This is an archive of past discussions with User:BoogerD. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Journal (episode)
Consider adding your position more clearly in the discussion. Per WP:AFDFORMAT, "When editors recommend a course of action, they usually do so in bold text, e. g., "Keep", "Delete", "Merge", "Redirect", or other view. A number of tools which parse AfDs will only recognize bolded words." Thinker78 (talk) 07:10, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
ArbCom 2017 election voter message
Hello, BoogerD. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Thanks for uploading File:BallInTheFamilyLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:MindOfAChefLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:ReturningTheFavorLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Wikipedia editor Abishe just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Hello BoogerD: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 18:23, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
On November 20, you edited List of original programs distributed by YouTube Red (your work is appreciated!). However, on this revision The reference for Impulse was removed (apparently replaced with a duplicate of the Cobra Kai entry). I am curious if you had intended to delete the entry for Impulse, or if you pulled a "me" (making the kind of error I have been known to make from time to time).
If you intended to remove the entry for Impulse, could you cite the info source that prompted the deletion?
Hope to hear back soon, otherwise (as the IMDB reference still indicates an ongoing production) I'll restore the entry from the edit previous to its removal. Cross-posting to the discussion page for the YouTube Red programs talk page in case others have relevant info.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Thanks for uploading File:FreeformSecondLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Funny, it didn't return an error for me. I'll point to two pieces of evidence to cite that Facebook intends the official URL of Facebook Watch to be www.facebook.com/watch: 1. The profile page that that keeps getting edited into the page lists www.facebook.com/watch as being the official url and 2. when one googles Facebook Watch the top result (an ad from Facebook) lists www.facebook.com/watch as the url. BoogerD (talk) 10:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
So, things are completely different based on locations. Maybe because of, it's exclusive availability to the U.S. For me it's returning Sorry, this content isn't available at the moment. And while Googling, the first thing I'm getting is Wiki article itself.--Joseph10:22, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
No problem. I'm all for strong communication and clarification on here. After all, our main goal is to it make it a better place. I hope to edit with you in the future. Have a nice day! :) BoogerD (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
"A suitable image relevant to the show. The image does not need to be wikilinked and should exclude "File:" e.g. Example.png Typically the image will be the series' title card, although this is not mandated."
Basically, until the title card is available, the poster should go in the infobox. Also, your rationale clearly states "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question." — Film Fan22:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. You make a good point. It makes sense to leave the poster there until it can be replaced with the title card. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 22:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Blumhouse Television anthology series until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:19, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
Because I don't like hitting the delete button or tagging lots of bugs and flaws. I like seeing new articles that already what they need to be. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi there, I've noticed that you often change the colours when I've added new episode tables. Is this purely aesthetic, or am I doing something wrong? If so please let me know so that I can correct it in the future. - Racheal Emilin (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Racheal Emilin! No, you've done nothing wrong. The edits are not necessarily purely aesthetic. I've added colors when there are none and used advertising or logos to choose colors relevant to the series in question. I think most editors try and choose colors that are connected someway to the show if possible. BoogerD (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello BoogerD , it's me again. ;)
So as you can see I left your change on Jinn (TV series), because what you say might be true, but all sources (including many wikipedia entries) go against it. Do you have a good source that says the location of the distributor determents the country of origin. - Keep in mind that Netflix is the distributor here, not the production company, because it's not the same entity as Netflix Studios LLC. Also defintion the is apperenty not that clear cut...
"The International Federation of Film Archives defines the country of origin as the country of the principal offices of the production company or individual by whom the moving image work was made. No consistent reference or definition exists."
So to be clear, I am not saying that the country of orign is the country the movie/series was filmed in, but the country where it was produced in, meaning where the principal offices of the main production company are. I hope that clears things up a bit. Have a nice day. -Abyss Taucher (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi Abyss Taucher. See, Netflix is not merely distributing the series. They did not acquire it either in the sense that some independent production company produced it and then Netflix agreed to air it. Netflix is funding this series. They are the reason it is being produced at all. Other production companies may very well be involved but at the end of the day Netflix greenlit the show and gave it a series order. Just because other Wikipedia pages may have pages formatted in a certain way doesn't mean they are correct or that they abide by internal policies or the Manual of Style (see WP:OTHERCONTENT). My "source" as you put it is this: 1. Template:Infobox television and the information included on the page and 2. The fact that Neflix is not merely a distributor of content but also a producer as well. Similar to Sony Pictures Television except that SPT makes deals with networks to air their programs and don't own their own dedicated network or streaming service.
I'd also add that the link you shared and the definition you provided is in regards to films. Motion pictures are an entirely different subject and the discussion of "country of origin" as is described in the above link does not pertain to this discussion. I hope I've been clear in reasoning and explanation. Hope we can continue to edit together. If you have further questions or concerns, please feel free to bring them up. Have a nice evening. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 22:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
"They did not acquire it either in the sense that some independent production company produced it and then Netflix agreed to air it. Netflix is funding this series. They are the reason it is being produced at all." While that this is of course correct, founding a series/film does not make you (necessarily) a producer. A lot of Netflix Original content is produced for, but very little actually by Netflix (meaning in house). Now, we all know that the term producer" can be very vage, so yes, I can see how you coould see Netflix as a producer for giving money to the production companies to actually make the content. - And of course we can get along, in fact I think we do, disagreement doesn't have to mean an editing war. XD Have a good day.-Abyss Taucher (talk) 23:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC)
I've graduated with a degree in Media Arts & Design and actually interned for a production company out in Los Angeles. I say this not to sound immodest but rather to stress that I understand the production process a great deal actually. It honestly is not that confusing. It is simply a fact that Netflix is an entertainment company that distributes and produces its own content. Look at how the company is described in the first paragraph on their Wikipedia page, "In 2013, Netflix expanded into film and television production as well as online distribution. It is headquartered in Los Gatos, California."
The term producer or production company is actually not vague. If Paramount Pictures finances a Bad Robot Productions film or television series then they are producing it as well. If they had no hand in the film or TV series until after it has finished post-production then they are merely acquiring its distribution rights. It is true that Netflix acquires films and television series that have been produced elsewhere and then streams them in other regions with the label of "Netflix Original" without actually being involved with the production. But in those instances the shows or films were distributed by a foreign distributor or a foreign network. Derek is a good example. It was produced by Channel 4 in the United Kingdom and then Netflix acquired it and aired it as a "Netflix Original" in the United States and other territories. So how does all of this relate back to the case of Jinn and other foreign language shows that Netflix has given series orders to? It is simple: a foreign television network or streaming service did initially order the show. As the news articles announcing the series clearly said, Netflix gave the production a series order. Bottom line: An American entertainment company, one that produces and distributes its own content, is developing and gave a series order to their first Arabic-language television series. Jinn and many other foreign-language Netflix series are not co-productions with foreign networks. They are shows that were produced by an American company. I agree that edit wars are unnecessary but I would also say that this issue is not a matter of opinion. Jinn is not the same case as a series like Derek is on Netflix. The country of origin for Jinn is the United States because Netflix, the network/streaming service that ordered the series, is American. To say otherwise is simply incorrect and should updated to be accurate. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 01:35, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Alright, you won me over. Someone should change the country of origin on all the other foreign Netflix Originals I guess. - Will be hard to make it stick. Pretty sure people will edit it back like creazy, at least at the beginning.-Abyss Taucher (talk) 12:25, 29 March 2018 (UTC)
Help
Hi BoogerD, I have seen the articles that you have created or collaborated and you have improved them a lot. For that reason I ask you if you can do the same with the television series Siren that premiered a few hours ago, I do not speak English fluently, and I am not good with words, you have created great articles. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.9.181.223 (talk) 02:51, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
The citation,as made clear in my comment on the revision,is the credits of the series itself saying it's based on the format of the Dutch show.
