User talk:Alex 21

From Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Home Talk Userboxes Scripts Sandbox 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | DW | Module: / Sandbox TV Shows Notes Contributions Subpages Uploads  

Discussions are added to
archives in groups of 30.
Currently archived: 1,213

About [[Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Jack to move Finding Jack to this draft, but was copy-pasted over rather than moved.]][edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give [[:Consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finding Jack to move Finding Jack to this draft, but was copy-pasted over rather than moved.]] a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Draft:Finding Jack. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Trailblazer101 (talk) 16:38, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Trailblazer101, huh? I haven't copy-pasted anything. Are you wanting to move the article back to the draftspace but can't because it exists? If so, I can move it if required, but it seems to be going through an AFD right now. -- /Alex/21 23:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
My apologies, I'm not sure why this auto message was sent to you. I put the article up for hist merge with its draft that had copied over content before that draft was reverted and it is currently awaiting deletion to make way for the move to draftspace. Looks like it was sent to you because you moved Finding Jack to draftspace before it was reverted, and I am trying to reverse it back to draftspace. Trailblazer101 (talk) 01:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Phase Four critical response table[edit]

Hey, saw your edit converting the table I added, and your edit summary. Just wanted you to know my thought process with what I did hardcoding, was to eventually include the films in the same table, separated by rowspans saying "Films" and "Television series". The content also needs to be able to be transcluded, as that's how we get the film content to the list of films article, and what I wanted to set up at the TV list, but I could seem to do that with the given template. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:17, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I assumed so. I was hoping to convert it all to template and still have the same functionality (just like the series overviews, which can be transcluded separately), while being able to implement both films and television series, but apparently it's going to take a bit more work. For now, I've restored the raw-code table and see how we go.
Do you think you'd be able to sandbox up a film/television critical reception table for me to see how you'd intended to implement it? From there, I can convert it to the module code. -- /Alex/21 04:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Yeah I can make something. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
This is what I'm envisioning. I've made a full table that I think should be used at the Phase Four article, and then the content that would need to be transcluded to the films list and the TV list. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:36, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Take a look at User:Alex 21/sandbox and User:Alex 21/sandbox3. Sandbox 1 are the live tables as they'd exist at the articles (Phase 3 and 4 respectively), and Sandbox 3 is the transcluded formats, all in the form of templates. -- /Alex/21 12:52, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
99% there I think! The TV series will not have CinemaScores (those are just for the films), so I think by looking at the flag parameters this is possible? Also I see the template is called "Television critical response". Given we're dealing with films and TV series, would a more neutral template name be better suited? Especially as mentioned, if we've got CinemaScore inclusion, TV series don't deal with that at all. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who: Mind of the Hodiac / BIG Finish[edit]

I've added this title under the specials of Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures. There is no such listing available with Big Finish yet, however, RTD announced it today while appearing on The One Show and a referential article has been placed with the reference.

If you disagree this is the wrong section of the page please change where necessary. For now, this seemed the most suitable place to include it. I've included RTD as the writer as well until more details emerge on whether its an adaptation or otherwise. R2Mar (talk) 00:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

To prevent any further deletions or moves to draftspace. I have now added a history section to Doctor Who: The Fifth Doctor Adventures, Doctor Who: The Sixth Doctor Adventures, and Doctor Who: The Seventh Doctor Adventures. If you feel this satisfies notability, the tag can be removed. R2Mar (talk)

Helping coding a table[edit]

Template:Netflix original upcoming series[edit]

Hello, I noticed that you have removed Sonic Prime from the template for being a redlink a few times now. And while redlinks are normally avoided, WP:EXISTING states that articles that are very likley to be developed can be redlinked in navboxes. And with reliable sources such as: forbes stating that this series is coming in 2022, and a draft of the article being created. Linking here might be appropriate. Terasail[✉] 11:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

In EXISTING, it is further noted that [r]ed links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data[...], where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first. The result is far from incomplete, and while an article for the series is likely, there's no given timespan on when production is set to actually begin. If there was, I'd be more inclined to include it. -- /Alex/21 12:32, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Arrowverse[edit]

Hi. You left a reference error after your edit to Arrowverse. Could you take a look? --Bsherr (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 10)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Doctor Who (series 10) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 02:01, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Some Dude From North Carolina Greatly appreciated! -- /Alex/21 03:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

A Court of Thorns and Roses[edit]

What is the point of reverting everything all the time? Genuinely speaking you really need to stop. ACOTAR is a five book series with around 700+ pages and three more books coming. Do you really think the series has only 5 characters? There are numerous characters in the series but I have literally only added the important ones. None of it is fancruft. What is not clicking? You are disrupting the page and not letting anyone update the page what is the problem? Before reverting pls have a conversation. Check through the edits. There is nothing disrupting the rules. It is merely getting annoying. There are summarised descriptions of only the important characters of this long series and character info is not sourced. You can get checked by someone who has read the series but pls stop disrupting. You also reverted the summary of the recently released book. Everyone has the right to edit Wikipedia. These are only updates based on the series, not opinions or theories. Thank you. Vucien (talk) 08:38, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

Vucien, if you can see that the content has been reverted before and the page has been protected directly after removing the fancruft, for reasons of vandalism, disruptive editing and fancruft, by multiple administrators, then you are deliberately not paying attention. I never said the series has five characters, nor are five listed here, are you not able to count? I removed the constant addition of unsourced, trivial content. If you want to add such pointless content, might I direct you to the Fandom site, they're responsible for all your fan-ish needs, not Wikipedia. I've requested further protection for the page, and will once again revert once the protection is in place. Happy editing! -- /Alex/21 12:51, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have mentioned this before but I will say it again, none of this is fancruft. A series has characters that need to be described a little. All the characters mentioned are important to the five book series [+ 3 more in the future]. These are 700+ page novels do you really think it will have only a few main characters? The latest books are spin offs with stories about other characters becoming the main ones. There are main villains for each one. Of course they will be mentioned. There are seven High Lords who are extremely crucial to the story. I don’t understand what’s not clicking. None of this is fancruft, it merely informative and is mentioning important characters to the whole series. Vucien (talk) 07:58, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Also characters cannot be sourced. There are no articles describing characters and their highlights. How are you expecting sourcing for characters? You can ask somebody who has read the series to verify the info if you want. Vucien (talk) 08:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Vucien, if you can't source it, you can't add it. Is that really so hard to understand? Have you not read WP:V or WP:RS? Still not sure if you can count, where did you get five from? -- /Alex/21 08:03, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Doctor Who (series 10)[edit]

@yakobusan Jakob Montrasio - 50881688861.jpg Congrats dude! The article you were working on, Doctor Who (series 10), has passed the GA-criteria, becoming a good article on March 7, 2021.Symbol support vote.svg Great job on the improvements! For you're hard work, I award you this interesting image of a dog. Enjoy!
Some Dude From North Carolina Emoji u1f422.svg 02:42, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Doctor Who (series 10)[edit]

The article Doctor Who (series 10) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Doctor Who (series 10) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Some Dude From North Carolina -- Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 03:02, 7 March 2021 (UTC)