| Revision as of 11:33, 21 October 2018 editGonnym (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Template editors225,384 edits →A request← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 09:02, 15 January 2025 edit undoTheOnlyNomis (talk | contribs)1 edit →Resizing images: new sectionTag: New topic | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| {{:User:Alex 21}}{{bots|deny=SineBot}} | |||
| {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:<span style="color:#16329F">'''Alex'''''The'''''Whovian'''</span>}} | |||
| {{float|]: {{querylink|User_talk:Alex 21|qs=action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers|142}} }} | |||
| {{:User:AlexTheWhovian}} | |||
| {{User:Alex 21/Tabs|2}} {{^|Holiday|until=|bgcol=#5E93FD}} | |||
| <div class="tmbox">{{float|]: {{querylink|User_talk:AlexTheWhovian|qs=action=info#mw-pageinfo-watchers|110}} }}</div> | |||
| {{Archives|start=2014|auto=long|search=yes|style=float:right}} | |||
| {{User:AlexTheWhovian/Tabs|2}} | |||
| {{float|{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}{{User:AlexTheWhovian/Archive}}}} | |||
| {{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=notifications}} | {{Usertalkback|you=watched|me=notifications}} | ||
| __TOC__ | __TOC__ | ||
| Line 12: | Line 11: | ||
| --> | --> | ||
| == A barnstar for you! == | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has been placed on hold ]. The article is close to meeting the ], 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 ] for things which need to be addressed. <!-- Template:GANotice result=hold --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 01:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| {| style="border: 1px solid gray; background-color: #fdffe7;" | |||
| == Doctor Doctor series == | |||
| |rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:top;" | {{#ifeq:|alt|]|]}} | |||
| |rowspan="2" | | |||
| |style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: bottom; height: 1.1em;" | '''The Template Barnstar''' | |||
| |- | |||
| |style="vertical-align: top; border-top: 1px solid gray;" | For fixing {{tp|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. ] (]) 22:18, 28 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
| |} | |||
| == ] == | |||
| Infobox television season is only valid for US broadcast networks given they are the only ones that use true affiliate based networks. Every pay tv provider has channels and the same is true of non-US broadcasters. And it's only North America that uses the term season due to broadcast always scheduling on seasons. ] (]) 01:04, 20 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :So, your only issue is terminology? That is not a reason to remove the template; that is a reason to request a change of terminology in the template. Also look at the article title, and how it includes "season". -- ''']''''']'' 01:05, 20 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| 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. ] (]) 23:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::It is? No, it isn't. What makes you think that, what guideline or policy? And they can't, no, but they can file requested moves. I've requested other editors of the Television Project to keep an eye on those articles to make sure that no such edits occur any further. This is more certainly not an agreed upon edit, more a ] edit that has been reverted per ]. -- ''']''''']'' 01:15, 20 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::{{talk page stalker}} In Australia, "season" and "series" can often used interchangeably in this context. For example, Nine Network websites refer to , and . A lot of secondary sources use "season" but not exclusively . Using "season" in Misplaced Pages articles helps avoid confusion between referring to the "series" as a whole or a "season" as one part of the show in my opinion. '''-- ]<sup>]</sup>''' 01:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Regardless of your opinion of season versus series. The term network is still invalid for non-US broadcast networks as well as Alex's CSS only templates not rendering correctly on non-CSS browsers. ] (]) 01:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Regardless of your opinion on what should and should not be used, there is no reason to remove the template based only on terminology. You can either request changes to the template, or request a name change of the article. -- ''']''''']'' 07:06, 20 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :@] Is there a reason you are unable to do so yourself? I'm not sure how this is a complicated edit. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 23:46, 1 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Your ] nomination of ]== | |||
| ::This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. ] (]) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| The article ] you nominated as a ] has passed ]; see ] for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can ] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by ], on behalf of ]</small> -- ] (]) 03:41, 21 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :::As it would be for me. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Episode list template is broken == | |||
| == A request == | |||
| Can you please fix it and see what the problem is? ] (]) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Alex, I would really appreciate if when you change anything in the live version of an infobox, you update the sandbox with the same changes. When I try and copy over sandbox changes I come into conflict with code that I then need to figure out where it came from. Thank you! --] (]) 06:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Gonnym}}, is it not typically the responsibility of the editor making tests in the sandbox to update it to the live version first, then add their changes? -- ''']''''']'' 11:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| :{{u|Ahecht}} has introduced new code; I am awaiting them to fix the issue they have introduced. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::It is, but your changes were never in the sandbox. While I do trust your code is correct and not pointing that you didn't use the sandbox to test it, I just asked that if you do add to the live version (without first testing in sandbox), please remember to also update the sandbox as then it just creates forks which someone (was me in this scenario) needs to figure out what to do. --] (]) 11:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{fixed}} <span class="nowrap">--] (])</span> 23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. ] (]) 01:07, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::@] 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 {{tl|Television episode ratings}}? -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 01:38, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::::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 " 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. ] (]) 04:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::@] No worries! I don't see why not. For example, {{tl|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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 06:04, 7 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Bot making unjustified edits and general incompetence to incorporate anonymous participation == | |||
