User talk:MrMaster17

Welcome!

Hi MrMaster17! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Schazjmd (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

Hey, thank you for your edit at "Motherhood" (ER). Just wanted to thank you, while also noting MOS:CURLY for future reference (pun intended). Your contribution has been very much appreciated, so here's a cookie. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 17:56, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Frasier (season 7)

Hi. Because you didn't provide an edit summary, I'm a little confused about why you changed some of the references in this article? I checked them all before adding them, so I know that they back up the ratings, even if some of them were rounded up. - JuneGloom07 Talk 03:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Nielsen Ratings

Hi there.

I'm not sure if you have access to The Los Angeles Times, but if you do, do you mind finding the rating/share/rank for individual episodes of The Mary Tyler Moore Show? I always assumed that back then, only seasonal ratings and rakings existed, but after seeing an artcile on M*A*S*H, I learned that the data exists primarily through the Los Angeles Times. I can't get access, so if you'd like to, I'd say go for it. If not, and if you don't have access in the first place, then I suppose my message is moot, haha.

Sincerely,

Alaios (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Alaios. Unfortunately, I couldn't find any piece of paper that could find ratings for The Mary Tyler Moore Show. Sorry about that. MrMaster17 00:59, May 11, 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sicko (Brooklyn Nine-Nine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Broadway. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Captain Kim, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Manhunter.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Fantastic work!

This is in recognition for your fantastic efforts regarding creating episode articles for Person of Interest and for adding Nielsen ratings for various classic TV shows! Keep up the amazing work! Drovethrughosts (talk) 12:20, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 14

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited The Lake House (Brooklyn Nine-Nine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Neil Campbell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 28

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited PB & J (Brooklyn Nine-Nine), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Craig Robinson.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:54, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Nice work!

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I noticed what an amazing job you've done making articles about Justified (TV series). Keep up the good work! BuySomeApples (talk) 18:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

September 2021

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Person of Interest (season 3) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. The form message is a bit impersonal, but it includes all of the relevant details better than I could communicate it. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 03:27, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi, Rosguill. While you're right that I moved info from the main page's Wikipedia article, I never moved text from Person of Interest (season 3) into another page. I only moved part because it was a bit extensive. I'm sorry if there was some misunderstanding, I'll credit the original page whenever I make an edit that involves moving original texts to a new page. 16:08, September 21, 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, the form response didn't incorporate the article link the way I had assumed it would, that's my bad. My concern was, as you note, about moving content into Person of Interest S3 and similar articles. As long as you are more careful with attribution moving forward, I think we're good to go! _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:28, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Good job on the individual episode articles for Dexter: New Blood! ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 02:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

+1 ---Another Believer _(Talk) 05:50, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

On/In

First of all, thank you so much for your contributions to TV-related articles! However, I notice you still incorrectly use "on" when you should use "in". These are things I've been fixing for months going back to when you were creating articles for Justified. I notice this is a continued problem for the Atlanta season articles. Because they're not misspellings, it's hard for other editors to spot them unless they read every single word. For example using Atlanta (season 1), "The series was announced on August 2013" should read "The series was announced in August 2013". It's always "in" when you're just using the month/year or just year, but it's "on" when it's the full date. Other examples from the same article are "FX made a 10-episode series order, with plans to release it on 2016" and "Filming on the pilot began in July 2015 on Atlanta"; both should be using "in". You film "in" a location (a city) not "on" it. It would be great if you can rectify these mistakes. Thank you so much and keep up the awesome work! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Drovethrughosts. I appreciate your time to let me know this. I acknowledge I made these mistakes on some pages. In/On is still a bit difficult for me to get so that's why you may notice that. Thanks for telling me this, will rectify them and will be more careful in the future. 16:24, January 8, 2022 (UTC)

Hey again, great work regarding the Hannibal articles! As a follow-up, generally when referring to an actor appearing in an episode, you use "in" as opposed to "on" an episode. An actor appears "on" a series (though, "in" can work too), but when talking about specific episodes, it's always "in". Keep up the great work! Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Yellowstone (American TV series)

A tag has been placed on Category:Yellowstone (American TV series) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Qwerfjkltalk 18:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, MrMaster17

Thank you for creating Ronny/lily.