Just how is one supposed to cite that?
12.144.5.2 (talk) 06:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:FacebookWatchLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:ChampionsTV.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
The non-english Netflix original series are credited for their original produced country. For example, the series 3% is distributed worldwide by the american company Netflix but it was not produced by Netflix (it was produced by the brazilian company Boutique Filmes), The Mechanism (TV series) was produced by the brazilian company Zazen Produções and so on. Netflix itself use this classification in their platform.
--Flaviohmg (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Correct. The country in which they are filmed is credited by Netflix and, due to the guidelines specified on the Template:Infobox television page, belongs in the Location section of the infobox. Netflix is not merely a distributor of these programs: they produce it as well. It has been made clear with me that many users do not fully understand film and television production on Wikipedia. Netflix funded this series and other foreign language ones on their streaming service. They were not written, filmed, and edited beforehand and then purchased by Netflix rather, they were reviewed by Netflix during the development process and then greenlit and ordered by them. If the series aired on another network or streaming service, particularly one in Brazil, then it would be appropriate to list Brazil as another Country of Origin. BoogerD (talk) 15:58, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
You have to consider that Netflix is now an international streaming company with offices all around the world and that's why they are producing original international content. These shows that I mentioned were written, produced and filmed in Brazil by a local company. Considering these series as an american production it's like buying a burrito in your local Taco Bell and saying that you are eating a traditional delicatessen from the "american cuisine". You should also note that identifying reliable sources are part of Wikipedia's articles written policy. I can't find any pointing that these productions are from the United States and considering that Netflix itself credits these production to their original countries of production.
First off the argument that you are positing doesn't make any logical sense. Netflix may offer its services internationally but it is an American company. Just in the same way that Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and many other corporations have international presences but are still American companies were they are located. Netflix, I double checked, lists them as international shows. They don't have a specific disclaimer saying, "Such and such country is the country of origin". They merely note that the productions were filmed in places around the globe. My "reliable source" as to the country of origin is the fact that if you go to Netflix's wikipedia page you'll see that they are listed as an American company. BoogerD (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
There are international productions like The Witch (2015 film) which was produced and financied by companies from 4 countries (UK, Brazil, US and Canada) but still credited as a film from the United States. Can't see the logic here. If you see most of products from Apple, Microsoft and Amazon there's a MADE IN CHINA stamp on the back. Because that is the country where it was PRODUCED and not where the companies are from.--Flaviohmg (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
Again, I'll point you towards the explanations given in the above conversation on my talk page found here User talk:BoogerD#The Story of the 'Jinn' from the United States and the guidelines provided on the Template: Infobox television page. And, again, I'd advise against making comparisons to things or situations that are not comparable to film and television production such as fast-food restaurants and manufacturing. Though I'd rather not give more credence to the comparison you are trying to make, I'd point out that while those products made by those companies may be physically constructed in places like China they are still frequently developed and designed in the United States. BoogerD (talk) 17:16, 17 April 2018 (UTC)
If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under license allowed by Wikipedia, then you should do one of the following:
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted "under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License (CC-BY-SA), version 3.0", or that the work is released into the public domain, or if you have strong reason to believe it is, leave a note at Talk:First Wives Club (TV series) with a link to where we can find that note or your explanation of why you believe the content is free for reuse.
If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:First Wives Club (TV series) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved.
Hi BoogerD, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! — xaosfluxTalk00:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)
Well, it's an American show and in English so I think it would be preferred to cite an American source in English. I'm not sure if there is anything in the Manual of Style or Wikipedia policy that says a foreign source couldn't be used but I'm almost 99% that another editor will remove the information with that source. Think you can find another site that includes that information? Most people update episode guides for Hulu shows by citing the Hulu Press website (see: https://www.hulu.com/press/show/the-handmaids-tale/?temp=synopses) which doesn't mention those episodes yet. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Do have a source confirming that HBO has cancelled production? If so, could you provide it to the deletion discussion? (If not, then perhaps that page shouldn't have been tagged for for deletion in the first place?) - theWOLFchild03:52, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
June 2018
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Escape the Night, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
Really? I removed one sentence, no longer relevant or overall pertinant, from the lead. The majority of my edit consisted of copyedits to create consistency between the article and other television series articles. I would've appreciated a more constructive message on my talk page if you wanted to discuss the edit I made. I am always here to work with other editors and to come to an understanding when disagreements are had. Hope you have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 03:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
My edits relating to Boris and Natasha from Rocky and Bullwinkle
They are unsourced changes. The characters which you changed the descriptions of were already properly described. They are not "mobsters" and Fearless Leader is not a "mob boss." They are spies that work for Frearless Leader, the dictator of the fictional country Pottsylvania. Unless you can find a reliable, secondary source that describes in the way that you wrote (which still really wouldn't solve the issue as many more sources exist that describe them as they were already described) than a discussion could be had about changing the way they are described. Hope that helps. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
Periods and quotation marks
Greetings and felicitations. Per MOS:INOROUT the period may be inside or outside the quotation marks, depending upon the particular usage. Since "mixed or average reviews" is a phrase rather than a sentence or sentence fragment, the period belongs outside of the quotation marks. —DocWatson42 (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I've decided to try to request clarification on this so we can avoid getting into an edit war, so feel free to come give your perspective over here if you'd like. (Sorry if I might seem a little irritated in the post itself...) Alphius (talk) 04:44, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Well...one more time, I guess, since I realized I needed to correct something. The correction doesn't affect the actual point I was meaning to make, but I hope the fact that I needed to make it doesn't hurt my credibility too much. Alphius (talk) 06:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Already read it. I appreciate you trying to be as forthright as possible. As you say, it doesn't take away from the validity of your original point. Your credibility should remain intact. ;) – BoogerD (talk) 06:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Castle Rock
Hello @Sebastian James:! I hope your evening is well (if it is evening for you). I'm messaging you here in the interest of having a civil conversation about our disagreements regarding the Reception section of the Castle Rock article. I always assume good faith in my fellow editors and so I have no doubt that you are simply trying to improve the page, as am I. While I found some of your edit summaries to be a little "harsh" I understand that given the limited amount of space one is allowed to convey their thoughts in that one may not be able to adequately express himself.
So, a few things regarding the section: I think both of us are fine with the general content of that part of the page. I think what we are disagreeing over is simply the wording. Some of my thoughts on that:
1. The opening sentence of the paragraph give an overall summary in regards to how the series has been received by professional critics. I don't see how much sense it makes to move how Metacritic has described the series to that sentence when the paragraph already has a sentence about the Metacritic score. Additionally, that opening sentence doesn't include where that phrase in quotes comes from so its not really attributed to Metacritic right now anyways.
