Girls. Since anyone can edit Wikipedia, you are welcome to add that information yourself. Thank you.

The comment the reviewer left was:

This is a future TV series. Future TV series seldom satisfy television notability. See Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. There is already a mention of the planned TV series in Paper Girls, which can be expanded within due weight. Please resubmit when the show airs.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Paper Girls (TV series) and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Paper Girls (TV series), click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Variety Insight

Sorry for taking so long to reply. Actually I do not have any subscription, I just take the trouble to manually change the final number of the links and the results appear there. I hope this clarification will serve you long. Greetings. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruno Rene Vargas: No worries and thank you, didn't think of that! Just one more thing if that's okay; do you know if the numbers mean anything or are they just randomly assigned to different pages? I've just been trying it out and I can't seem to find any sort of common pattern. Do you know of any such thing or is it just that the higher the number in the link the newer the page? Thanks again :) APD (hmu) 00:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The higher the number, the more recent the movie or series that was added to the database. This link is the last one added, the next and those that follow are still empty. I think they only add new movies and series from Monday to Friday and on average 50-60 new links. I hope I've helped. Greetings from Paraguay. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:59, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, you've helped a lot. APD (hmu) 01:01, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a Variety Insight link for two of your articles in case you want to add it. Here and here are the links. I hope it helps. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for these, I'll bookmark them to check for updates. APD (hmu) 16:26, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here I found another link. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I've made a list in my sandbox and feel free to add them there if you find some. Thanks again, APD (hmu) 22:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, no problem. Have a good day. Bruno Rene Vargas (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting discussion for List of Amazon Prime Video original programming

An article that been involved with (List of Amazon Prime Video original programming) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of Amazon Prime Video exclusive international distribution programming). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. -St3095 ^(?) 14:29, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Untitled Cecily Strong comedy series" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Untitled Cecily Strong comedy series. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 June 6#Untitled Cecily Strong comedy series until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Fleishman Is in Trouble (miniseries)

Hello, Apd9696. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Fleishman Is in Trouble (miniseries), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 14:02, 13 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting discussion for List of Star (Disney+) original programming

An article that been involved with (List of Star (Disney+) original programming) has content that is proposed to be removed and moved to another article (List of Star (Disney+) exclusive international distribution programming). If you are interested, please visit the discussion. Thank you. -St3095 ^(?) 12:18, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Amari and the Night Brothers

Hello, Apd9696. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Amari and the Night Brothers, 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.