User:Atlantic306, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Hi, please fix reference 1

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Atlantic306}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Atlantic306 (talk) 03:25, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

@Atlantic306:, Hi, I noted the problem. I swear it worked at some point. But don't worry, I replaced it with another official press release. Thanks for notifying me. MrMaster17 (talk) 23:54, March 11, 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that and great content work. A suggestion for preserving online sources is to check they are preserved at the internet archive and if they are not to add them to the archive, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Terriers (TV series) episode redirects to lists

A tag has been placed on Category:Terriers (TV series) episode redirects to lists indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

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. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Peacemaker

Hey, thanks for the work you have put into setting up episode articles for Peacemaker. I just wanted to let you know that there a quite a few issues with the articles as they are and I think it is a stretch to say they are ready for the mainspace per WP:NTVEP and WP:GNG. Unless you are planning to keep doing major work on these immediately, I would recommend we move them to the draftspace where they can be worked on until they are ready to go live. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97:, Hi, thansk for the feedback. While I posted them, there is still some work in progress in updating them, which will be done in the coming days. Just wondering, what more should be added to be more appropriate for the articles? Because I just don't know when it's enough. MrMaster17 (talk) 15:01, August 7, 2022 (UTC)

Each article needs enough unique content to justify its existence, at the moment you have a lot of repeated information from the main article and between the episode articles (such as the reception sections for the first three episodes). If you can focus on finding more unique info for each episode then they can probably stay in the mainspace. Myself and others can help with cleaning stuff up as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 19:51, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggestion noted. Unfortunately, due to releasing the first three episodes, the reception will be the same for the first three episodes, so I don't know how to spread it. I'll be working on these articles for the next few days. But I can definitely feel the first episode and the last episode are 100% finished with information. So now, it's only a matter of working with episodes 2-7. MrMaster17 (talk) 20:08, August 7, 2022 (UTC)

Even though they mostly have the same reviews, you should be able to re-word each section to focus on the episode-specific details. There should definitely not be three of the same reception sections on different articles. A couple other general notes:

• plot summaries on episode articles should be less than 500 words and should not include actor names
• the "produced by" field in the infobox is just for the showrunner, so these should just have Gunn
• the "featured music" field in the infobox should not be a list of all the songs in the episode, these can be included in a music section (with reliable sources) and then we should only put a particularly notable song in the infobox usually based on what reviews say
• the "guest appearances" field in the infobox should only include actors that were credited for their guest roles (Davis and the Justice League actors were not credited)

I think you have a good start, work on those bits I've listed and continue to expand the other episode articles and we should get to a pretty good spot. I may get a bit more involved at some point as well. - adamstom97 (talk) 21:38, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Understood. I'll be fixing this in the coming days (hopefully starting tomorrow). Once again, thanks for the feedback. MrMaster17 (talk) 21:44, August 7, 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Ted Lasso episode articles

Hi, I noticed you've been working recently to create episode articles for Ted Lasso, and I'm concerned that many of these do not pass WP:GNG. The article for "The Diamond Dogs" offers a good example of my concerns:

• The production section cites five sources (1 2 3 4 5). Four of these sources only discuss information that is relevant to the season as a whole (e.g., announcing production for the season or who the cast members are), and the fifth only provides database-level information that is common for most television episodes and is therefore not significant coverage.
• The reception section cites three sources (6 7 8). The first, from Marvelous Geeks Media, is probably not a reliable source; it seems like a fan-run blog, there is no clear editorial policy, and when they say "If we begin to dislike the direction of where a TV series is going, we’ll stop reviewing it", I'm not inclined to trust the quality of their reviews. The second, from a site run by FanSided, may also have some issues; see this discussion. The third, from Ready Steady Cut, also seems to be a blog and offers minimal meaningful commentary.

Overall, I tend to have more generous views on what qualifies for a standalone episode article than other editors at WP:TV, but even I struggle to see how this meets guidelines. Given recent discussions about this issue again, could you maybe stop creating these articles and open a discussion about whether these should be created? If not, I may start redirecting them until better sources can be provided. Let me know if you have questions – if we can improve some of these articles, I'm happy to change my stance. RunningTiger123 (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I understand your point. I wanted to create a version of all the episodes and these were the only options I could get. So I can understand if this may not meet the criteria. I hope this can be improved, but I'm struggling to think how. I wouldn't want them deleted (for it still took effort), so I want to work on how to let them stay. The second season episodes, however, provide much more reliable sources (you can see from the first two episodes I've placed), so I think those should stay. If someone could help me on this, I'd appreciate it. MrMaster17 (talk) 22:18, March 11, 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, regardless of the work put in, GNG is GNG and I really don't think those articles pass that. I would suggest writing season-level articles first and redirecting the current episode articles to those articles. Then, if more sources appear for episode-level coverage (such as what the season two articles seem to have), you could go back in the version history and expand on the old versions of the articles. RunningTiger123 (talk) 04:08, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I understand it. But in my opinion, I feel at least the first episode should stay. It's got enough reliable sources and information to count as a proper article. I can work on the other episodes later. MrMaster17 (talk) 04:14, March 12, 2023 (UTC)