2. In the sentence regarding Rotten Tomatoes we seem to have a disagreement over the phrasing "review aggregation website" versus "review aggregator." I understand why the later seems more succinct but the phrasing of the former lets the reader know that a website is being referred to. I've seen it written both ways on a number of articles.
3. The use of a slash (/) versus the phrase "out of." In this case the slash serves as a sort of abbreviation of that phrase anyways and the use of "out of" is symmetrical with the following Metacritic sentence.
4. Lastly, would be the inclusion of the phrase used by Metacritic to summarize the critical response to the series. You can see my thoughts on that above.
So, I hope we can talk about this and hatch it out. I'd love to hear your thoughts. I promise to remain calm and civil and will do my best to express myself as clearly as possible. I'm pretty amenable and easy-going and very willing to collaborate and work with fellow editors. I take it you've been on here for awhile and so have I. Neither of us would volunteer so much of our time to the project if we didn't find it worthwhile and of some importance. Here's to future collaborations between the two of us. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 01:55, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi. Except for the reception of Great News, which uses "has received" and "/", the other examples' critical responses you stated are edited many times by you. So, I wonder why do you want Castle Rock's reception be like the ones you wrote, moreover call this "consistency". There is no rule that they should be written much the same, it is not mentioned in MOS:TV. My replies to your thoughts:
1. A reliable, sourced info is needed for the opening sentence when it implies a conclusion, per WP:SYNTH. Therefore, one shouldn't describe a film/book/tv series etc. "positively received" if none of the sources are comprised of that statement. Additionally, I might have added "according to Metacritic" after "received generally favorable reviews from critics", but I felt like I had to rewrite the sentence about Metaritic score.
2. "Review aggregator" is more convenient than "review aggregating website", because the latter is redundant. It is even more fitting not using any of these, because RT and MC are well-known websites, and one can look up what these websites are when they click the links if they don't know.
3. "/" is stated in RT pages. "Out of" is also redundant here, though not like review aggregating website.
4. I have already explained.
I think that's all. Thank you for your contributions. I would love to collaborate. Warmthness, Sebastian James (talk)
@Drovethrughosts: you are a prolific editor and one whom I've run into a time or two editing the Critical response sections of various television series articles. Do you have any thoughts on this discussion? I'd value your input. – BoogerD (talk) 04:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
I did though. I tried out multiple widths. 73 was the largest one that would fit without making the table go under the template. I'm trying to figure out why we're not seeing the same thing. Maybe its a computer/browser thing? I have a Macbook Pro and I'm using Google Chrome. What about you? – BoogerD (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
I also just tried on my sibling's Macbook Pro using Google Chrome and the 75 width is not under the infobox template. — Lbtocthtalk01:46, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Hmmm. I'm stumped. I promise I'm not lying, haha. I've gone and looked at each of the different edit versions and the 75 is showing up wrong for me still and the 73 is working. Not sure what we do here. – BoogerD (talk) 01:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Maybe, a display problem? That is if you recently changed your display settings on your Macebook Pro or accidentally pressed a button on your keyboard and didn't realized. (It really happened to me before by accident). I just checked my display settings and they are the default settings. — Lbtocthtalk02:36, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think that's it either. I just checked my display settings in the system preference app on my Macbook and they are the default settings. – BoogerD (talk) 02:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Looking for Alaska (miniseries) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. QueerFilmNerdtalk05:19, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
He owns the production company, yes. But that does not guarantee that he will be credited as a producer on the series. There have numerous series that the company has produced that his name has not been attached to. You need a reliable, secondary source to add information like that to the article. – BoogerD (talk) 23:53, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
However, I hadn't noticed that you reverted multiple edits, reinserting the website_name parameter into the infobox. Why is that? 142.160.89.97 (talk) 21:47, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
No problem. Didn't mean to re-add the parameter to the infobox. While you are here, do you mind answering a few policy/MOS questions I have? You seem quite knowledgable. – BoogerD (talk) 21:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Can you explain the addition/use of "ndash;" throughout the article? I'm not sure entirely understand its purpose or what it does exactly? Can't one simply use "–" instead? – BoogerD (talk) 21:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
My mistake. When you included MOS:DASH in your edit summary I mistakenly had "ndash" on the mind. Can you maybe explain to me what "nbsp" does exactly? I'm slightly confused by its purpose. – BoogerD (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, that's just a non-breaking space. In this case, it ensures that the dash doesn't fall immediately after a line break. They're discussed in greater depth at MOS:NBSP, but their application to spaced en-dashes is referenced at MOS:DASH. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 22:45, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Ok. That makes more sense now. Thank you for explaining it to me. Useful information to have going forward. – BoogerD (talk) 22:46, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I've been confused about the difference between the two for sometime, I must admit. What exactly is the difference? What makes Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt a comedy and not a sitcom? What makes Disjointed a comedy and not a sitcom? Why is Fuller House a sitcom and not a comedy? Is there something in the MOS regarding this? I'm hoping to find some clarity here. – BoogerD (talk) 23:20, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Sitcom is situation comedy where it includes everyday situations such doing laundry or eating breakfast. Sitcoms are confined in situations or space. Like Fuller House where they main characters are confined in space (they lived together). Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, Kimmy Schimdt only lives with Titus so, the main characters are not confined in space nor situation. Disjointed is actually a sitcom because the main characters are confined in the situation. Comedy is BROAD term whereas sitcom is more in depth term. — Lbtocthtalk23:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm not 100% certain that, that's been totally agreed upon though. The article for sitcom doesn't really state the definition in the way you described and it mentions that the definition of the term has become a matter of debate in the 21st century. – BoogerD (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Haha. This all seems quite confusing. What situation are all the characters tied to in Kimmy Schmidt? What's an example of a comedy series where characters aren't tied to a "situation"? – BoogerD (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
Aren't the characters in Friends from College also always struggling with problems? Can't the same be said of Master of None? I mean isn't conflict at the center of all storytelling/drama? I think the definition is much more fluid than what you're trying to suggest. Also, seemingly contradicting your point, Kimmy Schmidt is not filmed in front of an audience and frequently films outside. – BoogerD (talk) 00:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Per compromise, on All About The Washingtons, I think sitcom should be added to the genre as it said on Netflix it is a sitcom. I am not going to delete the television comedy, I think sitcom should also be added part of the genre. — Lbtocthtalk00:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I think one day a discussion/debate should be held over at Wikiproject:Television and hopefully a consensus can be reached on the topic. Eventually maybe something definitive can be added to the MOS. – BoogerD (talk) 00:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
I think you should have known by now that adding episode titles before the released date have to have a reliable source. — Lbtocthtalk06:53, 10 August 2018 (UTC)
Regarding the arangement of the cast in Pose (Tv Series)
Hi, so I'm rearranging the characters in Pose, because it currently doesn't reflect who the main characters are. Evan Peters, Kate Mara, and James Van Der Beek are minor characters. Mj Rodriguez, Dominique Jackson , and Indya Moore are the obvious leads of the show and should be ordered as such. As an follower of the show I'd just like to see the proper character portrayed first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NomadB42 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi @NomadB42:, I understand what you are saying but here at Wikipedia we follow what's known as the Manual of Style. It sort of like a compendium of guidelines to follow when editing and constructing articles. You can find a section of the Manual of Style regarding "Cast and characters" sections at MOS:TVCAST. In that section is a specific guideline that states: "The cast listing should be ordered according to the original broadcast credits, with new cast members being added to the end of the list." I know many people have certain opinions about how things should be listed but we have guidelines here at Wikipedia in order maintain a sense of consistency among articles and prevent complete chaos. I hope that cleared it up a bit for you. Hoping you have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 05:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:BarryTitleScreen.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:BarryTitleScreen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi there, I noticed you made several reversions without leaving a valid reason. My edits were based on grammar errors and such, and while they were not significant, and certainly didn't change the meaning of the article, I felt they were an improvement, as they used active vs. passive voice in several instances, cut down the amount of fluff without losing any meaning, and generally made the article more encyclopedic, while making it read less as if a superfan with a third-grade reading level had written it. I hope you will appreciate these edits for what they are, thanks. Amsgearing (talk) 12:53, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Never claimed ownership of the article. If an edit is useful or called for than it should stay. If it serves no purpose or, in fact, diminishes the article than it should be reverted. I'd be curious to see what grammar errors you are referring to as well as "instances of fluff." I'd also avoid using phrases such as "making it read less as if a superfan with a third-grade reading level" as it is unnecessarily aggressive and could lead to contention. – BoogerD (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll see if I can't locate a more reliable source. Thank you for pointing out this policy to me. – BoogerD (talk) 16:16, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Please add relevant information to avoid WP:TOOSOON in current shape
The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.
