User talk:Alex 21/Archive 2025

Archive 2020

←

Archive 2023

Archive 2024

Archive 2025

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)

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 "[Blank] 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)

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 Wikipedia 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 [[1]]. 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.)

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)

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)

@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)

Good job! (It's always Who that has to be complicated somehow...) Perhaps one day we can also look at developing Series 1 and 2 article pages for Torchwood; only the latter two have articles. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:10, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Making articles for the first two series is something that's been on my to do list for several years 😅. Perhaps I'll get around to it this year (hopefully), I can't imagine they'd be too difficult with the information that's already in the show's article. TheDoctorWho (talk) 03:31, 16 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)

@TheOnlyNomis Okay, thanks? I'm not sure what you're pointing to here. My script is simply a matter of convenience. (Also, it actually says that the image will very likely require a close review to verify that the image needs that level of resolution). -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Star Wars: Skeleton Crew

The series is limited series so i think it an end date should be added.

Source: https://gamerant.com/star-wars-skeleton-crew-season-1-ending-explained/ 122.55.235.120 (talk) 01:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I see no source within the article stating that it is a limited series. Your source states [w]hile a second season is unlikely, meaning that is it not confirmed that a second series will not happen. Thus, per WP:TV standards, it stays as present until we find out otherwise, or a year passes, whichever happens first. -- Alex_21 _TALK 02:09, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

It is after [w]hile a second season is unlikely, the limited series wraps up neatly with no pressing need for continuation. That's what it says in the source. 122.55.235.120 (talk) 08:27, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Exactly, so it's not actually confirmed that the series has concluded. The "present" will remain per WP:TV standards, thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:30, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Color of the You season 5 article

Hello Alex, shouldn't the color of the You season 5 article be an orange-red like the poster released today along with the date teaser? Thank you Marco camino 10 (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 Can you link me to this new poster? The current colour of the article matches the colour of the current poster, per TinEye. The previous colour, per Snook, was also not AAA compliant as per WP:COLOR. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Of course, in this article you can find the new poster that Netlfix has published: https://www.cbr.com/you-season-5-footage-netflix-premiere-date/ I would have included it myself, but I don't know how to add images with Copyright in Wikipedia Marco camino 10 (talk) 23:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 Thanks for that! I'll upload it for us. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:25, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Alex, could you explain the process or point me to an article that explains how to upload copyrighted images to Wikipedia if you don't mind? So you know how to do it on future occasions. Thank you Marco camino 10 (talk) 23:32, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

@Marco camino 10 You can either find information on how to upload at Wikipedia:Uploading images (relevant policies/guidelines are Wikipedia:Image use policy and Wikipedia:Non-free content), or the file uploading page can be found at Wikipedia:File upload wizard. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:35, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Doctor Who series 14

On 19 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Doctor Who series 14, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Susan Twist portrayed seven different roles in the eight episodes of Doctor Who's fourteenth series? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Doctor Who series 14. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Doctor Who series 14), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Joy to the World (Doctor Who)

On 21 January 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Joy to the World (Doctor Who), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Disney+ released a promotional poster for the Doctor Who Christmas special "Joy to the World" with the title spelled incorrectly? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy to the World (Doctor Who). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Joy to the World (Doctor Who)), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 8,044 views (670.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2025 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Current season hatnote removal

You are actually purposefully ignoring and misrepresenting multiple guidelines. There is no consensus here to remove the hatnotes, and you were supposed to open further discussion if the consensus had changed, which you didn't. Additionally, there is no violation of WP:HATNOTE despite you stating so, hatnotes are cheap and the purpose of a hatnote is to provide further or other disambiguated articles that readers are likely to be looking for from this target. Continually adding the season 11 article link to the lead instead of the hatnote is actually against the concise, short nature of MOS:LEAD.

Adding a season link hatnote to a series article isn't anywhere near the same as a TV guide, and even if it was, that policy doesn't apply here as WP:TVGUIDE applies to only "an article on a broadcaster" (meaning articles like CBS, BBC and Network 10), and not applying to series/season articles themselves at all. Also, per WP:NCDAB/WP:NATURALDAB, this is a further disambiguation as even if the season number is not in brackets it is still a natural disambiguation and still provides disambiguation from other articles. Happily888 (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

@Happily888 Are you aware that you have now violated the core WP:3RR policy by reverting more than three times over 24 hours? -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:02, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The first revert was reverting infobox vandalism and isn't counted per 3RR. Happily888 (talk) 04:04, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not "obvious" vandalism per WP:3RRNO #4. Please be aware that in the face of guidelines, you have violated a major policy. -- Alex_21 _TALK 04:07, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I'll self revert then if you want the lead to have that so much. Happily888 (talk) 04:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Episode table/part and Doctor Who specials

On second thought, a standalone table on the series articles for the specials may not be terrible per se. I understand that it's still not ideal by any means, but we're already running standalone tables on articles like Doctor Who specials (2023) where there's only one supplemental episode, or three tables already exist on Doctor Who series 2, so these articles wouldn't look that different. I assume we'd also break out an additional table on series 6 and 7 (over and above the specials) for parts 1 and 2.