Yes, season premieres and finales probably have more coverage and are easier to write articles for (though note that I recently cut a bunch of reviews at Pilot (Ted Lasso) because they discussed the whole season instead of just one episode). RunningTiger123 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

I've just noticed these episodes. The production and casting sections are just copy/paste series level information which does not belong in each episode article (even less in the season 2 articles). Gonnym (talk) 20:40, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 17

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

Tales from the Rift

added a link pointing to Evil Woman

Yikes (Barry)

added a link pointing to Charles Parnell

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsourced and potentially incorrect producer credits

Hey, please note that the the |producer= credit in the {{Infobox television episode}} is for a Producer credit and not an Executive Producer or co-producer or any other type of producing credit. At As to How They Might Destroy Him you listed 6 producers in the infobox, none of which you even mentioned in the body of the article or offered a source so I can verify. I checked the listing on IMDb ([1]), which itself cannot be used as a source, and it lists only J. David Brightbill as the producer of the episode. Please take a look at all the episode articles you recently created and make sure the information you added is source and correct. Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, yeah, I was not aware. Will change that ASAP. Thanks. MrMaster17 (talk) 13:11, June 11, 2023 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hi MrMaster17, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the autopatrolled user right to your account. This means that pages you create will automatically be marked as 'reviewed', and no longer appear in the new pages feed. Autopatrolled is assigned to prolific creators of articles, where those articles do not require further review, and may have been requested on your behalf by someone else. It doesn't affect how you edit; it is used only to manage the workload of new page patrollers.

Since the articles you create will no longer be systematically reviewed by other editors, it is important that you maintain the high standard you have achieved so far in all your future creations. Please also try to remember to add relevant WikiProject templates, stub tags, categories, and incoming links to them, if you aren't already in the habit; user scripts such as Rater and StubSorter can help with this. As you have already shown that you have a strong grasp of Wikipedia's core content policies, you might also consider volunteering to become a new page patroller yourself, helping to uphold the project's standards and encourage other good faith article writers.

Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! – Joe (talk) 17:37, 23 June 2023 (UTC)

Noted, thanks! I'll do my best in everything! – MrMaster17 (talk) 17:42, June 23, 2023 (UTC)

The Righteous Gemstones

Hiya. You might want to chuck a project tag or two on those Righteous Gemstones articles! Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but how does that work? MrMaster17 (talk) 14:51, July 6, 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:2024 American television seasons

A tag has been placed on Category:2024 American television seasons indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:27, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't know why the Category:2024 American television seasons part was removed. The Futon Critic (official site for network news) has confirmed that it will air in 2024. That's enough confirmation. MrMaster17. 15:34, August 24, 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Works by Greg Daniels

A tag has been placed on Category:Works by Greg Daniels indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:00, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Removed redirects to True Detective season 4 episodes

You have started the individual episode articles (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and so on) for True Detective season 4, but did you write all that content in one go? Your edit summaries consist of boilerplate only.

If you were moving content from somewhere else, please indicate from where for proper attribution. Basically what you did on 03:37, 26 July 2023‎ when you, per your own edit summary, "Created article. Copied some content from True Detective; see that page's history for attribution".

If you really did write these articles basically from scratch in one go, please consider a better edit summary that makes it clear the information did *not* come from somewhere else.

Cheers CapnZapp (talk) 19:36, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, usually I forget to put something in the edit summary. I only used it for the season's page, because it was in the main page. But the episode's content does not come from anywhere else, it's all on me. Will include more in the edit summary in the future. MrMaster17 (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Entourage episodes

I've noticed you keeping adding "episode" to the article title when you create the articles, but that's not needed, just the series title. I keep moving the episode pages, but you still create new articles with the "episode" disambiguator. An example. Thank you. Drovethrughosts (talk) 13:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not creating them. That's what the title already was. If I created them, it wouldn't have "episode" in the title. Sorry for the inconvenience, I'll handle the moving pages thing from now on. MrMaster17 (talk) 15:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films produced by Noah Hawley

A tag has been placed on Category:Films produced by Noah Hawley indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films directed by Noah Hawley

A tag has been placed on Category:Films directed by Noah Hawley indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Films directed by Chris Carter (screenwriter)

A tag has been placed on Category:Films directed by Chris Carter (screenwriter) indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of A Whole New Whirled for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article A Whole New Whirled is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Whole New Whirled 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 until the discussion has finished.

Redjedi23 (talk) 13:05, 13 August 2024 (UTC)