Looks good. Food for thought...maybe in the future include the link in your edit summary so as to avoid other reverting the edit. – BoogerD (talk) 01:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
I should have known. Would you believe I've never known someone with that name funny as it seems. I see from your contribs that you do a lot of good edits but still a reply here would have been nice. SlightSmile20:14, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Your recent editing history at Template:Amazon Video original series shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. AussieLegend (✉) 04:43, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads-up @AussieLegend:. I came to that realization whilst in the middle of it at a certain point. I initiated my own attempt to resolve the various disputes by opening a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Television#Template for Amazon Video Original Programming and informing the other editor on their talk page and making a corresponding post on the templates talk page so that other interested editors might be encouraged to join in the discussion. It is my intent to avoid continuing to "war" and I hope to see this all resolved civilly and respectfully. Hoping you have a nice evening, BoogerD (talk) 04:47, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
File is not "being used as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" as the non-free use rationale claims; there is already File:StrangersLogo.svg being used for that purpose. This file seems to simply be being used for identification for Zoë Chao, one of the actresses staring in the show. Chao, however, is still living so there's not real justification per WP:NFCC#1 for a non-free image to be used for identifying her; moreover, there's no specific sourced critical commentary about this particular image (for example, how she looks in character in the show, etc.) to provide the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Sounds perfectly appropriate to me. Good on you for being able to locate a category that already exists that fits the narrow description. Cheers, BoogerD (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
On second thought, that category only seems to apply to television episodes and not entire series. I looked through it and saw that all of the other articles included in the category are for episodes and not series. Maybe wait an see if the first episode of Manifest gets its own article? Hmmm...Just don't think that including it in this category is appropriate given that it explicitly states "episode". – BoogerD (talk) 20:23, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
Hulu
Hello, You recently reverted my edit on the hulu original programming template for the show Resident Advisors (TV series), stating that it was acquired and not original. Do you have any citations for that? As far as I can see, it first aired in the U.S. on hulu, and hulu is listed as its original network. Thanks Mjs32193 (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Well to start, it was never listed as a "Hulu Original" back when it was first released and up through today. It has always been labeled as a "Hulu Exclusive" which supports the notion of its acquisition. Similarly, the Hulu Original bumper/ID does not appear before or after any of the episodes and the copyright to each episode is credited towards Paramount Pictures Corporation and Paramount Digital. I would look at the case of "There's Johnny" for a similar comparison. NBCUniversal produced the series and when their original plans for releasing it fell through, Hulu decided to stream it as a "Hulu Exclusive". They had no hand in its production and never labled it as an original though it did first air on their service. There's a clear distinction. I would be curious to see if a reliable secondary source citation could be found that supports the notion that Hulu produced Resident Advisors and would be open to such a change if that sort of information materialized. However, as it stands now all evidence points at the series not being an original like many other have been. – BoogerD (talk) 21:12, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Upon further research, I see what you are saying in that this show seems to be an exception to the typical classifications of "originals", specifically by Hulu's marketing. I still think this leaves a gap in television coverage on Wikipedia. Most traditional and streaming television shows are listed on the original programming pages of the network they first aired on. This first aired on Hulu, but is not considered an "original". I'm not sure how to handle a case like this but I don't think it should be simply ignored. It is also worth noting that unlike Netflix and Amazon, Hulu does not have its own studio, so all shows come from independent studios. Why Hulu decided to call this one an exclusive instead of an original, who knows. I may bring this up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Television to get additional input on situations like these. This will likely become more of an issue now that FOX is selling their studio, and all shows that air on FOX will now be coming from outside studios. Thanks Mjs32193 (talk) 22:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Few further points. While Hulu does not have its own "studio" it does in fact have its own team of executives and producers. The streaming service itself funds its various original programs and pays the production companies involved with them to facilitate the creation of these series. That is the key difference in the case of Resident Advisors and There's Johnny: Hulu had no hand in their production. They did not greenlight them, they did not develop them, and the did not provide any funding for them while they were in pre-production, principal photography, or post-production. What they did do is merely pay a fee to acquire the rights to stream the finished product on their service. For what its worth, all the broadcast networks have always used outside production companies to help fill out their programming (note that the series Last Man Standing was produced by 20th Century Fox but aired on ABC) however in these many instances, the networks have bought pitches from those studios, given the productions a series order or a greenlight, and then funded and facilitated the production of those shows. That is now what happened here with the show we are discussing. Hope that clarified a few things for you. – BoogerD (talk) 22:54, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
That’s absurd. The trailer idenitifies the people who’ll appear most prominently. Hill, Stone, Field and Theroux are in that grouping. Them being supporting doesn’t make them fall under recurring, those are two different things. Rusted AutoParts00:33, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
The sources are not what determines who’s considered in the main cast, that’s for the producers to decide, and they have done so with the trailer by identifying those four. Shows aren’t similar to movies, them being considered supporting doesn’t dictate how many episodes they’re in. Recurring means they’re in most but not all episodes, and since we don’t know that yet it’s incorrect to call them recurring. Rusted AutoParts00:36, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
First off, recurring means that you are credited among guest stars in multiple episodes. Various sources have confirmed that Theroux and Field will not be credited among the main cast (either in opening credits or end credits). Secondly, trailers are produced by marketing departments or even, in some cases, outside third-parties that exclusively produce trailers. The producers, writers, and directors of films and television series typically have little to no involvement in marketing. Here's a couple of articles confirming Theroux's recurring status:
Your marketing stance holds no water cause you’d be then implying that all trailers and posters billing blocks don’t count because the marketers make them. They make what they’re designated, they can’t decide who’s main and who’s not, that’s up to the studio. And you’re using sources that were gathered during initial production. This trailer is after the fact and is now identifying the primary actors in the series. Rusted AutoParts00:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Except a poster's billing block is not the same thing as names listed in a trailer. It is true that Wikipedia policy is to order credits for films based on poster billing blocks and to order and organize credits for television series by the on-screen credits. I mean, ultimately, we will have the final confirmation come when the episodes are released. However, there is far more evidence now to suggest how the actors will be credited. I'd be willing to entertain the notion that Theroux or Field had been upped to the main cast/series regulars if some reliable, secondary source citations can be located. – BoogerD (talk) 01:08, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for August 14
An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.