We would just need to decide 1) where to place the new tables (chronological would make some sense, but for articles with multiple specials (series 7, 10), one special would be out of place if we put both specials in the same table, so one option would be to just default to below the series itself since it's a special outside of said series); and 2) how to handle transclusions to the episode list (whether it simply be additional subheaders or coming up with some convoluted method using noinclude/includeonly/onlyinclude tags to force the separated tables to join themselves back together on the list). TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Criminal Minds (season 16) DVD cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Criminal Minds (season 16) DVD cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. — Ирука¹³ 00:39, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Vikings Season 4 Volume 1.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Vikings Season 4 Volume 1.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 18:47, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Another question with Template:Television ratings graph

Seems like I'm becoming a regular visitor here lately I was hoping to add a television ratings graph to List of Station 19 episodes. Unfortunately it's five episodes over the limit, so I split in into two. |legend= allows you to change what's displayed in the table but the graph remains the same. This is a problem particularly for the later seasons where the graph still says "Season 1"/"Season 2"/Season 3" when it's actually supposed to represent 5/6/7. Could the template potentially be updated to also allow the legend parameter to change what's listed in the graph itself (or alternatively just let you start with say |color5= without throwing an error)? TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:57, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Sorry, I did see this, completely forgot to respond! That should definitely be an easy fix, I'll see what I can implement. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:11, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

 Done With the parameters already included in that particular graph - no changes needed! -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:13, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Perfect, thank you so much, I appreciate it!!! TheDoctorWho (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

What issues do you have with me?

Okay, seriously, why are you always so passive-aggressive? Do you think the Doctor Who WP has something against you or something? Would you like me to ask at the reliable sources talk page if CultBox can be considered reliable? Or if we can keep using DWN until we find a reliable source for information? (In case you have a issue with me bringing this to your talk apge, we can shift this to my talk page instead) DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 20:53, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No passive-agressiveness here. I simply recommend not brushing off, attacking, and ignoring, any advice that an experienced editor who knows what they're doing might give you to help your time here, which seems to have become a very common occurrence. Happy editing! -- Alex_21 _TALK 00:06, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I do take advice from experienced editors, including you, and have thanked them for it, including you. What I don't care about is your "I'm more experienced than you, so I'm right, and you're wrong" attitude. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 07:11, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21, I'm here from that ANI thread. If you genuinely believe you are not being passive aggressive, here is your reality check: this is passive aggressive as hell. If DoctorWhoFan91 hadn't eaten a self-inflicted IBAN and closed the thread, I think it could have gone very badly for you. Please reconsider how you interact with other editors. -- asilvering (talk) 07:02, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

@Asilvering Thank you for your opinion. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:08, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 08:22, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Twelfth Doctor (Doctor Who).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:The Witcher Title Card.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:The Witcher Title Card.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free 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) 03:48, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Coding question, if you may know

Hey Alex. When using conditional parser functions (such as {{#:if}}) is there a good way to include line breaks returns in the true/false sections, particularly if you're trying to have the parameters return wikitable code that relies on such breaks? I've read that the parser functions strip the new lines so I tried using br tags in something I'm working, which seemed to be largely ok. However, I came across an issue that said br tag was being considered as an additional list item for a cell adding unintended white space. Thanks for any insight. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep! Don't use the parser function, use the equivalent template, so {{if}}, as it does not strip spaces and newlines. Here's an example:

{{If||x|a

b

c || d

e

f}}

And it produces: a

b

c

Let me know if that works! -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I can't seem to get that template to function as I intend to. I seem to have followed your example. This is what I'm looking for it to render:

{{If||{{{1|}}}|<!-- True -->
{{!-}}
{{!}} scope="row" style="text-align:right; border-style: dotted; padding-left:20px;" {{!}} {{{year|}}}
{{!}} style="background:#000000; text-align:right; border:1px solid white;" {{!}} 
{{!}} style="border:none; padding-right:20px;" {{!}} {{{1|}}} | <!-- Else -->}}