| Regarding ], 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 Misplaced Pages 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. | |||
| ] (]) 12:42, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :You mean your edit I reverted , that another editor also reverted ? 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 {{tq|editors even getting notifications whenever "their" content is modified}}? That's not a thing.) -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 23:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::''Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made.'' | |||
| ::I'm talking about this edit here ]. It's supposedly your bot. Why the edit? Who the hell knows. | |||
| :::''(Oh, and {{tq|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. | |||
| ::] (]) 07:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::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 ], 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 ]! {{smiley}} -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 08:31, 12 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == re: bludgeoning == | |||
| 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, ]. | |||
| They began to bludgeon me there, too, accused me of ], and then ] and then accused me of ]. | |||
| What can I do? Does this rise to the level of ANI? | |||
| Thank you, | |||
| delecto | |||
| ] (]) 03:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 03:34, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay. Thank you for your reply. | |||
| ::I fear I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia. ] (]) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::I am super confused as to what they just did here: ] | |||
| ::Did they close their own comment thread with a note that it was necessary? I've never seen that before, but again, am new. ] (]) 03:50, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :::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. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 03:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Got it. Thanks again! ] (]) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::@] I ended up doing so, ] ] (]) 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == List of Torchwood episodes == | |||
| 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? ] ] 17:54, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| :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 ] 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, "]" would be listed as 20 February 2008, but its article currently lists 13 February 2008. -- ]<sub> ]</sub> 23:05, 14 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| ::{{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. ] ] 04:43, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
| == Resizing images == | |||
| 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 ], 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. ] (]) 09:02, 15 January 2025 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 09:02, 15 January 2025
TPS: 142 Home Talk Userboxes Scripts Sandbox 1 | 2 | DW | Module: / Sandbox TV Shows Notes Contributions Subpages Uploads
 Archives | ||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
A barnstar for you!
|
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) |
List of The Fairly OddParents episodes
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)
- @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)
- This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- As it would be for me. -- Alex_21 TALK 05:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
- This show has 10 seasons total, so doing it on my own is difficult. BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 04:45, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
Episode list template is broken
Can you please fix it and see what the problem is? BaldiBasicsFan (talk) 22:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
Fixed --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 23:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)- 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)
- @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)
- 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 " 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)
- @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)
- 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 " 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)
- @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)
- 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)
Bot making unjustified edits and general incompetence to incorporate anonymous participation
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 Misplaced Pages 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)
- 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)
- Not sure what you mean by "bot" here; no automated edits were made.
- I'm talking about this edit here ]. 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.)
- (Oh, and
- 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)
- 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)
- 2A02:AA13:8104:2D00:B44D:42A5:A8CB:E946 (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
re: bludgeoning
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)
- 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)
- Okay. Thank you for your reply.
- I fear I am too sensitive to edit on wikipedia. Delectopierre (talk) 03:36, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- Got it. Thanks again! Delectopierre (talk) 04:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Alex 21 I ended up doing so, here. Delectopierre (talk) 18:27, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
List of Torchwood episodes
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)
- 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)
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)
Resizing images
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)