@Amsgearing: The references were reformatted to be consistent with all other references in the article. Additionally, a reference was removed as it was superfluous. What is cited in the body of an article does not need to be cited in the lead. – BoogerD (talk) 20:48, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
The rule is that they have to be the same style. Wikitext being vertical or horizontal doesn't matter. I asked this exact question of an expert on the talk page for citations when I started using vertical cites and the answer was quite clear.
Also, you're removing factual information. Saying who announced something is more accurate than the nebulous "it was announced", and those sources said exactly that, so it's not superfluous either. But I'll move it to the body. Amsgearing (talk) 20:51, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
@Amsgearing: Once an established citation format has been set a consensus is need to change it or to use other variations per WP:CITEVAR.
WP:CITEVAR specifically says "citation style", not "citation format". There's a difference but I think you know that, or you wouldn't have misquoted it. Style deals with parenthetical vs. Cite error: A <ref> tag is missing the closing </ref> (see the help page).
— Lbtocthtalk21:58, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I usually put titles for refs in exactly the same format as they appear in that source. As I see most articles done this way.
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Hunter Schafer
I only put the brackets there so I could start the article from there. You, and any other editor, are welcome to contribute to the draft. 🙄 Trillfendi (talk) 01:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
OK. Get where you're coming from. But don't you think that we should create a new section then for shows like Scarlet Witch, Bucky & Falcon etc. They are being planned/considered so it would make sense to put them into a different section to those who have already been confirmed. Mystic Moore (talk) 09:37, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
No, I don't think a third section is necessary. Most streaming service "list of" articles split upcoming programming into "ordered" and "in development". As it relates to Disney+, Disney hasn't even commented on the potential Scarlett Witch or Winter Soldier and Falcon limited series nor have they commented on other shows said to be in development. Honestly, most networks don't officially comment on a production until they've officially ordered it. The Loki limited series is the only one Disney has confirmed is in development. However, it is still simply "in development" just as the other shows are. Doesn't seem to be a need to give a single show its own sub-section. Additionally, all of the shows/series said to be in development were reported/announced by reliable, secondary sources such as industry trade magazines over a century old so the veracity of their reporting is almost without question. Hope that cleared it up a bit. Feel free to discuss it further if you feel so inclined. – BoogerD (talk) 10:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Short Treks
I was not aware of the ongoing discussion, the section on list just looked like it was time (time to leave the "nest"). Also, I spent some time updating the article from the draft, it was not a simple cut and paste as the draft was clearly outdated. Thanks. Starspotter (talk) 18:57, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd advise you to add to the discussion on the talk page if you would like and to edit the draft if you feel it is out of date and needs updating. – BoogerD (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, BoogerD. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swipe Right until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Polyamorph (talk) 22:05, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:PatriotTitleScreen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
— Lbtocthtalk has given you a Turkey! Turkeys promote WikiLove and hopefully this has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a turkey, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy Thanksgiving!
Spread the goodness of turkey by adding {{Thanksgiving Turkey}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I know we have the same goals here, but you should know that some of your edits and comments feel like article owning. I respect your edits, but sometimes they are nitpicky without improving the overall article, such as removing a perfectly valid citation, or objecting to re-wording a sentence for clarification. Again, I don't mean to sound hostile here, but some of your actions do come off as slightly aggressive, as if you own these articles, which might in turn discourage other editors. Just thought you should know. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee(Oh hai)05:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Broccoli and Coffee: I'm sorry if that is the impression that you have been left with. I can assure you that, from my end, I certainly have no intention of trying to assert ownership over any article that I have contributed to. I edit on Wikipedia in order to contribute to a worthwhile project that I firmly believes benefits the world-at-large. I check my watchlist quite frequently every day and monitor articles that I have spent time working on. That being the case, I will more often than not take a look at an article's history to see what the latest revisions have been. As it relates to what I believe you were alluding to above, I had valid reasons for revisions I made and I did not make them simply to assert control over a page or to shift things to my preferred version. With the "Influence" section, I removed a citation that was unnecessary. It itself actually cites the article that was already used as a source and didn't provide any additional information. I cited WP:OVERCITE as a reasoning for its removal. The other citation I did not remove the second time it was added was it was placed within the context of a new sentence. I did, however, reformat the citation in order for it to stay consistent with the formatting style established in the article. Lastly, I fully and wholeheartedly appreciate good and well-written. I was very pleased and heartened to see that you had added original episode summaries to the article. They greatly improved its overall quality. I make mistakes everyday both here on Wikipedia and in real life. For that, I hope I will be afforded a little grace and understanding for my own human foibles. I will say that I have been guilty in the past of judging an editor for before getting to know them or hear them out after having made my mind up about them through their editing pattern or edit summaries. Sometimes my first impression proved accurate but more often than not I have been pleasantly surprised to find a lot of people on here are editing in goodwill and that things may have gotten lost-in-digital-translation. Thanks for reaching out to me and I hope to talk more soon (as my schedule allows it). Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 05:56, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
BoogerD, of course. Again, we absolutely have the same goals here in trying to contribute to Wikipedia the best we can, and I've not once taken your comments or edits in bad faith. I only brought it up for the sake of possibly discouraging other newer editors. For my part, I apologize if I've come across as defensive at all. All in all, I do think we are on the same page and have similar mindsets, and I agree that the lost-in-digital-translation aspect is partly to blame. Thank you for the thoughtful response. I look forward to working with you further. Cheers – Broccoli & Coffee(Oh hai)06:23, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Broccoli and Coffee: I was glad to receive your message. I look forward to our future editing alongside each other. You know, its funny, some of the folks on here that I have come to rely on or ask advice from started off as editors with whom I was having a disagreement with. These sort of editors have become a part of a small list of wiki-friends that I run into quite a bit every month. I think it ultimately boils down to passionate people actually trying to do good here. Yeah sometimes you get trolls who are only looking to cause trouble and rile people up but it is more frequently the case that both parties are trying to achieve the same thing. Given my past experiences, I forsee a bright and fruitful future for both of us on here. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 06:38, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DisneyPlus.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Question. I am wondering why starwars.com is utterly rejected for the page. Its fine we give deference to secondary sources but is there a particular reason to completely rely on secondary sources? 1 or 2 primary is good. Hayholt (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
It's just general Wikipedia policy as outlined in the MOS to avoid using primary sources as they are typically too close to the subject of the article. Reliable, secondary sources give a greater bit of distance and objectivity from their subject. Also, this is no need to add sources to the lead paragraph when the information being cited is already cited in the body of the article. – BoogerD (talk) 15:43, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
December 2018
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made: you may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. JDDJS (talk) 03:25, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
Nice job getting all the new star trek show articles up to speed. Meow!