It doesn't seem to be hitting the true part. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:58, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The specific error I'm trying to solve can be seen in my sandbox User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/9 with the row for Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man, which is using {{Indented plainlist}} and is causing an additional break to be added to that cell. Each row of the template is being generated from code in User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/8, which is where I was wondering if switching to {{if}} would help me. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:27, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, in User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/8, TRUE only runs if |break= is set, right? There doesn't seem to be any such parameter in User:Favre1fan93/sandbox/9. Wouldn't the line break be coming from the line beneath the {{#if:{{{4_multiverse|}}} | line in sandbox 8? -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:35, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I spent a good amount of time yesterday looking at this and switching my code from the parser to the template, and yes, in the specific instance of |break= and that portion of the code (which for ease I just replicated above with |1=), even if I called that parameter and set a value to it, the "TRUE" code would not run. I would expect the table code to just return as text, but that's not happening. I'm just getting nothing. The line break in question is with this: {{#if:{{{5|}}} |<br /> (I've bolded the break), which is just below the building of the fourth row of the group, should it exist. I think the template if would work if I could make it do what it should, but I can't seem to. I also have realized this code may be similar to what you did years ago with {{Series overview/row}} before it was made a module, or that this whole thing is likely much better as a module, but I don't have the Lua knowledge set to make that happen so I'm trying to go forward with wikicode. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm the worst at responding... Just confirming it's all working at {{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline}} now? -- Alex_21 _TALK 06:41, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21: sorry, just seeing your response as well. Not necessarily. You can see at Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline#Timeline there is an extra line space return under Your Friendly Neighborhood Spider-Man. In addition to that issue I'm trying to solve, if one were to call the row content like this:

{{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline/row|span=3|year=2010
| project A
| project B
| project C
}}

instead of:

{{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline/row|span=3|year=2010|project A|project B|project C}}

that first version also creates issues with line breaks and formatting. I've been trying to play around now in {{Marvel Cinematic Universe timeline/row/sandbox}} trying {{if}} again and even trying a single set of { } within the parser if true statement by the {{!}} code (which seemed to maybe be helpful?), but I for the life of me can't figure out what else to do. If you have any time (and by no means feel obligated to do so) and want to look, I'd be grateful. I probably was going to make a post at WP:VPT at some point to see if someone can help. Or convert it to Lua which very likely is the way to go about all this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:45, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

So, testing it out, the issue is definitely the line break. When the line break is after a standard non-wrapped line, it doesn't show visible whitespace. When it's after the indented plainlist, it does, as that particular entry is surrounded by a div, which is a break in itself, so we're double-breaking the content. Implementing a check to add the break only if the previous is not an indented plainlist seems to be the way to go - I'll do some more dabbling and see if that's an option.

I'm very curious about the second issue, as to why whitespace within a template is causing output whitespace, this isn't a standard issue. I'll let you know if I find anything; glad to know it's semi working in the meantime. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:42, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate the examination! I'm going to be offline for a few days, but yes, currently all is working if things are presented in a certain way so no major bugs or page breaking issues. I will be curious if you figure anything out. Also very open to recoding the whole thing if there's a better way to go about what I'm trying to accomplish. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay, so I've fixed the first issue! The code must include a line break using <br />; however, if the previous entry is an indented plainlist, that line break tag is set to not display, this now prevents the double line-break from the indented <div>...</div> element. -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:53, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

Second issue fixed! See the code layout at User:Alex 21/sandbox2 - simply needed to {{trim}} the whitespace out of each displayed entry. -- Alex_21 _TALK 07:16, 20 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alex 21: Many, many, many thank yous Alex! Really appreciate you helping me out with this. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Happy to! It's a great template, great work. If you do still want me to convert it to Lua, I can take a look at it some time down the track. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:56, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Took some trial and error (outside the few snags I brought to you), but I thought it came out quite well to do what was needed. I'm just assuming, given the essentially looping nature of the coding, that Lua would be beneficial. Do you agree, or am I off base? If so, yeah, a future, very bottom of the priority list project to go that route should you choose to want to do that. And then I think it'd be easier to modify it in the future, for example if we'd ever need to span the multiverse color cells. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Kate Galvin