Hey, BoogerD. I noticed that you created both Picard and Star Trek: Lower Decks. Just wanted to let you know, since neither of them have begun filming yet, they should exist in the draftspace until filming does start, and the current information should reside at Star Trek. -- AlexTW06:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:00, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
Hi BoogerD,
You were talking about this reliable source [7], right? It said "Westfeldt’s status is recurring with Justice attached to the project for dual-episodes." Dual-episodes mean two episodes. It's not recurring. — Lbtocthtalk00:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I can't enter into a debate or dispute right now. Just can't stomach it. I try and spend the grand majority of my time on Wikipedia creating articles or drastically improving stubs or just-started articles. Substantial editing as I see it. Yet, somehow about half of my time on here gets filled with debating over details and minutia. You know my feelings regarding recurring classifications as it relates to two or three episodes. I will say that I genuinely thought I remembered the article as having originally announced her as recurring and that's why I said that in the edit summary. Do what you must; I won't protest at least not tonight. – BoogerD (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Like I said...I misremembered the wording of the article. You've already pointed out its exact wording. I honestly just can't converse about this subject this evening. I know you've currently got other discussions going on over other issues tonight and so I, genuinely, do not want to engage you in a further one to have to respond to. You're going to do as you see fit; so be it. I'm willing to move on from it tonight and see to other issues if for nothing else that for my sanity's sake. – BoogerD (talk) 01:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I started the discussion to avoid edit warring. I will be respecting your wishes to move on from this for tonight. Thanks. — Lbtocthtalk01:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Our survey should take about 10-15 minutes of your time. We hope that you will enjoy it and find the questions interesting. All answers will be kept strictly confidential and will be anonymized before the aggregate results are published. Regretfully, we can only accept responses from people who live in the US due to restrictions in our grant-based funding.
As a reward for your participation, we will randomly pick 1 out of every 5 participants and give them $25 worth of goods of their choice from the Wikipedia store (e.g. Wikipedia themed t-shirts). Note that we can only reward you if you are based in the US.
An article you recently created, Punk (TV series), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Replaceable fair use File:MurphyBrown.png
Thanks for uploading File:MurphyBrown.png. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:
Go to the file description page and add the text {{Di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}}below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. George Ho (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:MurphyBrown.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
@Vchimpanzee: First off, I'm sorry for the manner in which this has transpired. Hard as it may be to believe, I did not intend to remove the information from the article in full. What I believe happened was that I had copied and pasted the sentence with the intention of moving it to a new paragraph. In the midst of editing other articles and drafts, I somehow managed to delete the information rather than simply move it. Again, this was not my intention. My goal here, as I believe is the goal of all good editors, is to make Wikipedia more thorough and comprehensive. If you look at the article now, you will see that I have added the information regarding Trump back to the article in addition to further information about the production's development prior to the announcement that CBS had given it a series order. Feel free to message me back here to discuss this further. – BoogerD (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I don't see the information I added. You didn't say anything about the idea that if Hillary had been elected the show wouldn't have come back. I know it's just one person's comment, but it might be true. I was careful to be very specific about what was said.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:52, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Well, hold on, as you said above, "I know it's just one person's comment, but it might be true." I added what has been factually stated by those involved with the show's production. If they did not explicitly state that the series would not have been brought back if Clinton had been elected than it shouldn't bee added to an encyclopedia article. The information, as it stands now, is supported by a reliable, secondary source that any reader can easily verify. – BoogerD (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'm glad we could discuss the matter. I appreciate that you brought up the topic of the genesis of the show's revival as I believe it has eventually led to an improvement in the article. Hope to edit alongside you again in the future. Sincerely, BoogerD (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2018 (UTC)
I've restored my comment concerning when the draft should be resubmitted. Actually, another user had tried to resubmit the draft today when it was not ready. If you think the ready to submit box should be removed in the meantime so as to not encourage resubmission, go for it. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:56, 21 December 2018 (UTC)
Imaginarium
Hello, you undid my edit on the Imaginarium wiki. This was new information that is useful for readers to know and, I think, cited correctly. Please let me know why you deleted it, thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.23.215 (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2018 (UTC)
Hello BoogerD, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2019. Happy editing,
— Lbtocthtalk07:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Just FYI, I just dropped by the blocking admin's talk page and asked her to take a look at our friend's resumed edit warring. I think the two articles need page protection if he doesn't let up, which is a shame. ----Dr.Margi✉23:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
I have a feeling they're going to be seriously problematic when they return. They're already disputing things on their own talkpage with the blocking admin and reasoning appears to have little effect. It almost feels like I'm wasting my time talking with the IP, and I'm sure both you and BoogerD feel the same. It may be worth just pinging the blocking admin when they resume edit warring. But oh well, I hope you both have a good Christmas. Esuka323 (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
Saw this article. [8] By no means a confirmation as it hasn't been officially announced by the network but it makes you wonder. I personally think they are waiting for the outcome of the court case before deciding anything for sure. Esuka323 (talk) 03:32, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Because this [9] is a pretty big show of faith by the network. Plenty of shows that are favorites among network execs but are low rated have been renewed before in the past so who knows really. Esuka323 (talk) 03:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I've seen all the articles over the last few months. Basically, Baron Cohen has said numerous times that he doesn't see a possible way to continue to produce the show because people are aware he's doing characters again (whereas during the first season of WIA, he hadn't gone out in the world undercover as a character in years). As far as he sees it, anybody that he and his crew would be interested in fooling probably has a press team that would be far more alert now. However, the network loves all the controversy and press that the show has generated as being in the news has given them free publicity. I'm not surprised they'd like to have a headline-grabbing show/performer stay with the network. I think that, for now, the article should merely note what Baron Cohen has said and what the network has said but avoid saying that the show has been renewed or canceled. Until Showtime issues some sort of statement saying that the series is not going going to come back then it is basically on hiatus. – BoogerD (talk) 04:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Oh I agree, I'm sure if there were someway for the show to continue Showtime would find it. It's not like the live ratings in the episode table are a factor in the shows fate what with Showtime being a commercial free premium network which relies more on its ondemand/streaming/dvr for a better view of a shows popularity. Showtime have kept a show called Twin Peaks in limbo because it was massively successful on their non linear platforms, and I wouldn't be surprised if we hear nothing concrete for a long time for this show too. Esuka323 (talk) 04:41, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Per WP:ORIGINAL, "To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." The sources you are citing do not directly reference Origin. You are taking various disparate sources and using them to support your own original thoughts regarding the scientific accuracy of the series. To add the information you are attempting to edit into the article, you would first need to locate a reliable, secondary source that specifically discuses scientific inaccuracies in the series. – BoogerD (talk) 09:03, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Heft".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In the first episode of Yellowstone, David is credited as "David Brown," but in all subsequent episodes, he is credited correctly as "David Cleveland Brown." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.129.198.111 (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
Non-free album cover being used in a decorative manner in Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert#Soundtrack. Non-free album cover art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about albums, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the cover art itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary as explained in WP:NFC#cite_note-3 and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album cover anywhere in the article, and the use of soundtrack album cover art in articles about films or TV programs is generally not allowed for this reason as explained in WP:FILMSCORE.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Non-free poster cover being used in a decorative manner in Jesus Christ Superstar Live in Concert#Other media. Non-free poster art is generally allowed to be used for primary identification purposes in stand-alone articles about events, etc. they are used to promote, but its use in other articles is generally only allowed when the poster itself is the subject of sourced critical commentary and the context for non-free use required by WP:NFCC#8 is evident. There is no such commentary for this particular album poster anywhere in the article, which means that removing it wouldn't be detrimental to the reader's other standing.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
I noticed that on the Raising Dion page you made an edit on Dec. 17, 2018; removing the credit to the illustrator of the comic book (Jason Piperberg) that the show is based on. I was curious as to why? The edit was correct, as you can see if you go to the illustrator's website.
Hi! It was reverted because Piperberg was not mentioned at all in any of the various news reports announcing the series unlike Liu. It is currently unknown if Piperberg will be credited on-screen for the series. Until such a time when a confirmation of his credit within the series can be confirmed and sourced, he is not mentioned within the article. – BoogerD (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I can understand that reasoning to a point, in regards to Piperberg being credited on the show itself. However the edit you removed was specifically crediting him as the Illustrator on the comic book which is indisputable. His name is on Raising Dion's main website where he is credited as the illustrator. Piperberg's website is also proof of this, as it has the pages in his portfolio. Additionally, the website where you can buy the issue of the comic, credits Piperberg alongside Liu. In regards to Piperberg's name not being mentioned in various news reports, it's true that some do not, however there are many that do. Here are some links: Express.co, Deadline, Inquisitr, Nerdist, Even on the original Raising Dion Youtube video on Liu's youtube channel, Piperberg is credited as the illustrator in the description. There are others as well. Just Google Raising Dion Piperberg. So, although it's true that Piperberg has not been directly involved in the Netflix series, doesn't he still deserve credit as the artist of the comic book, which is mentioned in the article? TheBatarang (talk) 22:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
I must say, you make a compelling point and cited numerous sources to justify what you were saying. As it is yet unknown whether Piperberg will be credited with a "based on" credit for the series, it is still appropriate to omit him from the lead and infobox. However, you actually pointed out sources that the article itself already uses and, as such, I've gone ahead and rewritten a portion of the development subsection with Piperberg now mentioned. Further mentions of Piperberg within the article can be addressed at some point in the future once more information is known regarding the series. – BoogerD (talk) 22:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! I do still personally think that since the lead sentence mentions the comic that it would be appropriate for Piperberg to be given a credit, but I can understand your reason for omission and appreciate his inclusion in the development section, at least. TheBatarang (talk) 22:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
Actually, there probably needs to be a wider discussion about these. The two issues are: 1) some editors consider the year ranges in templates "trivia" that should just be removed, and 2) should the date ranges be the full "4-digit" ranges or not? (And I think I pointed to the wrong discussion on this one – I know there's already been a discussion about this somewhere...) On issue #1, I think including them is harmless, though I don't feel strongly about it. On issue #2, I do think they should be the full "4-digit" ranges as there's really not a good justification for doing the "shortened" 2-digit date ranges. FWIW. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I agree that a wider discussion needs to be held. The discussion you linked to has a few editors, such as Geraldo Perez, pointing out that MOS:DATERANGE actually makes an exception for situations like these and that using two digits keeps the template more "compact". The discussion had a great deal of comments but it doesn't appear that a consensus was truly reached. – BoogerD (talk) 21:28, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
This may be one of those discussions in which no firm consensus is ever reached. But it probably does need to be brought up at someplace like WT:TV so a wider discussion can at least be held. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:44, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I agree that a discussion like that would seem warranted. Opinions regarding this would effect numerous templates/navboxes/etc. My only concern is that you'd end up with another discussion, like the one you linked to, that starts off strong and productive but eventually peters out as the editors involved don't immediately come to an agreement or get distracted/pulled away by other concerns on the site. But, well, such is the way things are on Wikipedia a lot of the time. – BoogerD (talk) 21:49, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
NinjaRobotPirate is at it again
There's trouble happening to me right now: NinjaRobotPirate just blocked me because I vandalized numerous television series articles again and you have only tried to clean up after me last year. Joeymiskulin (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@NinjaRobotPirate: You blocked this editor a month ago (check your talk archives and their talk archives) after I dropped a message on your talk page. Their block just ended and this is the first edit they've made since. – BoogerD (talk) 05:04, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
They're a known problematic editor that will happily edit war to push through their changes, be very careful when engaging. It may very well be easy to mistakenly trigger the WP:3RR thing. I had an issue with them over on the Suits Season 8 pages months back. And they went a little crazy on the Rise page a while back(See page history of that show). People like Ijball & Amaury & Alexthewhovian(Now Alex 21) have also had encounters with them. Esuka (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I too have had issues with this editor. Not sure what to do with them. They are on like my shortlist of 5 or so editors that just prove to consistently be a headache with little upside to their presence here. – BoogerD (talk) 22:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
You'd be better off just reverting them on your talkpage and ignoring. You haven't broken any rules and there's enough evidence out there to get a retroactive ban against them. I believe that will probably happen at some point this year, they'll no doubt irritate enough people on a more active Wiki page that their past actions will be brought up. Esuka (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Black Monday
Showtime are doing a panel for the show tomorrow at the TCAs, perhaps you'll hear something about a renewal or something noteworthy. You can see details here [12]Esuka (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! It looks like Showtime announced pretty much everything but a renewal. But oh well, I guess that will happen later. Esuka (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Hey Netoholic. First, let me start off by saying that my intentions were never to move an article to an unsupported title or to ignore fixing internal links. With all of the articles I have contributed to, I hope you will look at the breadth of my work on here and understand that my edits were done in good faith. To get to the matter at hand: You are 100% right that (TV show) is not a disambiguator supported by WP:NCTV. What I had intended to move the page to was Games People Play (TV program), which is supported by WP:NCTV. I had seen IJBall make a number of these sort of moves to shows that were not series (with serialized narrative elements) but were rather simply television programs. Obviously Games Divas Play can no longer stay at that title as it is now inaccurate. So now I am wondeirng what you think she be done going forward. With Games People Play (TV series): the article could either be moved Games People Play (TV program) or simply deleted. The only reason I suggest deletion is that the article is over 10 years old and never once has possessed a single citation/source. Doesn't appear to be all that notable when a single source cannot be procured. But I understand that many would disagree with a full on deletion, so I'd be curious as to your thoughts on that. Once Games People Play (TV series) is moved to a new title than Games Divas Play be moved to a more correct title as well. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you but I've been feeling under the weather today. Get back to me as soon as it is convenient for you. – BoogerD (talk) 21:23, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Agree that Games Divas Play likely should be moved (although the news of the name change is very recent). This is why I suggest you hold a full RM discussion covering both article moves. I think an AFD of the 1980 show wouldn't succeed for delete, and indeed either an AFD or an RM will give visibility to fix the sourcing. As far as the naming, we often use additional disambiguation because "##### (TV series)" and "##### (TV program)" are terms which are often interchangeable in the minds of many readers (and editors) unfamiliar with the specifics of our naming conventions. I suspect what we should end up with is a Games People Play (2019 TV series) and Games People Play (1980 TV program) situation, but there is also some investigation necessary to tell if the 1980 is serialized or not enough to use (1980 TV series) instead. -- Netoholic@21:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
IJBall, I've noticed that you have been heavily involved with the moving of television articles in the last year. Could you possibly take a look at the discussion above and give your two cents? – BoogerD (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Several issues here. First, I agree that the 1980s TV show article should be at Games People Play (TV program) (or, arguably even at Games People Play (game show)), as it is clearly not a "TV series" in any sense of the word, with continuing narrative elements or contestants "continuing" from episode to episode – so it's a "TV program" as per WP:NCTV. Second, I agree that the upcoming BET TV show looks to be a bona fide "TV series" as per WP:NCTV. However, there's a problem here – the lede of that article claims the series "is set to premiere in 2019 on BET", but there is nothing in the article that I see that supports that claim.