I don't know if you follow You, but I don't remember if Kate Galvin formally reverts to her original surname Lockwood as that IP claimed while editing You season 5. I found this which says, "If you're looking for the core of Kate Lockwood, that's it." So should the name be changed at s5 and the characters list? Kailash29792 (talk) 03:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

I definitely follow it, very keen for the final season. As she was credited as Galvin in the last episode, she should remain listed as such, up until she is credited otherwise, or a reliable secondary source says otherwise. -- Alex_21 _TALK 01:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

"Empire of Death (Doctor Who)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Empire of Death (Doctor Who) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 February 26 § Empire of Death (Doctor Who) until a consensus is reached. --woodensuperman 08:52, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

IBAN

@Liz Can you please consider this edit of mine that was then reverted by DoctorWhoFan91 (an editor who's IBAN against me you enforced), who has then started a new discussion concerning my edit, asking another editor to revert it? What should be enforced here? Thanks. -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The editor has claimed that it is not an IBAN violation, and yet is still continuing to discuss an edit I have made. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:30, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Listing this here as a timeline of events, the editor has once more reverted/moved my edit. -- Alex_21 _TALK 22:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I've posted to their User talk page, here. I hope this resolves the situation. By the way, I don't check my "pings" so thanks for coming to my User talk page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:49, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Accessibility Issue with Template:Series Overview

I'm back again, who could've guessed . Seems like there's a new accessibility issue with one of these templates every time a take a list to FLC. You can see the drive-by comment about the correct scope being rowgroup here and the relevant usage of {{Series overview}} at List of Stranger Things episodes. Hoping this is a simple fix, but I'm not a template editor (and don't know Lua) so I'm hoping you can take care of it for me? TheDoctorWho (talk) 18:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello again! Should be all fixed now; I looked at the HTML, and the scope for Season 4 is indeed now rowgroup. Good luck with the FLC! -- Alex_21 _TALK 03:34, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Great, thank you so much! I (somewhat) know my way around a few languages, but Lua wasn't included in my three-years of comp sci programming courses 😅. TheDoctorWho (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I started self-learning PHP/SQL, Uni's first languages were JavaScript then C++, now I teach Python, so it's definitely been a curve! And all of these FLC finding accessibility issues is great, helps us find the fixes that we never knew we needed. -- Alex_21 _TALK 23:20, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I attended a three-year computer science college prep academy in high school. We started with Java and eventually moved on to SQL, Python, XHTML, C, and C#; doing everything from game development and robotics to web design and A.I. I decided when applying for college I didn't wanna pursue that as a career though, and ended up studying Photographic Arts (pay no attention to the crappy photos on my user page, if those are the only images you've seen of mine; most of those were spur of the moment/low effort with my phone rather than proper images) 😂.

Anyways, I absolutely agree, just find it slightly funny how many other FLC's of mine probably had that same issue. TheDoctorWho (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:AN

I appealed my iban, so this is a msg to inform you. DWF91 (talk) 06:46, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Query

Hello, Alex21,

I saw that you were the last editor to edit American Satan (franchise) which I stumbled upon. My question is can this unsuccessful movie and a TV series really be considered a "franchise"? What do you think of merging this back to the original movie? This seems like a stretch. Let me know what you think. If there is a better place to ask this question but I don't think many editors have this film watchlisted and wouldn't see a talk page message. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Liz. From what I'm looking at in the article, I definitely wouldn't consider it a franchise; it's one or two sequels at best. Looking at how it was created, I see that it was made by an editor I've come across before who has a history of mass-creating franchise articles. It's definitely something I would recommend be merged back into the original article (i.e. the movie). -- Alex_21 _TALK 20:20, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Hey @Liz. I've found that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Satan (franchise) exists, created 13 minutes after my last reply to you here, likely created by one of my talk page watchers. -- Alex_21 _TALK 21:03, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Alex 21,

Well, thank you for letting me know. I'll look in on the AFD discussion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:41, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

U4C case notification

Hello Alex 21,

You are named in a recently filed request to the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). Please review the request at meta:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Cases/Alex 21.

You are requested to enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit, so that the U4C can get a better overview of the situation. All writing should be complete, but also as concise as possible. Please ensure that you make all comments in your own section and in the discussion section only. If the U4C makes a decision, this will be binding for you and so your participation is recommended.

Please do not reply here, but on the linked case page, or on the associated talk page. If you would like to contact the U4C directly, you will find an e-mail address here. Please use the email only if privacy is necessary (e.g. personal information). 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 15:05, 29 March 2025 (UTC)

Archive 2020

←

Archive 2023

Archive 2024

Archive 2025