So, now we have a problem – both TV shows are American, so we can't use "by country" disambiguation to distinguish them. So, we're stuck with "by year" disambig. So, I'd argue the first should be moved to Games People Play (1980 TV program). The second should then be moved to Games People Play (2019 TV series) but only after a source is provided to verify a 2019 premiere date...
Now, does all of this necessitate a WP:RM? I'm a little sour of RM's of late, and the moves I've suggested are all supported by WP:NCTV, so if it is certain that the BET series is now titled Games People Play, then I'd argue that, no, a WP:RM is not "required" in this case, and I'd just move the articles as I suggested, provided it can be confirmed that the BET series actually will debut in 2019. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:01, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick reply IJBall. A quick double check showed that this Deadline Hollywood article ([13]) confirms both the name change and that the series will premiere in 2019. – BoogerD (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
BoogerD/IJBall : A discussion of "program" vs "series" for the 1980 show is probably best handled in a full RM. This source credits the show as an early example of reality television (a genre we often label as "TV series") and calls it a "series" in no uncertain terms. Similar calls of "series" are found in other sources: [14], Sports Illustrated. 08/18/1980, Vol. 53 Issue 8, p36. 2p. . Its worth a discussion to avoid further reverting of the moves as "undiscussed". -- Netoholic@02:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
I dunno. Its always prudent to wait for additional sources to confirm such a date. Right now only Deadline and the BET press release has confirmed the name change and planned release date. Its a risk. -- Netoholic@03:05, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:RussianDoll.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:RussianDoll.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
The page can give the nuance, but the category has no such luxury, so I would think it should be more inclusive. LowRise (talk) 02:10, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The short answer is: no. The shows were not produced by Hulu and are therefore not originals. Netflix has been generally used as a guideline by which to follow when it comes to streaming service lists and categorization. Take for instance Derek, which was one of the first acquisitions by Netflix that they listed as an original in the United States. The show is categorized as a Channel 4 original but as a Netflix one (as is the case with all other listed acquisitions by Netflix that are listed as originals in the US). I think the general consensus of editors has been more or less this: Unless the series/film is credited as an original or production of a specific network/service in all territories than it shouldn't be listed or categorized as such. – BoogerD (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Booger,
Would you mind taking a look at the article? An ip address keep adding names of characters without any reliable sources. I checked there are no reliable sources for the remaining cast yet. I am at the threshold of reverting the article. — YoungForever(talk)04:09, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Saw that you reverted it. If they try and add unsourced information again then I'll revert it. I'm going to bed soon so I may miss something while I'm asleep (though I'll take another look at it in the morning). – BoogerD (talk) 04:15, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
Hey BoogerD. I'm writing because you also previously undid a revision by an IP user at Corporate. The same user has been inserting/re-inserting production codes, citing "cc.com". However, I can't find any evidence of the production codes anywhere there. Would you be willing to take a look? Thanks. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Untitled Seth Rogen film until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Bearcat (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:TheTwilightZone3.png
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:TheTwilightZone3.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Ditto, not sure why he went quiet. I know he had a few issues before Christmas with problematic editors but I thought things were OK now. Esuka (talk) 20:43, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Greenland".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:VidaPoster.png
Thank you for uploading File:VidaPoster.png. 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:RedTableTalk.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "The Heavy".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Your addition to Catch-22 (miniseries) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Captainllama (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:SkiMasterAcademyPoster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Heft".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
I'd appreciate it if the fact that the name for the show was licensed by the currently publishing magazine for NBC's use (and Apple's current production) could be added to this post.
I licensed them in September of 2015.
The original show was licensed to NBC by TSR Inc (dungeons and dragons, who owned the magazine at the time)
In october of 2017 apple announced their production - after I had terminated for breach the contract with NBC (non-payment of fees).
A hue and cry resulted in a renegotiation of the contract shortly thereafter (4 hours after I started tweeting about it my attorney got a call from head of NBC legal saying "please ask your client to stop tweeting, Apple is angry and Mr. Spielberg is very upset")
The show is obligated to display a licensing announcement in the end titles, to advertise with the magazine and to link to our magazine's website, which I believe are sufficient connections to include the mention in this article.
Citations and links to articles & such gladly provided if needed.
Thanks for uploading File:YouTubeRedOMLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:YouTubeRedOSLogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Them".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:InspiringLifeWithLewisHowes.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hi BoogerD,
i see you created and have edited the Wikipedia page on Hulu's new series THE GREAT. I've edited the page a bit with updated info that we have (I am doing PR for the show, fyi) but the show is still listed as "miniseries" in the title as opposed to a TV series. I'm not able to edit it but i think you are. Might you be able to help?
It will be competing as a Comedy Series at the Emmys, not Limited Series, etc.
Thanks so much and let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks for uploading File:AmazonOriginals.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Newsflash".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:TellMeAStory.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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.
Looking at you contributions, absolutely incredible, one of the best i have seen. You have similar attitude to me, "create and make better", (not delete and destroy). I notice you created Carnival Row , I created the article Arty Froushan, a main actor on that series. That article is up for deletion, unfair in my eyes, just because of Covid he hasnt been as active as could of been. If you want to chip in on the deletion discussion, will be great. James Kevin McMahon (talk) 09:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:ManifestTitleScreen.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:WacoPoster.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Disputed non-free use rationale for File:TheBoysPoster.png
Thank you for uploading File:TheBoysPoster.png. 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.
Thanks for uploading File:CBSAllAccess.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:TomClancysJackRyan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, BoogerD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Fifth Beatle (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.
Hello, BoogerD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:The Sword in the Stone (upcoming film), 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.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:HuluOriginalsLogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:SKAMAustin.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:Wayne.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, BoogerD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:29 Dates, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "29 Dates".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:JackieTStump.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Thanks for uploading File:MarvelousMrsMaisel.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Hello, BoogerD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Lilo & Stitch (upcoming film), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, BoogerD. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Kaos".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice to inform you that a tag has been placed on The Archer Connection requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, images, a rephrasing of the title, a question that should have been asked at the help or reference desks, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. 2600:6C40:5400:5E68:4162:EF70:D2D7:1C44 (talk) 20:45, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Hello, BoogerD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Sister Act 3, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
Hello, BoogerD. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Demimonde (TV series), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.
If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for uploading File:AdventuresOfRockyAndBullwinkle.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Another image, File:Jack Ryan.png already serves the same purpose of illustrating the article in question. No encyclopedic value is lost once this contested image is deleted.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Thanks for uploading File:TomClancysJackRyan.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg)
.jpg)
,_cropped.jpg)
Template:Amazon Video Foreign Language Programming has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Flordeneu (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Escape the Night, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:All About the Washingtons#Cast list. Geraldo Perez (talk) 22:21, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Hello. You have a new message at Talk:Russian Doll (TV series)#Removal of genre elements's talk page. Infoman99 (talk) 02:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
Your addition to Catch-22 (miniseries) has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information.
Captainllama (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
